“New Perspective of ‘Jihad’ in Christianity and Islam” Just More ‘Narrative’?

PCFreespeech2013SM

Here is a hard question Virginia; when does ‘selling‘ cross the line into ‘conning‘, when does a ‘pundit‘ or ‘proponent‘ become a propagandist?

 There was an an article in my inbox this morning by Craig Considine on Huffington Post that begs the question; is it a good‘ article, or just another attempt promoting a ‘Big Lie‘?

 I have always believed that to lie, distort, cast aspersions or avoid full disclosure of questionable sources in order to “win” a debate (or followers) is inherently dishonest, and at least partially, invariably damages the strength of any argument that the ‘less-than-honest‘ pundits put forth.

 Any reasonable person can see that when it becomes generally obvious that this kind of dishonest “argument” is acceptable and indispensable to an organization or pundit’s persuasive arsenal the only possible effect on non-committed minds, as well as the ‘opposition‘ is to take away any reason they might have to consider the actual thoughts or ideas lurking behind the libel, hype and spin; the credibility of all of their arguments and positions become suspect.

 This piece by Mr. Considine; is he intentionally doing a whitewash or, does he merely accept inaccurate and, or misleading information he has been fed by those who know better but only want to “win“?

Come Virginia, let’s look at it piece by piece; we shall attempt to differentiate the bog, fog and quicksand from what is truly solid ground.

Politicians and anti-Muslim activists frequently take to audiences and websites to criticize the term “jihad” as a form of Islamic supremacism, oppression, and violence. Muslim extremists, on the other hand, argue that “jihad” refers to a “holy war” against non-Muslims. Viewing the term “jihad” though these frameworks alone, however, would be playing into the hands of extremists who forego the other elements encompassed by the term “jihad.”

Take note Virginia of the typical partisan technique: lumping all conceivable “opponents” into one conveniently disposable lump. Note also the author’s bearing of false witness as he conflates everyone against the advance of Islamic Supremacism with a tiny minority against those individuals who are labeled as Muslim!

At the very same time Considine comes off as though he is doing a ‘whitewash‘; it is indisputable that the definition he tells us is promoted for “jihad” by “Muslim extremists” is exactly the same as the declared interpretation of the word accepted and defended by all of the Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence; who set doctrine and dogma for the Ummah; Yes, Virginia, both the Sunni and the Shiite Schools.

Not one thing he says in that paragraph is technically untrue but, when you look at what is unsaid, what is distorted or maligned, and the paragraph becomes more an example of artful lying than of an honest attempt at communication.

But, Wait! There’s MORE!” said the used car salesman…

In Islam, “jihad” has several different components, which include personal struggles, such as the struggle against an addiction; social struggles, such as the struggle to become tolerant of others; and occasionally a military struggle, if and when necessary in self-defense. When asked, “What is the major jihad?” Muhammad replied: “The jihad of the self (struggle against the personal self).” Contrary to the rhetoric and misinformation about “jihad” in anti-Islam networks, Muhammad did not say that the violent struggle was the most important form of “jihad.

Contrary to its being one of the most quoted “hadith” by Islamist apologists I can’t find it in any orthodox collection of ahadith! The only place it seems to be found is in a book published posthumously but, only in the completely re-edited 2nd edition:

Forty Hadith:

An Exposition on Forty Ahadith Narrated through the Prophet and His Ahl al-Bayt, may peace be upon them

Second Revised Edition
by
Imam Khomeini

Translated by:
Mahliqa Qara’i (late) and Ali Quli Qara’i

Published by:
Ahlul Bayt World Assembly
(ABWA)
Tehran, IRAN

Table of Contents:

Introductory Note

About The Author

Childhood And Early Education

The Years Of Spiritual And Intellectual Formation In Qum, 1923 To 1962

The Years Of Struggle And Exile, 1962-1978

The Islamic Revolution, 1978-79

1979-89: First Decade Of The Islamic Republic, Last Decade Of The Imam’s Life

Introduction

Purpose Of Writing The Book

Hadith 1
First Hadith: Jihad of The Self

Hadith 2
Second Hadith: Ostentation (RIYA’)

