Prominent Ex-Muslim Was Asked if Islam Is a Peaceful Religion. Here’s His Response.

About Islam Religion feature

Well-known author and Christian speaker Nabeel Qureshi has widely discussed his conversion from Islam to Christianity, and his realization, as he says, that “Islam really is violent at its core.”

Qureshi, author of the new book ”Answering Jihad,” recently told TheBlaze that “radicalization is on the increase” and that he doesn’t believe that it will stop, tying increases in extremism with more access to traditional Muslim teachings.

According to Qureshi, before the 1900s Muslims spent hundreds of years following an Islam in which ever-growing tradition helped to separate believers from the Koran and the hadith — a collection of sayings and traditions surrounding the Prophet Muhammad.

“People are reading the texts and they’re seeing for themselves what the Koran says.”

“Since the 1900s, people have had more and more access to the texts themselves,” he said. “Muslims can read the Koran for themselves … so people are reading the texts and they’re seeing for themselves what the Koran says. People can go online and they can read the life of Muhammad without having to travel to an Islamic library.”

With more access comes a greater recognition of what is inside of the texts and teachings that underpin the faith, according to Qureshi.

Listen to him discuss what he believes is causing radicalization below:

“Once you start doing that you realize just how far these traditions have sometimes departed from what the Koran teaches, what the hadith teaches,” he said. “What we are seeing is a Muslim reformation, and they’re trying to live out the Koran and the hadith.”

Qureshi said that Muslims are faced with three options after they read the Koran and the hadith and “see that it’s violent,” describing the resulting dynamic as constituting a “three-prong fork in the road.”

“What we are seeing is a Muslim reformation.”

He said that people can either become apathetic and stop believing, become an apostate and leave the faith as he has — or become radical.

“Prong number three is, you can say, ‘This is my religion. This is what it teaches. I have to follow,’ and you can become radicalized,” Qureshi said. “And that’s what we’re seeing — decreased numbers of nominal Muslims around the world.”

When asked if Islam is a peaceful religion, Qureshi said that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, but that Islam itself has many expressions, saying that one must first explore what Islam is before being able to answer the question.

“When I think of the word ‘Islam’ I’m thinking of the historical core of the faith, the religion that Muhammad left before centuries of tradition were added to it,” he said. “And if you’re looking at Islam that way, then there’s no question Islam is not a religion of peace. Muhammad used violence.”

As for “jihad” — a Muslim term that has sparked social and political debate — he said that it was originally the Arabic word for “struggle,” but that it is used in the Koran many times to discuss violent struggle.

Author and Christian speaker Nabeel Qureshi (Facebook/Nabeel Qureshi)

“As you see it used in Muhammad’s life in the hadith — the collection of traditions and stories from Muhammad’s life — we see it becomes a term that encapsulates fighting to advance or promote Islam or even to defend [it] at times,” Qureshi said.

He also told TheBlaze about his own conversion, which happened about a decade ago when he was in his 20s. While he was confident in his Islamic faith and believed that “it was God’s true religion,” he said that things changed after he encountered a confident Christian.

“We ended up having long conversations and over the course of a few years I began to see that the case for Islam was much worse off than I thought, whereas the evidence for Christianity was very strong,” he said.

“I began to see that the case for Islam was much worse off than I thought.”

Over time, Qureshi said that he began praying to God for understanding. He specifically requested that the Lord bring him dreams — something that he said did unfold (read more about those dreams here).

“Through three dreams he confirmed what I had found and ultimately led me to the scriptures,” he said. “And it was while I was reading the Bible that I gave my life to Christ.”

In the end, Qureshi said that he believes Islam intentionally rejects the Christian message of who God is. Find out more about his new book “Answering Jihad” here.

Apr. 5, 2016 | Billy Hallowell | Source: "Prominent Ex-Muslim Was Asked if Islam Is a Peaceful Religion. Here’s His Response."

Updated ~ 4 October 2015 Australia: 7 News Video Evidence: A muslim youth group is brainwashing young children with “Terrorist Jihadist Views”

About Islam Religion feature

‘You’re never too young to be a Soldier for Khilafah’: Radicalised six-year-old chants in support of a Caliphate and calls for Obama to go to hell in shocking extremist video

  • Four Australian children, as young as six, call for an end to democracy
  • Extremist video was reportedly filmed in Sydney in December last year
  • Bilal Merh, a senior figure in radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir, leads the chants
  • The event occurred before new Australian terror laws were introduced 
  • Professor claims group wouldn’t get away with the same rhetoric now 

Radicalised Australian children, as young as six, have been shown calling for an end to democracy and Australia’s way of life in a shocking extremist video.

Four children, reportedly aged 6 to 13, claim that they want American President Barack Obama to go to hell and chant ‘O Bashar we want your head,’ about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in a video that was unearthed by Channel Seven.

The disturbing footage was filmed at an event held by The Muslim Youth Project and is thought to have happened in December last year.

The young people sing ‘until Islam there is no rest’, as they wave Islamic flags.

And the smallest states: ‘You’re never too young to be a Soldier of Khilafah.’


