The Islam Terror Truthers by DANIEL GREENFIELD

"This   by Dan Greenfield is  very  good,    but would be a bit  better if    Islamic  based terror were explained in terms of the Jihad that all authentic Muslims are “obliged” to do for Allah as per the  Medina Phase of the Quran .   Terror attacks   by the militant Jihadists  are  simply  a component of their asymmetric   war on the WEST.  Were they able to generate force on force   ( symmetric war  )  as ISIS  did against the  Iraqi Army and the  less fundamentalist  Sunni militias in Syria they would do so  of   course.    In areas like the US or Europe  where they are still outnumbered and lack the combat power to do force on force war to take us down, or something more akin to it ,  they use passive infiltration of institutions coupled with  attacks designed to terrorize  their opponents, we “infidels”.  As the fear  of more and more terror spreads,  the passive Jihadists  (some of  whom will  commiserate openly with the infidels) bore deeper and deeper to gain a foothold and eventually an upper hand once  they get enough mass" Dick Roberts
The Islam Terror Truthers

by DANIEL GREENFIELD December 22, 2015

Each and every act of Muslim terrorism is followed by a wave of denial.  The politicians who have done the most to cause the latest disaster are the eagerest to blame it on something, anything else.
The San Bernardino Muslim massacre was blamed on postpartum depression at CNN. Bill Nye blamed the latest Paris attacks on Global Warming. According to Hillary Clinton, Benghazi was a movie review with artillery. Islamic terrorism was blamed by the State Department on a lack of jobs, but Syed Farook had a good government job and his wife was the daughter of a wealthy family.
After rummaging through their big brass chest of excuses, Obama and his media allies have settled on gun control as their latest weapon of mass distraction.
California has the toughest gun laws in the nation. Unlike Ted Kennedy, the terrorists weren’t on the no-fly list that has become the latest desperate meme of mass distraction. And, despite Obama’s claim in Paris that mass shootings don’t happen in other countries because of gun control magic, they most certainly do. European gun control didn’t stop a Muslim mass shooting in Paris that killed 130 people.
Syed Farook and Tasheen Malik had built pipe bombs. The latest attack in the UK involved a knife. So did quite a few in Jerusalem. The Boston Marathon massacre used fireworks and a pressure cooker.
The Muslim mass murder of 3,000 people on 9/11 was carried out with box cutters.
If only we had some way to ban terrorists from buying pressure cookers, knives and box cutters.
Gun control is a distraction. A way to make something other than Islam into the problem that needs solving. If we banned guns, then the problem would be foreign policy. If we spent all our time working to aid Islamist political takeovers, then it would the weather. Obama has tried to aid Islamists and lower sea levels, so he has been reduced to blaming the inanimate objects of the latest terror attack.
Gun control, foreign policy and global warming are denialist gimmicks that reframe the problem.
Denialists will ignore the allegiances of terrorists like Nidal Hassan and Syed Farook to Jihadists to focus on individual pathologies. If that doesn’t work, they’ll pull back to a planetary focus and blame the weather patterns of the entire planet. They’ll zoom in with great detail on weapons purchases while ignoring the ideology that motivated the attacks. They’ll have a hundred different explanations for each attack that fail to account for the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism as a whole.
These aren’t reasonable arguments. Taken together they form a pattern of conspiracy theories.
The most basic aspect of the conspiracy theory is that it bypasses the obvious reasonable explanation and vanishes down a rabbit hole of complicated alternative explanations that make no real sense but allow the conspiracists to avoid dealing with the implications of the actual event that took place.
Leftists did not want to deal with the fact that JFK had been murdered by one of their own. So they invented a bunch of alternative conspiracies involving the CIA, Cubans and other "right-wing" villains. These conspiracies allowed them to avoid dealing with the violence at the heart of the left. But that violence continued to spill over anyway leading to riots and terror plots. In their alternate reality, none of it was their fault. The "Fall of Camelot" was caused by some "miasma of right-wing hatred" in Dallas.
Their response to 9/11 flirted with conspiracy theories.
