Overblog Follow this blog
Edit post Administration Create my blog
December 5 2015 7 05 /12 /December /2015 18:42

 

John R. Houk

© December 6, 2015

 

Islamic Terrorism. Yup, I wrote Islamic Terrorism.

 

The butchers of San Bernardino were following their Islamic tenets as handed down by their fake-prophet Mohammed.

 

When a Muslim or a group of Muslims attack a group of non-Muslims with the intent to hurt, maim, rape women and/or kill people because his/her perfect man – Mohammed – set the example in the Quran and explained in the Hadith and Sira; that is terrorism based on the tenets of Islam.

 

Here are some excerpts from an Answering Islam essay demonstrating ten reasons Islam is NOT a religion of peace as exposed in the Quran. I’m excerpting some explanatory notes, followed by the ten reasons (read the essay for the expanded explanation for each reason) and I’ll end with some justification explanations of the ten reasons:

 

 

… In order to prevent the standard, reflexive "out of context" defense from Muslim apologists, the context of each verse in the Quran is explained either in this article or in the links provided within each of the ten reasons. No verse is taken out of context, and Muslim translations are used.

 

Verifiable? The readers are invited to look up each verse in the Quran in multiple translations, by visiting the website www.quranbrowser.com and typing in references, like so: 61:10-12. (61 is the chapter or sura, and 10-12 are the verses).

 

But first we must answer a Muslim strategy. A Muslim missionary or polemicist who believes that Islam is the best religion in the world and who wants it to spread around the globe attempted to refute this top ten list. But attempting to refute such a list is like reviewing a book only from the last chapter. The reviewer has skipped over the hard work of reading all of the chapters. In the same way, the Muslim polemicist or missionary has skipped over the hard work found in the back-up articles and the links. This top ten list is only a summary of many articles and a lot of strenuous labor from the present author and many other authors. The answers to the Muslim’s criticisms are all found in these articles. So his criticism is hollow, and his scholarship is shallow, since he has not done the hard work. He certainly does not understand the Bible. Plus, he whitewashes Islam in his attempted refutation. The back-up articles will show how. Thus, he whitewashes Islam either deliberately or unknowingly, which means he does not know his own religion or he knows it, but covers it up. Whatever the case, the truth about the real Islam must get out.

 

10. Muhammad nicknames his weapons.

 

9. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.

 

8. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.

 

7. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.

 

6. Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses.

 

5. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.

 

4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.

 

3. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.

 

2. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.

 

1. Muhammad launches his own Crusades.

 

 

What the ten reasons mean for us today

 

These ten aspects of violence that have burrowed into the hemorrhaging heart of early Islam have eight implications for us today. The first three are theological; the rest are practical.

 

The theological implications are as follows:

 

First, as each reason in this article has hinted at and the links explain more thoroughly, Christ never, ever engaged in such violence. For example, he never assassinated opponents, whipped adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or launched his own Crusades (what the Medieval Europeans did is not foundational to Christianity). Christ expresses the love of God. Therefore, Christians and all fair-minded persons have the right to question whether the true God would reveal the Quran when it contains such violent verses that conveniently support Muhammad’s violence, whereas the New Testament does not have such violence.

 

Second, Muslims believe that the New Testament is corrupted, whereas the Quran is inerrant. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that these claims are true (but they actually are not), then why would reasonable seekers of the truth prefer the "pure" but violence-filled Quran over the "corrupted" but peaceful New Testament?

 

Before Muhammad is allowed to throw around unsubstantiated charges about alleged New Testament corruption, he and his Quran must pass a down-to-earth test regarding his dubious, violent practices. But he and it fail the test badly, as this article demonstrates, whereas Christ and the New Testament pass with a perfect score. Therefore, if Muhammad is so wrong about down-to-earth matters like whipping adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves and beating wives, then he is likely wrong about unresearched accusations of New Testament corruption—and factually he is wrong.

 

Please refer to the articles listed on these pages for more information: [1], [2].