Two bearded men flank the boys as the sing and Channel Seven has identified the man leading the chant as Bilal Merh, a senior figure in the radical group Hizb ut Tahrir. 

Back in 2011, Merhi urged Australians to join shun moderate forms of Islam and reject democracy during a Khilafah Conference in Australia, called Uprising In The Muslim World… on the road to Khilafah.

He spoke to around 100 people on behalf of the radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is trying to create a caliphate in the Middle East.

The group tells Muslims in Australia that they too should reject democracy.  

Children radocalised
Children radicalised in Australia
Right Above: The smallest boy in the video states: ‘You’re never too young to be a Soldier of Khilafah’
Left Above: The children sing that they want Obama to go to hell and that they want Assad’s head

Right: The large man on the right hand side of the video is reportedly radical speaker Bilal Merh

The Muslim Youth Project, which has another event coming up on Saturday which only men are invited too, says on its Facebook page that it aims to ‘engage with young Muslims of all ages and on all levels to discuss the issues that really matter to us’.

‘We hold various regular gatherings (fortnightly), events and initiatives (for brothers) that are engaging and interactive.

‘Islam is the project of all Muslims, and young Muslims are particularly capable of carrying the message of Islam, with their plentiful zeal and energy,’ the page says.

Above: Channel Seven has identified the man leading the chant as Bilal Merh, a senior figure in the radical group Hizb ut Tahrir (pictured)

After Channel Seven aired the video, Uthman Badar, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s spokesperson, took to Twitter to call the report a ‘beat up’ and the producers ‘simpletons’.

‘Memo to simpletons at Ch. 7 “breaking” another beat-up tonight: the black flag with white shahada script & vice-versa have been around and used by Muslims long before ISIS. It is not an “ISIS flag”. Don’t let facts get in the way of more Islamophobic sensationalism tho [sic],’ he wrote.

Daily Mail Australia has contacted Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Youth Project for comment.

 Monash University terror expert Professor Greg Barton told Daily Mail Australia that as the video was filmed last year – before new terror laws were brought in – charges against those involved in the video will probably not be laid. However, he warned that Hizb ut-Tahir wouldn’t get away with the same rhetoric in Australia now. 
Above: Uthman Badar, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s spokesperson, took to Twitter to call the report a ‘beat up’ and the producers ‘simpletons’

Hizb ut-Tahrir calls itself a global Islamic political party. It is known for its extreme ideologies 
Badar said on Twitter that the flags in the video were not ISIS flags because they were used before ISIS used them
Right Above: Hizb ut-Tahrir calls itself a global Islamic political party. It is known for its extreme ideologies
Left Above: Badar said on Twitter that the flags in the video were not ISIS flags because they were used before ISIS used them

‘The group involved is always vocal on grabbing headlines and staying on the right side of the law… the new terror legislation would give them trouble now.

‘It used to be about a fictional caliphate but now it is actually being fought for in the Middle East,’ he added.

Professor Barton highlighted that ‘apart from anything else this is about bad parenting’.

‘It happens with every community group group, parents doing dumb things with their kids, whether its fire arms, drugs or alcohol, it’s reckless idiot parenting but from a small section of the Australian Muslim society,’ he said.

Professor Barton said extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir always ensure they stay on just the right side of the law so that they don’t get banned.

‘If we respond to them we make them look more legitimate and give them the high ground,’ Professor Barton warned.

The video of the young radicalised Australian children emerged days after 17-year-old Australian Abdullah Elmir appeared in an ISIS video rant against western society last week. He left the country in June to join the terrorist group who are fighting in Syria and Iraq.

The Sydney teenager gained notoriety when he declared that ISIS will not stop their murderous campaign ‘until the black flag is flying high in every single land’ in a YouTube video.

Above: Sydney teenager Abdullah Elmir appeared in an ISIS video rant against western society last week

30 October 2014 | UPDATED: 22:35 EST, 4 October 2015 | by Sarah Dean | for Daily Mail Australia | Source: "'You're never too young to be a Soldier for Khilafah': Radicalised six-year-old chants in support of a Caliphate and calls for Obama to go to hell in shocking extremist video"
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

ISIS sets date for open warfare

Raw Islam feature
ISIS Secret Dossier Blames Israel for Terrorism????

Intelligence officials are comparing a newly discovered secret Islamic State document to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” as it blames Israel for the rise of the Islamic State and crowns U.S. President Barack Obama as the “Mule of the Jews.”

Found in Pakistan’s remote tribal region by American Media Institute (AMI), the 32-page Urdu language document promotes an “end of the world” battle as a final solution. It argues that the Islamic leader should be recognized as the sole ruler of the world’s 1 billion Muslims, under a religious empire called a “caliphate.”

“It reads like the caliphate’s own Mein Kampf,” said a U.S. intelligence official, who reviewed the document. “While the world is watching videos of beheadings and crucifixions in Iraq and Syria the Islamic State is moving into North Africa the Middle East, and now we see it has a strategy in South Asia. It’s a magician’s trick, watch this hand and you’ll never see what the other is doing.”