A poll found that more than half of Democrats believed that George W. Bush had carried out the 9/11 attacks or knew about them beforehand. 1 in 4 Democrats believed that the World Trade Center attack was staged. 1 in 5 believed that the Pentagon attack was carried out by the United States government.
Democratic politicians, with some exceptions, usually knew better than to openly air blatant 9/11 conspiracy theories.  But they instead embraced a "soft" left-wing Trutherism that shifted the focus away from Islamic terrorism to alternative explanations that were meant to distract Americans from what really happened by finding sideways angles for blaming the attack on Bush and Republicans.
Bush may not have masterminded it, but Republican foreign policy caused it. Or worsened it.
It’s 2015 and the Terrorism Truthers have been reduced to frantically scrambling for any explanation from postpartum depression to the weather to explain the persistence of Islamic terrorism.
Trutherism works best when the Truthers aren’t in power. Muslim terrorism can’t be blamed on the government when both France and America are run by ridiculously notorious leftists. All that’s left is a "soft" Trutherism that seeks alternative explanations without being able to consistently answer the central question of why these attacks are taking place.
And this lack of a plausible central conspirator is the weak point of leftist Terrorism Denial.
Leftist Truthers like Obama are forced to constantly substitute new "right-wing" villains. Today it’s the NRA. Yesterday it was a Coptic Christian who made a YouTube video. But like the USSR’s efforts to blame its economic failures on a shifting gallery of villains, these explanations are unsatisfying. And they leave even leftists, never mind ordinary Americans, uneasy about a crisis they don’t understand.
There is something of Orwell’s "We have always been at war with Eastasia" to these deceits.
Today Muslim terrorists are attacking us because of the NRA. Yesterday it was because it was too hot. Before that, it was because of Israel. And before that, it was because of Bush.
But what if Muslim terrorists are attacking us because they’re Muslim terrorists?
What if we can’t beat them by banning guns, changing the weather, supporting Islamists or any of the other magical answers that completely fall apart at even the most casual examination?
The left’s response to Islamic terrorism has been built around a frantic effort to distract and divert us from exactly that question, blaming anything and everything but Islam, while sharply denouncing anyone who ignores the distractions and addresses that central question.
Attorney General Lynch responded to the San Bernardino terror attack by assuring Islamists that she intended to crack down on criticism of Islam. Criticism of Islam is dangerous, not because it leads to a mythical anti-Muslim backlash that we are constantly warned about as if it were more dangerous than Muslim terrorism itself yet never actually materializes, but because it destroys Terrorist Trutherism.
If Islamic terrorism is the problem, then the left and the Democrats who handed over their party to it are guilty of ignoring, minimizing and lying about a serious problem.
They have to go on lying, ignoring and minimizing, and even threatening to dump the First Amendment along with the Second, because they have long since become complicit in the crimes of their Islamist partner organizations.
Yesterday they blamed the weather. Today they’ll blame guns. Tomorrow, it’ll be something else.
We are always at war with Eastasia, unless it’s Eurasia. We are never however at war with Islam. The issue may be anything so long as it isn’t Muslim terrorism. Those are the words that no Democrat will utter. They will call it "man-caused disasters" or "violent extremism" or "hybrid workplace Jihad".
It’s time to call this what it is, denial-ism, trutherism and conspiracism.
The famous epigram, "Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason", expressed the absurd hypocrisy of a government of traitors. But what happens when there is a government of conspiracy theorists? Then conspiracies exist to divert attention from the failures and crimes of those in charge. The conspiracy theory itself becomes the conspiracy.
It’s time to take away Obama’s weapons of mass distraction and expose his Trutherism for what it is.
Islamic terrorism isn’t caused by a thousand different problems, conditions, conspiracies and excuses. It’s caused by Islam. Every attempt to distract from that is Denial-ism and Trutherism.
And we owe it to the victims of the latest attack and all the attacks to end the denial and the lies.  

