The Politics of Domination

In 1941, Haj Amin Al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, journeyed to Berlin where he met with the German Chancellor turned Fuhrer, Adolph Hitler. The details of that fateful meeting are well documented in the book "Icon of Evil" by David Dalin and John Rothman, but suffice it to say, the two leaders sniffed eachother's butts and determined they were the same breed of dog. They were both meglomaniacle leaders of similar fascist ideologies who hated everything Jewish and were bent on exterminating the latter and making war on all others.

The story of Husseini should come as no surprised to those who understand Islam and National Socialism. Hitler used deceit to gain the upper hand on his enemies with great skill. His ability to fool the more powerful social and political leaders of the time is now a matter of historic record. The most notorious insident resulted in the declaration by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain after the Munich Agreement in 1938:

"My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds."

In a his 2008 article in the Canada Free Press, Bruce Walker notes the following;

The Nazis, before the Second World War began, only a few years after they took power, formally adopted anti-Semitism. This historical tidbit startles even sophisticated students of history, but just listen to orders which Goebbels sent to all the German press in 1935: 'Very important! The attention of the press is drawn to the fact that the National Socialist movement may be called ant-Semitic no longer, but only anti-Jewish. We have nothing against Arabs and other Semitics peoples….' Nazism and Islam fit together very well.

It should be noted that The National Socialist movement adopted its Anti-Jewish stance at the same time Adolph Hitler joined it. In Mein Kamph's second chapter, Hitler described Jews as, not only an inferior, disgusting people, but connected them directly to the Communist and Socialist Movements, claiming they could not exist without those same dirty Jews.

I gradually became aware that the Social Democratic (socialist) press was directed predominantly by Jews; yet I did not attribute any special significance to this circumstance, since conditions were exactly the same in the other papers. Yet one fact seemed conspicuous: there was not one paper with Jews working on it which could have been regarded as truly national according to my education and way of thinking.

At the same time, and in the same chapter, Hitler endorsed both their policies, tactics and strategies. In this example, he denounces private charity:

During my struggle for existence in Vienna, it had become clear to me that social activity must never and on no account be directed toward philanthropic flim-flam, but rather toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life that must-or at all events can-lead to the degeneration of the individual.

Hermann Rauschning, who broke with the Nazi party, wrote the following: "The (Hitler's Nazi) Movement is totally without ideals and lacks even the semblance of a program. It's comitment is entirely to action."

In "Liberal Fascism," Jonah Goldberg elaborates on this: "Saying that Hitler had a pragmatic view of Ideology is not to say he didn't use Ideology. Hitler had many ideologies." (Page 53).

And it is also true that many histories of Nazi Germany portray Adolph Hitler's propaganda as portraying himself as a messianic figure. This includes William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

But what has this to do with Islam?


Jizya (Tribute)

Sura 9:29 Fight those who believe not in God and in the last day, and who forbid not what God and His Apostle (Muhammed) have forbidden, and who do not practice the religion of truth from amongst those to whom the Book has been brought (Jews and Christians), until they pay the tribute (Jizya) by their hands and be as little ones.

In 1785, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:

“it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Jefferson was describing what he had been told by the Ambassador of Tripoli. The Barbary Pirates were demanding tribute from American Shipping in exchange for not attacking American Ships. To be appeased, as it were, for their behavior. Even today, U.S.S. Bainbridge (named, serendipidously, after a Captain who faught the Barbary Pirates) participated in an action only recently to fight Muslim Pirates after that same type of Jizya.

Under Sharia Law, those non-Muslims who have submitted to the ruling culture of Islam shall be dhimmis. That is those who exist with fewer (if any) rights as the ruling Muslims. They shall pay Jizya for their unbelieving practices and shall have restrictions upon those practices. Effectively, in order for a Jew or a Christian or a Hindi to live in an Islamic country, they must appease their rulers with the Jizya tax.

Certainly, we can see this level of segregation in the application of the yellow star of david imposed on Jews under the Nazis. Was this inspired by the Jizya tax? Other scholars may find a concrete connection. Others, such as former muslim Ali Sina, make no bones about it:

Dhimmis, as all familiar with the history of islam know, did NOT have social rights on par with muslims. This is reviewed elsewhere, but constitutes in brief: restrictions on religious worship and continuance of non-muslim faiths (no tolling bells, no high churches, no repairs to existing churches, no construction of new ones), prohibitance of muslim women from marrying non-muslim men, punititve taxation (designed to be as humiliating as possible), the wearing of distinctive dress (what was it - in the shape of a pig for Christians and a donkey for Jews? Not quite a yellow Star of David, but one can see where Hitler got some of his material from this is also covered in 432 as some kind of "benefit" to the oppressed) and so forth.