Hadith 3
Third Hadith: Self-Conceit (‘Ujb)

Hadith 4
Fourth Hadith: Pride (Kibr)

Hadith 5
Fifth Hadith: Envy (Hasad)

Hadith 6
Sixth Hadith: Love Of The World

Hadith 7
Seventh Hadith: Anger (Ghadhab)

Hadith 8
Eighth Hadith: Prejudice (‘ASABIYYAH)

Hadith 9
Ninth Hadith: Hypocrisy (Nifaq)

Hadith 10
Tenth Hadith: Desire And Hope

Hadith 11
Eleventh Hadith: Man’s God-Seeking Nature

Hadith 12
Twelfth Hadith: Contemplation (Tafakkur)

Hadith 13
Thirteenth Hadith: Trust In God (TAWAKKUL)

Hadith 14
Fourteenth Hadith: Fear of God

Hadith 15
Fifteenth Hadith: The Believer’s Trials And Tribulations

Hadith 16
Sixteenth Hadith: Patience (Sabr)

Hadith 17
Seventeenth Hadith: Repentance (TAWBAH)

Hadith 18
Eighteenth Hadith: Remembrance Of God

Hadith 19
Nineteenth Hadith: Backbiting (Ghibah)

Hadith 20
Twentieth Hadith: Pure Intention (Ikhlas)

Hadith 21
Twenty-First Hadith: Thankfulness (Shukr)

Hadith 22
Twenty-Second Hadith: The Aversion For Death

Hadith 23
Twenty-Third Hadith: The Seekers Of Knowledge

 

Hadith 24

Twenty Fourth Hadith: The Classification Of Sciences

Hadith 25
Twenty-Fifth Hadith: Satanic Insinuation

Hadith 26
Twenty Sixth Hadith: The Pursuit Of Knowledge

Hadith 27
Twenty-Seventh Hadith: Prayer And Concentration

Hadith 28
Twenty-Eighth Hadith: Meeting God

Hadith 29
Twenty-Ninth Hadith: The Prophet’s Counsel To ‘Ali

Hadith 30
Thirtieth Hadith: The Indescribability Of God, The Prophet, And The Imams

Hadith 31
Thirty-First Hadith: The Kinds Of Hearts

Hadith 32
Thirty-Second Hadith: Conviction In Faith

Hadith 33
Thirty-Third Hadith: Wilayah And Works

Hadith 34
Thirty-Fourth Hadith: The Station of The Faithful Before God

Hadith 35
Thirty-Fifth Hadith: God And Man, Good And Evil

Hadith 36
Thirty-Sixth Hadith: The Attributes Of God

Hadith 37
Thirty-Seventh Hadith: The Knowledge Of God

Hadith 38
Thirty-Eighth Hadith: The Meaning Of God’s Creation Of Adam In His Image

Hadith 39
Thirty-Ninth Hadith: Good And Evil

Hadith 40
Fortieth Hadith: Exegesis Of Surat Al-Tawhid And Some Verses Of Surat Al-Hadid

A Hint Concerning The Exegesis Of Surat Al-Tawhid

A Hint Concerning Bismillah

A Brief Hint Concerning The Exegesis Of The Noble Verses Of Surat Al-Hadid Until The Words ‘Alimun Bi Dhatis-Sudur

Conclusion

Prayer And Epilogue

The Table of Contents of the posthumous 2nd edition (Even the 1st Edition was published after the death of the author) has a curious addition that is found nowhere in the TOC of the original, or anywhere else it seems; it is also of note that the names of the translators is the same in each edition though the publisher and city in Iran in which it was published changes:

 Forty Hadith

An Exposition on 40 ahadith narrated through the Prophet and his Ahl al-Bayt
by
Imam Ruhullah al-Musawi al-Khumayni
Translated by:
Mahliqa Qara’i (late) and Ali Quli Qara’i
Published by:
Al-Tawhid
Qum, The Islamic Republic of Iran

Here is the original Table of Contents:

