The Majestic Allah, Part 2

Is Allah 'loving'? Does He love? Seems not; if at all, very little. But He surely wants to be loved intensely...

---

"…according to Islamic beliefs, it can be postulated that if Allah stops thinking of existence, then existence will not exist. The Love of the Majestic Allah is something barely graspable to created beings [believers]…”

In this article, we categorize and analyze the various Koranic verses that incorporate the word "love". Allah spoke to his Prophet to come and guide Muslims only to love him, which Mohammad and Allah made very clear in the Koran. The claim that love is at the core of all religion is just some meaningless bullshits, at least when it comes to Islam!

A man once came to the Prophet and asked him about the hereafter. The Prophet asked him: “And what have you prepared for that time?” The man replied: “Nothing, except that I love Allah and I love you.” The Prophet answered him: “You are with the ones you love."

This ‘love’ that the Muslims are taught in the Koran is done [repetitively] by the five-time daily salat [prayers]. Here, Muslims simply praise the Prophet twice more than Allah in prostrations and in his Sunnah:

• “Say, if you love Allah, then follow me, and Allah will love you greatly and forgive your sins, for Allah is oft forgiving and merciful…” [Surah 3:31]
• “O you who have faith, whoever among you turns back from his religion, Allah will surely bring forth a people He loves and who love Him, who are humble before the faithful and exalted before the deniers. They strive in the way of Allah and fear no blame from any blamers. This is the favor of Allah; He bestows it on whomever He wills. For Allah is all-encompassing, all-knowing!” [Surah 5:54]

The Prophet once told his dear companion, Muazh Ibn Jabal: “Muazh, I do love you!” Muazh replied, “And I love you, Messenger of Allah, more dearly than my own father and mother!” The Prophet then instructed Muazh: “Do not end a prayer without asking Allah to help you remember Him, to be thankful to Him, and to serve Him in the best of ways.”

For Muslims, praying to Allah is not as simple as it seems. It is really impossible to learn how to pray until and unless by first learning the everlasting love of Allah, His faith and their devotions.

There are many Islamic books written on the positions of salat and other tafseer books on how the beloved Prophet prayed, but few ever delve into Islam ….and that is pure ‘love’ of Allah! Until and unless Muslims' heart and mind is taught about this, will it ever knows or grows in love? Muhammad said: "Allah does not accept the Prayers of a momin [believer], until his heart achieves in it what his body has achieved." [Al- Ghazali in ‘Ihya-Uloom ad-Deen’]

Islam teaches Muslims to love Allah and his beloved Prophet [only] more than their own life, more than their families. Deen [faith] can not be taught, but it can be gifted to Muslims by Allah as a blessed gift or event. When the heart is happy, then Muslims will, indeed, be on the right path to human righteousness [which the Muslims don’t know of?]. It was narrated by Anas: The Prophet said: “No one of you truly believes, until I am dearer to him than his father, his son, his own self and all the people." [Al-Bukhari 15; Muslim 44]

Does the Majestic Allah teach ‘LOVE’ in his Koran?

Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger: But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith [Islam]. (Surah 3:32)

In Islamic scripture, Allah appears to be, present Himself as, a loving Father, the loving Creator. Allah created man to burn in hell. Allah does not love those, who do not accept him blindly.

"Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle; nay more misguided: for they are heedless [of warning]. (Surah 7:179)

These are the words of Allah that many men and Jinns are created to burn in hell

• “They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be [all] alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly [their homes] in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.” [Surah 4:089]
• You who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy as friends, showing love for them when they have rejected the truth that has come to you, driving out the Messenger and yourselves simply because you believe in God your Lord. If you go out to strive in My Way and seeking my pleasures, keeping secret the love you have for them, know best what you conceal and what you make known. Any of you who do that have strayed from the right way. [Surah 60:1]

Allah forbids Muslims from being good to those, who have not fought for religion and who've driven Muslims from their lands, or from being ‘just’ toward them. Allah merely forbids Muslims from taking as friends [unbelievers]. However, it is helpful to understand that Allah won't spare those or have any mercy toward them, who do not believe in Him, despite claiming repeated that ‘Allah is the Al-Merciful and Al-Understanding and Al-Compassionate’.

Moreover, the Koran tells Muslims to fight non-believers.

While "God is great" (Allahu akbar) is a statement of the Islamic faith, which Muslims, starting with Muhammad, used and use as the battle-cry in their violence and wars, the affirmation and expressions—"God is love" (Allahu muhibba)—is absent as an attribute of Allah in Islamic discourse and literature. While Islam recognizes Christians as "the people of the book" and that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, it's a sheer contrast between the two faiths that "God is love" is a oft-repeated phrase in Christian scriptures and discourse, but totally absent in Islam.

It is appropriate to take a look at the Koran to seek out how the Majestic Allah position himself concerning 'love'.

The translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali has been chosen [for this study], as it is probably the most popular bilingual version used in English speaking countries. The translation itself tends to be interpretive and sometimes propagandistic rather than literal, so occasionally the English word "love" is used without any linguistic warrants.

While it would have been interesting to include the references from the large body of Hadith of the word love, it would be excluded in this investigation, because although Muslims hold the Ahadith in high esteems, it is generally held as of lower authority than the Koran; and many Muslims lately have even started questioning the authenticity of certain statements of ahadith. However, investigations reveal that Bukhari ahadith lists 95 uses of love and 36 of loved; Muslim lists 22 usages of love and 4 for loved; Abu Dawud lists only 10 for love, one for loved; and Malik's Muwatta lists love 12 times and loved 4 times.

In the Quran, Islam's divine scripture, the occurrence of the term 'love' or its derivatives is rather limited. Most of these usages have to do with human love or love of things and only a limited number referring to Allah's love. The Bible lists 409 uses of love with 223 in the New Testament alone.

The word love (Hubb in Arabic) in its various grammatical forms is used 69 times in the holy Koran; few given below:

• “Ah! Ye are those who love [hubb] them, but they love [hubb] you not, though ye believe in the whole of the Book. When they meet you they say, "We believe": But when they are alone, they bite off the very tips of their fingers at you in their rage. Say: "Perish in your rage; Allah knoweth well all the secrets of the heart." [Surah 3:119]

• “And among His Signs is this, which He created for you mates from among yourselves, whom ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your [hearts]: Verily in that are Signs for those who reflect”. [Surah 30:21]
• “That is [the Bounty] whereof Allah gives Glad Tidings to His Servants who believe and do righteous deeds. Say: "No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin.” And if any one earns any good, we shall give him an increase of good in respect thereof: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most ready to appreciate [service]”. [Surah 42:23]
• “O ye, who believe! Take not My enemies and yours as friends [or protectors], -offering them [your] love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have [on the contrary] driven out the Prophet and yourselves [from your homes], [simply] because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, [take them not as friends], holding secret converse of love [and friendship] [mawadda] with them: For I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path”. [Surah 60:1]
• “It may be that Allah will grant love [and friendship] between you and those whom ye [now] hold as enemies. For Allah has power [over all things]; and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”. [Surah 60:7]

Mentions of 'love' in above verses refer to friendship among human beings, that too, mainly as reprimands, or referring to 'love' that is not permitted or disliked by Allah. There is also the teaching in Surah 5:85 that the Christians are the closest in friendship to believing Muslims.

A part of the first sermon given by the Prophet at Medina, this is what Mohammed had to say to his companions:

“Verily, the best discourse is the Book of Allah. One is truly successful whose heart Allah has adorned with the love of His Book, and whom, after living in denial, Allah has caused to enter into submission to Him, and caused him to prefer His Book above any human discourse. The Book of Allah is the most beautiful and eloquent of discourses”.

“Love that which Allah loves! Love Allah with all your hearts! Grow not weary of hearing the Word of Allah. Do not stop remembering Him. Do not let your hearts grow hard toward Him. For verily, Allah has preferred His Book above all of Creation. Indeed, Allah has endowed it with guidance to the best of deeds, and made it an example for the elect of His servants, and filled it with righteous discourse, and has made clear in it what is lawful and unlawful for you”.

“So, serve Allah alone, and associate with Him no other. Be ever conscious of Him. Be truthful to Allah in what you utter from your mouths. Let the Spirit of Allah be the source of love between you”.

Can you hear love in the Prophet’s words?

Can you hear his urgent call to a believer’s hearts?

Can Muslims ever sense the profound purpose of LOVE in Allah’s teaching?

To Be Continued…

Islam & the Mental Immune System

Our beliefs and ideas make us who we are and the qualities of those beliefs and ideas determine the kind of person we are. We shield and fiercely defend our beliefs and ideas for good reason: without both integrity and internal harmony, the mind becomes disorganized and even dysfunctional...

While our inborn immune system fights off viruses and bacteria that aim to kill us, another immune system, the mental immune system—MIS—gradually formed after birth, protects the mind and takes every measure to keep the mind’s ideas and beliefs on the same page. In general we inherit our opinions. We are the heirs of habits and mental customs. Our beliefs, like the fashion of our dresses, depend on where we were born. We are molded and fashioned by our surroundings.

If we had been born in Saudi Arabia, the most of us would have said: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger." If our parents had lived on the banks of the Ganges, we would have been worshipers of Siva, longing for the heaven of Nirvana. As a rule, children love their parents, believe what they teach, and take great pride in saying that the religion of mother is good enough for them regardless of what that religion entails or tells them to do.

Humans are living information machines, receiving input from both external sources as well as the body’s internal cues, processing it in some fashion, and producing output: our thoughts and behavior. From the moment of birth, parents, siblings, and others play a pivotal part in supplying the input messages we receive and influencing how it is processed within us.

The raw material for ideas and beliefs reaches us through the senses. The brain takes the massive barrage of input and attempts to organize it and incorporate it in an orderly fashion: a monumental task that is taken for granted until something goes seriously wrong. Relatively minor glitches in the working of the mind, such as misunderstanding, misperception, and making poor decisions, occur daily and may not present serious problems. Over time, however, even these minor glitches in the mind, caused by faulty input, poor processing or both, can add up and significantly compromise its integrity. This is referred to as “cognitive dissonance” when we become internally incongruent resulting from an inconsistency within our important attitude, beliefs, or behavior, thus we utilize defense mechanisms in order for our ego to deal with the anxiety.

The MIS is not limited to the sole task of preventing intrusion of the disruptive or undesirable input. It also actively seeks ideas that are harmonious and confirmatory of the ones already in the mind. Through the active admission of supporting ideas, the MIS reinforces its defenses and reduces its vulnerability.

Given the tabula rasa—blank slate—nature of the mind, early input becomes of paramount importance in determining its further development. It was in recognition of this reality that the famed behavioral psychologist, J. B. Watson proclaimed:

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years.”

What Watson said may not hold perfectly in every case. Yet, the essence of his boast is indeed supported by numerous studies as well as naturalistic observations. Early environmental influences play the cardinal role in programming the mind—setting it on its course. One great example in psychology is the study conducted by Albert Bandura and his colleagues in 1963 called “The Bobo Doll”. Children watched adults interact with a Bobo Doll. Those children who witnessed adults’ model aggressive violent acts towards the doll replicated the observed behavior when given the chance to play with the doll. Subsequently, the children who observed adults play gently with the doll also replicated the behavior. In actuality, the brain seems to say: first come, first served. It is for this reason that Muslims are overwhelmingly born to Muslim parents, Hindus to Hindu parents, Catholics to Catholic parents, and so on.

This is not to say that changes, even major changes, are not possible after the early years. They are possible and they do happen in some instances. However, in order for major changes to happen, major re-working must take place in the mind. Change is effortful and the law of conservation of energy also applies to the working of the mind and mitigates change unless the incentives to do so overcome the default mode of inertia.

The parents, other adults and children, as well as the prevailing culture are powerful teachers and trainers of the young mind. In the Islamic world, Islam permeates every aspect of life with overbearing severity. The young mind has little access to competing non-Islamic input. As the child’s foundation of belief forms, the MIS works to protect it, further reinforce it, and bar, falsify, or dismiss any ideas that may clash with the mind’s already in-place contents.

As humans, we lack comprehensive pre-programmed software—instincts—to direct us in life. We, however, are born with pre-dispositions—rudiments of software programs that will be further elaborated in interaction with life. We are, therefore, importantly dependent on how we and others, and in what fashion, further elaborate the rudimentary software. Somehow, there has been a trade-off. As our brain evolved both in size and power, what few instincts we may have had gave way. In a real sense, we took charge of our own destiny.

Science is learning more and more about the brain/mind, considered by many experts as the most complex and enigmatic entity in the universe. With each passing day, another piece of the brain/mind puzzle falls in place. Just recently psychologist Drew Western and his team at Emory University used FMRI—functional magnetic resonance imaging—on 15 strong Republicans and 15 staunch Democrats to literally pinpoint the parts of the brain involved in what is called “confirmation bias,” the lead faculty of the MIS. The participants were asked to evaluate statements by George W. Bush and John Kerry where the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. The researchers found that the Republicans were as critical of John Kerry as the Democrats were of George W. Bush, while both fiercely defended their respective political comrade.

The surprising part of the study is that while the confirmation bias was at work, the brain areas ordinarily associated with rational decision-making were inactive. By contrast, an elaborate network of brain structures that process emotion and conflicts were highly activated. In short, confirmation bias has its own brain resources that shunt out the reasoning parts in order to protect the already in-place beliefs and preferences.

The confirmation bias, the mainstay of the MIS, protects beliefs values and ideas, be they political, religious, or of any other type; it is also helped in the discharge of its functions by the mind’s defense mechanisms such as rationalization (faulty reasoning) and denial (refusing to accept the reality of the irrefutable). Allocation of extensive faculties of the brain to content protection demonstrates the critical importance to its normal functioning of safeguarding the mind’s contents. It is important to remember that rationality is not the master faculty of the brain.

Emotions also play major parts in even tasks that are ordinarily thought to be the purview of rationality, particularly when one’s beliefs, values, and ideas are at stake. Much of the work of the MIS is done without the person himself being fully aware of it. Confirmation bias seems to be almost automatic and autonomous—a first line of defense against unwelcome intruders and a means of summoning other resources of the mind to defeat the unwelcome invaders.

The MIS is not strictly static and defensive. As it protects what is in-place, it also actively seeks to expand the prowess of the mind by incorporating new knowledge—preferring the kind of knowledge that does not conflict with the body of information already at hand. This necessary openness feature of the MIS makes it susceptible to invasion by some disharmonious input that creates conflicts in the mind and presents the risk of paralyzing or seriously compromising its functioning. “Beliefs” can be thought of as the main framework of the mind while “ideas” are the minor components that connect the grid-work together.

Total or major replacement of beliefs, particularly as one gets older, becomes less likely, yet it happens occasionally. Paul’s sudden transformation from a rabid Christian-persecutor to a devote believer of the faith of Christ is a familiar instance of such a drastic change. Ideas, on the other hand, are much more amenable to change, replacement or discard as long as they do not substantially undermine the integrity of the main framework—the belief.

Lacking pre-programs to negotiate life makes the person his own boss and compass. Being one’s own boss is a mixed blessing. The boss has to make decisions, many with serious implications, and accept responsibility for all outcomes. That’s what the mind has to do at all times. Faced with difficult decisions, conflicting ideas and demands they are not equipped to address, people may resort to a variety of alternatives such as “regression” (acting child-like) to absolve themselves of the responsibility of deciding and acting on their own. People, therefore, are often willing to let someone else do the thinking, deciding and acting for them. Conformity becomes easier because it diffuses one’s own responsibility. In the case of regression caused by the stress of the inability to cope, the person reverts to the time that the parents handled those chores the defense mechanisms act by lessening anxiety caused by the cognitive dissonance.

It is in this vein that some people wish to go back, figuratively, to the primordial time—the time that perhaps our life was steered primarily by reflexes and instincts and the conscious volitional brain played only minor roles. For this reason, there is a great deal of appeal to surrender the brain to another—a substitute for the instincts we lack. By so doing, we would be largely freed from the often daunting task of having to make critical decisions ourselves referred to as: “Diffusion of Responsibility.” That external brain can present itself as a leader, a prophet of God, or a charlatan.

We like to think of ourselves as rational beings. Yet, our rational nature is only one part of the brain/mind enigma. We are also emotional beings. We tend to favor our rational side, because it is generally fact-based, orderly and leaves little room for uncertainty—all importantly operative components of our emotional nature.

Religious belief is primarily emotionally based. There is no way of rationally proving or disproving the religious faith. Faith and reason are not the same. “Fore of the core religious faith is that mystic feeling which unites man with God,” a religious luminary has proclaimed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with religion. Religion can be a tremendous force for the good. However, when religion, this feeling-based belief, is filled with superstition, intolerance and hatred, then the beholder of that religion embodies those qualities and becomes a veritable menace to the self and to others. Feelings energize actions. Destructive feelings energize destructive actions.

Muslims living in theocratic states, in particular, tend to be victims of their religious brains: their religious brains are indoctrinated, from the moment of birth, by an extensive ruthless in-power cadre of self-serving mullahs and imams who are intent at maintaining their stranglehold on the rank and file of the faithful—their very source of support and livelihood. Allah does not reward his followers for their honesty, generosity and bravery, but for the act of faith and blind obedience. Without faith, all the so-called virtues were sins, and the men who practiced these virtues, without faith in Allah, deserved to suffer eternal pain.

The mullahs and imams, as well as parents and others, envelop the receptive mind, feed it their dogma, and shield it from information that may undermine or falsify their version of belief.

Nothing serves as a greater joy than to know that this belief in eternal pain is growing weaker every day -- that thousands of brainwashed Mullahs, Imams are ashamed of their action. It gives us joy and hope to know that Muslims are becoming merciful, so merciful that the fires of hell are burning low -- flickering, choked with ashes, destined in a few years to die out forever.

However, for as long as there are bigoted, self-serving clergy and their collaborators with first exclusive access to the blank slate, the problem of supplying wave after wave of Islamofascists will persist. It is the brain/mind that assesses things, makes decisions, and orders actions. To the extent that the in-place software of the religious brain is exclusionary in nature, hateful in orientation, and violent in tendency, to that extent the individual is both the perpetrator and the victim of barbaric acts.

The surest way of dealing with Islam’s intolerant views is through effective inculcation of a religious software that promotes tolerance of diversity, freedom of faith and conscious, goodwill to all, as well as purging of all the vile and discriminatory dogma that permeates the out-dated primitive belief of some 1400 years ago. The best place to start is clearly the home, then schools, and mosques where the deeply-entrenched mullahs and imams of vested interest must be compelled by law to refrain from preaching messages of hate and violence against the unbelievers.

Perhaps free societies should constitute a diverse panel of citizens to scrutinize all religious teachings and screen the software programs for destructive viruses. Once these viruses are introduced into the mind, clearing them, as we said before, becomes difficult if not impossible.

A religious brain programmed by the message of justice, love and respect for all is bliss, while the discriminatory, hateful, and violent religious brain is a curse.

---

Dr.Wafa Sultan, a Syrian ex-Muslims, is a Psychologist and the author of "A God Who Hates". Amil Imani, an Iranian ex-Muslim, is the author of “Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.”

Civilizational War

Sharia, the Islamic legal code, is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims in every detail --- sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. All aspects of life---religion, politics, ethics, culture---are within the bounds of Sharia. It is the operating manual for a complete civilization. And the civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.

---

THE CIVILIZATION OF ISLAM

One of the clearest lessons about Islam is found in the Sharia. The largest part of the Sharia is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims down to the smallest detail. There is no aspect of life that is not regulated-sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. There is no aspect of life that is outside the power of Sharia-religion, politics, ethics, culture are included. The Sharia is the operating manual for a complete civilization. Islam is complete within itself and needs nothing from the outside.

The Sharia has one other quality that is as important as the totality of its scope. The civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.

Inside Islam justice, religion, politics, law, human rights and compassion do not mean what they mean to us. All of these ideas are based on the principles of submission and duality as found in the Sharia.

OUR CIVILIZATION

Our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. We do not always fulfill the principles, but they are the ideals we strive for, and can be used for debate and self-criticism to correct and improve our culture.

Our principles lead to the ideals of critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and a free-ranging humor.

These are beautiful ideals and they are worth keeping and striving towards. Do we meet them? No, but what is more important they contradict the Sharia. It is one thing to fail to achieve these ideals, but it is entirely another to see them disappear as a public option under the impact of Sharia. Sharia law limits critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and humor.

CIVILIZATIONAL WAR

Part of the genius of Islam is the totality of Sharia, which includes a concept of war that attacks the host civilization at every aspect of its being. In modern times the military power of Islam is weak, but this is more than compensated by its ability to attack along legal and cultural lines under the guise of being a religion.

As Sharia is applied to a society, the host civilization is annihilated in each and every manifestation of culture. This annihilation is demonstrated by a peculiar fact about the history of Islamic countries-part of it is missing. Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist civilization. We see its remnants in ruins and fragments such as the Bamiyan Buddhas that were destroyed by the Taliban. Who knows the Buddhist history of Afghanistan? Practically speaking, it does not exist. Who knows the history of how Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq went from being Christian to Islamic?

We don't know the history because of the total annihilation of the past cultures by Sharia law. As time goes on customs, law, art, literature, and ethics of the host culture are replaced by Islamic values under the application of Sharia. The result is that there is nothing left of the history before the implementation of Sharia law.

There is a second aspect of this annihilation---the dhimmitude of the Kafirs (non-Muslims) remaining inside Islamic society. If you talk to Christians who are left in Islamic countries, they are an abused people who are unable to fight back after centuries of suffering and degradation under Sharia law. They are not supported by other Kafirs and are left to suffer under the oppression that will eliminate their few numbers. Whatever memory they have of the past is ignored by those who should be defending them.

If we are to go down the Sharia road, history teaches that it has always led to an Islamic mono-culture. In the end, there is no such thing as a little Sharia.

---

Bill Warner is the Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. This article first appeared on the American Thinker Website.

Behind the Veil of Islam: The Grand Jihad

“If you know your enemy and yourself, you will win a hundred battles; if you know neither your enemies nor yourself, you will lose every battle.” Sun Tzu – The Art of War

A foreign enemy is undermining America. An organization founded in Egypt in 1928, sworn to eradicate democracy, is working to raise their black flag over America and every other nation in the world. With plans to destroy our Constitution, it has infiltrated the highest levels of government, defense, and law enforcement. Bearded and robed, it walks the streets of our cities and lurks in hostile ghettos. It is the Muslim Brotherhood. Why does the Obama administration refuse to even name it?

The White House does not admit there is a mortal danger to the Republic and refuses to take the first two steps to oppose it: name the enemy and then learn his doctrine. But even if Washington will not face the truth and study the enemy’s plans, there is a growing number of Americans who do name names and who do sound the alarm. Andrew McCarthy is one.

McCarthy’s credentials are impressive. A top federal prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney for the southern district of New York, he was decorated with the Justice Department’s highest honors. Why? Among other things he prosecuted and convicted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the infamous ‘Blind Sheik,’ at considerable risk to his safety and that of his family. These days the media do not remind you that Sheik Rahman was the mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that killed six Americans and injured 1,042 others.

Evidence McCarthy organized for the Rahmadan trial is now part of a body of knowledge that includes facts unearthed for the 2004 conviction of Abdurahman Alamoudi for funding terrorism. (Alamoudi, before receiving a 23-year sentence, had been an honored White House guest of presidents Clinton and Bush.) And then came a treasure trove of evidence unearthed in the 2008 Texas Holy Land Foundation trial that sent five more Muslims to jail for collecting and sending millions of dollars to terrorist organizations. The huge and growing compendium of documented court evidence proves the Muslim Brotherhood has pernicious control of American Muslims. Experts like Andrew McCarthy know this in detail. The rest of us need only read the credo of the Muslim Brotherhood to understand their plans for us. In their own words

“The Ikhwan (the Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the unbelievers so that it is eliminated and God’s (Allah’s) religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Is that clear? It was clear to McCarthy and he took it as the title of his book, The Grand Jihad, How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (Encounter Books, 455 pp, $27.95). This book lives on my desk because it answers two questions: Why do Muslims blow up buildings, highjack airplanes, and kill Americans if their real plot is to destroy us from within; and why did President Obama say to the Turkish Parliament, “Let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and never will be at war with Islam.”

The Grand Jihad explains the dichotomy between violent acts of terrorism and secret subversion, and establishes the parallels between the Muslim Brotherhood and the hard left, in other words, the Obama administration.

The first half of the book is a carefully assembled and footnoted series of facts that show the uninitiated the exact nature of the Muslim Brotherhood plan for domination. It is not only what one expects from a top prosecutor, it is readable and spirited and uses their own documented words to show that Muslims are here to take over the country.

Violence opposed to subversion? The Muslims are a house divided only by method. The deadly breed of jihadists imagines they will reach their goal by killing and terror; the Muslim Brotherhood knows they will reach their goal by stealth and by using our constitutional freedoms against us. Is that a dichotomy? Can we oppose Islamist violence and, at the same time, deal with those self-proclaimed “moderate” Muslims? No, because their goal is absolutely the same: To make Sharia law the only law in America. For Islamist terrorist and secretive Muslim Brother alike, there is only the overarching goal of no democracy and no Constitution—only Islam.

The second half of McCarthy’s book demonstrates that the socialist agenda of the Revolutionary Left, the same political view of President Obama’s administration, is in complete synchronization with Islamic goals. Ideas of Alinsky and Ayers are what drive the Obama administration. In McCarthy’s words: “Today’s hard left is defined by what it is against: the United States, free-market capitalism, and any foreign policy premised on defending American interests or promoting individual liberty.” Does that echo the Muslim brotherhood’s credo? McCarthy underlines his analysis on page 12: “The faith to which Obama actually clings is neocommunism. It is a leftism of the most insidious kind: secular and uncompromising in its rejection of bourgeois values, but feverishly spiritual in its zeal to tear down the existing order…”

He goes on to list the set of abstractions and code words of the hard left: “social justice,” “equality,” “redistributive rights,” and President Obama’s stated desire to, “spread the wealth around.” The hard left has no clear vision of what the new state they desire will actually look like (except they will rule it) because nihilism is the key to White House policy. They believe it will all work out, somehow, once the existing structure of laws and custom is destroyed.

On the other hand, Islamists have no such vague notions; their central imperative is simply the propagation of Sharia law. And once the Ikhwan puts Sharia in place, the game is over. That is what jihad means to Islamists: A mandate directly from Allah to subdue all non-Muslims by persuasion and subversion, or by slaughter and the sword. It’s all in the Koran, the absolute and unchangeable words of Allah—words that command Muslims to bring conversion, death, or slavery to every Christian, Jew, and infidel.

Don’t believe it? Ask the girl at the supermarket checkout counter, the girl with a scarf wrapped around her head and who refuses to handle your bottle of wine. She will tell you.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing editor Chet Nagle is a Naval Academy graduate and Cold War carrier pilot who flew in the Cuban Missile Crisis. After a stint as a navy research officer, he joined International Security Affairs as a Pentagon civilian – then came defense and intelligence work, life abroad for 12 years as an agent for the CIA, and extensive time in Iran, Oman, and many other countries. Along the way, he graduated from the Georgetown University Law School and was the founding publisher of a geo-political magazine, The Journal of Defense & Diplomacy, read in over 20 countries and with a circulation of 26,000. At the end of his work in the Middle East, he was awarded the Order of Oman in that allied nation’s victory over communist Yemen; now, he writes and consults. He and his wife Dorothy live in Virginia.

Chet Nagle

Democracy vs. Mobocracy

In my article Obama and the Birth of Mobocracy in America I argued that this illegitimate president is trying to use the mob, the mobile vulgus, that brought him to power to undo the democracy and through them reduce America into ochlocracy. And since he can sway and easily manipulate his emotionally charged and intellectually disengaged devotees who have mistaken this ‘pied piper’ as their messiah, he would eventually be able to control all three branches of the government and establish himself as the de facto dictator of the United States of America.

Obama and the Birth of Mobocracy in America

Sadly, these are not hypothesis and assumptions but facts that can be observed by watching Obama’s moves, even so early in the game. Obama is a narcissist and as such hungry for power. He would commit perjury, felony and even crime and will surround himself with likeminded crooks to maintain his grip on power. Once a narcissist has the power, he finds it difficult to let go. Hitler, Mussolini, Nicolea Ceausescu and Saddam had to be separated from power in coffins at incalculable cost to millions of innocent people.

One friend argued that Democracy and mobocracy are one and the same. “The accurate definition of democracy” She wrote, “as stated by our founding father, James Madison is: ‘A pure democracy, by which I mean a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischief’s of factions (special interests).’ ~James Madison, Fed. #10.”

She insisted that America is not a ‘democracy,’ but a ‘republic’ - “a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” ~James Madison, Fed. #10.

The Founding Fathers of the United States were critical of democracy. However, what they intended by democracy, as can be seen from Madison’s definition of it was ochlocracy. Ochlocracy is the direct form of democracy, where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally. This form of democracy is practical in small communities, such as in city-state.

However, direct form of government generally leads to chaos. That is because the masses of people are unaware of the intricacies of politics and economics and they tend to vote for their own special interest. As the result the government is monopolized by the mob who regardless of their number and claims to speak for ‘the people’, often do not represent the (silent) majority. The silent majority by definition is silent and its participation in the government is indirect.

James Madison argued that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. (The Federalist #. 10)

What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted, [Novanglus, no. 7, 6 Mar. 1775] was that the government be “bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend.”

As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him “Sir, what have you given us? “He replied, “A republic ma’am, if you can keep it.”

Republican Government

Because of these, many Americans, erroneously believe that America is not a democracy, but a republic and that these two are mutually exclusive.

Nothing is further from the truth.

America is a democracy first and foremost; whose polity is constitutional republic. The Islamic Republic of Iran is also a constitutional republic, where the Shari’a is its constitution. However, the IRI is not a democracy, and there lies the difference.

The origin of the word ‘republic’ is res publica, a Latin phrase, literally meaning “public thing” or “public matter”.

Dictionary.com defines the word republic as:

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Several banana republics, fall into this definition. By this definition the government of Venezuela, headed by Hugo Chavez is a republic. What sets America apart is not the fact that it is a republic but the fact that it is a constitutional democracy.

There are many forms of democracies, each with their characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. American democracy is a constitutional democracy (a.k.a. liberal democracy). A constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities. (Wikipedia)

Note on Democracy (Wikipedia)

The term “liberal” in “liberal democracy” does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power, which were first proposed during the Age of Enlightenment by social contract theorists such a Rousseau and later Hobbs. (Ibid)

Liberal Democracy

Constitutional democracy is very different from direct democracy or participatory democracy. Direct democracy is ochlocracy and when the masses are under the sway of a charismatic leader, it leads to dictatorship. It’s this direct democracy that the Founding Fathers criticized, while what they wrote was not just a republic but a constitutional democracy.

Words can assume various meanings in different times. It seems that when the constitution was being written, what people understood by democracy was participatory democracy or mobocracy. We should not blame them. The whole concept was a novel idea and they were the pioneers in the field. However, in this day and age when we have a full understanding of the concept we should not confuse constitutional democracy with direct democracy. Direct democracy is mobocracy. It is the mobocracy that the Framers of Constitution criticized and what they called ‘republic’ is now properly called ‘constitutional democracy.’ To say America is not a democracy, but a republic is wrong and misleading. While this definition is true about Iran, Venezuela and other banana republics, it is not true about America, or better said, it has not been so up until Obama’s election.

By saying America is not democracy but a republic, we would be putting America in the same league of Iran, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Venezuela, and a host of other banana republics. These countries are republics. All of them have their own constitution. But they are not democracies. Democracy does not mean the tyranny of the majority. It means protection of the rights and freedoms of all individuals, and particularly the minorities who are given ample chance to not only criticize the government of the majority but even to topple it in another election.

Constitutional democracies may take various forms: they may be republic, as the United States or France, or monarchy, as the United Kingdom or Spain. They may have a presidential system, like in United States, a parliamentary system, like in Canada and Commonwealth countries, or a mixed form as in France.

Canada and UK are not republics. Iran and Venezuela are. To which countries America resembles more? What distinguishes civilized countries form uncivilized countries, is the fact that they are constitutional democracies, not because they are republics.

This friend also added “Our responsibilities DO NOT stop at the ballot box. Our laziness and passivity forces us to stop at the ballot box.”

I am afraid that I have to disagree with her again. In fact here she is even contradicting James Madison, Fed. #10, whom she quoted earlier - “a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

Either the government is run by the people’s elected representatives or it is run directly by the people themselves. We cannot have it both ways. In the first case we have constitutional democracy and representative government. In the second case we have ochlocracy, turbulence, violence and mob rule. How can we be for the rule of law and representative government on one hand and advocate continuous participation of the mob in the decision making of the government? I repeat again what I said in my previous article. In a constitutional democracy, the kind envisioned by the Framers of the US Constitution, the responsibility and participation of the people ‘begins and ends’ at the ballot box. Anything else is mobocracy. It is not laziness but respect for the democratic process that should keep people away from meddling in the government. Once they elect their representatives, they should not micro-manage them. This is what Obama intends to do and he must be stopped.

In every election there is one group that wins and others that lose. Where there is a constitution, the losers let the winners run the government, because everyone has agreed on doing so. The constitution makes this binding. In civilized societies we do not rush to the streets rioting and burning cars and houses and killing people as Odinga, Obama’s cousin did in Kenya when he lost the elections. If our side is the winner we don’t have to do anything because our candidates have won and we trust them. So what kind of direct participation can people have in a representative government?

People’s participation becomes necessary ONLY when the constitution is disregarded. This is what is happening today in America. A usurper is sitting in the White House, who may be an alien with questionable loyalties. He refuses to abide by the law and prove his eligibility. He mocks the constitution and the entire democratic process. The media, the politicians, the lawmakers and the judges are all in cahoots. Either through ignorance or fear, or because of personal interest they are silent. This is the time that people must take the matters in their hands and force their elected representatives to abide by and respect the Constitution.

The Constitution is a social contract that is binding on everyone. Whether you are the electee or the elector you must abide by the Constitution. If one side breaches this contract, as it is happening now in America, the other side must stand up and defend its rights.

I am not advocating outright violence and revolution. The resistance must be gradual and incremental. People tried to go through legal venues, but no judge heard their case. All the cases were dismissed on the ground of ‘lack of standing,’ as if Americans have no standing to know whether their president is legitimate or an impostor. Now is the time for the military to step in. They must know whether they are taking orders from a legitimate commander-in-chief or from a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If they fail, the next step is civil disobedience. I believe if this is supported by a large number of people it will succeed. But if everything fails then armed uprising becomes, not only necessary, but also inevitable.

Why it is important to make sure the Constitution is not violated? It is because the danger of losing the freedom in America will become a real possibility. A man who lies to you and fools you to become president will not stop at that, he is an evil man capable of destroying the country from within and causing deaths to many innocent people.

Dr. Ali Sina

Mosques and the Islamization of America

Disguised as Religion, Islam has penetrated democracies with the aim of replacing civility and liberty with barbarism of the 7th-century Islamic theocracy and Sharia law. Islam's multi-pronged attack aims to destroy all that liberty offers.

---

America, with a long tradition of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the “hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call. We must keep in mind that to be a loyal and faithful Muslim, a Muslim must adhere to and perform many obligatory acts, as specified in the Quran by Allah and the Hadith/Sunna, during his entire life.

The mosque serves as a house where Muslim devotees gather together for salat (prayer) and worshiping Allah and his messenger, the prophet Muhammad. Aside from worshiping Allah, a mosque is used for a variety of reasons. These meeting places are perfect warehouses of not only indoctrination, but future terrorists, who are made to read and understand the principles of Jihad, martyrdom and Dar ul Harb (“land of war”—any place not Islamacized.) Mosques cost money, and the money for these warehouses of intolerance is coming straight from Saudi Arabia, the number one terrorist state in the world.

These mosques are being infused with an activist strain of Islam, Wahhabism. If you have to ask where the Saudi’s are getting their money, you are not paying attention...it's coming from you. Not to mention, the current U.S. administration in its continuous war against the American people, is doing everything it can to accommodate the “Cordoba Initiative” project at taxpayers’ expense “that is spearheading plans to build a $100 million Islamic center at Ground Zero, the site where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by jihadists on 9/11.” The recent CNN Poll shows 68% of American voters oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

Those useful idiot non-Muslims who support the building of the mosque near the 9/11 site or anywhere else by invoking the ideal of religious freedom, are empowering a creed that is devoted to stamping out freedom of religion or any other form of freedom.

In this relentless campaign, the Islamists have a vast cadre of “experts,” “talking heads,” and for-purchase politicians who keep endlessly broadcasting the false mantra that Islam is a religion of peace. This latter bunch is criminally complicit in making the populace complacent and furthering the work of the Islamists.

When mosques are built, imams, mullahs or mosque elders tend to be sent to the U.S. with one clear mission: Make Islamic religion, laws, and life supreme within the Unite States or any other host country, using any and all tactics necessary. Next, from within the safety of their local mosques, they begin to use their revolting practices and wild sermonizing to force the genteel Americans to relocate to safer, less threatening neighborhoods and cities as is the case in England and other European countries.

They will elect Muslims to all positions of local influence, who will create and enforce policy according to the Sharia law. Once they have control over a town, they will begin to establish informal Sharia, and there’s nothing the government can (or will want to) do about it.

Sharia is the brutal means by which Islam controls its populations by force, intimidation, and punishments for offenses to Allah. Already in many European countries, national governments have, out of fear, given Islamic fascists the right to establish their own shadow governments within the borders of countries like Sweden and England, where they can control their own populations without accountability. Proposals for Sharia are being taken seriously by many western countries.

“According to early Muslim historians, towns that surrendered without resistance and made treaties with the Muslims gave the Muslims permission to take their churches and synagogues. One of the earliest examples of these kinds of conversions was in Damascus, Syria, where in 705 AD Umayyad caliph Al-Walid I bought the church of St. John from the Christians and had it rebuilt as a mosque in exchange for building a number of new churches for the Christians in Damascus. Overall, Abd al-Malik (Al-Waleed's father) is said to have transformed 10 churches in Damascus into mosques.”

“The process of turning churches into mosques was especially intensive in the villages where most of the inhabitants converted to Islam. The Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun turned many churches into mosques. Ottoman Turks converted nearly all churches, monasteries, and chapels in Constantinople, including the famous Hagia Sophia, immediately after capturing the city in 1453, into mosques. In some instances mosques have been established on the places of Jewish or Christian sanctuaries associated with Biblical personalities who were also recognized by Islam.”

Again, Muslims first make their mark by establishing mosques in as many towns and cities as they can. These mosques range from the ostentatious, such as the one in Washington D.C., to the academically-cloaked university Islamic centers, to the innocuous storefront types and even prison chapels. One and all have the same aims: Hold the faithful in line, recruit as many new adherents by any and all means, and indoctrinate one and all in the imperative of Islamic conquest.

It is in these Islamic places that the impressionable young and the fanatical adults are drilled with the duty to carry out Jihad against the Dar ul Harb (“land of war”—any place not completely under the rule of Islam.)

Operating this vast network of Islamism requires significant financing. Saudi Arabia has spent over $80 billion for these operations since 1970. The other Persian Gulf States, with their treasuries flush with oil money, have done and continue to do their share of financing.

Not to be out-done by the virulent Wahhabism of the Saudis and their co-sectist Sunnis, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been bank-rolling its own array of clientele in the Middle East, much of Africa, and as far away as Southeast Asia and Latin America in a push for Shiism. The-non-Muslim world is literally caught in a pincer of the two rabid Islamic forces.

There are those who still delude themselves by preferring to believe that Islam has not made as many inroads into the United States as it has in other parts of the world, such as Europe. Facts prove otherwise.

According to a National Portrait, a survey released in April 2001, there were at least 1,209 mosques in the US. According to the latest report, this number has sky-rocketed to as many as 6,000 mosques in 2008.

“The official Saudi website reported a donation of $6 million, also in 1995, for a mosque in Cincinnati, Ohio. The website further stated, in 2000, "In the United States, the Kingdom has contributed to the establishment of the Islamic Center in Washington DC; the Omer Bin Al-Khattab Mosque in western Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Islamic Center, and the Fresno Mosque in California; the Islamic Center in Denver, Colorado; the Islamic center in Harrison, New York City; and the Islamic Center in Northern Virginia."

This entire guesstimate aside, a recent report from the FBI estimates that of the 2000 mosques in the United States, 10% preach Jihad. Welcome to the religion of peace as it is invading the land of the free to make it the land of submission. This is not some Islam-hating crackpot group reporting. It is the FBI, an agency known for its bending backward to be politically correct in tune with the rest of the administration.

In addition to the mosques already built in the land of the free, Islam is advanced by a large cadre of auxiliaries. Dr. Paul Williams (former FBI consultant, best-selling author and investigative journalist) reports that many Muslim businesses around the country conduct their regular businesses during the day and in the evening they turn their stores into Islamic gathering places. There are several thousands of these make-shift “Takeyehs”.

If only the masses of Muslims arise and carry out the orders of Allah, then we would have the promised paradise of Islam on earth as exemplified by such rules as that of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Somalia, and of course the Shiite nirvana of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In these model Islamic societies, freedom of expression, worship, and assembly are taken away. Women are treated as chattel. Young girls are subjected to barbaric genital mutilation to make them sex slaves and birth channels without the ability to enjoy intercourse. Minors are executed, adulterers are stoned to death, thieves have their limbs amputated, and much much more. Isn’t that everyone’s idea of paradise?

What a travesty and how ironic indeed to have as many mosques as we already have in the U.S., yet, we intend to help the Islamists, building more training camps for future suicide bombers and endangering the safety of the American people and generations to come. With the average citizen, and not the devious and for-purchase-politicians, rests the solemn obligation to act, and act now, to compel our government to stem the tide of Islamism before it is too late.

It is tragic indeed that while our courageous service members are losing life and limbs in far and away places fighting Islamism, useful idiots and servile politicians of the highest rank at home bend backward to accommodate, even promote, Islamism.

There is a glimmer of hope that the American people are finally waking up to the deceit and the menace of the creed called Islam. Their opposition to the building of the mosque shows that the creeping Islamization of America is indeed something to stand against and prevent before it is too late.

Obama: Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims

By Ann Barnhardt
Barnhardt.biz

Dhimmitude is the muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam.

The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be “gambling,” “risk-taking” and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I, Ann Barnhardt, a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.

Dhimmitude serves two purposes: It enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities, as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don’t believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. “Sure, I’ll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?”

If you are a Christian and you acquiesce to this, you will be bending your knee to islam, and denying Christ. How many of the early Christians went to horrific deaths rather than offer a mere pinch of incense to a statue of Caesar? Every single one of us has a BIG decision to make right now, in this moment. The choice is to either offer a pinch of incense to islam and Marxism, or take up our cross and follow Christ. I’ve made my decision. I choose Christ. I choose the Cross.

Sharia for Dummies

Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the US constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

1. Jihad defined as "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion" is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.
2. A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.
3. A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
4. A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.
5. It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
6. A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
7. The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.
8. A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9. A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
10. A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.
11. Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
12. Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
13. Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
14. It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.
15. A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
16. Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.
17. No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
18. A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.
19. Homosexuality is punishable by death.
20. There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.
21. Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
22. Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.
23. There is no common property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
24. A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
25. A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
26. The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.
27. A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.
28. The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.
29. A woman looses custody if she remarries.
30. To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.
31. A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
32. A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.
33. A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

The above are clear cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

The Myth of Moderate Muslim

Just where are they? Maybe you have to travel to Canada to find one, just one; for more, you have well have to travel to hell...

---

Diogenes spent 1,400 years looking for a Moderate Muslim and never found one. Now Diogenes was a smart fellow, but maybe he didn’t look in the right places. He should have tried California. What could be more moderate than a Muslima wearing a headscarf at a Disneyland Theme Park? (How about Heinrich Himmler wearing a Swastika at Dachau?)

Imane Boudlal, sued Disneyland for disallowing her working in the front-desk wearing a headscarf.

Imane Boudal, 26, a devout Muslim and an employee at Disneyland Grand Californian Hotel, showed up at work wearing a headscarf. It was one of her inalienable rights. Sure. She is a greeter. She greets people or has to converse with them. “Hi, I’m Igor. I will be your guide to Castle Frankenstein; I will make you feel good about yourself and introduce you to the joys of Islam.” Something like that…

It was Ramadan. So, she donned her headscarf and set off for work. The boss took one look and ordered her into the back room, where the real work is done and where they keep everyone that does not present the image Disney wishes to present. Sounds reasonable?

When Bob Newhart told George Utley, he couldn’t eat in the Resort Dining Room unless he removed his hunter’s cap, George grumbled but accepted. Now George was awfully attached to that old red-and-black checked cap—it went wherever he went. If Imane sets as much store by her headscarf as George did by his cat, wouldn’t she have insisted on wearing it long before now? She has worked for Disney for two year! Two years—certainly enough time to get up the gumption to spit in her employers’ face.

As usual, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) took great umbrage. “There is no justification for Disney’s refusal to allow Ms. Boudal to wear the headscarf at work,” said CAIR. “It is not only insulting to her, but is deeply offensive to the thousands of Muslims who open their pocket-books at Disney parks and resorts every year.” As far as is known, there is no ban on the types of headgear people with open pocketbooks can wear while touring any of the Disney estates.

Moderate hunters throughout Vermont leapt to Newhart’s defense. Utley removed his cap. Have Moderate Muslims sprung to the defense of Disney? Not so, as one would notice. Disney’s strict costume requirements have been described by Moderate Muslims as ‘excessive', ‘discriminatory', and an ‘affront to Islam'.

Disneyland says the headscarf “doesn’t go with the Disney look". And what is the Disney look? Well, it doesn’t matter what the Disney look is. This is just another pea-brained attempt to insert Islam into American culture and the chances are: it will work, because the politically-correct and the culturally-diverse lost their will to fight for America and what it stands for, sometime during the Vietnam War.

Would Disney allow a Jewish employee to wear a yarmulke or a veteran to wear a DAV cap on the job? The chances are they would not, though it has never been tried, because the members of those groups would have considered it insensitive and not in keeping with Disney’s rules, though either of those groups have contributed far more to the health, well being, greatness and prosperity of America than a hundred thousand Imane Boudals and tens of thousands of CAIRs.

So, where are the Moderate Muslims? Are they still on their way back from the Muslim March on Terror?

Meanwhile half-way around the world in Kashmir, Sikhs are being forced to convert to Islam under pain of death. Not much moderation there. Is Imane aware of this?

In Saudi Arabia, a person caught in public wearing a crucifix on a chain can expect to end up in extensive care. Where are Saudi Arabia’s Moderate Muslims?

In Indonesia, Christian churches are being stoned and torched, because a Muslim girl has been taking catechism lessons in preparation to being baptized as a Catholic. A mob beat 20 members of a Batak Christian Protestant Church, because "they did not have the proper permits to worship". Where were the Moderate Muslims? Are the Moderates ones that grant the permits in this violence? That would explain a lot of things.

In Malaysia, a high school principal in the province of Johor made ‘inappropriate remarks’ at a school assembly. “Chinese students are not needed here,” she said, “and can return to China". As for the Indian student, "…the prayer string around their neck and wrist makes them look like dogs, because dogs are tied like that.” Insensitive? Stupid? The principal is a Muslim, undoubtedly a moderate one. An investigation has been launched and the principal has been sent on leave.

Is this an example of Moderate Islam in action? Well, not exactly! Malaysia in only 60 percent Muslim, the other 40 percent is something else, and they still have a say in things. When the Muslim population reaches 75 to 80 percent—thank to larger families and forced conversions in Muslim-controlled areas—this will change. Off will come the kid gloves.

No? You don’t think so? What does the Qur’an say? Ah, here it is:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low. (Another translation says: ‘pay the tax in acknowledgement of our superiority and their state of subjection.’) [Qur’an 9:2]

But isn’t the minority population of Malaysia composed primarily of Buddhists and Hindus? Yes, and this makes for a bleak outlook when the Muslim population reaches the 75 percent mark. The Christians and the Jews—the few there are—can be brought low. They can be made to pay the jizyah and to acknowledge their inferiority, but there is no room in the Qur’an or in Sharia Law for idolaters, like Buddhists and Hindus. How many Moderate Muslims have marched in support of Buddhist or Hindu causes in Malaya or in other Southeast Asian country?

Moderate Muslims are so rare that Bill O’Reilly had to go to Canada to find a Muslim willing to say that the idea of building a mosque near the 9/11 Ground Zero was a bad idea. It would be insensitive. What is needed is a period of healing—the mosque can come later, but come it will.

On the other hand MSNBC was able to find dozens of Moderate Muslims willing to denounce O’Reilly as an Islamophobe. The US Constitution gives them the right to build a mosque wherever they want. If you want to build a church in a Muslim state, you will have to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the Mutaween.

Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews of MSNBC rubber-stamped Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s “I have a dream” speech, where all God’s chill’uns will get together in dialogue in the Grand Central Mosque on the site of Ground Zero in an Abrahamic splendor that will amaze the world. Just the thought of it brought tears to Olbermann’s eyes. Neither Matthews nor Olbermann compared the Ground Zero Imam to Martin Luther King; that would have transcended their usual hypocrisies by a couple of surahs and a dozen hadiths. One could almost hear them whispering, “Amen”, as Rauf attacked the U.S. for being complicit in the World Trade Center disaster.

“I wouldn’t say the United States deserved what happened (on 9/11),” said Rauf, “but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” (If she hadn’t been wearing a tight skirt she wouldn’t have been raped.)

Rauf went on to add: “Because we’ve been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.”

A few facts: Muslims have killed far more Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan than American soldiers have. And it’s not only Iraq and Afghanistan. Muslims are killing each other in Pakistan and other Muslim countries in great numbers without the help of a single American soldier. Saddam Hussein killed more Muslims every year during his long reign than G.I. Joe did in his entire tenure in Iraq. It might also be noted G.I. Joe was killing the bad guys. There was collateral damage to be sure, but it was kept to a minimum. Collateral damage is a concept that does not exist in Islam. All deaths—old men, women, children and grocery clerks—are intentional. Everyone dies in vain.

Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Rauf, had a conversation recently with Sally Quinn of the Washington Post. Daisy asked: “When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?”

It is an interesting question—one Peewee Herman has been asking for years. Yet, later in the same conversation Daisy said: “We are in a history making moment. Our ideals must prevail. We have to fight for a bigger society.”

Our ideals? Whose? Thomas Jefferson’s? Ben Franklin’s? Muhammad’s? She would not have used the word, ‘our’, if she had meant Jefferson and Franklin. She meant those of Islam. Sally Quinn was mesmerized. Clearly she was in the presence of Islam’s Jean D’Arc

There is little Moderation in Daisy Khan, none in Abdul Rauf. If Muslims want to be accepted as 'plain old Americans', they will have to become plain old Americans; there is little evidence they do.

Rooster Cogburn was a plain old American. Even Chris Matthews would agree with that. Would Imam Rauf sit down for a drink of sarsaparilla with Rooster in Joe’s Bar and Grille and Gun Club? They could discuss horseflesh and Lynch Law, which is as close to Sharia Law as one can get this side of a Nazi concentration camp.

Jerry Falwell was a plain old American. He liked to discuss religion. If Jerry were still around, would the Imam sit down with him and discuss religion like it should be discussed? Of course not: Islam cannot be discussed; Muslims are slaves and Christians are the slaves of slaves. End of conversation!

Plain old Americans like to thrash things out in the open; car bombs are for cavemen, who haven’t entered the 21^st Century. Rooster Cogburn would talk to a Yankee and slap him on the back just as if they had never tried to kill each other at Shiloh or Glorietta Pass. Cogburn was forgiving; Islam isn’t. Falwell would debate an atheist or a Third Day Adventist without raising a sweat or losing his place in the Bible. Jerry hated the sin; he loved the sinner. Islam hates both.

Daisy Khan is being disingenuous. Ms. Bourdal’s insistence on wearing a headscarf is part of Islam’s master plan. It they could conquer America by force of arms, they would do so. They cannot; so it is death by a thousand cuts. This is the strategy they have used in Europe, especially in England and it has been very successful.

A Muslim will insist on a minor change in the way things are being done. They will object to the name of a street or a business; a religious symbol, usually a cross, will be banned, because it is considered offensive. Islam will be added to a school curriculum, Christianity will be dropped.

Sometimes the changes are bigger than big like turning the beds in a hospital, so they face in the direction of Mecca. Feeling themselves subdued and brought low, the hospital officials acquiesce. In some hospitals, nurses are busy during prayer time turning beds in the proper direction. A Bible on display on a bedside table is Verboten.

And where are the Moderate Muslims? They are nowhere to be heard. They don’t exist.

But when everything is said and done, and the authorities have given into the Islamists, the Moderate Muslims step forward and say, “Oh, you didn’t have to do that. It was not necessary. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion. We don’t ask much—just the right to practice our religion.”

Europe is dying of a thousand cuts and America, thanks to politicians like Barack Obama, has started bleeding.

George S. Patton, one of America’s greatest heroes, had a word for this tactic. He called it the Rock Soup Method. He liked to tell the story of the hobo looking for a handout during the height of the Great Depression. Bo would knock on the door of a likely looking house with a couple of rocks in his hands and ask the Missus if he could borrow at pot so he could make some rock soup. Before he was through, Bo would talk the Missus into some water for his pot then for some salt and pepper to season his soup, then for some vegetables to give it body and finally for a piece of meat.

Patton used his own version of the Rock Soup Method during WWII to start unauthorized battles. He would send out a patrol to pick a fight with the nearest Nazis. Then he would reinforce the patrol with a platoon, the platoon with a company, the company with a battalion and before long he would have a major battle on his hands. This is the method used by Islam.

There are no Moderate Muslims. Ms. Boudal and the Imam are as moderate as it gets. O’Reilly had to go to Canada to get one; Olbermann and Matthews had to go to Hell to get theirs.

The Majestic Allah, Part 1

Allah, in His Own words, isn't commited to true justice and is majestic in deceiving, misleading, lying---a degree higher than even the so-called Satan, the allegedly supreme master of deception.

---

"...just because you don't bow on your knees and worship an idol or an invisible being, does not mean you are not a Satan worshiper. The worship of any other god[s] is the same thing. There are no other gods[s]. They are demons and Satan in control of them…"

Truth as truth will never contradict itself. It will form a harmonious basis for logic, science, and laws of life. If truth cannot be conveyed and shown in words and propositions, then Truth has mere follies and emptiness.

Sound and fury signifies nothing.

Religious dogmas in the world still today strive on using words with soothing eternal rewards. Indeed, some words are soothing but all empty; some transient and ultimately meaningless as a vapor; some mere follies, claiming to be truth, are leading to harsh realities, bloodlettings.

"Find those who say, "We are Christians": Because amongst these are Men devoted to learning. And men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant." [Surah 5:82]

"If thou wert in doubt as to what we have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the book before thee." [Surah 10:94]

Eternal life or eternal punishments: many souls are certainly at stake here, indeed, each and every one in this blessed world; that is why, there is an urgency in seeking to know and defend the truth, and to understand, “what really is these ‘revelations’ and ‘the will’ of the Majestic Allah [the Islamic God]?”

Muslims, however, claim that there is another way to this: they do soothing talk of men simply following the five pillars, and earning their ways by bringing good deeds for Allah’s Islam. But there is none righteous, no not anyone in them.

But, please! Be frank at least with your own conscience. Listen to your heart, your own deepest feelings and logics. Am I in the truth? Or are you just looking for excuses, looking for arguments to suit your certain faithful dogmas? Dogmas passed on to you [Muslims] for generations without any questionings.

Are we? Are you? Am I? Those are good questions to ask, to think and to know about, to earnestly study, to wrestle with logics and absurd sacred teachings—for, indeed, it is a matter of eternal consequences. Your dogmas have indeed been passed on to you since the 7th century C.E. Before that, your Allah was just a perched-on-the-shelf idol to be worshiped and praised.

It is ‘him’ who will get the most of the blame if he misguided the people. And there is always hope in everyone.

It is true that the Allah of Islam does give: he gives up righteousness and truth by simply ignoring Muslims' sin, ‘if Muslims have a slight edge of good works more than bad’? Islam compromises the very being of supposedly benevolent God: His character and His revelations, His holiness, purity and justice, and fails to recognize the perversity and depths of man's sin and his sinful character before God. The Quran claims to stand on the foundations of the Torah and the Injil (New Testament), but constitutes a complete and radical paradigm shift away from those revelations.

Allah is claimed to be ‘oft forgiving and merciful in the final judgment’ [if you have more good in your life than bad]. Muslims seek to soothe themselves, and Islam seeks to soothe Muslims, by imagining that you are good enough to make yourself right before Allah.

Allah is considered as:

1. He is just. Therefore, He does not have to send anybody [including Isa] to 'pay' for the sin of the people.
2. He is just. Therefore, He punishes those who’ve committed sin accordingly.
3. He is also merciful and can forgive. He can forgive without sacrificing anybody. Without being unjust to anybody. But first and foremost everybody is accountable to his own doings.

Now taking these statements together, the logical implication is that Allah will, and must—because He is just—punish individuals for their sins. You see here is where it differs and where Islam has a serious problem. Allah as the Koran describes Him first:

• Is just; as Allah would be if He punished every sin accordingly; and indeed He can maintain His justice without sending another to pay for anyone else's sin, and simply let the Muslims pay for it themselves.

However, if Allah is infinitely holy, infinitely just, and unchanging in His attributes—i.e., He won't compromise His attributes for anyone or any reason, whatsoever—then Allah has no substitutes to pay for, or show mercy, for Muslim’s sins. The clear follow-through is that Muslims must pay in due measure for all their sins. If Allah is infinitely holy, then each sin—committed by whoever it may: Muslim or otherwise—is a mockery of that infinite holiness and is due for worthy punishments. Therefore, Muslims must then bear justice and wrath from Allah for all their sin.

Now the claim 3 above that Allah is merciful, i.e. He can forgive simply by saying "I forgive". If this is true, then Allah's mercy is simply a negation or mockery of His justice. Infinite justice and mercy, attributes that Allah Himself claims to posses, not harmonious attributes; they can't exist in the same being; they are mutually exclusive. Instead, they are attributes like those of a man: conflicting, partial, incomplete, and changing. He would punish an opponent or unrelated person harshly for a wrongdoing, but would forgive, even desperately try to protect, the perpetrator, if he is his kindred, friend or tribesman.

Allah is not infinitely just and righteous by these claims of His Own. Allah is not completely just and righteous in all things, in all His being, for Allah ignores justice and righteousness in order to be what the Koran claims’ is ‘merciful’. Thus, Allah in some cases completely ignores sins.

Allah then is not Holy, Righteous, Good.

Clearly Allah by Islamic theology, by His Own words in the Koran, is a ‘changing being’. He is consistent, unchanging, who remains true to His judgement, convictions, conscience?

Allah, the Islamic God, may ignore justice, ignore truth. He compromises truth as does a man! Allah, in fact, appears like a modest man, or the idea of a man, rather than manifestation of an immaculate God.

It is, therefore, evident that Allah of Koran cannot be God, period! Indeed, the Koran’s own teachings say that Allah is the greatest “makkar” [deceiver]:

If Allah is the Greatest Deceiver of all (Surah 3:54), how can you, Muslims, trust anything Allah says?

Hence, Muslims do not serve the God of all creations; instead, they worship an uncertain being, made in man's own image. And, if there exist a true God, who is infinite in perfection, unchanging in holiness and justice, they may not find Him as a savior on the Judgment Day.

An all-powerful god has no need to deceive anyone to achieve His goals. Only a being, full of human frailties, may need to deceive attain his/her objectives.

Allah, in His Own confession, is like, what believers call, the Satan, who misleads, deceives. It is there in His holy book. The Quran testifies that Allah is a greatest deceiver:

Lo! The hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but little... [Surah 4:142]

Further passages, which claim that Allah is a deceiver, include Surahs 8:30 and 3:54. Allah even misleads people and has actually created people to burn in Hell:

• Whomsoever Allah guides, he is rightly guided, and whom He leads astray, they are the losers! We have created for Hell many Jinns and men... Do ye desire to guide him whom Allah led astray? Whom Allah leads away, you will find no way for him. [Surah 4:87, 90]
• Those whom Allah wills to guide, He opens their breast to Islam; Those whom He wills to leave straying, - He makes their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus does Allah lay abomination on those who refuse to believe. [Surah 6:125]
• Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell. [Surah 7:179]
• Allah leads astray whomsoever He wills and guides whomsoever he wills. [Surah 14:4]

Thus, the Quran clearly says that Allah as the best of deceivers, a liar, who uses the same evil and wicked schemes of His opponents. For example, the Quran calls Allah a ‘makkar’, in fact the best makkar there is:

“But they [the Jews] were deceptive, and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers" [Surahs 3:54; 8:30]

Other texts that identify Allah as a makkar include:

• Are they then secure from Allah's deception. None deemeth himself secure from Allah's scheme save folks that perish. [Surah 7:99]
• So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme, while they perceived not. Surah 27:50]
• I will mislead them, and I will create in them false desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattle, and to deface the [fair] nature created by Allah. Whoever, forsaking Allah, takes Satan for a friend, hath of a surety suffered a loss that is manifest. [Surah 4:119]

In verses 4:119 above, Allah says that He misleads and deceives human and creates false desires etc.

Then the next verse, Allah says: "Satan makes them promises, and creates in them false desires; but Satan's promises are nothing but deception” [Surah 4:120].

So, what Allah does in verse 4:119, exactly the same is also done by the Satan. Allah and the Satan's working or modus operandi is one and the same. Lo! Allah and Satan are working together to create false desires in believers.

Conclusion: Allah is Satan creating false desires in people:

And because of their sayings [in boast]. We killed the Messiah 'Isa [Jesus], son of Maryam [Mary], the Messenger of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Isa [Jesus] was put over another man [and they killed that man]... [Surah, 4:157]

Allah Deceives Even Muslims.

"...and then only this nation [Islam] will remain, including their hypocrites. Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; [we will not follow you] till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him.’ Then Allah will come to them in a shape they know and will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say, [no doubt] You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him." [Bukhari 8.76.52.577, p. 375; also Sahih Muslim 1.1.81.349, p. 115].

Muslims may point out that the word "deceive" is not present in this hadith. Allah did not speaketh any lying words, and this occurs in Heaven, and not on earth. But Allah impersonates someone else and presents Himself before humans, obviously to deceive and mislead them: if this is not deception, then what is it?

This hadith makes it clear that Allah will deliberately misrepresent himself before Muslims in a "false shape", different from the shape Muslims know Him of. That means Muslims know of what Allah is. Would any Muslim tell us of what shape Allah is? I never heard a Muslim saying that Allah has this or that particular shape, until one told me: Allah probably has a humanoid shape.

Here is what Bukhari 9.93.24.532b, p. 396 tells us:

"When there remains only those who used to worship Allah [alone], both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, [and they will say] ‘and now we are waiting for our Lord.’ Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than that which they saw the first time, and He will says, ‘I am your Lord,’ and they will say, ‘You are not our Lord.’ And none will speak to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, ‘Do you know any sign by which you can recognize Him?’ They will say, ‘The Shin,’ and so Allah will then uncover His Shin whereupon every believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation. These people will try to prostrate but their backs will be rigid like one piece of a wood [and they will not be able to prostrate]. Then the bridge will be laid across to Hell…"

Despite whatever Muslims might say, Bukhari says that Allah will have a true physical form in Heaven, and Allah himself will also appear to Muslims in a false physical form, as sort of a temptation to mislead them. This is in clear contrast to what the Bible says of God: "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone." [James 1:13]

Do not follow wrong parts of the Quran

[Bukhari 6.60.9.8, p. 10] "Umar said, ‘Our best Quran reciter is Ubai and our best judge is ‘Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai because Ubai says, ‘I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah’s Apostle while Allah said, ‘Whatever verse [Revelations] do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar, to it”… [Surah 2:106]

What do you think about the abrogated verses means?

1. Verses that are still in the Qur’an, but Muslims are not supposed to follow it?
2. Verses that used to be in the [some say unalterable] Quran, but are no longer there anymore.
3. We can find examples of both.

It turns out that the Islamic ahadith show us that (c) is the correct answer. Example of (a) Surah 73:2-3 is abrogated by Surah 73:20. Abu Dawud 1.2.457.1299, p. 343

An example of an abrogated tradition is that Mu’tah [temporary Islamic marriages] for a short time, a few hours, days or weeks or so on, was allowed by Mohammed, but, according to Sunnis, was later abrogated. However, Shiites believes that this was not abrogated.

Example of (b) "Narrated Anas bin Malik: ...“There was revealed about those who were killed at Bi’r-Ma’una a Qur’anic Verse we used to recite, but it was cancelled later on. The verse was: ‘Inform our people that we have met our Lord. He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased’." [Bukhari 4.52.19.69, p. 53].

This is not in any Quran today. By the way, I hope nobody has tried to deceive you into thinking that the Qur’an has not been changed, or that everything is to be followed.

The Fihrist [p. 81-82] lists 18 books about the Abrogating and the Abrogated in the Qur’an. Among Muslims scholars, the translator in Bukhari 6, fn. 1, p. 506 mentions a special term for Quranic verses that have not been abrogated: ‘muhkam’, although other sources call them ‘mohkam’.

Will Allah Deceive You Too?

One Answer from Islam: You had better not ask too many questions.

• I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Allah has hated for you three things: … And asking too many question… [Bukhari 2.24.52.555, p. 323]
• Believers! Do not ask questions about things which if made plain and declared to you, may vex you, causing you trouble. [Surah 5:101]
• Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account they lost their faith and became disbelievers. [Surah 5:102]

Satan will not Impersonate Muhammad. Why?

So even though Allah could come in a deceiving shape and galat [wrong] Muslims might be deceived in worshipping the wrong Allah, thinking that ‘Ali and Mohammed are divine and parts of Allah, the ahadith say Satan cannot impersonate Mohammed.

"... and whoever sees me [Mohammed] in a dream, he surely sees me, for Satan cannot impersonate me (appear in my figure). And whoever intentionally ascribes something to me falsely, he will surely take his place in the (Hell) Fire." [Bukhari 8.73.109.217, p. 139-140, also Sahih Muslim 4.27.948.5635-5639, p. 1225-1226]

I have never yet heard from a Muslim the answer to 'why Muslims think God chooses to appear in a deceiving manner?' This may deceive people in worshipping a false impersonation of God, yet Satan will never impersonate Mohammed.

Pretty strange: The Satan seems less inclined than Allah in deceiving.

Wait for the next Part to know of this exciting Majestic Allah.

To be Continued…