Certainly one can see by now there that the ideological similarities between Islam and Nazism cannot be denied. How can this be, one might ask, after I had quoted Jonah Goldberg on Hitler's lack of an ideology.

Because, my friends, Islam also lacks an ideology. The statements above by both Jonah Goldberg and Herman Raschning could easily be said about Muhammed and Islam respectively. Muhammed, in reciting god's word in the form of the Koran, condemned Fitna, or Mischief (Sura 5:33). One has only to google Fitna in order to find examples of Fatwas (religious condemnations) against things determined to be mischief.

But the definition of mischief in the Koran is difficult to find, if it can be found at all. Certainly, the Jews are guilty of Mischief (Sura 5:32) for having corrupted the word of god (the Torah). So are the Christians for the same reason. In Sura 19:35, Allah (through Muhammed) denieds Christ is the son of God. In Sura 4:157-159 he also denies Christ was crucified.

Islamic Mischief

As many Islamic Scholars have noted, the Hadith (or aHadith) is second only to the Koran in its importance and holiness to Muslims. As part of the Sunnah (which includes many ahadith, and the Sira, or chronicle of Muhammed's life), many consider these to be an extension of the Koran. In fact, the Koran cannot be understood without the Sunnah according to most Islamic scholars.

In the Shihi Bukhari hadith, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:

Muhammed said, "It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath."

Under Islamic (Sharia) Law, this excuses all forms of dishonesty between Muslims and Non-Muslims, especially for the purpose of spreading Islam. Allah has ordained it. In Islam, it is known as Taqiyya.

But is it not considered "Mischief" to lie? Not in the advancement of Islam. In the advancement of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion, it certainly would be.

Similarly, at the Battle of Trench, the Bani Quratha Jews, with which Muhammed had a treaty, were betrayed by Muhammed, and exterminated after. Was the betrayal mischief?

Certainly, the standards are different for those who are not Muslim and the blessed who are. Similarly, Adolph Hitler set appart Aryans and set different standards for those inferior race, not terribly different fromt he way Muslims treated the Dhimmi.

Both Hitler and Muhammed made war upon their enemies in order to spread their faith. Adolph Hitler did it originally through his SA, proving the Nazi Party the stronger, and attracting more followers. In the battles of Medina and Mecca, Muhammed did the same.

Let me paraphrase the quotes by Rauschning and Goldberg:

"The Islamic Movement is totally without ideals and lacks even the semblance of a program. It's comitment is entirely to action."

"Saying that Muhammed had a pragmatic view of Ideology is not to say he didn't use Ideology. Muhammed had many ideologies."

Though Adolph Hitler may never have studied Muhammed's history, there can be no doubt of the similarities. Perhaps, had the humanity and the world been less lucky, Hitler would have been more familiar with Muhammed's successes...

Time Magazine on American Islamophobia

"Passages of the Koran taken out of context are brandished as evidence Islam requires believers to kill or convert others." says Bobby Ghosh, in the August 30th, 2010 issue of Time Magazine.

It is passing strange that the American Left continues to schill for Islam.

Let us take a particular quote out of the Koran IN Context.

Often, islamophiles like to quote Sura 5:32... well, quote is innacurate. They love to paraphrase it: "Howsoever kills a human being kills all mankind..."

But reading this quote in context reveals quite another idea:

Sura 5:25 He (Moses) said "Oh My Lord! I have power only over myself and my brother: so separate us from this rebelious people!" (the Jews)
5:26 Allah said: thefore will the lqand be out of thier reach for forty years: in distraction they will wander through the land: but sorrow though not over these rebellious people."
5:27 Recite them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam! Behold! they each present a sacrifice (to Allah): it was acceptd from one,bu not the other. Said the latter: "be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said th former," Allah accepts th sacrifice of those who are righteous."
5:28 :If you stretch your hand against me, to slay me, i is not for me to stretch my hand against you to slay you: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of worlds.
5:29 "For me, I intend to let the draw on theyself my sin as well as your own, for you will be among the companioins of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong."
5:30 The selfish soul of hte other led him to murder his brother: He murdered him and became one of he lost ones.
5:31 Then Allah sent a raven, who scratch the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. "Woe is me!" he said: "was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?" Then he became full of regrets.
5:32 On that account: we ordained for the children of israel that if anyone slew a person, unless it be fore murder or spreading mischief in the land it would be as if he slew the whole people: And if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them our messengers, with clear hyet, even after that, many of them continued to commit michief in the land.
5:33 The punishment of those who wge war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or the exile from the land; that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theres in the hearafter:
5:34 Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft Forgiving and Most Merciful.

I include the portion referring to Cain and Able simply to show how it follows. It is, in the end, irrelevant.

These passeges apply to Jews. Be good, or else. Submit, or else! Jews, who have made mischief in the land, as asserted at the end of sura 5:32, are universally guilty and may be put to death for doing so as asserted in the beginning of that same verse. They can escape this fate only by submitting to Islam (5:34).

Bobby Ghosh aught to choose his words more carfully... Unfortunately for him, and Time Magazine, his article is factually challenged at best.

Apparently, Newsbusters has noticed Mr. Ghosh's lack of credulity as well...

Women as Property in Modern Sharia Law

The case shocked us all. A New Jersey Judge refused a restraining order requested by the wife of a husband accused of rape based on Islamic Law.

Her Lawyers asserted the following in the complaint:

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

Judge Joseph Charles refused the restraining order as, he asserted, her husband had acted in accordance with his muslim beliefs.

On February 17 of 2008, the New York Times published the follwing article which helps us understand the issue from the perspective of western law:

When God and the Law Don't Square

In it, the existence of the Texas Islamic Court is revealed, and it is explained that it is for use in Arbitration in which both parties agree, including Family Law.

The part that is interesting is this passage:

The hard questions, as the archbishop (of Canterberry, Rowan Williams) learned, arise in the area of family law, where the agreement to arbitrate may be uninformed or obtained by duress. State courts have occasionally refused to enforce separation agreements reached through bet din arbitrations on the ground that the woman involved had been pressured into participating.

In The Overlooked Costs of Religious Deference, Professor Robin Wiloson (Washington and Lee University School of Law) questions the wisdom of allowing religious arbitration in family law. She focusses almost exclusively on Islamic Arbitration.

All of these articles seem to agree on the surface that Religious Arbitration in Family law, in General, can be problematic. Both the New York Times and Professor Wilson seem to agree that the problem is religious arbitration in general, but, again, the only examples given are Islamic.

In the Koran (or Qu'ran), Allah, through Muhammed, declares that "Your Women are as your tilth undo you, so approach your tilth when and how you will" (Sura 2:223)

Islamic Scholars tend to agree that this passage gives men dominion over the bodies of those women in their posession, whether as wives or as slaves (Sura 4:3).

Consequently, the underlying, if unspoken implication of every article refferenced here is based on the very solid premis that women, in Islam, are considered property.

The question must therefore be asked: How can this be true today? How can a book, written in the early seventh century, be considered any but alegory today?

The Koran itself, any true Muslim will assert, is, in fact, the word of god. It is not divinely inspired the way most of the Judeo/Christian Bible is. The Koran, in its entirity, it has the weight, to Muslims, that the Ten Commandments have to Jews and Christians. The lesser known aHadith, the commentaries on the Koran are thought of by Muslims in the same fashion as the Bible is by Jews and Christians (divinely inspired, rather than divinely dictated). The most authoritative of the aHadith (there are several) would be the Sahih Bukhari Hadith, available online at USC.EDU. Experts on Islam such as Robert Spencer assert that it is nearly impossible to understand the Koran in context without making referrence to the aHadith.

In his explanation of Sharia, Khurram Murad notes the following:

Adroitly manipulated exposure to the imagery of a whip cracking on a naked back and a veil enshrouding a woman’s face has led many to believe that the Shari’ah , the divine code of Muslim conduct, is in reality no more than a collection of values and practices that are primitive, uncivilized and barbaric. What to a Muslim is the object of his longing and endeavour has been very subtly projected as a relic from the dark ages which enslaves the woman and inflicts punishments on the criminal which are cruel, inhuman and degrading.

The Qur’an most certainly does prescribe corporal punishment for certain serious social crimes and it does lay down the principle of retribution, or qisas; it is very emphatic, too, about the crucial role of the family in human society and therefore insists on assigning different well-defined roles to men and women; and it does lay down many other regulations and laws and expects Muslims to obey the eternally valid injunctions of God and His Prophet.

Certainly, anyone who reads Sura 4 of the Koran will find that the ideal of family is paramount. But this in no way contradicts the idea that women, in Islam, are property. Islamists seem to consistently skirt the issue.

In that Allah (God) and His Messenger, Muhammed (Piss Be Upon Him), have carved the word of God in the Unerring pages of the Koran, Sharia Law, or God's Law, can only come directly from it (and its divinely inspired Sunnah). Women as Property (be they Muslim Wives or Dhimmi Slaves) must factor into God's Law as God has ordained that such may exist.

Is "Islamophobia," therefore, irrational?

It should be of interest that, in Oklahoma, a proposed ammendment to the State Constitution seeks to ban Sharia Law. The issue will be voted on by Oklahomans on November 2 of this year. Call it "Islamophobia"...

The Koran, The Spoils of War, and Ten Dead Christians

The news flowing from Afganistan over the past several days has concerned the ten Medical Workers murdered in the Kuran Wa Munjan district of Badakhshan, in the North East of Afghanistan.

Initially, it was reported that the ten victims were likely ambushed by thieves intent only on relieving them of their valuables and their lives. But when the Taliban claimed responsibility, it came as something of a shock to the authorities. The Taliban claimed that the group, most of whom were members of the International Assistance Mission (IAM), were spying for America, and attempting to convert Muslims to Christians. "That is a lie. That is not true at all. IAM is a Christian organisation, we have always been that," said Dirk Franz of the IAM.

If true, however, the proselytizing of Christianity would simply be one of many crimes committed by the group. The foremost being not having submitted to the authority of Islam as Dhimmi, or the “Protected Guilty” unbelievers subject to Sharia Law.

It should not have come as a surprise to Afghan or Western Authorities that the Taliban would target Christians simply on principle. Anyone who has read the Koran would instantly recognize that the looting of the bodies is not only permitted, but encouraged by the Eighth Sura (Chapter 8) of the Koran, aptly titled “The Spoils of War.”

Indeed, it was revealed to Muhammad (May he be wife to a dog) that the spoils of war shall belong to God and Himself exclusively (Sura 8:1), but decided to be generous with his followers keeping one fifth of all booty for himself, and dividing the rest evenly (Sura 8:41).

As followers of Muhammad claim that the mandate to Jihad is merely a command to inner struggle, their lie is laid bare in Chapter 9, Verse 44 which states the following:

Those who believe in god and the last day ask thee for no exemption from jihad with their possessions and their persons. God knows well those who do their duty. (Sura 9:44)

Apparently, according to the Sira (the chronicle of Muhammad’s Life (may he be whore to a pig) by Ibn Ishaq, third most holy book in Islam), this is a reference to Muhammad’s (may his testes be consumed by snakes) first attack on the Byzantine Empire to the north, following his conquest of the Arabian Peninsula. Before the campaign, according to Ibn Ishaq, many of the (false) Faithful begged off the duty to join the attack for various reasons. The above quoted verse was Allah’s revelation to Muhammad (may his manhood rot in rancid vinegar) that their hearts were not true.

What I do find interesting about the attack is that the three women were not also taken as “Spoils of War” as authorized in Chapter 4, Verse 24 of the Koran. Of course, it would have made for bad press in the west, assuming the Taliban care about such things in this kind of exercise.

This is the first of my blogs related to my study of the Koran. I have, in fact, read it cover to cover once a few years ago, and, of course, understood little if any of it. What little I did understand, such as Chapter 9, Verse 44 (the command to wage war) and Chapter 4, Verse 24 (Women as spoils) left me no doubt that the Koran is perhaps one of the most dangerously evil books ever published. If, however, I ever expressed such a sentiment in mixed company, I was, of course, labelled a racist. When I expressed that the Koran did, in fact command the faithful to enslave, kill, or force submission upon unbelievers, I was called a liar.

Being called a racist no longer has meaning. Those who do so simply reveal their ignorance and incapability of rational discourse.

Being called a liar, does, and I’ll stand for it no longer.

And so, I have taken it upon myself to begin my quiet, or maybe not so quiet, study of the world’s most violent theology. Violent because it commands murder, encourages dishonesty and demands to be placed above all for an Islamic World. Whereas Christianity and Judaism are concerned with faith in God and living a good life in preparation for the next, Allah demands Muslims establish his kingdom on Earth through violent action.

I’d like to give public thanks to Robert Spencer, whose books have been, and will continue to be a fabulous guide to the Koran. Personally I’ve started my studies with The Truth About Muhammad and Islam Unveiled. I have also used several translations of the Koran including those available online.