 Part 1

First Hadith: On the Tradition of the Forty Ahadith

Part 2
The Second Hadith: On Riya’

Part 3
Third Hadith: On `Ujb

Part 4
Fourth Hadith: On Kibr

Part 5
Fifth Hadith: On Hasad

Part 6
Sixth Hadith: Love of the World

Part 7
Seventh Hadith: On Anger (Ghadab)

Part 8
Eighth Hadith: On `Asabiyyah

Part 9
Ninth Hadith: On Hypocrisy (Nifaq)

Part 10
Tenth Hadith: On Desire and Hope

Part 11
Eleventh Hadith: Man’s God-seeking Nature

Part 12
Twelfth Hadith: on Contemplation (Tafakkur)

Part 13
Twelfth Hadith (Contd. From the Part 12)

Part 14
Thirteenth Hadith: On Tawakkul

Part 15
Fourteenth Hadith: On the Fear of God

Part 16
Fifteenth Hadith: On the Believer’s Trials and Tribulations

Part 17
Sixteenth Hadith: On Sabr

Part 18
Seventeenth Hadith: On Tawbah

Part 19
Eighteenth Hadith: On Remembrance of God

Part 20
Nineteenth Hadith: On Ghibah

Part 21
Twentieth Hadith: On Ikhlas

Part 22
Twenty First Hadith: On Shukr

Part 23
Twenty Second Hadith: On the Aversion for Death

Part 24
Twenty Third Hadith: Of the Seekers of Knowledge

Part 25
Twenty Fourth Hadith: On the Classification of Sciences

Part 26
Twenty Fifth Hadith: On Waswas

Part 27
Twenty Sixth Hadith: On the Pursuit of Knowledge

Part 28
Twenty Seventh Hadith: Prayer and Concentration

Part 29
Twenty Eighth Hadith: On Liqa’ Allah

Part 30
Twenty Ninth Hadith: The Prophet’s Counsel to ‘Ali

Part 31
Twenty Ninth Hadith: The Prophet’s Counsel to `Ali

(Contd.)

Part 32
Thirtieth Hadith: The Indescribability of God, the Prophet, and the Imams

Part 33
Thirty First Hadith: The Kinds of Hearts

Part 34
Thirty Second Hadith: On Conviction in Faith

Part 35
Thirty Third Hadith Wilayah and Works

Part 36
Thirty Fourth Hadith: The Station of the Faithful Before God

Part 37
Thirty Fifth Hadith: Of God and Man, Good and Evil

Part 38
Thirty Sixth Hadith: On the Attributes of God

Part 39
Thirty Seventh Hadith: On the Knowledge of God

Part 40
Thirty Eighth Hadith: The Meaning of God’s Creation of Adam in His Image

Part 41
Thirty-Ninth Hadith: Of Good and Evil

Part 42
Fortieth Hadith: On Exegesis of Surat al-Tawhid and Some Verses of Surat al-Hadid

THe first hadith in the 2nd edition is not in Bukhari, it is not in Muslim; it is not in any  collection of ahadith that I could find mention of yet appeared in the 2nd edition of a dead man’s book, and is now used constantly to reassure non-Muslims that “holy war” has no part in “mainstream Islam” or was ever a major part of the concept of ‘jihad‘!

Even Google is in on the game…

If you put the Arabic/Persian word جِهَادُ into the Google Translator you will find that in a large number of languages Google simply spits back the transliteration of جِهَادُ for that language… in other words in English, German, Japanese, Latvian, Russian, Spanish and most of the others ‘jihad’ means ‘jihad’!

Ah, Virginia, that is not the end of the tale; it seems that Google missed a few. Here are the ones I found with translation instead of transliteration:

Dutch:

جِهَادُ = heilige oorlog

Heilige = Sanctified (St.)

Oorlog = War

جِهَادُ = (in Dutch) Holy War but, Google is still determined to keep most other peoples in ignorance; if I translate the Dutch phrase ‘heilige oorlog’ directly to English it declares that it means ‘jihad’!