 

Third, since Muhammad who claims divine guidance is so wrong about practical matters, why should we believe him about theoretical matters like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, both of which he denies? Clearly, he was not divinely guided in practical matters because the true God would not degrade religion by endorsing such gruesome violence six hundred years after Christ came—the historical span is critical. Christ and the New Testament do not have even one example of such violence. Again, if Muhammad first fails the down-to-earth test, then he likely fails the theological or theoretical test—we have no reason to believe him in such high doctrines, especially since he was no theologian and his revelations are now empirically suspect.

 

The practical implications of the top ten reasons are READ ENTIRETY (Top ten reasons why Islam is NOT the religion of peace: Violence in Muhammad's life and the Quran; By James M. Arlandson; Answering Islam)

 

Now let’s look at the reality of the Hadith encouraging Muslims into acts of violence especially toward non-Muslims:

 

Jihad in the Hadith

 

The Hadith are the recorded sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad.  It is second in authority only to the Qur'an and is often used to clarify things not specified in the Qur'an.  The following is what Muhammad had to say about Jihad as recorded in the Hadith.

 

  1. The second best deed is to participate in Jihad (Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25, Narrated Abu Huraira) - Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?"  He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).  The questioner then asked, "What is the next in goodness?  He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."  The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?"  He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)."

 

  1. Muhammad said if someone leaves Islam, to kill them (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260, Narrated Ikrima) - All burnt some people and this news reached IBn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish anybody with Allah's Punishment.'  No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."

 

  1. Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira ”The Prophet said, The person who participates in holy battles in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and his Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr).  Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any saiya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."

 

  1. Volume 3, Book 46, Number 726 ”Allah's Apostle said, A pious slave gets a double reward.  Abu Huraira added:  By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for Jihad (holy battles), Hajj, and my duty to serve my mother, I would have loved to die as a slave."

 

  1. Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555 ”Allah's Apostle said, Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out." (Jihad in the Quran and Hadith; Contender Ministries)

 

Just to confront the Muslim apologist that claims there is a Greater Jihad and a Lesser Jihad with the “Lesser” being the violent aggressive edict and the “Greater” being the primary directive of Islam of warring with self to be a better person, here are some excerpts that relates the truth about this deceptive hogwash:

 

… Next to the Qur'an in importance is the Hadith, which refers to collections of traditions about what Muhammad said, what he taught, and what he did. These collections are also called Sunna or "tradition"; hence the term Sunni Muslims, or "traditional" Muslims. …

 

Muslims naturally felt a need to preserve traditions about the Prophet from the time of the earliest witnesses. However, over the years since Muhammad's death some of these traditions became embellished and others were fabricated. In the ninth century a number of Islamic scholars undertook the task of sifting the genuine traditions from the spurious and of gathering the former in written collections. In Sunni Islam six of these collections in particular are considered sahih ("reliable"). These sahih sittah ("reliable collections") are:

 

  • Sahih Bukhari, compiled by the Imam Muhammad ibn-Ismail al-Bukhari (810-870).

 

  • Sahih Muslim, compiled by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri (821-975).

 

  • Sunan Abu Dawud, compiled by Abu Dawud as-Sijistani (d. 888).

 

  • Sunan ibn Majah, compiled by Muhammad ibn Majah (d. 896).

 

  • Sunan At-Tirmidhi, compiled by Abi 'Eesaa Muhammad At-Tirmidhi (824-893).

 

  • Sunan An-Nasai, compiled by Ahmad ibn Shu'ayb an-Nasai (d. 915).

 

All these collections of hadith are highly respected in the Sunni tradition, but the first two even more than the others, and so they are given the additional specific designation of sahih. And of those two, Sahih Bukhari is considered the most important and most reliable. Those ahadith occurring in both the Bukhari and Muslim collections have the highest status of all.

 

Only One Jihad

 

These compilations of hadith are voluminous, and they have a lot to say about jihad. However, before going to these classic collections, we should begin by looking at one hadith that is very often quoted to demonstrate a nonviolent meaning of jihad:

 

Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul)." (1)

 

This is very often cited as a proof-text for the "real" meaning of jihad being inward, spiritual struggle. But there are two problems:

 

1. Even a "lesser" jihad is still jihad and thus a duty and a virtue.

 

2. Muhammad never made such a statement.

 

The hadith in which Muhammad is said to speak of "greater" vs. "lesser" jihad is of doubtful authenticity. It does not appear in any of the six collections of the sahih sittah. In fact, a number of scholars maintain that this hadith is a forgery (2). One scholar analyzes this hadith and considers a number of factors, such as chain of transmission and other more reliable, contradictory ahadith (3). …

 

 

This seems to leave little doubt as to how Muhammad understood jihad. But let us not make the case on just one example. There are many ahadith on jihad, and they make its meaning quite clear. First and foremost, jihad meant combat on the battlefield, and specifically against non-Muslims.