Retired U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Michael Flynn and other U.S. intelligence officials confirmed the authenticity of the document based on its unique markings, specific language used to describe leaders and the writing style and religious wording that matched other Islamic State records.

Flynn said the undated document, “A Brief History of the Islamic State Caliphate (ISC), The Caliphate According to the Prophet,” is a campaign plan that “lays out their intent, their goals and objectives, a red flag to which we must pay attention.”

The document serves as a Nazi-like recruiting pitch that attempts to unite dozens of factions of the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban into a single army of terror.  It includes a never-before-seen history of the Islamic State, details chilling future battle plans and urges al-Qaeda to join Islamic State.

Its tone is direct: “Accept the fact that this caliphate will survive and prosper until it takes over the entire world and beheads every last person that rebels against Allah. This is the bitter truth, swallow it.”

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal center for human rights who heads Center’s Digital Terrorism and Hate Project, compares the Islamic State threats in the document to the rise of Nazism pre-World War II.

The brutal killing of a teacher and three children at the Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse in 2012 by an Algerian Islamist was a major signal to the Jewish community that Europe was no longer safe and that not enough was being done to curtail the rise of anti-semitism, he said.

“It’s important to remember what our founder, Wiesenthal said, ‘it often starts with the Jews but it never ends with the Jews,” Cooper said. “As a matter fact [Islamic State] did not create anti-semitism but they are taking advantage of it, and they are building on it.”

The document advocates creating a new terrorist army in Afghanistan and Pakistan to trigger a war in India and provoke an Armageddon-like confrontation with the United States. It also details Islamic State’s plot to attack U.S. soldiers as they withdraw from Afghanistan and target America diplomats and Pakistani officials and blames the rise of jihadi organizations on the establishment of Israel.

“No sooner had the British government relinquished control of Israel, Ben-Gurion, the leader of the Jews, declared the independence of the State of Israel, triggering a global migration of Jews to the Jewish State, and launching the systematic persecution of Palestinian Muslims who had to abandon their homes and migrate,” the document states.

The document discloses the history of Islamic State dating back to the early 1990s and explains why in 2011 its leader, Abu Bakr al- Bagdhadi, unleashed car bombs to avenge Osama bin Laden’s death, and boasts about the suicide rates of American soldiers.

“Urban centers across Iraq exploded with car bombs and IED’s. The losses inflicted upon Americans, apostates, and heretics were unprecedented, as were the suicide rates amongst U.S soldiers,” the document states. “This state of affairs forced Mule of the Jews, U.S President Obama to announce an exit plan.”

The battle plan to “end the world” is described in six phases


  • Phase 1 “Awakening” 2000-2003: Islamic State calls for “a major operation against the U.S. .. to provoke a crusade against Islam.”
  • Phase 2 “Shock and Awe” 2004 – 2006: Islamic State will lure U.S. into multiple theatres of war, including cyber-attacks and establish charities across the Muslim and Arab world to support terrorism.
  • Phase 3 “Self-reliance” 2007-2010: Islamic State will create “interference” with Iraq’s neighboring states with particular focus on Syria.
  • Phase 4 “Reaping/extortion/receiving” 2010-2013: Islamic State will attack “U.S and Western interests” to destroy their economy and replace the dollar with silver and gold and expose Muslim governments’ relations with Israel and the U.S.
  • Phase 5 Declaring the Caliphate 2013-2016: Not much details offered here. The document just says, “The Caliphate According to The Prophet.
  • Phase 6, Open Warfare 2017-2020:  Islamic State predicts faith will clash with non-believers and “Allah will grant victory to the believers after which peace will reign on earth.”

The document urges followers of al-Qaeda and the Taliban to join the Islamic State in overthrowing Arab governments who have relations with the U.S. and Israel, unlike al-Qaeda, which believed it was “important to weaken the U.S before launching an armed revolt in Arab states and establishing a caliphate.”

In response to the document, a senior ranking Israeli official said that in the Middle East the world faces two threats – from Islamic State and from Iran. “We need not strengthen one at the expense of the other. We need to weaken both and prevent the aggression and arming of both,” he warned.

Alistair Baskey, deputy spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council said Islamic State is being monitored “closely to see whether their emergence will have a meaningful impact on the threat environment in the region.”

The document builds on evidence that Islamic State is expanding into the region where the September 11 attacks were born. A united Taliban, backed by the hundreds of millions of dollars of Iraqi oil revenue now enjoyed by Islamic State, would be a “game-changer,” officials said.

The document warns that “preparations” for an attack in India are underway and predicts that an attack will provoke an apocalyptic confrontation with America: “Even if the U.S tries to attack with all its allies, which undoubtedly it will, the (entire global Muslim community) will be united, resulting in the final battle.”

A war in India would magnify Islamic State stature and threaten the stability of the region, said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution who served more than 30 years in the CIA. “Attacking in India is the Holy Grail of South Asian jihadists.”

Pakistan Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry denied the presence of Islamic State in the region, calling it only “a potential threat.”

