Jihad of Peace?

Gen. James Green

O N PAGE 46 of TIME magazine (Nov. 21, 2016), we find this:

“There is a lot to fear in a Trump presidency —economic chaos, bigotry, the demise of power. But there’s just as much to fear in the American people, especially in the white America that elected Trump” (Jill Filipovic, a writer and lawyer).

 

“WE MUST WAGE A JIHAD OF PEACE”

QASIM RASHID

“ONE OF the high marks of Islam that the Prophet Muhammad taught is that loyalty to your country is part of your faith. I can sympathize with the anger and fear that many have: I’m a person of color; I’m a Muslim; I have young children. But these are the cards we’ve been dealt, and we need to find ways to continue working to build bridges of understanding and peace, because the alternative, which leads to more fear and more violence, is simply not a tenable option.

There is a great deal of ignorance about Islam and what Muslims believe. The word jihad means struggle, and the Prophet Muhammad said that the greatest jihad is the struggle against self to become better human beings through peace. Our goal as American Muslims should be to wage a true jihad of education, compassion and service to humanity.

Now is not the time to throw in the towel. It’s the time to work even harder to live values of pluralism and to start conversations and overcome fear. It’s easy to do that when there is no opposition. But when you face a counter-narrative, it becomes that much more important. That’s when jihad really matters. That’s why it’s called a struggle.

To my fellow American Muslims, keep your heads up. To non-Muslim Americans, we’re still here, proud of our faith and proud of our identity as Americans. We want to continue to make our country better.”

Rashid is the national spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA

This Muslim–Rashid, is terribly IGNORANT about his religion—Islam, OR he is using “Political Correctness” on us. I say the second. Anyone who can read can’t miss the belief of Islam: IT WAS AND IS A RELIGION OF THE SWORD!! Both secular and Islam itself makes it clear...that is, before “PCism” came on the scene (write for our many booklets/magazines/DVDs supporting what I say here).

The Encyclopedia Britannica

ALLOW ME to quote from the 1910 (11th ed.) Encyclopedia where pgs. 23-54 contains the history of the Mohammedan rulers in the East who bore the title of “Caliph” (I’ll quote words as they appear in 1910, not 2016, by Michael Jon DeGoeje). He lists 37 Islamic Caliphs, all dealt in WARFARE in one form or the other.PEACE?” GET SERIOUS!

What is a Caliph?

FIRST, he lets his readers know that, as I said, “throughout this article, well-known names of persons and places appear in their most familiar forms, generally without accents or other diacritical signs. For the sake of homogeneity the articles on these persons or places are also given under these forms, but in such cases, the exact forms, according to the system of transliteration adopted, are there given in addition” (p. 23, note #1).

Khalif (Arab, Khalifa); literally “successor,” “representative,” a title borne originally by Abu Bekr (aka Bakr), who, on the death of Muhammad (or Mohammed), became the civil/religious head of the Islamic state. Bekr and his 3 immediate successors are known as the “perfect” Caliphs; after them the title was borne by the 13 Omayyad Caliphs of Damascus, and subsequently by the 37 Abbosiel Caliphs of Bagdad whose dynasty fell before the Turks in 1258 A.D. (these were also “titular” Caliphs of Abbasid descent in Egypt from that date till 1517 A.D.).

According to the Shi’ite Muslims (or Moslems), who call the office the “imamate” or “leadership,” no caliph is legitimate unless he (never a “she”) is a lineal descendant of their (false) Prophet, Mohammad. The Sunnites insist that the office belongs to the tribe of Koreish (or Quraish: see our “2 Faces of Islam” publications for information on this tribe).

The First Four

DEGOEJE STARTS his article with listing the first 4 Caliphs, starting with Abu Bekr (the father-in-law of Muhammad); under Bekr (the first) there arose tension among the Arabian tribes that had to be dealt with.

We all know the truth, most tribes did not believe in the (false) Prophet to start with. We all know the sad story of how the (false) Prophet left Mecca in disgrace, went to Medina, and while there, got his “revelations from God,” from an angel/angels (who knows, he tells 4 different versions how he got “heavenly revelations,” and who gave him them), and changed from “peaceful” to “violent,” hence, HE LEFT WITH AN ARMY IN ORDER TO TAKE MECCA FOR “ALLAH.” This ACT of jihad has never abated! The “sword” is Islam’s symbol, along with the crescent moon (the “moon god” was worshiped by the Arabians before Muhammad appeared on the scene; write for our booklet, “Offensive War to Spread Islam”—facts for you!).

Back to DeGoeje: “A. Bekr provoked himself quite equal to the perilous situation. In the first place, he allowed the (war) expedition against the Greeks, already arranged by Mahomet, quietly to set out…”

All one has to do is research the “wars” that the (false) prophet waged before his untimely death…heads literally rolled!!

“On the return of the army he (Bekr) proceeded to ATTACK the rebels (Arabian Tribes). The holy spirit of Islam kept the men of Medina together, and inspired in them an all-absorbing zeal for the faith…those who preserved in rebellion were PUNISHED with DEATH. The majority accordingly converted, the obstinate were EXTIRPATED” (emp. mine).

So…

MUHAMMAD—the false prophet of Islam—started his conquest, not with a “jihad of peace,” but a “jihad of the Sword”…ALL THOSE WHO FOLLOWED DID THE SAME.

Omar, 2nd Caliph

ABU BEKR died in 634 A.D. and was succeeded by Omar. DeGoeje writes, “To Omar’s ten year’s Caliphate belong for the most part the great conquests,” meaning, OFFENSIVE WARFARE TO SPREAD ISLAM! “Under this second Caliph, Omar sought to make the whole nation (Arabia) a great host of Allah; the Arabs were to be soldiers and nothing else…all lands/property captured (by peace?) was either made state property or was restored to the old owners SUBJECT to a PERPETUAL TRIBUTE which provided pay on a splendid scale for the (Islamic) army.” So much for PEACEFUL JIHAD. HA!

Omar, “In the mosque of Medina he was stabbed by a Kufan workman and died in Nov. 644 A.D.”

Othman (or Uthman)

OTHMAN WAS Islam’s 3rd Caliph. “Othman,” writes DeGoeje, “did all in his power to press forward this development of affairs…the malcontents sought to gain their end by force. In bonds they came from the provinces to Medina to wring concessions from Othman, who, through his armies were SPREADING TERROR from the Indus and Oxus to the Atlantic…the mutineers…put him to death, an old man of eighty.”

Ali

ALI WAS the fourth Caliph. DeGoeje writes: “The masses of the mutineers summoned Ali to the Caliphate…The new Caliph found means of disposing of their opposition, and at the Battle of the Camel, fought at Basra in Nov. 656, Talha and Zobair were slain, and Ayesha was taken prisoner.”

DeGoeje continues, “Ali’s defeat was a foregone conclusion, once religious enthusiasm had failed him; the secular resources at the disposal of his adversaries were far superior. Fortunately for him he was murdered (end of Jan. 661), thereby posthumously attaining an importance in the eyes of a large part of the Mohammedan world (shi’a) which he had never possessed during his life.”

These 4 Caliphs are the most famous.

On page 27, DeGoeje begins his article with the reign of Moawiya, listing Yazid, Moawiya II, Merwan I, Abdalmalik, Walid I, Suleiman, Omar II, Yazid II, Hisham, Walid II, Yazid III, Ibrahim, Merwan II. This ended the old dynasty, under which the power of Islam reached its highest point.

The Abbasids

STARTING WITH Abu ‘I-Abbas as the new Caliphate, it followed with the reign of Mansur, Mahdi, Harun al-Rashid, Amin, Mamun, Motasim, Wathiq, Motawakkil, Montasir, Mosta’in, Motuzz, Mohiadi, Motamid, Maqtadir, Qahir, Radi, Mattaqi, Mostakfi, Moti, Tai, Qadir, Qaim, Moqtadi, Mostazhir, Mostarshid, Rashid, Moqtafi, Mostonjid, Mostadi, Nasir, Zahir, Mostansir, and the reign of Mostasim. All these cover pages of information. All were involved in WAR in one way or the other, be it defensive or offensive warfare (terrorism).

No Way!

THERE IS NO WAY that Islam can be touted as a religion (also in politics) of PEACE. All this “peace” PCism is a late comer in order to DECEIVE the public about Islam. ALL THE SURAHS (CHAPTERS) THAT SPEAK OF “PEACE” HAVE ALL BEEN ABROGATED AND REPLACED BY THE “SWORD” SURAHS. This is a proven fact. But if one is ignorant of this, well, deceit has won the day.

T.E.B.

IN THE ENCYCLOPEDIA Britannica (11th Ed., Vol. II, p. 265) appears an article by M. J. DeGoeje and Rev. G.W. Thatcher, M.A, B.D. with the subtitle “Time of Mahomet,” more truth about Islam (emp. added) :

“…For Mahomet as a religious teacher…through the external CONQUESTS of the Arabs belong more properly to the period of the Caliphate, yet THEY WERE THE NATURAL OUTCOME OF THE PROPHET’S IDEAS. His idea of Arabia for the Arabians could only be realized by summoning the great kinds of surrounding nations to recognize Islam.”

We all know how this was done—with the call to EMBRACE Muhammad’s bizarre religion, accept it with open arms, or the sword will sever both arms, and head. It is written in both the Qur’an and Hadith that for the Christian and Jew there were choices:

1. accept Islam and denounce Christianity / Judaism, or

2. refuse Islam and pay poll tax all the days of your lives.

BUT IF PAGAN, ACCEPT ISLAM OR DIE!

Our authors continue: “Tradition tells us that a few years before his death (prophet of Islam) he did actually send letters to the emperor Heraclius, to the negus of Abyssinia, the king of Persia, and Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria, the ‘Mukaukis’ of Egypt, summoning them to accept Islam and THREATENING them with PUNISHMENT (my emp.) in case of refusal.” Does this sound like a “peaceful” summons to you?

“But the task of carrying out these THREATS fell to the lot of his successors; the work of the (false) prophet was to be the SUBJUGATING and uniting of Arabia.”

Our authors continue: “Mahomet early found an excuse for ATTACKING the Jews, who were naturally in the way of his schemes.” Both the Qur’an and Hadiths testify to all this...in fact, they BRAG about their WAR exploits. So, why do these Muslims today act like it is not so? Are they paid off...like maybe Qasim Rashid? I have literally challenged these “peace” Muslims to a written debate—none as yet has accepted. Wonder why??? “Islam,” our authors write, “promised rich booty for those who fought and won, paradise for those who fell (died).” We all know about those virgins in paradise—endless sex for those who die for Allah in jihad.

I don’t care what book one reads on the history of Islam, they will always encounter the “offensive warfare to spread Islam.” Only those who write/speak under the banner of “Political Correctness,” will lie and deceive.

Wahhabi Movement (WM)

MODERN ARABIAN history begins with that of the WM in the middle of the 18th century. Its originator, of course, was Mahommed Ibn Wahhab, born in 1691 at Ayana in Nejd. In 1742 a Mahommed Ibn Saud, Sheik of Deraiya, accepted Wahhab’s doctrines, and ENFORCED them with his sword—with such effect that before his death (in 1765), the whole of eastern Nejd and El Hasa was converted to the faith of Abdul Wahhab, and accepted the political supremacy of Ibn Saud.

Part of these “doctrines” were that of killing apostates from Islam. This is exactly part of ISIS doctrine as I write—Muslims (who claim to be “real Muslims”) killing Muslims (who are deemed “fake Muslims”).

Read history please. Islam is all about external warfare/terrorism. Little is left to inner warfare–contrary to what Rashid states: “The word jihad means struggle, and the prophet Muhammad said that the greatest jihad is the struggle against self to become better human beings THROUGH PEACE.” That sounds pretty good, but what about those (same 110) surahs that COMMAND PHYSICAL TERROR/WAR? One can’t merely dismiss them for a couple of verses about inner struggle. Get serious here.

Historical Literature

IT IS SAID that Arabian historians differ from all others in the unique form of their compositions. As I have read dozens of Islamic books, one thing sticks out the most: unlike the Holy Bible, and related books, the Qur’an and Hadiths allow lying and exaggerations etc. In Islamic literature, we also find Taqiyya—Muslims deliberately misrepresenting matters in an effort to protect themselves and guard the (false) religion of Islam.

We also find Tu-Quoque, a tactic used to distort or misdirect their opponents. In other words, a tactic of Tu-Quoque is just a way to divert one’s attention from the obvious nature of Islam—which is violent mostly—to that of peace. This is deceit.

Then we have Kitman. This is what this article is about: a Muslim misleading people when he maintains that Islamic jihad really means a “spiritual struggle” and does not make it clear that this definition of jihad is really a recent one, close to 100 years, maybe, but picked up speed under the “Political Correctness” banner. Kitman is very similar to Taqiyya. Kitman is the practice of telling a half-truth, while Taqiyya is deceit/misrepresentation through outright LYING!

So, when we study the life of Muhammad, written by Islamic historians, or study Islamic doctrine/law, written by scholars, we certainly cannot take what they say as truth. In all my studies, I HAVE RUN ACROSS A FEW HONEST SCHOLARS WHO ACTUALLY PRESENT ISLAM THE WAY IT WAS AND IS.

Beware of Islamic story-tellers. If one reads up on the sex life of the (false) prophet, he is presented as a super-sexed stud. I have grave doubts about all that. They also picture him as very loving...but “love” hardly existed in his day: the women were slaves, many were treated badly, enemies were taxed forever or murdered, and the first woman killed under Islam was a poet [and nursing mother] who wrote the truth about Muhammad.

Extant History

THE OLDEST extant history is the biography of the false prophet Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq (d. 767). This work, most claim, is generally trustworthy. Muhammad’s life before he appeared as a (false) prophet, and the story of his ancestors, are mixed with many FABLES illustrated by spurious verses. But, considering the time, IBN ISHAQ WROTE WHEN FABLES WERE GENERALLY ACCEPTED AS HISTORY. On page 92 of Fihrist we read that “no one certainly thought it blameworthy to put pious verses in the mouth of the prophet’s forefathers…” And we conclude that putting pious verses or surahs in the mouth of the (false) prophet was acceptable.

The original work of Ishaq is lost, but there are copies by Ibn Hisham (died 834) with additions/omissions (text ed. by F. Wustenfeld (1858-1860); German translation by Weil, Stuttgart, 1864). There are dozens of books written about this (false) prophet. But it is hard to decide what is genuine and what is fake.

The Holy Bible tells us to “lie not,” something that Islamic literature fails to do. I cannot lump all Muslims into this category of “liars.” NEVERTHELESS, THE QUR’AN AND HADITH ALLOWS, PERMITS, AND EVEN TELLS THE MUSLIM TO LIE AND DECEIVE.

  “Opposition” & “Oppression”

BESIDES PHYSICAL opposition or oppression, verbal opposition is considered a tremendous threat to Allah and his messenger. Verbal opposition does not just mean to maliciously slander Islam, but it includes any verbalization of one’s own beliefs that do not comply with Islamic doctrine. If you deny Allah’s deity or Mohammed’s authority as a prophet, you are “opposing” or “fighting” Islam.

Of course, a great verbal offense would be for you to persuade a Muslim that his religion was wrong. This is a serious form of oppression. In fact, it is considered worse than a physical assault against a Muslim: “Tumult and oppression [literally temptation and persecution] are worse than slaughter” (Qur’an 2:217). Therefore, any type of non-Islamic evangelism is deemed worse than slaughter, for it is “tempting” a Muslim to renounce Allah and his messenger.

To be consistent with the context, the rest of the Qur’an and the historical example of Muhammad, the correct interpretation of “Fight...those who fight you”(Qur’an 2:190) is “Fight...those who oppose you,” or, more specifically, “Fight...those who reject the faith of Islam.” And since verbal opposition, which includes preaching, teaching, or even confessing any faith besides Islam is seen as oppression, the following is our only logical conclusion:

All non-Muslims believe something besides Islam, obviously, and they speak about what they believe and confess truths other than Islamic doctrines; therefore, according to Qur’anic teaching, ALL NON-MUSLIMS ARE “OPPRESSORS” AND “REJECTERS” OF THE ISLAMIC FAITH, and so ALL NON-MUSLIMS ARE TARGETS FOR ISLAMIC AGGRESSION.

That’s right, if you do not believe in Islam, you are immediately categorized in the class of “oppressor.” Any words you speak can be labeled as “oppression.” Dear non-Muslim, you are automatically considered a threat to the Cause of Allah! With this in mind, we can understand why true Muslims are obsessed with Islamic world-domination and the eradication of all non-Muslims (especially Christians). The uncompromising Muslim is simply following the commands and principles of his intolerant god who tells him to fight all oppressors, which, as we have clarified here, is simply to fight ALL non-Muslims.

Allah commanded that death is the “reward” of those who “reject faith” (v. 191), and Muslims must fight those who reject Islam until there is NO MORE OPPOSITION to their faith (Qur’an 2:193). Here we see the inspiration for the Muslim’s bloodlust and drive. Islam must reign, according to the Qur’an, and Muslims must fight everyone and at least bring the world into subjugation to Islam, if not into full conversion, to ensure that end. “Fight...until there is NO MORE OPPOSITION--UNTIL THERE ARE NONE WHO DO NOT BOW TO ISLAM.”