 

Jihad as Fighting the Nonbeliever

 

The following sequence of ahadith will clarify this. Many of these are extremely well attested, occurring multiple times in the most trusted collections, the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I will cite some of these multiple attestations just to show the high status of these ahadith. …

 

Reading through the hadith on the subject of jihad, what we do not find is an exclusive emphasis on self-defense or on struggling with one's desires. Jihad is physical combat, not just for self-defense but for the purpose of spreading Islam, and there is no greater virtue: READ ENTIRETY (Jihad in the Hadith; Peace with Realism – Updated website About Page)

 

The Sira includes the Sunna which are the sayings of Mohammed:

 

The easiest way to learn about Islam is to learn about Mohammed. His biography is called the Sira, and this book is a condensation of it.

 

The Islamic bible—the Trilogy

 

Islam is defined by the words of Allah in the Koran, and the words and actions of Mohammed, called the Sunna.

 

The Sunna is found in two collections of texts—the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith. The Koran says 91 times that his words and actions are considered to be the divine pattern for humanity.

 

A hadith, or tradition, is a brief story about what Mohammed did or said. A collection of hadiths is called a Hadith. There are many collections of hadiths, but the most authoritative are those by Bukhari and Abu Muslim, the ones used in this book.

 

So the Trilogy is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, but it is only about 14% of the total textual doctrine. The Trilogy is the foundation and totality of Islam.

 

The Relative Sizes of the Trilogy Texts

 

Islam is defined by the words of Allah in the Koran, and the words and actions of Mohammed, the Sunna. (A Taste of Islam - The Life of Mohammed - The Sira; By Bill Warner; Center for the Study of Political Islam; © 2010 CSPI, LLC)

 

Here is an example of the wickedness of Islam displayed in the Sira courtesy the Australian Islamist Monitor:

 

And in the sira, endless examples of violence to others in offensive attacks:  eg Sirat Rasul’allah by Ibn Ishaq.

 

Booty is made lawful as a gift from that compassionate allah (p 326-327 –which also notes allah telling Mohammad NOT to take prisoners until he has made slaughter in the earth ---ie kill to manifest the religion!!).   Page 464-466 records the beheading of ~800 males and one female, the enslavement of females and children and Mohammad taking a female for his enjoyment. This ‘pattern’ is repeated in other acts of slaughter, enslavement and rape eg p 493, p 511.   In one attack over 6000 women and children plus animals were taken (p 592-593) with the remnants of the men ‘converting’ to try to retrieve their families!!!   Mohammad handed out GIRLS for friends to enjoy (p 593) as sex with tiny girls is allowed in Islamic law eg Hedaya Vol 4 p 106. (see more in Islam’s genocidal slavery - Part A – Mohammad’s example 23-08-09 on site) Of some 48 -67 battles in those last 10 years, Mohammad ‘stayed home’  for some and led 27 yet still claimed 1/5th of the booty!   But along with big battles were endless small attacks on others, murders, threats and demands for tribute or else!  Simple farming communities were often suddenly attacked by these well armed Islamic ‘heroes.’