Unlike al-Qaida, whose focus was the United States and other western nations, the document said Islamic State leaders believe that’s the wrong strategic goal. “Instead of wasting energy in a direct confrontation with the U.S., we should focus on an armed uprising in the Arab world for the establishment of the caliphate,” the document said.

The failure to target the radical Islamic ideas has given the group breathing room to spread throughout the world much like Hitler did.

“We did a lousy job predicting what Hitler was going to do in the 1920s, 1930s – honestly, we blew it,” Cooper said. “It’s hard to take seriously or believe that such hatred was real or would be possible. They made jokes about Jews, degraded Jews but nobody believed that they would be capable of what they were saying.  So now, when groups, like [Islamic State] come along and say they are going to do A B and C, you have to take them for their word.”

Source: ISIS Secret Dossier Blames Israel for Terrorism - Defense/Security - News - Arutz Sheva


Abuse trial: Muslim man beat daughter he thought was gay

Raw Islam feature

The man and his wife both have name suppression to protect their children. Photo / NZ Herald

A Muslim man repeatedly beat his teenage daughter with an umbrella when he thought she may be gay, and had a photo of a man having his throat cut hung up in the lounge.

The man and his wife – who both have name suppression to protect their children – today pleaded guilty to a raft of child abuse offences when they appeared at Auckland District Court this morning.

He admitted 16 counts of abuse, including hitting and slapping his six children, and striking a child with a horse whip, while his wife pleaded guilty to two counts of assault on a child.

One of his victims was aged just 5 at the time, and another an infant aged 1.

Details of the abuse meted out on the children — all aged under 15 at the time — have been revealed in a summary of facts document, released by Judge Charles Blackie following the court appearance today.

The man, 45, has six children. The woman, 25, is mother to three of them, the eldest of whom is now aged 14. They all lived together in their home in Auckland.  

The court document said the man’s eldest daughter was repeatedly slapped and punched by her father over the years, including on one occasion when she was aged 13 when he “became angry over her use of Facebook and slapped the victim about the face”.

She fled to a teacher’s house.

On another occasion, two years later, he “became enraged” after hearing the same daughter had hugged and kissed a girl friend in school as a greeting, “sparking rumours of lesbianism”.

He was angry because homosexuality “is contrary and in direct conflict to his interpretation of the Islamic faith”, the summary of facts said.

The man beat his daughter with a blue and green checkered umbrella, first around the torso, and when she fled to the lounge, he followed her and continued to hit her “five times to her head and body”.

“The victim put up her arms to defend herself and in the process caused the umbrella to break on impact,” it states.

She suffered extensive bleeding from her nose, cuts to her hands, and bruises to her arms.

The man pleaded guilty to a charge of injuring with intent to injure in relation to that incident.

He also admitted a count of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm over an incident in 2013 when he hit the same daughter around the head and torso with a stick after she took some of his synthetic cannabis to school.

 When the victim crouched over to protect herself from the barrage of punches, the defendant pulled up her head by the hair and punched her in the stomach before slapping her face several times. 

She suffered two black eyes, a broken tooth, a fractured nose and bruising to her back.

He also admitted using a horse whip as a weapon against his children, slapping and hitting them with a stick, and throwing objects including sticks, a hammer and bricks at one of his daughters.

He also admitted slapping his then 5-year-old son in the face and throwing him on the floor, and slapping his then 1-year-old son about the face.

Also revealed in the court documents was a “picture wall” in the lounge of the family home, on which the man had displayed “a large number of images containing injuries to adults and children”.
Among those images was a photograph of a man holding a gun and using his other hand to slit the throat of another man with a large knife.

“The image was in clear view of the victims who were often photographed and filmed standing in front of the ‘picture wall’.”

The image was deemed objectionable under the Films, Video and Publications Classification Act 1993, and he pleaded guilty to displaying objectionable material to persons aged under 18.

 Judge Blackie convicted and remanded the couple — the man in custody, and the woman in bail — until sentencing in June.

The father has previously appeared before the courts, but the details were redacted from the court document provided to media.

The man was issued a first warning under the three strikes system over the injuring with intent conviction.

The couple had been due to stand trial at Auckland District Court yesterday.

However, the trial was adjourned and the couple entered guilty pleas in court this morning.

May 19, 2015 | Original Source: "Abuse trial: Muslim man beat daughter he thought was gay"

It Is Time To Get Real: Islam Begets Terrorism

Icon: Get Real

Which is worse: Muslims who take their faith seriously, or Western media dunces who keep making excuses for their devout faith?

by Bill Muehlenberg
Every day we hear about more terror attacks committed by Muslims acting in the name of their Islamic faith, and every day we find clueless wonders in the West trying to make excuses for their actions.

In my books, those doing the killing and terror, and those seeking to defend the killing and terror, are both morally culpable. The Western dhimmis who work overtime to make excuses for Muslim terrorists are as much to be condemned as those doing the actual attacks.

left: Amedi Coulibaly and Hayat Boumeddiene. right: Hayat Boumeddiene in a niqab with a crossbow

Whether wilfully or out of sheer ignorance, the Western media just refuses to get it. They keep shrilling for Islam, keep making excuses for the terrorists, and keep pretending that Muslims are somehow the victims in all this.