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-islam-terror-truthers?f=must_reads#ixzz3v3xYSLOY
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Advertisements

Woman Raised Muslim Just Dropped Truth Bomb

So, she’s got “race” a bit mixed up with “nationality”, the rest is right on according to the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/iU8FI_fehhg

The True Nature of Islam

A TASTE OF ISLAM – BILL WARNER PHD.

For the meat of the video start at 5:00 – earlier parts presents course of available books on different ways to learn the subject matter.

ISIS Practices- Islamic or Not?

via What ISIS Really Wants – The Atlantic.

Centuries have passed since the wars of religion ceased in Europe, and since men stopped dying in large numbers because of arcane theological disputes. Hence, perhaps, the incredulity and denial with which Westerners have greeted news of the theology and practices of the Islamic State. Many refuse to believe that this group is as devout as it claims to be, or as backward-looking or apocalyptic as its actions and statements suggest.

Their skepticism is comprehensible. In the past, Westerners who accused Muslims of blindly following ancient scriptures came to deserved grief from academics—notably the late Edward Said—who pointed out that calling Muslims “ancient” was usually just another way to denigrate them. Look instead, these scholars urged, to the conditions in which these ideologies arose—the bad governance, the shifting social mores, the humiliation of living in lands valued only for their oil.

Without acknowledgment of these factors, no explanation of the rise of the Islamic State could be complete. But focusing on them to the exclusion of ideology reflects another kind of Western bias: that if religious ideology doesn’t matter much in Washington or Berlin, surely it must be equally irrelevant in Raqqa or Mosul. When a masked executioner says Allahu akbar while beheading an apostate, sometimes he’s doing so for religious reasons.

Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”

Every academic I asked about the Islamic State’s ideology sent me to Haykel. Of partial Lebanese descent, Haykel grew up in Lebanon and the United States, and when he talks through his Mephistophelian goatee, there is a hint of an unplaceable foreign accent.

According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

All Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad’s earliest conquests were not tidy affairs, and that the laws of war passed down in the Koran and in the narrations of the Prophet’s rule were calibrated to fit a turbulent and violent time. In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”

via What ISIS Really Wants – The Atlantic.

What ISIS Really Wants – The Atlantic

What ISIS Really Wants – The Atlantic.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The group seized Mosul, Iraq, last June, and already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been its leader since May 2010, but until last summer, his most recent known appearance on film was a grainy mug shot from a stay in U.S. captivity at Camp Bucca during the occupation of Iraq. Then, on July 5 of last year, he stepped into the pulpit of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, to deliver a Ramadan sermon as the first caliph in generations—upgrading his resolution from grainy to high-definition, and his position from hunted guerrilla to commander of all Muslims. The inflow of jihadists that followed, from around the world, was unprecedented in its pace and volume, and is continuing.

Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned. Baghdadi has spoken on camera only once. But his address, and the Islamic State’s countless other propaganda videos and encyclicals, are online, and the caliphate’s supporters have toiled mightily to make their project knowable. We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.

The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.

We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State in at least two ways. First, we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al‑Qaeda to an organization that has decisively eclipsed it. The Islamic State supporters I spoke with still refer to Osama bin Laden as “Sheikh Osama,” a title of honor. But jihadism has evolved since al-Qaeda’s heyday, from about 1998 to 2003, and many jihadists disdain the group’s priorities and current leadership.

Read more: What ISIS Really Wants – The Atlantic.

True Nature of Islam – Bill Warner PhD.

For the meat of the video start at 5:00 – earlier parts present course of available books on the subject matter.

A Taste of Islam–Prof. Bill Warner –

For the meat of the video start at 5:00 – earlier parts present course of available books on the subject matter.