Tamil:

جِهَادُ = இஸ்லாமியர்களின் புனித போர்

இஸ்லாமியர்களின் = of Muslims

புனித = Sanctified (St.)

போர் = war

புனித போர் = Holy War

If you put the whole phrase in then Google says that a translation of the Tamil phrase is… You guessed it…

இஸ்லாமியர்களின் புனித போர் = Jihad

Vietnamese

جِهَادُ = chiến tranh Hồi giáo and that chiến tranh Hồi giáo = jihad (in English)!

Word by word translation shows this however…

chiến = wizard

tranh = competition

Hồi giáo translates as Mohamadenism but Hồi translates as steam and giáo as lance; I may be lacking a Phd. in language but, I get something like “supernatural or divine competition of the ‘explosively expanding and dangerous’ ‘spear-people’”, um… Virginia does that sound like it means ‘Holy War’ to you? Certainly I think that a long and historically peaceful relationship between the two groups, Vietnamese and Muslims,  is contraindicated when the Vietnamese phrase for Islam translates as ‘steam lance’!

Of course here in politically correct Google-Land if you translate the whole Vietnamese phrase into English, well Google again gives the transliteration of the Arabic/Persian word جِهَادُ ‘jihad’ instead of any attempt at translation.

chiến tranh Hồi giáo = jihad

The hype in America and abroad over ”jihad” has brought me to consider the term through a Christian perspective. In this piece I seek to do two things — explore how forms of ”jihad” are present in Christianity and pinpoint different ways of looking at ”jihad” in Christian and Islamic texts. Doing so can help find common characteristics of “jihad” so that Christians and Muslims can build bridges of mutual understanding and tolerance.

The kicker Virginia is that the hadith has been declared unreliable pretty much by all Islamic authorities world-wide!

The entire article is in a similar, “who me, honest?” vein; including the following paragraph containing another hadith confirmed to be not only unreliable, but  fabricated (emphasis added):

In the Quran (58:11), God raises in rank “… those who have been given knowledge.” Muhammad also emphasized knowledge in a hadith, or saying of the Prophet, in which he said that “Seeking knowledge is a must for every Muslim, male or female, from cradle to grave in any part of the world.” Muhammad also stated in another hadith that “the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.” Christians and Muslims, therefore, share a similar “jihad” in terms of their obligation to seek out knowledge and apply that knowledge in good faith for the betterment of humanity.

Sorry Arianna, your “pundit” pranked you; how much did you pay Craig for a politically correct fantasy pretending it is an informative article?

Virginia, it goes to show that it is best to ferret out the original information first, especially when that information is spread by a partisan in support of a partisan position.

Theocratic Reformation from Judaism to Islam – Christians 4: Jews 5: Muslims: 0

jesusgunnedOk, we can all agree that Pat Robertson was a dork of stellar magnitude, and the Phelps Family are supernovae in that particular area called theocracy.

 That said, before we submerge a crucifix in urine let’s give the Abrahamic tree a second look, and examine the fruit it has borne.

The Jews never had a drive to spread over the Earth. Their scriptures taught them that certain lands were given them by God; so they took them, enough said, this was 6,000 years ago after all. But after that they lost any territorial ambitions. But, the Persians and Romans proceeded to push them this way and that; being rather fanatical, they pushed back. After the destruction of the 2nd Temple and the Judean Diaspora the centuries have seen Judaism become a religion withdrawn into itself. Having lost the arrogance of the Temple but retained the Love of God and intellectual tradition they became a creative yeast in their host cultures.

gotjewsb

The Jews never expected to take over the world; at most they expected, and some maybe still expect that the world will join them. Not by the sword, but by the Love of God. One of the best aspects of the Jewish religion is its focus on the Love of God and a Love for God in each moment of a person’s life.

But along came Jayzus!

Things started out ok, Yesuah merely echoed and extended the teachings and philosophy of Hillel. It expanded organically and gently; converting mostly people otherwise considered “unworthy” of membership in one of the more respectable religions, then into the idle upper-class (often by way of religiously adventurous wives discontent with being the ornament on a rich man’s arm.