Consider this header in the online version of today’s Herald Sun:

WANTED: The young women who sign up to life of terror

would this young girl go from a bikini snapshot with her boyfriend to a niqab and crossbow? It’s the question many Islamic parents are asking – how did my child turn into a terrorist?

The article is of course discussing Hayat Boumeddiene, the Paris jihadist who is now on the run, probably in Syria. She is the one who seems to have supplied the weapons used to kill 17 people the other week, and was the girlfriend of one of the killed terrorists, Amedy Coulibaly.

The media dummies can’t seem to figure out how one minute she was in a bikini on a Dominican Republic beach with Coulibaly, and the next minute wearing a niqab and brandishing weapons of terror. Umm, are they really so clueless as to why she went off into bloody jihad? Are they really so clueless about the nature of Islam?

One simply has to read the core Islamic religious documents to answer these sorts of questions.

I grabbed my three copies of the Koran and started going through the texts which explain these things. What I offer here are just some of the texts found in the Koran which might have something to do with encouraging people like Hayat to do what she did:

⇒‘Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.2:191

⇒‘Let not believers take the infidels as friends.3:28

⇒‘Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.3:85

⇒‘Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.5:33

⇒‘Believers, do not take Jews and Christians as your friends.5:51

⇒‘I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: strike off their heads and strike all their finger-tips off.8:12

⇒‘Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.8:60

⇒‘The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.8:65

⇒‘When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them.9:5

⇒‘Make war on the infidel.9:14

⇒‘The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.9:28

⇒‘The Jews and the Christians are perverse infidels; fight them.9:29-30

⇒‘Believers, make war on the infidels living in your midst.9:123

⇒‘Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.22:19-20

⇒‘Do not make peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.47:4

These are only some of the Koranic injunctions to violence, bloodshed and terror. And I have not offered anything from the hadith or the sira. If Muslims go around killing and terrorising in the name of Allah, they have plenty of warrant to do so from their own holy texts.

Now just imagine for a moment if the Christian New Testament contained these sorts of commands to kill and attack non-believers. And imagine if Christians were involved in 25,000 Christian terror attacks since 9/11 alone. Do you really think the mainstream media would write articles like this, asking why a Christian bikini babe would turn into a murderous Christian terrorist?

Umm, I don’t think so. Even the mentally challenged folks in the MSM would very easily be able to connect the dots: the holy book of Christians is saturated with orders to attack and kill non-Christians; Christianity has been doing so for 2000 years now; thus we are not surprised that a young Christian girl goes off and gets involved in such horrific terrorism.

It all makes perfect sense. Yet when it comes to Muslims doing this exact thing, the num nums in the MSM scratch their heads and appear to be utterly dumbfounded as to why this might occur. The great majority of those in the MSM simply hate the West and hate Christianity, and are more than happy to bend over backwards in defence of Islam.

Dennis Prager recently wrote about this very thing, and is worth quoting here. He begins his article this way:

Since 9/11, the Western world’s academic, media, political elites have done their best to portray Islam in a favorable light, treating it very differently from all other religions. Criticism of every doctrine, religious or secular, is permitted, often encouraged. But not of Islam. Only positive depictions are allowed.

We’ll start with an example of pro-Islamic bias that is so ubiquitous that no one seems to notice it. Why do Western media – overwhelmingly composed of irreligious people, one might add – always deferentially refer to Muhammad as “the Prophet Muhammad” in news articles and opinion pieces?

When Jesus is mentioned, the media never refer to him as “Christ, the Lord” or as “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Just “Jesus.” In fact, “A.D.” (“anno Domini” – “year of our Lord”) has been completely dropped by the very academics and media who always write “The Prophet Muhammad.”

When the media discuss Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), they don’t refer to him as “the Prophet Joseph Smith.” Why not? Is there a single difference between his title and roles in Mormonism and Muhammad’s in Islam?

And Jews refer to Moses as “Moshe Rabbeinu,” Moses our Teacher. Why don’t the media?

This was not the case in the past. When I studied Islam and Arabic in college, professors referred to the founder of Islam as “Muhammad.” And virtually none of the great biographies of Muhammad – even among those recommended on Muslim websites – have the words “the Prophet Muhammad” in their title. There is only one possible reason and that is Political Correctness – Western elites bending over backwards on behalf of Muslims and Islam in ways they never would for another religion.

Another ubiquitous example: Before 9/11, the phrase “Allahu Akbar” was translated as “Allah is great” [or “the greatest”). Since 9/11, it has been translated as “God is great.”

This was deliberate.

Yep, let’s all just give Islam the full tick of approval, while being suspicious of and hostile to anything and everything Christian. Makes perfect sense. The MSM will make every excuse in the world for bloodthirsty Muslim terrorists, while condemning the slightest actions of Christians.

Such is the world that we now live in – at least in the West.

No wonder we are losing.
No wonder Islam is on the ascendency.
No wonder we keep experiencing jihad on our streets.