Why Does the Quran Give More Preference to Jesus than Mohammad? -Mario Joseph

When asked “Who is Jesus”,  Mario Joseph re-read the entire Quran, 114 chapters, 6666 words, and found that it mentioned the name of the Prophet Mohammad in 4 places and the Name of Jesus in 25 places and then had to asked himself, “Why Does the Quran Give More Preference to Jesus than Mohammad”.

The question led to Mario Joseph Conversion from Islam to Christianity. 

Killing of Innocents

All we hear in the news is quandary and befuddlement, when Islam,Jihad, Muhammad,and the Qur’an make headlines. Nice people tend to think most others are nice, too. Well, wake up world; open your eyes America; all religions aren’t equal or benign.

For a crash course in reality, the following piece by Dick Roberts, is a concise synopsis of the jihad threat/reality. It makes sense fast and is to the point:


Killing Innocents

By Dick Roberts:

I often have times suggested that folks read the Qur’an in order to learn firsthand what Islam is and what motivates Muslims to kill innocents, those that do not abide in an "authentic" Muslim’s Qur’an based belief system. As I listened to Barack Obama claim that "ISIL is not Islamic – No religion condones the killing of innocents! " I thought; the guy needs to read the Qur’an and understand the sequence of its numbered sura (verses) and what that means. I said something much less controlled as those who know me well might imagine, and I decided I must do this. I don’t want to do this, but I just can’t stand it anymore. I have a few similar things in the past, and as the fates would have it, I cannot find even one of them. I must save this…….

With this note I will save you the trouble of reading the Qur’an ( few will anyway), let alone the Hadith, or perhaps in a few cases inspire you to dig deeper. Let’s get started. Forgive me as I assume you are part of the Great Unwashed on this subject — such an upbeat subject it is.

First, allow me to recount briefly what we have heard time and again over the past decade or so from political types, church leaders and self- appointed expert ‘talking heads’ on TV. Almost without exception these “talkers” state without reservation that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic extremism is only a contemporary anomaly or deviation from "true" Islam. In some instances, they will even assert that "Islam," the word itself, means peace. Paleeze!

George Bush said such things when he was president, Brit PM Tony Blair said it, current Brit PM Cameron said it a few days ago, — and even the current Pope has made statements about "authentic" Islam. The Pope’s case/statement, of course, raises the question: what is, “authentic " Islam? Hold on — I will address it below.

At the same time, I can help but point out that Islamists, such as their rabid mouthpiece Anjem Choudary, typically reject these interpretations. (He’s on TV quite a bit) Choudry has repeatedly said "You can’t say that Islam is a religion of peace, because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means ‘submission,’ so, a Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam."

Let’s go a bit deeper. Although the Arabic word for peace, salam, and the word for submission (islam) do come from the same root, their meanings are radically different and come from different forms of the verb. Islam in no way means "peace." Just as Choudry says, Islam means "submission." Its root, salam, means peace, but not peace as you would think of it. It refers to peace that will prevail in the world once all mankind converts to Islam. Of course which major sect of Islam that will be, Sunni or Shiite, is still up for grabs. In that regard, there should be no doubt in any mind that the Sunni – Shiite struggle for Islamic supremacy is the major conflict in the Middle East. We see it manifested in Syria and now Iraq even while the Shiite Iraqis (with our help) try to paper over real Sunni grievances.