 

**Ibn Ishaq: p 572-3 (sirat rasulallah) “Muhammad is the man, an Apostle of my Lord....... Evil was the state of the B. Qasiy in Wajj...they lost the day ...Fortunes change.   We came upon them like lions of the thickets. The armies of Allah came openly....... almost flying at them in our rage.... We were as lions of Liya there until we destroyed them and al-Nusur were forced to surrender..... and blood flowed freely.  In former days there was no battle like this.  We slew B. Hutayt in the dust. ....Those who escaped were choked with terror. A multitude of them were slain.   If they are guided to Islam....If they do NOT accept it THEY call for god’s war in which they will have no helper.  As war destroyed the B. Sa’d and fate the clan of B. Ghaziya.”  (the Muslim view is that those who resist allah/Islam CAUSE wars) (Islam is Conquest by Violence and Fear: Hadith, Sira, laws, comments part 2; By Circe; Australian Islamist Monitor; last updated – 5/9/11 18:47)

 

So figure it out! Islam is an inherently violent religion even if a majority of Muslims practice a peaceful version of their theopolitical religion. The reality is the Islam that Left Wingers, Multiculturalists and deceived Conservatives call “Moderate” Islam; IS NOT the true Islam of the Quran, Hadith and Sira.

 

In the light of the San Bernardino Massacre perpetrated by the Islamic terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook and his Pakistani wife Tashfeen Malik that went on a kafir killing spree, I became very irritated with the authorities – local, State and Federal – failing to state the obvious that this was an act of Islamic terrorism. Then of course that irritation became stoked when Obama and his Dem-Leftist cadres refused the term Islamic terrorism and followed that colossal public irresponsibility with blaming lax gun control laws for the shooting.

 

The gun control theme is especially idiotic considering the gun control laws in California are not exactly NRA friendly. Perhaps if some of the good citizens of San Bernardino were packing, a couple of kafir-hating Muslims might have discovered their Allah deity is closer to an antichrist demon than a ludicrous promise of eternal virgins in Paradise fulfilling the carnal/fleshly desires of unrestrained sex and the taste of wine without becoming intoxicated quicker and with non-Muslim victims. (I’m unsure of any eternal promises for female shahids. Tough luck Tashfeen.)

 

I’ll culminate my thoughts by sharing the thoughts of Justin Smith I found on his Facebook page. Justin wrote his thoughts before the FBI struggled to admit the San Bernardino Massacre was an act of terrorism; however take note there is still the refusal to call the massacre an act of Islamic terrorism.

 

JRH 12/6/15

****************************

Justin Smith Thoughts on San Bernardino Terrorist Attack

 

By Justin O. Smith

December 3, 2015 11:35am

Facebook Page

 

In light of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, I wish to reiterate the following:

 

Well – now. We see another example in Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik of the only "contribution" I've seen Islam and Muslims give to America and the world over my entire lifetime -- 58 years. Rest assured that this was more islamofascist terrorism, since all the evidence, the planning, the weapons and the explosive devices are indicative of such.

 

Most Americans, many of our leaders as well, are aware that terrorists infiltrating groups of refugees are only part of the problem. They are not speaking of imaginary space-aliens, when they cognitively and logically reason that the ideological doctrines within Islam, such as the mandated perpetual war between the House of Islam and the House of War (non-Muslims) and the supposed supremacy of Islam, creates the prime motivation for the endemic violence of Islam. Americans understand that the terrorists are found in the ranks of converts like Carlos Bledsoe, second and third generation U.S. Muslims like Anwar al-Awlaki and refugees like the Tsarnaev brothers; and, as such, it certainly does not make any sense to import tens of thousands of more potential terrorists, in the middle of a generational and civilizational war between Islamic and Western principles.

 

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said that we shouldn’t be accepting “any Syrian refugees without complete assurance those we are welcoming intend us no harm”, but when dealing with the agents of Islam, “complete assurance” would be a false assurance. One cannot offer an assurance against Muslims insidiously infiltrating any neighborhood, as they frequent ballgames, movies and restaurants and act like normal citizens, until they unleash bloodbath upon bloodbath, just like the Abdeslam brothers did in France, terrorist bomber Ramzi Yousef did at the World Trade Center in 1993, nineteen terrorists did on 9/11 and Abdulazeez did at the Chattanooga Naval facility.

 

_______________________

Kafir Slaughter is the Norm not Aberration

John R. Houk

© December 5, 2015

_____________________

Justin Smith Thoughts on San Bernardino Terrorist Attack

 

© Justin O. Smith

Share this post

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad
write a comment

comments

Overview

  • : ubiquitous8thoughts
  • ubiquitous8thoughts
  • : This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.
  • Contact

Search

Links