 But then Paul and Constantine came to deal the Judaic Chrestians, and then, later, the mild original “Greek”, a double death-blow of politicization.

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre

St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre

After several centuries of defending themselves from the fanatically imperialistic Islam Christianity began to model all sorts of the worst of the Islamic “innovations” in religion and took on an expansionist, aggressive attitude of its own.

But, it is inherent in a religion mostly based on the teachings of Jesus that every now and then people would remember what their religion was supposed to be about. Christianity may have done much more good during those periods than it did evil during its more cognitively-dissonant times.

Since the Enlightenment the swings of the pendulum between arrogant fanaticism on one hand, and humble servitude to God on the other seem to have gotten gentler. Christianity also seem centered more and more toward the liberal side of the equation; i.e. Fred Phelps, not Qaradawi.

Christianity may one day even manage to have more people who follow it for the right reasons than fools-in-lambs-clothing who use religion in unhealthy ways, or merely for social reasons.

Christianity has a core in its teachings and scripture that is there for all to see; one of Love. It today can be, and always has been, a potentially dangerous religion (I.e. Fred Phelps, Torquemada) but is not inherently so by the structure and teachings of its chief scriptures.

I do think that, despite the quantum jump that The Enlightenment enabled in society’s evolution, Christianity has shown a definite tendency to speed humanity’s growth due to the focus of many of the faithful being on Jesus’ ministry rather than the “died for your sins” part.

buddy_jesus

Now, about Islam.

tolerantislamIslam teaches much about peace and love. There are verses equal to any in the other Abrahamic writings. I will not comment here about those who feel it was the work of someone passingly familiar with both religions. But Pat Robertson did get one thing right; Islamic theology IS inherently aggressive.

The Islamic scriptures consist of three parts:

The Qur’an, the Sunnah –basically a biography of Mohammed’s life, and the ahadith – stories about Mohammed from people who knew him. If you read it all it is clear that there can only be peace when everyone has submitted to Allah.

Even the most fanatical religion tends to mellow over the years; people are basically families, people who want to live and work and laugh and have the space to find God before they die. Even individuals attracted to a “religious” life for evil reasons can be shocked to learn that Love of God and Love BY God can blossom in their hearts; that is the core of any religion.signe

Islam unfortunately is working uphill in the all so human battle against hubris while trying to find truth. But, by having such an aggressive set scriptures; by having so much to draw from that feeds the darker hungers of man, Islam will, I believe spend more time orbiting around radical aggression before submitting finally to that peace and love that is God, is Allah.

Islam is inherently dedicated by its self-declared scriptural doctrine to naturally one day  rule the world by TAKING control of it and forcing Dar al-Harb(‘House of War’) (Non-Muslim controlled regions) into Dar al-Islam(‘House of Islam); then all people will be free, in the Islamic view, to “choose” the “right” religion.

Sadly, it is not hard to justify all sorts of atrocities on infidels (non-Muslims) with the Qur’an; by contrast there are very few Samaritans or Philistines around for Jews or Christians to use their scripture as an excuse to start a pogrom against.

In Islam it does not matter that reformist Imams do not support something. In fact it is literally forbidden in Islam to use your ‘conscience’ as a guide in a religious dilemma; the only proper way to get an answer is to ask the proper authority, and then submit to the “truth.”

In Christianity, the violent books and verses are all somewhat shielded by being in the OT and considered to be superseded by the Love of Jesus when any conflict occurs. Islam does not have a NT to mellow its hard edges, though it does recognize the concept of abrogation (what a prophet says later is ‘rock’ to the ‘scissors’ of any earlier pronouncements or doctrines).

lil-kim-burqa

This makes “insulting” Islam dangerous at times in the modern world of high tech, and horrific weapons that you can make in your garage.

Solutions

butcherinnameofislamI mostly find it sad that the bulk of Muslims are not more vocal about denouncing their radical Brethren in both the private and the public arena. It is every person in the world’s duty to restrain the fundies of all aggressive religions until they grow up. Until a religion’s devout – highest clergy to clueless souls just born in it – recognize to their core’s that it is ok to DIE because of your religion but, that it is NEVER anything but evil to use religion as an excuse to KILL, that religion should be watched, and kept on a leash in polite company.