And it will only continue to get worse until we finally wake up to the real nature of Islam. But I won’t be holding my breath on that happening any time soon.

Published: 18.1.15 | Original Source:

A Closer look at Religion and Violence

Islam vs. Christianity

Since Joseph Wakim of the Australian Arabic Council has given us a public lecture on what Christianity is meant to be about, perhaps I can return the favor and offer some comments on the nature of Islam.

by Bill Muehlenberg
My main thesis is that if Mr Wakim is concerned about religions condoning violence, he really should begin much closer to home, and discuss Islam.

islam-christ-jewNow Christianity and Islam are in some ways sister religions.
Both are monotheistic faiths that share a common ancestry with Judaism. And both share a doctrine of just war theory, that is, that the State and the military does have a legitimate role in the ordering of society.

But the differences are quite pronounced.
This is especially apparent in the relationship between religion, society and the state.

They are clearly separate – or at least should be – in Christianity. But no such distinction exists in Islam.

Church and state relations – so much of an issue of debate in Western Christian nations – is not even an issue in Islam. The Muslim world is at once both a religious and a political sphere. One can choose between God and Caesar in Christianity. Both are one and the same in Islam.

Another major difference lies in how the faith is to be propagated. 
 The founder of Christianity made it quite clear that use of arms to impel conversion was totally out of place. True, this concern was not always heeded by his followers. Thus if a person kills someone today in the name of Christ, especially for religious reasons, one can rightly argue that they are perverting the very nature of Christianity and the writings of the New Testament.

It is by no means clear however if one could say the same about a Muslim who kills in the name of Allah.

The Koran and Islamic law (Sharia) both offer plenty of justification for such actions. Moreover, both the example of Muhammad and Islamic history provide support for the use of force in promoting Islam.

Consider the doctrine of jihad.

There are of course different understandings of what exactly is meant by jihad. Muslim moderates and apologists insist that jihad simply means to struggle or strive for a just cause. There is in fact a distinction in Islam between the “greater jihad” which is a kind of spiritual warfare against the selfish nature, and “lesser jihad” which means a struggle against non-Muslims.

It is this latter concept that we must deal with. Because there is no ultimate central authority in Islam, disagreement exists as to interpreting the Koran, the weight of tradition (Hadith), and the example of Muhammad. However, Koranic injunctions to fight are numerous, as they are in the various collections of Hadith. And Muhammad himself set the example of violent conquest.

September 11 was, to a great degree, a logical outcome of the concept of jihad. Some however argue that as the ultimate suicide bombing, Sept. 11 cannot be reconciled with Islam, since suicide is sinful in Islam. But many Muslims defend suicide bombing, arguing that it is not really suicide but martyrdom for Allah, something much praised in the Koran. They insist that the bombers simply use their bodies to kill others, not themselves. And those who are killed while fighting for Allah are promised a one-way ticket to Paradise. Interestingly, in Islam, no other action guarantees one’s eternal destiny.

Still, critics will often point out that Muslims are not alone in their fundamentalism.

What about Christian fundamentalists?

Defenders of militant Islam like to raise the issue of Old Testament laws to say that fundamentalism can be found amongst Christians as well. For example, doesn’t the Old Testament warrant the death penalty for various crimes?

But Jesus specifically abrogated such punishments (as in the women caught in adultery) and for 2000 years the Christian faith has operated on the concepts of love and forgiveness. Islam however continues to harshly punish various sins, with adulterers still stoned to death in places like Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, there is in Islam no instruction to turn the other cheek, nor an expectation of swords being beaten into plowshares. In addition, there is the theory and practice of assassination in Islam which is foreign to Christianity. It arose at an early period in Islam’s history, and we even get the term from a Muslim sect dating from the 11th century.

Of course the bulk of Muslims are neither fundamentalists nor terrorists, and have little sympathy for their cause. Thus mainstream Muslims and their supporters should be quite vocal in denouncing the crimes of Islam, and not just point the finger at other religions.

Published: 25.11.2004 | original source:

Violence in the Bible and the Koran

Profile: Obama (01)

There is plenty of misunderstanding about the nature of Islam – deliberate or otherwise.

by Bill Muehlenberg.
One only need turn to the speech US President Obama made on the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks for yet another example of this. He used his speech to once again seek to placate Muslims.

He said in classic appeasement style, “It was not a religion that attacked us that September day. It was al-Qaeda. We will not sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust.

Oh, so Islam had nothing to do with 9/11?

And al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Islam?

That of course is the usual spin which apologists for Islam make time and time again. But it is not what the leader of the free world should be making. Indeed, he should know better. But this is just the latest in dozens of things Obama has said or done which make so many Americans wonder what exactly his religion is.

It is possible he is not even sure what it is. It certainly is not biblical Christianity. Indeed, he seems to know little about either religion. And his speech is just another example of unhelpful moral equivalence concerning the two religions.

It is the sort of muddled thinking which cannot even begin to make moral and theological distinctions. It tends to blur boundaries and results in a jaded view especially of what Christianity is all about. It repeats the foolishness that if Islam is bad, and/or has its bad elements, well so too does Christianity.