After all that’s happened in the past 13 years, ref the Global War on Islamist Terror, I find it astounding that so few people appreciate the history of Islam. Its history dramatically shows that Islam has never been a religion of peace and that these modern jihadists, the extremist Salafis/Wahabbis, draw their marching orders from the actions of the first three generations of the faith: 1) the companions of the prophet, 2) their children and 3) their grandchildren. These figures, known as the Salaf, serve as role models for today’s Muslims as they have done for Muslims over the past 1400 years. (When you hear or read the word Salafis or Salafists now you will know where it comes from – are the ISIS zealots Salafists? You bet your paratrooper boots they are, but keep your trooper boots off the ground, okay? )

I urge folks to read the Qur’an because they will learn firsthand that the Qur’an is chock full of orders to fight the jihad ( holy war ). No doubt today’s so-called radicals get their inspiration from it — hells bells, they say so themselves! There are no less than 160 jihad verses (sura) in the Qur’an, and more than those, the Hadith, which is the story of Muhammad’s life, contains innumerable passages that order or describe jihad. Here are three quick examples of Qur’an sura:
"Let those who sell this world’s life for the hereafter fight in the way of God. For whoever fights in the way of God, whether he is killed or lives victorious, we shall grant him a mighty reward." 4: 74

"I will cast fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore behead them and cut off all their fingertips." 8:12

"Slay the unbelievers wherever you come upon them, take them captives and besiege them, and waylay them by setting ambushes." 9:5

I find it impossible to re-interpret the Qur’an in some B.S politically correct "moderate" manner. Without a doubt the most famous or infamous modern tafsir, or interpretation, of the Qur’an is a multi-volume work entitled, In the Shade of the Quran. Shade was written by none other than Sayyid Qutb (1906-66 — died in Egyptian prison), the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue who is regarded as the father of modern Islamism. Qtub’s interpretations are indeed political, and jihad is at the root of the proscribed political action. Frankly there is nothing modern about it. It’s the same as it was in the 622 and beyond.

I can assure you that the Qur’an contains many peaceful and tolerant verses, and these could be used to create a genuine reformation of Islam. Some attempts at genuine reform have been made, but none has gone anywhere because when push comes to shove the Qur’an does not allow it. How’s that? Well, you must understand that all the so-called moderate verses were recitations from early days of Muhammad’s visitations from the Angel Gabriel. Mohammad met Gabriel in a cave near Mecca tens of times starting in the year 607 AD, and as Gabriel squeezed him, Mohammad began reciting the words of Allah, which he and others dutifully recorded or so the myth says. Mohammad spent about 15 years trying to attract followers to his new religion, but he attracted very few and was run out of Mecca as an undesirable.

He and his small band moved down to Medina in 622, and there everything changed and quickly so — and this began the Medinan Phase of the Qur’an Sura. There Mohammad became a political and military leader whose authority was based on his religion. When his religious dogma was not welcomed or seen as blasphemy by others, the Qur’an’s early peaceful verses gave way to new jihad verses and intolerant diatribes against Jews, Christians and pagans – again these are the words of Allah, his god. Sayyid Qtub’s work or tafsir takes for granted that the later verses (Medinan Phase) abrogate the early ones ( Meccan Phase). Simply put, the verses preaching love for all are no longer applicable, except with regard to one’s fellow Muslims. Of course, that exception fell by the wayside when the Sunni and Shia split — takfiris– kill ‘em all.

The latter or Meccan phase of the Qur’an verses teach jihad, submission and related doctrines and taken as a whole forms the basis for the approach many Muslims take in dealing with us infidels and non-believers. These Muslims see themselves as "authentic" Muslims, and they include millions upon millions of Sunni and Shiites. The one exception to this is the Sufi sect, a very small sect in the scheme of things — you probably have never heard of them – who seem to embrace only the Meccan Phase of the Qur’an. Would it be that all could become Sufis?

Realize too that the Qur’an cannot be changed. Written in Arabic, and I say again proclaimed to contain the direct words of Allah ( their god) as given to Mohammad, changing even one letter, one dot in Arabic ( if you know Arabic) would constitute blasphemy of the worst kind. Their idea is that the text on planet earth must match the tablet in heaven — the "Mother of the Book " are the words they use — the eternal original text of the Qur’an. The reasoning goes like this. If one tiny change is made perhaps others would be made too, and before long words could be substituted for other words and then the meaning is changed entirely. No can do — it is Allah’s word as given to Muhammad. That’s it. End of story. Would you be surprised to know that the Qur’an itself condemns Jews and Christians for having tampered with their own holy books, so and taunts that neither the Torah nor the Gospels may be regarded as the word of God? It certainly is not the word of their god. In a very real sense, Islam is trapped by the Quran’s immutability..