Islam has yet to show that it can stay grown up. They are younger though, lets give them time…but, keep the rolled up newspaper ready to smack their noses if they sh*t on the rug. We have too many permanent stains from Christianity and its messes; AND the Islam’s’ earlier messes. Of course Christianity STILL pees on the floor now and then. We just have to be patient and rub their noses PROMPTLY in their messes; but, we don’t have to worry about them eating the neighbor’s cat anymore.

I am not too PC to call a club a club (well, I can’t say spade anymore can I?); religion can be very wonderful but, people need to get over their BS and realize that the basic code of ethics that most religions have can also be formulated by simple common sense and an understanding of psychology and social dynamics. Go read a little about Neuro-Linguistic Programming and such. Real secular morality is what the world needs, not the Fascist pretend kind, only then can religion truly flourish; when we get over all this bickering on who is actually the only ones in touch with the “ONLY source of Morality™”; which they cannot even prove exists.

Faith is the problem; submission to something you do not feel yourself is the problem. Beliefs have reasons, sometimes bad ones but, reasons that can be ‘reasoned with’; faith has no reason therefore the most reasonable argument does no good, your head still rolls on the floor.

Have faith in Jesus of Mohammed; I will Believe in Bugs Bunny!bugslastsupper1

The Worm is Surely Beginning to Turn On The Islamists in the West: Credit Where Credit is Due

6a00d8341c60bf53ef0115713376c1970b-500wi

Today the Huffington Post, a blog more known for its Leftward bias than its claimed moderate stand actually made good on its claims today. There is an article linked from Marie Claire that is unashamedly about honor killing in the West.  Not one line or even a word of Islamist apologetics!

"An American Honor Killing

In a quiet suburban parking lot outside of Phoenix, a father floors the gas on his Jeep Grand Cherokee and heads straight for his 20-year-old daughter. His goal: to protect his family’s "honor." Yes, honor crimes have washed up on our shores.

By Abigail Pesta"

True Sincerity and How to Fake It

Hussam Ayloush CAIR moderate muslim 

Sincerity, what is it and how do we identify it from bald-faced lies and zealous ignorance? In two ways Virginia, in two ways; analyze what they say and compare it to all available facts; and judge them by their fruits, one of the most useful concepts to come out of Judeo/Christianity.

It is never more important to identify real sincerity than when the speaker claims a religious moral high-ground. Most religious traditions cherish a core principal of truth and honesty; a self-serving lie perverts the most noble cause at its very core – *Living* this belief distinguishes the true clergy of God, no matter their faith.

Unfortunately the extremes of the religious/partisan/tribal spectrum believe the opposite; so sure are they of the holiness of their cause that eventually any lie will come to be seen as sanctifying, instead of perverting, when applied in any fashion that can be rationalized as in service to “The Cause.”

To be sure, this trait is not confined to religious bigots, there are political movements on the Left, and Right, who share this same “holy” zeal for their vision of “how things must be.”

Here is a piece from the Great Falls Tribune in Montana that straddles both the religious and the political art of faking complete sincerity.

Part of Islamic teachings is mutual respect and acceptance, according to Hussam Ayloush, a speaker at the Islam in America symposium in Bozeman in February and a Muslim-American from Anaheim, Calif.

Why would anyone hold a symposium on Islam in America in Bozeman, Montana (pop < 30,000)? Maybe so no-one undesired is likely to show up and attend to what is actually said?

With that said, “part of Islamic teachings is…”? That is about as vague as you can get. A part? A large part? A powerful part? How about a dominant part? We will let that one go for now…

“Some Muslims disagree with American policies, Ayloush said, but that doesn’t mean they hate Americans.”

Disingenuous, thy name is partisan! “Some” can be read as most according to virtually all polls I have seen, whether by US-based, Judeo/Christian religious, or Muslim news agencies!