And that somehow is supposed to be the end of the story. But it isn’t. A perfectly valid case can be argued that the so-called excesses and extremes of Islam are in fact a direct outcome of Islamic beliefs and teachings. On the other hand, violent excesses done in the name of Christ can be seen to be completely unrelated to genuine Christianity.

Consider the issue of violence and its promotion in the two religions. Anyone with a smattering of understanding about both will know that there is a world of difference between the two. I have written about this issue before, showing the very real contrasts, eg.: ( a closer look at religion and violence“)

A new article assessing these differences has just appeared in the US and is worth promoting here. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam closely examines the two religions on the issue of violence. His findings are revealing.

He begins his piece this way:

“One of the most frequently used arguments heard in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran.”

The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument is that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but this analogy is very popular, since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. ‘See, Islam is like Christianity, Christians are just as violent as Muslims.’

“If this is true, then you don’t have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine. However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on in the marketplace of ideas. Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Bible? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.”

After defining what he means by violence – and concentrating on the issue of political violence – he notes that both quantitatively and qualitatively there is a very large difference indeed between the Koran and the Bible. In the Koran such political violence is called ‘jihad’ or fighting on behalf of Allah.

Warner notes the threefold authority structure in Islam:

“Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Islamic Trilogy.

» The Sira is Mohammed’s biography.

» The Hadith are his traditions – what he did and said.

» Sira and Hadith form The Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behaviour.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text. This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam’s sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.

Warner then lays all this out in a series of helpful charts which I cannot reproduce here, but see the link below to see the entire article plus charts. His first chart deals with the amount of text devoted to jihad:

“It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful.”

His third chart deals with the actual number of words devoted to political violence in the three monotheistic religions.

“When we count all of the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text [of the Hebrew Bible] is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament. When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible.

insert by 4cm:
words devoted to political violence

Hebrew Bible: 34,039 words

⇒ Islamic Trilogy: 327,547 words

⇒ New Testament Christianity: Nil words

The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.”His second chart deals with the life of Muhammad and the growth of Islam: “Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year.”

But then there are qualitative differences as well. “The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way.”

He concludes as follows: “It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.”

That is equally true of American Presidents as well. Until he begins to understand the true nature of Islam, as revealed in its trilogy of sources, he will never understand the war we are in and who the real opposition is. Until that time comes, the US will continue to lose the war against terror.

Related link: by Bill Warner “the political violence of the bible and the koran” Sept 2010

jihadtrilogy_72dpi muslimgrowthgraph_72dpi bible-koran-political-violence
13.09.2010 by Bill Muehlenberg | Original Article: "Violence in the Bible and the Koran"

Jesus, Muhammad and Violence

Islam vs. Christianity

We are continuously being told by Muslims and their sympathisers that if Islam has its violent aspects, well so too does Christianity.

by Bill Muehlenberg
They are very eager to convince us of a moral equivalence that exists between the two religions. Sure, Islam has some violent extremists, but Christianity does too. Even gullible and not very learned Christians make this charge quite often. But they should really know better of course.

I have written elsewhere about such things, but let me repeat here a fundamental difference:

if a Christian kills in the name of Christ, he does so in total opposition to the life and teachings of Christ, and the entire New Testament. However, if a Muslim kills in the name of Allah, he has full justification to do so from the life and teachings of Muhammad, and from the Koran.

Here I want to look more closely at the two founders of these religions:

Jesus and Muhammad.

It goes without saying that they are both central figures in their respective religions, and the life, teaching and example of each become crucial for their followers.

Jesus of course never killed anyone, never ordered the killing of anyone, and never shed anyone’s blood. Neither did any of his New Testament disciples. One will look in vain throughout all 27 books of the NT to find even a hint of killing, bloodshed or religiously-motivated violence conducted by Jesus and his followers.

The story about Muhammad of course is quite different. However, before I proceed any further, let me mention a few words about Muhammad’s place in Islam.

Jesus is regarded by Christians as God, as divine, and as the object of their worship.

Muhammad does not occupy such a place in Islam.

Muhammad is not considered to be God or the son of God. He is not declared to be sinless, nor is he to be worshipped. He is simply the final and fullest revelation and prophet of Allah. But he is nonetheless held up as “the ideal man”, and as the example and role model for every Muslim to follow.

Also, a word about authoritative sources in Islam. The Koran and the Sunnah (the “way” or “model” of the Prophet Muhammad) are two of the main foundations upon which Islam stands, and upon which Muslims base their faith and practice on. All of the events, actions, sayings, teachings and examples of the Prophet make up the Sunnah.

The hadith (reports) about Muhammad’s life mainly make up the Sunnah. Authoritative biographies of the Prophet would be based on these sources. A number of such biographies exist, but the most authoritative biography is the Sira (“life”), by the great Islamic scholar Muhammad bin Ishaq, composed in the eighth century. Together these sources give us copious detail about the life, actions and teachings of the Prophet.