To say the least it is unsettling for me to hear and see Western politicians, church leaders, and multiculturalists readily accept ignorance or outright deception on this subject and then pose as having expertise. I think Islam, while absurd in many respects, is still one of the most important ideologies in recorded history, and would then ask who is teaching the truth about it to our kids? Have you seen any textbooks that paint an honest picture of how Islam began and the millennium plus of Islamic Imperialism that followed? Or seen anything that serves to explain how it serves as the basis for what we see today with groups like ISIS? That is authentic Islam to the nth degree and certainly shows no tendency toward reform as some seem to think wishfully…..

Not only is there is no education in our schools, real experts on this subject are denied contact with government employees these days. BTW the current WH bunch consult with "experts" when it took it upon itself to purge the truth about Islam from the materials used to train our military leaders, intelligence types and law enforcers. I know you will be shocked to hear that the administration refuses to identify its "experts" — in fact, the administration took what I would say is an astonishing step to classify their identities when the people’ s House of Reps started asking questions. I have to conclude it’s someone’s attempt to isolate all of us from the truth so " they" can peddle their extremist PC agenda where Leftist Socialism meets Fascist Islamism. How many times will falsehoods and fables be told as jihadist Muslims, be they militants or passives, claw their their way to power in our country?

Unfortunately, even many of the so-called moderate Muslims ( civilized Muslims who reject what amounts to 80% of the Qur’an or the Medinan Phase) still fail to see the reality behind some of the most elementary aspects of Islam as codified by the Qur’an. I recall hearing a young Muslims actually say that if only young Muslims were to read the Qur’an, they would back away from all forms of violent extremism. Either this was taqiyya (loosely meaning deception) or sublime ignorance.

The world’s jihadi fighters constantly read and quote from the Qur’an where they find justification for violent assaults on non-Muslims, apostates and "hypocrites" (munafiqun — a word taken straight from the Qur’an meaning something similar to backsliders).

In addition to the Medinan Phase of the Qur’an, the six books of Hadith and the biography of the prophet (the Sira) also portray a violent world. Muhammad, after moving to Medina in 622, led raids against various tribes. Ibn Ishaq, his biographer, says Mohammad led the umma in twenty-seven battles over a ten-year period. Major battles of historic significance were Badr, Uhud and al Khandaq. In addition, he sent his lieutenants out to raid caravans — raids are known as ghazwat. The ghazwats were the engine of the Islamic economic system. Plunder the enemy! The raids were also used to bring Arabs to Islam — force them to submit. If they did not submit or if they later deviated from the true faith — as we are witness by Islamic State Muslims behavior today – they were fought until they either accepted Islam or were killed.

Beyond the 27 battles and incessant raids, Muhammad ordered or supported some forty-three assassinations, but perhaps best known are his reprisals against three Jewish tribes, two of whom were expelled from Medina, sent packing while he took all their property and land. In the third case of Banu Qurayza tribe, the men were condemned to death by Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, whose judgment was endorsed by Muhammad. He, after having them dig a trench, had the 900 male members — including boys of thirteen and up — line up next to it and beheaded as the women and children watched. Then the women and children were sold into slavery or in some cases women made concubines for Muslim males. Mercy! The Medinan period is characterized by nothing other than rounds of violence piled upon violence, and all it was ordered or carried out by the so-called Prophet of God – the " Prophet of Peace " should we say? They still hold the same imperial dreams and the same contempt for anyone who does not hold their exact beliefs. Sometimes it is hidden, but if they are Qur’anic Muslims it’s there.