As to the “hate American policies[sins]” bit, sorry, the Christians use that one too; what they hate is America’s Un-Muslimness, and that means hating non-Muslim Americans; just as a radical Christian who hates homosexuality hates the gays, not just “their sin.”

“There are lines by the thousands in Muslim countries for visas to come to America,” he said. “People are proud to visit here. There’s no shame — it’s the opposite.”

MSU Adjunct Professor Thomas Goltz has spent years traveling in Muslim countries. “I have never, not once, felt uncomfortable going around the Muslim world because they were Muslim,” he said.

This is probably because Goltz is known for uncritically pro-Muslim, and anti non-Muslim, statements and articles:

Goltz’ remarks were in response a question from the audience on how to convince Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh to stay within the “current boundaries of Azerbaijan.” Goltz, who teaches at the Montana State University, replied: “By building a forward-looking democracy you will be able to let the garlic-growing Armenians beg to join you (Azerbaijan).”

… Goltz accused Armenians of perpetrating “ethnic cleansing” in Khojaly and said the Armenia argument that the Khojaly operation was a necessary pre-emptive and defensive measure to relieve Nagorno-Karabagh’s capital Stepanakerd from relentless shelling from Khojaly was “nonsense”.

The most dramatic moment of the lectures occurred when Aris Babikian from the Armenian National Committee of Canada (ANCC) successfully refuted two controversial statements by Goltz.

At the Newsmaker Breakfast lecture, Aris Babikian, executive director of the ANCC, confronted Goltz and mocked him for his “command performance of misrepresentation and revisionism.” Babikian exposed Goltz’ hypocrisy by pointing out that the American journalist had “conveniently forgotten to mention the Sumgait, Baku and Maragh massacres of Armenians by Azeris… and that had it not been for the Russian Navy 230,000 Armenian inhabitants of Baku would have not survived.”

Ayloush explained that al-Qaida is so unwanted in Muslim countries the terrorist organization must hide. “Eight out of 10 victims (of al-Qaida) are Muslim,” he said. “Every political leader has spoken out against (them).”

Of course, to be fair he would have mentioned that BEFORE most of their victims were Muslims support for al-Qaida in the Muslim world was much, much higher… but that has nothing to do with anything, right?

This next bit is so outrageous that I am going to take it piece by piece:

“Jihad” is a term used to describe “inner struggle” and striving for the sake of God, according to Ayloush. It is “not holy war,” Ayloush stresses.

The inner struggle means controlling one’s passions and avoiding vices.

Here Ayloush is being at best sloppy and rash, and at worst a completely disingenuous dispenser of bovine produced fertilizer.  Doesn’t he understand that to tell such easily refutable lies helps his cause in the uncommitted hearts NOT ONE BIT? Here is a piece that brings together some interesting quotes from the Quran:

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them):

thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom. (47:4)This one states the goal of the fighting in terms that also make clear that the war is religious:And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:39)And this one establishes that he warfare is against the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

Back to the article…

Arabic has no word for “holy war,” and the phrase was developed as a way to translate the word “crusade,” a Latin word and Christian idea.

Stunningly untrue: the Crusades began only after 300 years of ISLAMIC military aggression against Byzantium and the Holy Land (mostly Christian at the time), including the attacking and enslaving of pilgrims as a “religious right and duty.”  Only a mind that thinks that when Muslims murder it is sanctified by God can think that the Crusades taught MUSLIMS how to fight a holy war!

The Quran surfaced about 1,400 years ago, Kia said, and there are no verses about the United States because the country did not yet exist.

The United States has gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq because of those countries’ policies, not religion. They just happen to have a majority Muslim population, according to Kia.

And? So? What does that have to do with anything?  The Koran, Hadith, and especially the Sharia’a, clearly deny the right of humans to create their own laws and institutions; this puts traditional Islam squarely AGAINST everything that Western societies, including America, are based on.

The Sept. 11 attacks were committed by a minority group of extremist Muslims affiliated with the terrorist organization al-Qaida, which has small networks all over the world.

And Muslims danced the world over, wherever they were more than a tiny percentage of the population! Can anyone tell me of any event involving the murder of over three thousand people that would bring out huge numbers of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Shinto, Buddhists or Neo-Pagans out to dance in joy? Such compassion! Such a peaceful outpouring of warmth and sympathy!

Christians have committed acts of terror both present-day and throughout history.

That is nice Professor, but we live NOW; tell us about the thousands murdered every day by Christians – shows us the yearly toll of thousands of Fellow Christians (but not Christian enough), and non-Christians who offend by merely BEING non-Christian. Show us where they live closer than your great-great-great-grand mother’s lifetime! You remind me of a Mafia Don excusing 30 murders committed in a year to consolidate his power because thuggish cops killed two people randomly over ten years.

In defense of a political movement that attitude is sad; in defense of a religion is it disgusting.

“The irony is that Christianity fought its holy war against Islam in the middle ages,” Kia said. “There was a Christian ‘holy war,’ there was a Christian ‘jihad.'”

You keep beating that horse, but it will never get up and run… how is it ironic that only after 300 years of murder, raid and military assault culminating in closure of access (at peril of life and freedom) to pilgrims the Christians FINALLY took up arms, and came and kicked some butt to take that formerly CHRISTIAN land back? Jihad is only bad if it is Christians? (note that I have not addressed, and certainly not defended, any excesses of the Christians involved; we are just addressing motives for now)

There are terrorist organizations throughout the world. A full list of designated groups can be viewed at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/list/, and a list by country at http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm.

I am not going to spend a huge amount of time breaking down the numbers of dead by the religion of the murderers; go here and look for yourself at how utterly stupid this argument is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009

The country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia.

And also the country with one of the fastest growing Islamist problems!!!

And that concludes our lesson in how to be truly sincere at *appearing* to be Morally Superior to your opponent.

Less than 20 percent of the 1.6 billion Muslims (according to a Pew study in 2009) in the world are Arab, Ayloush said. “It’s a religion,” he said. “Not an ethnicity.”

And let us not forget it; I don’t expect to hear Ayloush calling anti-Islamist groups racists!

India moves one step closer to ‘Quranic values’….

kafir
 
ALLAHABAD: In a judgment with far-reaching implications, the Allahabad high court has ruled that a non-Muslim bride must convert to Islam to marry a Muslim. Failing that, the matrimony with a Muslim man would be void as it would contradict Islamic dicta and tenets of the Quran, the court said.

The ruling on Monday by a division bench comprising Justices Vinod Prasad and Rajesh Chandra, came on a writ petition filed by Dilbar Habib Siddiqui. The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR registered against him on March 17 under sections 323, 366 and 363 of IPC with Naini PS, Allahabad and prayed the court not interfere in his peaceful matrimonial life with Khushboo Jaiswal. The judges directed a speedy probe into the marriage of Siddiqui and ordered the cops to separate Khushboo Jaiswal, who was lodged in Nari Niketan, and hand her over to her parents.

The primary question for adjudication was on whether the FIR could be quashed or not. A perusal of the contents of the FIR indicated that Khushboo Jaiswal was alleged to have been abducted by the petitioner three months prior to its lodging. However, the petitioner had succeeded in preventing the FIR from being registered. The FIR was filed by the girl’s mother, Sunita Jaiswal, who alleged that the petitioner had abducted her daughter. She contended that Khushboo never converted to Islam and there was also no documentary evidence to suggest so.

"In our above conclusion we are fortified by the fact that in the affidavit filed by Khusboo herself subsequent to her alleged contract marriage, she has described herself as Khushboo and not by any Islamic name. As Khushboo, she could not have contracted marriage according to Muslim customs. In those documents she has addressed herself as Khushboo Jaiswal," the verdict said.

"Thus, what is conspicuously clear is that Khushboo Jaiswal never converted and embraced Islam and therefore her marital tie with the petitioner Dilbar Habib Siddiqui is a void marriage since the same is contrary to Islamic dicta and tenets of Holy Quran," the court ruled.

Source: The Times Of India