Now when one reads the Koran, the hadith, and the biographies of Muhammad (which I have done), it becomes clear that Muhammad was not at all a man of peace as Jesus was. Instead, we find a political ruler, a military commander, and a harsh master.

Here is a brief outline of his involvement in warfare, killing and violence. (Muhammad)

When we talk about this, we must be aware of the chronology of Muhammad. He was born in Mecca in 570. He started receiving revelations and visions in 610. For the next dozen years he sought to more or less peacefully spread his new faith. He was rejected, so he fled Mecca in 622 (the hijra, which begins the Muslim calendar). His last ten years in Medina were his violent, bloody years of military conquest. He died in 632.

Also, a word about the Muslim doctrine of abrogation (naskh – see suras 2:106 and 13:39). This has to do with later revelations given to Muhammad superseding or abrogating earlier ones. About three-quarters of the Koran’s 114 suras (chapters) are the peaceful Meccan ones, while about one-quarter are the more violent Medinan ones. So while the Koran does speak about peace and nonviolence in religion, these are the earlier Meccan suras (such as 2:256, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” which we so often hear about), which are abrogated by the later violent Medinan suras, if a conflict arises.

The Koran has much to say about the enemies of Islam, such as the kufar (unbelievers) and the mushrikun (idolaters, or pagans). The Koran prescribes jihad against these enemies. While this can take the form of nonviolent opposition, it also entails the use of armed struggle. Altogether there are around 100 passages in the Koran which speak of the use of force and the sword (compared to some 120 earlier, more peaceful and tolerant verses).

Sura 9:5 for example (the ‘Verse of the Sword’), says “Kill the pagans wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush”. Sura 9:29 reads, “Fight against those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day”.

Sura 2:190-193 says this: “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you … And slay them wherever you catch them …And fight them until there is no more tumult.” Or consider sura 61:4: “Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array as firm as a mighty edifice”.

Sura 8 is entitled “The Spoils of War”; it lays out practical instructions on battle. We are told that Muhammad is to get 20 per cent of the spoils of war, while his men are to divide up the remaining 80 per cent (8:41). It also says to keep fighting until there are no more unbelievers (8:39). Plenty of other such suras could be mentioned.

The barbaric practice of beheading infidels is not just something we see happening today by Islamic terrorists. It was enjoined in the Koran and practiced by Muhammad and his followers: “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads” (sura 47:4). The very next verse assures those who have died while fighting for Allah that they will be taken into paradise (the only guarantee of salvation in Islam).

And of course the hadith contain many similar injunctions. Let me offer just one “I heard the apostle of Allah say, I command by Allah to fight all the people till they say there is no god but Allah and I am his apostle. And whoever says that will save himself and his money” (Al-Nisai, 3:6:5, no. 3,087).

Also, Muhammad himself participated in warfare and killing. According to the earliest biography of Muhammad, the Sira, the Prophet was involved in some 84 battles and raids in the last decade of his life. He was present for 27 of these, and he personally fought in nine of them. So quite unlike Jesus, Muhammad was certainly a man of war.

And revenge, not forgiveness, was the order of the day for the Apostle.
As but one example, in the Sira we read of Muhammad declaring his murderous intent: “If God gives me victory in Quraysh [Muhammad’s own tribe in Mecca] in the future, I will mutilate 30 of their men.” Many other such examples can be cited. This clearly has nothing to do with turning the other cheek as Jesus emphasised.

Reading the biographies of Muhammad certainly drives home the truth of this vivid contrast to Jesus Christ. (Of course, do not read the white-washed, sanitised versions of the prophet’s life. For example, former Catholic nun and big-time interfaith advocate and Muslim apologist Karen Armstrong’s works should be avoided like the plague.) If you read Guillaume’s English translation of the Sira by Ibn Ishaq, you will get all the gory details of Muhammad’s personal involvement in, and endorsement of, bloodshed, killing and warfare.

All these battles, raids, massacres and revenge attacks cannot here be further discussed, but it is overwhelmingly clear from the three main Islamic sources that Muhammad was a man of bloodshed, one who sanctioned massacres, approved of assassinations, and engaged in numerous armed conflicts and bloody episodes of retaliation.

In sum, we find in the life, teachings and example of Muhammad nothing at all comparable to that of Jesus Christ. The two men could not be further apart in these areas. Claims that the two are both great religious leaders who share much in common are obviously quite wide of the mark.

On the one hand we have Jesus Christ who was the Prince of Peace who told us to love and forgive our enemies. On the other hand we have Muhammad who was a military leader who told us to kill and take revenge on our enemies. Muhammad preached “Death to the infidels!” while Jesus prayed “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. The disciples of Muhammad killed for the faith while the disciples of Jesus were killed for their faith. The two could not be any more different.

As Mateen Elass, who was raised in Saudi Arabia, puts it, “While there is certainly room for debate over how well throughout history Christians and Muslims have followed the teaching of their respective leaders, there is no doubt over the contrasting visions of Jesus and Muhammad as to how the kingdom of God should be advanced on earth.”

Published: 13.9.10 Original Source: "Jesus, Muhammad and Violence"