If you don’t care to have a feel for the what happened over the next 1000 years or so stop and skip down to the end of the bracketed portion which follows please. It’s really only a short summary but still it is a bit involved.
Beginning of the bracket {Muhammad died in 632, and was to be succeeded by his father-in-law, Abu Bakr , who died 634, regarded by Sunnis as the First Caliph, or by his son-in-law ‘Ali, regarded by Shiites as the first of the twelve Imams. Thus within days of Muhammad’s death began the rift between Muslims with the birth of birth of the Sunnis and Shiites.

Abu Bakr, as Sunni Caliph, launched a series of attacks across the Arabian Peninsula. The Bedouin tribes, who had followed their custom of withdrawing allegiance once the leader of an associated tribe died, apparently believed their fealty to Islam ended with the passing of Muhammad. Abu Bakr saw them as apostates and sent out cohorts to force the tribesmen back into the fold of Islam. Thus occurred the “Wars of the Ridda" and some fifteen battles. Once the Bedouin issues had been settled, Abu Bakr sent his Muslim Army over to conquer what is now Iraq (then a province of the Persian Sasanid Empire) and the Levant ( then apart of the Christian Byzantine Empire which included what is today Southern Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel). Sounds like ISIS or ISIL does it not?

When Abu Bakr, an old man, died after two years as Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab succeeded him. Under Umar Khattab’s rule, the entire Sasanid Empire ( think Iran) and two-thirds of the Byzantine Empire were conquered for Islam. Battle followed battle and the blood flowed over the entire region. In 644, ten years into his rule, Umar was assassinated by some pissed off Persians and Uthman ibn Affan entered as Caliph.

Even though the third of the four "Rightly-Guided" Caliphs, Uthman ibn Affan. Over the next 12 years, the Muslims fought battles to conquer or bring into line half of the known world took. His conquests stretched as far as modern-day Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Turkmenistan and Armenia. In the west Sicily and Cyprus were captured as was all North Africa, and then the Iberian Peninsula and southern Italy.

Towards the end of his life, Uthman became unpopular with many. Medina, his capital, became a hotbed of intrigue and unrest. In 656, an armed revolt broke out, 1000 rebels, with orders to assassinate the Caliph, struck out from Egypt for Medina where they entered Uthman’s house and assassinated him, but the religion of peace was still on the march.

‘Uthman was followed by Muhammad’s son-in-law, Ali, the last of the four Rashidun (Rightly-Guided) Caliphs. Almost immediately, Ali was caught up in a quarrel that ended in civil war. He faced Muhammad’s wife, Aisha, at the Battle of the Camel in 656 where 10,000 fighters supposedly died. Ali also faced the forces of Mu’awiya (later the first of the Umayyad Caliphs) at Siffin (657), where Ali lost 25,000 men and Mu’awiya 45,000. ‘Ali himself was assassinated in his capital of Kufa by a Muslim extremist during prayers in 661.

The Umayyads took power and established their long-lived capital in Damascus. In 680, when Muawiya’s son Yazid assumed the Caliphate, a grandson of Muhammad, Husayn the son of ‘Ali, rebelled and raised forces to attack Yazid. The two sides met at Karbala in 68O where Husayn, his family and his followers all perished. That marked the most crucial moment in the split between the Shiites (for whom Husayn is the third of their Imams) and the Sunni majority.

The rest of Islamic history is marked by annual jihads, wars between different Muslim rulers and empires. In India alone, between sixty and eighty million Hindus were put to death during the centuries of invasions by Muslim armies from 1000 to 1525. } end of the bracket

All of this and lots more is simply to be forgotten? Well, we would like to forget it, but we can’t — IT’S THEIR #%$&X#! DOCTRINE!

So long as the Qur’an exists, young Muslim men and women in their thawbs and hijabs can find in it the perfect justification for jihad and the killing of innocent. Okay — that’s it!

%d bloggers like this: