Ben’s blog

    The optimists will say that the  General Assembly vote trend on Defamation of Religions  resolutions  favors freedom.  I am not so optimistic. Only eight votes swung in our favor between '08 & '09 and the abstention trend was flat.  The slope of the yes vote line  seems flatter  this year compared to the previous decline. The quantitative growth has been in abstentions, not negations.  Abstentions  have no effect on the outcome.  Unfortunately, a plurality still supports the resolutions, voting against  freedom of religion and expression.

2005    101    53    20
2006    111    54    18    Wikipedia
2007    108    51    25   
2008    86      53    42
2009    80      61    42*    ACLJ   *  ACLJ shows 42 abstentions, the UN tally shows 43.

Yes votes

No votes

Abstentions

If the current trend holds, the resolution could be defeated in '11. but I do not expect that to happen. I expect that, if the vote grows closer. many member states will jump from  abstention to the yes column. If they wanted the resolution to fail, they would vote no instead of abstaining.

The final text of the Combating Defamation of Religions resolution (passed 12/18/'09) spans pages 67-72  of a 151 page pdf file: A/64/439/Add.2, part II.  If you want to read it aloud, you'd better take breath control lessons, because the resolution is basically one long run on sentence.  It begins by recalling and reaffirming previous resolutions and documents.  The trip down the memory lane sewer is followed by a series of statements of  alarm and concern.

Expressing serious concern at the increase in racist violence...

Are they seriously concerned about the recent burning and looting of Christian churches, homes and  businesses in Egypt & Pakistan?  Of course not, that is not what concerns them.

as a result, inter alia, of the resurgence of activities of political parties and associations established on the basis of racist, xenophobic and ideological superiority platforms and charters, and the persistent use of those platforms and charters to promote or incite racist ideologies,

No, their concern is about the Dutch Freedom Party and similar parties in Europe which express concern about Islamic encroachment & demographic conquest. But they are deeply concerned about:

the negative projection of certain religions in the media

    Next they  progress to stressing:

the defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Do they refer to these examples?

• 1:7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).  
• 8:55. Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allâh are those who disbelieve , - so they shall not believe. 
• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! 
• 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).
  

Islamic scripture calumniates Jews, Christians and disbelievers in general, then it declares war and incites violence against them. Where is the U.N.'s concern about that prime exemplar of evil?  See what else they are stressing.

the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,

Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,

What is defamation of religions; what constitutes incitement to hatred?  Who decides?  I direct your attention to  Ban Ki-moon's egregious condemnation of the short documentary by Geert Wilders.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. [Emphasis added for clarity.] Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement. 

Demonstrating the intimate connection  (cause & effect) between Islam's scripture and violence evidently constitutes hate speech and violence. Take a good long look at the incidents the OIC complains about in their Islamophobia report.  Here is what it all boils down to.

Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

Human rights violations?  Such as the right to life? How about the right to be secure in their person and property?  How are our rights affected by the declaration of war previously cited (9:29)?  How are our rights affected by Muhammad's  complete denial of  them, as well as the sanctity of our  blood & property?
   
    Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism? Who  created that association? What did Allah say about terrorism?

• 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers). 
• 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." 
• 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson. 
• 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
• 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives. 
• 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see). 
• 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).
  

Allah said that he would cast terror, Muslims must cast terror, and they did cast terror. What did Muhammad say?

• Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331 [...]  Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. [...]
• Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220  [...]  I have been made victorious with terror [...]

Allah said he would cast terror, Moe said he was made victorious by it.  There is nothing wrong with the association of Islam with terrorism!  Lets look at the specific application of the wrongly associated meme.

Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September 200614 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and prevent the defamation of
religions;

Any association of  Islam with terrorism is defamatory by default. So I have defamed Islam by quoting from its own canon of scripture and tradition.  Yeah, right. What is the bottom line?

Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

Do you remember what Ban said about Fitna ("incitement to violence")?  They postulate a national obligation to criminalize documentaries such as Fitna  and this blog post.  

    The Combating Defamation of Religious resolutions are propaganda, not law.  But they serve to add a false patina of legitimacy to existing blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other places where they are used to persecute adherents of minority religions.  They also create an atmosphere of support for the proposed protocol to ICERD which is slowly progressing in the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. That protocol will become binding international law.

    For an extensive bibliography  refer to: Defamation of Religions: Background Info.   To find U.N. documents referenced in the  resolution's  foot notes  use this search engine. 

Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Georgetown University's Gaston Hall
Washington, DC
December 14, 2009

In our first session, we cosponsored the successful resolution on Freedom of Expression, a forceful declaration of principle at a time when that freedom is jeopardized by new efforts to constrain religious practice, including recently in Switzerland, and by efforts to criminalize the defamation of religion – a false solution which exchanges one wrong for another. And in the United Nations Security Council, I was privileged to chair the September session where we passed a resolution mandating protections against sexual violence in armed conflict.

The Secretary of State packed three lies into the single sentence quoted above.

1. The cited resolution is not a forceful declaration of principle. While it is acclaimed as a rejection of the concept of  'defamation of religion', it embraces 'negative stereotyping' as a grounds for outlawing expression, a distinction without a difference. The clear intention is to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense. 
2. The Swiss ban on minaret construction does not impair practice, it outlaws erection of a symbol of supremacism.  I find no mention of minarets in the Hilali & Khan Noble Qur'an  translation. I find no reference to the construction of  minarets in the four top hadith collections  & Ibn Kathir's Tafsir except to the rebuilding of one destroyed by fire.  
3. There is no wrong to exchange; declaration of the fact that Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a terrorist is not wrong, neither is it an act which should be criminalized. While the Motoons exaggerate, they expose reality. Exposing the violent verses of the Qur'an is not wrong, it is an an exposure of intrinsic evil, as in the case of Geert Wilders' documentary, Fitna. There is no justification for outlawing Fitna and the Motoons.  Unlike Islamic scripture, they neither inculcate hatred nor incite violence.  The riots which followed publication of the Motoons  were incited by incendiary sermons at Juma Salat, not by the Motoons.

President Obama said some interesting things in Oslo, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.  Some will kill, and some will be killed.  And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Some of those young men will die because of idiotic rules of engagement which you imposed upon them.  The relationship between war and peace is that of polar opposites. Replacing peace with war is relatively easy, replacing war with peace requires victory; an overwhelming victory that breaks the will of the aggressor so that they will not soon repeat their imperialistic adventure.

Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Individual terrorists may be motivated by rage or revenge, but Jihad is driven by doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified in the sira & sunna.  What does it matter to the innocent victims whether they were killed by one, ten or a thousand men? What does it matter to them what weaponry was used in their murder? The fact of killing innocents is important, not the scope, scale, method or manpower involved. Islamic doctrine requires "great slaughter"; killing "many of them". 

There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

For Islam, imperialistic conquest is required by Allah and justified by our status as kuffar, rebels against Allah.  If you search for O9.1,  O9.8 and O9.9, and add my byline as a qualifier, you will find posts in which I have quoted Islamic law which requires annual attacks upon Jews & Christians and pagans.

A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies.  Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

A violent movement could have preempted Hitler's aggression. Nobody had the requisite courage, will & resolve to take action.  Nothing short of death can convince mujahideen to lay down their arms. They seek death, and when one is killed, another steps forward to take his place. 'Martyrdom' is their their ticket to Paradise.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct.  And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.  That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.  That is a source of our strength.  That is why I prohibited torture.  That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.  And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.  We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.  (Applause.)  And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

Torture was already prohibited. Water boarding as practiced by the CIA is not torture. What is the difference where you confine unlawful combatants?  Gitmo or Thomson; what is the moral difference?  Our adversaries are not signatories of the Geneva Conventions nor do they abide by them. They are not entitled to  the protection of conventions they do not recognize. Geneva Conventions are not the ideals we fight to defend. Those ideals are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something.  Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable.  Sanctions must exact a real price.  Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

What sanction would have stopped Hitler? What sanction will stop Iran? When an enemy is dedicated and devoted to genocide; when they believe that genocide pleases their demon, they will engage in it, regardless of sanctions. Only death will deter them.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them.  In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear:  All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament.  I am committed to upholding this treaty.  It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy.  And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

Unilateral disarmament is suicidal.  Dreaming of a world without nuclear weaponry is suicidal idiocy.  Avaricious dictators are constantly probing for weakness, seeking opportunities for exploiting those unable or unwilling to defend themselves.  Pandora's box has been opened, the demons are loose, and they can not be recaptured.  Public expressions of suicidal insanity such as Obama's present temptation to aggressors, inviting war.

Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

They want nukes, give them a few, like we gave them to Japan.  Nothing less will stop those who dream of ruling the world. The megalomaniacs and their supporters must be eliminated.  What if Hitler had developed the bomb first?  Any weapon loses its deterrent effect if those who possess it lack the will to use it.

And yet too often, these words are ignored.  For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development.  And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

Case in point: Somalia; President Clinton sent our armed forces, with suicidal rules of engagement and insufficient material. He pulled them out when too many got killed, telegraphing weakness and lack of resolve to the enemy. The results ain't pretty.  Predation is not entirely about the biggest fangs, it is also about attitude: the will to kill.  If you don't have it, don't get involved!  A Security Council resolution said that Hezbollah would be disarmed. How did that work out? The 'peace keepers' are too timid to disarm Hezbollah.  The meek will inherit the earth; only if the aggressive kill each other without first killing the meek.

America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.

Hitler was elected. The Roman Empire had a Senate. Some people just can't get a clue. Form and substance are not the same. Hamas won an election a few years ago; majority rule decided to perpetuate terrorism. The result would have been the same if their rival had won the election.

Let me also say this:  The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone.  At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy.  I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation.  But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo.  No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

So, what did you do to aid the dissidents in Iran? How effective were your efforts?  If those dissidents had prevailed, would their regime be any better than that of the Mullahs?  Most revolutions do not produce liberal democracies, they replace one tyranny with another.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity.  For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

President Obama will be surprised to discover that a few people can analyze his statements and determine their true meaning. He is demanding re-distribution of wealth & income on a global scale.  He is demanding that we submit to global taxation  for that purpose. President Kennedy's economic development policy had a consequence: foreign competition cost American jobs. Got a clue yet?

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity.  It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change.  There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades.

I will use two words most others won't: International Socialism.  That is what President Obama is up to,  in plain, direct language. He intends to impoverish us and ruin our standard of living for the benefit of others, so that they can build up great armies and conquer us.  Islam does not wage war  because it is poor, it wages war to get more. It was founded for the purpose of enriching its founder through accrual of spoils.  It is now known that the 'scientists' fudged their data to establish a lie as  'scientific fact' for political purposes.  We can't educate our own children & care for our own sick, but President Obama has decided that we must pay to educate and heal the rest of the world.  He is a prime example of cranial-rectal juxtaposition.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion.  In some places, this fear has led to conflict.  At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards.  We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden.  We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Tribal & religious conflict long preceded globalization & modernity.  Islam has been engaged in it for nearly 1400 years. President Obama slyly puts the onus on Europe for slowly awakening to the fact that Muslims are taking over their continent.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan.

  How many times will he repeat that damn lie? Islam has not been defiled, nor has it been distorted. It was designed for genocidal warfare using terrorism as a tactic.  Its mission is mercenary and its method is martial.  Read Surah al-Anfal, paying particular attention to verses 1, 39,  41 & 67.  What does Allah want? What did Moe want? To whom do the spoils belong?  What did Allah command Muslims to do?  President Obama assumes that nobody will recognize and point out his deception.

Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

When I see a Gd'd lie, I call it, without fear or favor. I don't care who is offended! President Obama is a liar! Islam is a war cult, not a religion. The purpose of Islam is to enrich its founder through the professional practice of piracy. This fatal fact is fully documented in Islam's Mercenary Mission.  Here is the concluding paragraph from that blog post. It summarizes the major points documented therein.

What keeps a war from being holy? Embezzling the spoils.  That says it all!  A summary follows in the form of an outline.

• The spoils belong to Allah and Moe.
• Allah & Moe get the top 20%.
• Allah granted special dispensation to take spoils.
• Allah promised abundant spoils.
• Embezzling the spoils:
  • condemns the embezzler to Hell
  • makes war unholy.
• Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world.
• Allah made Moe wealthy through conquests.
  • Moe got his income by his spear.
• Moe wanted the spoils & ransom; Allah wants genocide.
• Rome & Persia will be defeated and their treasures spent in Jihad.

    Each of those points is based on explicit text in an ayat or hadith. Links are provided so that you can verify the quotes and explore the context. Next time, do due diligence and examine the ideology, character & associations of the candidates before voting. We can not afford to repeat the mistake we made in '08!

Grassfire  has hand delivered 868,105 printed petitions against Obama Don't Care to Senate offices. They want to increase that number to 1 million by Christmas.  With your help, they should be able to do it, and even surpass that objective.  At one point,  more than 2,400 people per hour were signing the petition.

    You can do your part by clicking this link to sign the petition and following up by sending the link to everyone you can hope to influence.

    If you  do not want the government to force you to buy  a policy of their choice, at a premium you can't afford, make doctors leave the profession, create shortages, rationing & long waiting lines,  then speak up now, while prevention is possible.

    If you want the government to decide who lives, who dies and when; what tests, drugs and treatments your family receives, then sit quietly by and do nothing.  Your children and grand children will suffer the consequences and curse you for it.

    Now is the time to click that link and sign the petition.  After signing, go to http://www.congress.org/ , enter your Zip Code and click the Federal Officials link.  Paste this code into your email.

<a href="http://snooper.wordpress.com/hell-no/">HELL NO!!!</a>

    When your Representative or Senator clicks  that link,  it will display a brief  statement of objections to Obama Don't Care & Cap & Tax. followed by a big, bold, bright execration that will leave no doubt about where you stand.

    For best results, copy this blog post and paste it into an email to everyone you can hope to influence. Urge them to sign the petition, send emails to their Senators, and forward the email.

    Act now, while the disaster can still be prevented. Once it sets in, reversal will be impossible.

I have discovered an editing error in  my recent post: Stop the Trial: Khalid Sheikih Mohamnmed Confessed!   the document link is incorrect as published.
The correct link to the pdf file containing the Islamic response to  the accusations against  K.S.M. etal. is:  The Islamic Response to the Government's Nine Accusations.  

    That document contains several references to the Qur'an.  My intention in this post is to give you access to the source of those references and their meaning.  The quotes are linked to three parallel translations at USC-MSA for easy context checking.

      The preamble begins with this statement.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

You will find those same words in the transcript of Flight 93's cockpit voice recorder.  Both the act of mass murder and the boast are couched in terms of service to the demon whose words are quoted to amplify the text of the boast. Both are acts of worship, neither is secular.  

    The first Qur'an quote is used to explain the covert nature of their operation.

((0 you believers! Take your precautions, and either go forth (on on expedition) in parties, or go forth together.))

That ayeh is 4:71. Ibn Kathir  does not mention secrecy or covert operations in his tafsir of 4:71. Maududi does not mention it, nor does Abdullaj Yusuf Ali.

     In the matter of attacking civilians, five ayat are quoted.

((The sacred month is for the sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the law of equality. Then, whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him.))

That ayeh is 2:194, explained here by Ibn Kathir.

 ((And there is (a saving of) life for you in AI-Qisas (The law of equality in punishment), 0 men of understanding, that you may become A/~Muttaquin (the pious).))

That ayeh is 2:179, explained here by Ibn kathir.

 ((The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof.))

That ayeh is 42:40, explained here by Ibn Kathir.

 ((Life for life, eye for an eye, nose for a nose, ear for an ear, tooth for a tooth, and wounds equal for equal.))

That ayeh is 5:45, explained here by Ibn Kathir.

 ((... Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.))

This text does not agree with the translation I use for 2:193. Shakir's translation is the closest match, note, however, that the quote is out of context. Ibn Kathir's explanation is here.  By selecting that fragment of  the ayeh, the authors were creating a false impression of benign passivity.  The full text of 2:193 follows, as translated by Shakir.

And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Ibn Kathir's tafsir of this ayeh is titled "The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah".

Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said: 

﴿حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ﴾

(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam.

For an overly aggressive interpretation of  this ayeh, see the footnote by Hilali & Khan. The accused intend, by the selection of those ayat, to create a false impression that their attack was justified in retaliation for attacks by us.  From the Islamic viewpoint, resisting their attacks is oppression & aggression. That attitude is one of the fruits of supremacism & triumphalism. 

    They answer the accusation of war crimes with these quotes.

((To those against whom war is waged, permission is given (to fight,) because they are wronged and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.))

That is 22:39, explained here by Ibn Kathir.

 ((And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but be not the transgressor, Allah likes not the transgressors.))

That is 2:190,  explained here by Ibn Kathir. 

    Regarding the hijacking charge, they quote the verse of the sword.

 (("then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush,))

That is 9:5, explained here by Ibn Kathir.

    In answering the charge of terrorism, they cite an ayeh which sanctifies terrorism.

((Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companies with Allah, for which he has sent no authority; There place will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrongdoers.))

That is 3:151, Ibn Kathir's tafsir is here.

((Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the heart of the enemies of Allah and your enemies.))

That is 8:60, Ibn Kathir explains it here. to delve a little deeper into terrorism, refer to  this tafsir.

((Of a truth you (Muslims) are more feared in their (the infidels from Christians, Jews, and others) hearts, than Allah.
This is because they are men devoid of understanding.))

That quote is from 59:13, explained here by Ibn Kathir.

((They fight not against you even together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls, their enmity among themselves is very great, you would think that they were united, but their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people who
understand not.))

 That is 59:14, explained here by Ibn Kathir.

    Last but not least, in answer to supporting terrorism, they return to the second surah.

((And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to your destruction, but do good; for Allah loves those who do good.))

That is 2:195, explained here by Ibn Kathir. Be sure to read the hadith used by Ibn Kathir to explain the meaning of casting yourself to destruction!
 
    In the preamble, the authors  made a statement which requires exploration.

Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity.

They assert that they fight us in retaliation, but claim a religious obligation to fight us because we are not Muslims.  While they did not document the obligation to attack kuffar, it is not difficult to find in Surah al-Anfal & at-Taubah.

• 8:38. Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning). 
• 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
  

I added emphasis to the critical phrases. Ayeh 38 specifies the subject: disbelievers. Ayeh 39 specifies the verb: fight and the compound terminal condition no resistance and no shirk.  Notice the title of Ibn Kathir's tafsir of this verse: The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr.

    In the next surah, Allah commands Muslims to make war on Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments.

• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 

Several hadith confirm those commands, but this one, in my opinion, is the clearest. I added emphasis to make the critical elements stand out.

• Moe was ordered to fight because Allah said "fight them".
• The victims must become Muslims to save themselves by:
• testimony to Allah's deity
• prescribed prayers
• prescribed prayer orientation
• prescribed slaughter
• prescribed dietary laws.
• Until we do:
• our blood and property are not sacred
• we have no rights. 

• Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

Reliance of the Traveller, the all purpose handbook of Islamic law, cites 9:29 as the basis of a requirement that the caliph makes war upon Jews & Christians.  [Emphasis & link added.]

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),[...]

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

  The Caliph is required to fight all other people until they become Muslims (O9.9).  Al-Shafi'i issued a relevant ruling that there must be at least one annual military expedition against kuffar.

"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

    The Islamic religious duty to attack us is founded on those two ayat. It is confirmed by hadith and codified in Shari'ah; confirmed by fiqh.   Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and associates have exposed the fatal facts to our view by submitting them to the court. The facts can not be concealed any longer, they must be recognized and confronted.  

    In reality, K.S.M. etal. are not extremists; they have not hijacked Islam, they are believers, obeying Allah & emulating Moe.  Islam is a war cult, not a 'religion of peace'.  If our elected leaders do not wise up to this fact and react accordingly, we will surely be subjected to further attacks, and eventually lose our legacy of liberty.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his four compatriots awaiting a Federal Court trial in N.Y.C.  for their participation in the planning & execution of the attacks on the WTC  & Pentagon submitted a response to to the accusations against them.  The content of that response clearly establishes both their guilt and that of the demon's war cult whose doctrines motivated their evil act.  

    In this post I will quote the response out of context interspersing my comments.  If you want to read the entire response to the accusations, click the link above. Notice how they open their statement.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

They are asserting demonic sanction for their foul deed, claiming to speak and have acted for it.  

With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.

Organizing the hijacking of commercial passenger aircraft, murdering the flight crews and flying them into occupied structures is a "badge of honor" to none but demon spawn. They thank Allah, the demon, for choosing them to perform an act of  Jihad for his cause; in defense of Islam. That expression acknowledges their guilt, but they do not own it as guilt, they wear it with pride.

Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.

Fighting & terrorizing us is a  great legitimate duty in their religion. Where would they get such an idea? Could it be the Qur'an? Could it be the hadith? Could it be the Sira? Could it be Shari'ah?  Or is it all of those?  

Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity.

It is their duty to fight us because we do not believe in and submit to their demon, Allah. If that is the case, it is the duty of every Muslim to attack us whenever the opportunity arises.  Is it? What did Allah and his Messenger say about this issue?

• 2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
• 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do. 
• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 
• Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
  Narrated Anas bin Malik:
  Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." [Emphasis added.]

Do those words mean what they say or not? Turn to Islamic law: Reliance of the Traveller, for confirmation.

• O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

  The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

  "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),[...]

Allah said it, Moe confirmed it; Shari'ah codified it. Now the accused have confirmed it; what further proof do you need? Once in possession of this knowledge, how can you tolerate the existence of Islam?

    After laying down their cause of action in the preamble, they answer the accusation of conspiracy.

This is a very laughable accusation. Were you expecting us to inform you about our secret attack plans? Your intelligence apparatus, with all its abilities, human and logistical, had failed to discover our military attack plans before the blessed 11 September operation. They were unable to foil our attack. We ask, why then should you blame us, holding us accountable and putting us on trial? Blame yourselves and your failed intelligence apparatus and hold them accountable, not us.

They had secret plans, and consider themselves innocent because we could not detect and interpret those plans.  They call the abomination 'blessed'. Can anything be more perverse and evil?  Why should the perpetrators be blamed?  Blame the defenders instead.   This blame the victims mentality; the role reversal, is a clear sign of AssWholliness.

With regards to us, we were exercising caution and secrecy in our war against you. This is a natural matter, where God has taught us in his book, verse 71 from An-Nisa: ((0 you believers! Toke your precautions, and either go forth (on on expedition) in parties, or go forth together.))  Also, as the prophet has stated: "War is to deceive."

They acknowledge the fact that Islam is waging war against us in the demon's name.

With regards to the second, third, and forth accusations; "Attacking civilians," "Attacking civilian objects," and "deliberately causing grave bodily harm":

We ask you; who initiated the attacks on civilians? Who is attacking civilian objects? And who is causing grave bodily harm against civilians? Is it us, or is it you?

This prime example of argumentum tu-quoque shows us the second reason  why the demon spawn should not be granted a civilian trial: their attempt to reverse the roles and put us on trial.  The best response to their contumacious attitude is to drown them in a septic tank, without any trial. They present a list of irrelevant accusations, in order to distract attention from the fatal fact that attacking us is their 'religious' obligation because we do not worship their demon.

In fact, it was you who had wiped out two entire cities off the face of the earth and killed roughly half a million people in a few minutes and caused grave bodily harm by nuclear radiation? Did you forget  about your nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Our termination of the war in the Pacific was an act of self defense, not aggression. That history is entirely irrelevant to the issue of Islam's act of genocidal conquest against us.  They accuse us of initiating the war, overlooking the attacks by the Barbary Pirates when this nation was young and had no external military presence.  

With regards to accusations five and six. "Crimes in violation of the law of war." and "Destroying property in violation of the law of war":

Who is breaking the law of war in this world? Is it us, or is it you? You have disobeyed all heaven and earth's laws of war, to include your own laws. You have violated the law of war by supporting the Israeli occupation of Arab land in Palestine and
Lebanon, and for displacing five million Palestinians outside their land. You have supported the oppressor over the oppressed and the butcher over the victim.

Here we have a combination of  role reversal and moral inversion. Israel was invaded and occupied by Islam in 638. It is Israel that is illegally occupied, by Muslims. Israel has every right to expel the illegal occupation and defend herself against her attackers.

Also, you have violated the law of war by attacking an independent sovereign Arab nation with you first crusade campaign in 1991. By force, you have occupied the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf. In addition, today, you are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

Can anything surpass this contumacious expression of AssWholliness? It was Saddam Hussein who attacked  Kuwait, we came to Kuwait's defense. We retaliated against Afghanistan & Iraq because they were complicit in the second attack on the WTC. Claiming the consequence of their aggression as an excuse for it  flies in the face of reason & justice. It can not and must not be accepted!

We do not possess your military might, not your nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, we fight you with the almighty God. So, if our act of Jihad and our fighting with you caused fear and terror, then many thanks to God, because it is him that has thrown fear into your hearts, which resulted in your infidelity, paganism, and your statement that God had a son and your trinity beliefs.
God stated in his book, verse 151, AI-Umran: ((Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companies with Allah, for which he has sent no authority; There place will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrongdoers.))

Once again reversing the roles, they accuse us of terrorism, then they claim their demon as a weapon against us and cite his prophesy of terror.

So, our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians, and pagans. With God's wiling, we are terrorists to the bone. So, many thanks to God.

Such a fine reply to the charge of terrorism! No further confession is needed.

Verse 195, AI-Baqara: ((And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to your destruction, but do good; for Allah loves those who do good.))We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in god's cause is a great duty in our religion. We have news for you, the news is: You will be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq and that America will fall, politically, militarily, and economically. Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. We will raise from the ruins, God willing. We will leave this imprisonment with our noses raised high in dignity, as the lion emerges from his den. We shall pass over the blades of the sword into the gates of heaven. So we ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to
place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peaks in paradise. God is great and pride for God, the prophet, and the believers....

 Yet they conclude with another confession. What need is there for a trial? Why waste the money? Why give them a platform for their damnable lies and false allegations?  Why risk the chance that their compatriots will take hostages to force us to release them?  
   
    Let justice be done instead. Force them to dig pit toilets in Central Park, stake them out in the pits, erect outhouses over them and hold a big picnic every day in the week of the next 9/11 anniversary.  When the pits are full, replace the outhouses with apple trees.

    Besides doing justice in the matter of those five captured terrorists, we must recognize the fatal fact that Islam, as preached and practiced by its founder, is the enemy that attacked us and which will continue to attack us so long as it continues to exist. We must cast its votaries and its institutions out of this nation and bar their re-entry.

    Those who seek to appease Islam; who defend it, asserting that it is a 'great religion' or that it has been 'hijacked' are not patriots, they are traitors. The elected officials among them must be impeached and removed from office.

A British Muslim web site, whose creators and clients should have long since been expelled from Britain, http://www.islam4uk.com/  polluted the web with a blasphemous suggestion that Jesus Christ was a Muslim and would favor Shari'ah over secular 'democracy'.   They want to debate Christians & Jews about Christ's mission one week before we celebrate  the traditional  anniversary of his birth. They advertise their debate proposal with two graphic images. Thanks and a tip of the hat to Logan's Warning for alerting me to the existence of this drek.

 

http://www.islam4uk.com/index.php/current-affairs/uk-news/367--the-big-debate-jesus4shariah-181209.html

The three questions propounded in the second image are critical. I will take them on superficially.

1. The message of Jesus was apolitical. His message was directed to  his audience jointly and severally as  God's creations, not as citizens of the state. He told them how to relate to each other and to God, not  how to govern their nation.  His kingdom is spiritual, not temporal; he came as a teacher, not a ruler.  

• 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
  
     
  
• 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. [John, KJV]
  

1. I have seen no scriptural record of Jesus rebelling against the Romans or the Jewish hierarchy that cooperated with them. Driving the money changers from the Temple was his only recorded violent act; it was not against the hierarchy   
2. Islamic arrogance stands out like a wart on the tip of Moe's nose.  The question begs the question of oppression. The people of Iraq were oppressed by the Hussein regime, which provoked a war. They suffer the consequences of silently allowing a tyrant to engage in malicious mischief.   Afghanistan made the same mistake, by supporting al-Qaeda and refusing to hand them over after they attacked us. Palestine is oppressed by  the  an occupying force of Muslim Arabs who do not belong there.  Jesus would stand with the genuine victims, not the aggressors who pretend to be victims. 

    Islam blasphemes Jesus, denying his paternity & divinity, assigning him the status of slave, denying his crucifixion, death & resurrection and co-opting him as a genocidal warlord. As-Saff  14 implies that Jesus led  his disciples into battle against the Jews who rejected him.

    One hadith stands apart from the rest. Pay careful attention to this description of the second coming. What will Jesus do?

• Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:
  Narrated AbuHurayrah:
  
  The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

    "He will fight the people for the cause of Islam."  According to Islamic prophecy, Jesus will return as a warlord, like Moe.  What is the meaning of "break the cross, kill swine":?  The answer is in the next sentence: "Allah will perish all religions except Islam.  According to Islamic propecy, Jesus, fighting the people, will kill the remaining Christians and Jews.  

    The wise guiys will claim that I am reading too much into a simple saying, that I am mis-interpreting it. But I have confirmation, which comes from Ibn Kathir's Tafsir of 7:167.

• [...]In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world.[...]

    So Jesus will impose and enforce Shari'ah.  That includes amputation for theft and stoning for adultery.  Lets check the scripture again.

• 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
  [John, KJV]
  

    Jesus was a Muslim? Did he pray at the prescribed times? How did he know what they were? How did he know the prescribed prayers? How did he know the prescribed ritual gestures?  Did he perform hajj and its attendant rituals? How is it possible that Islam's second most important prophet never visited the Kaaba?  If he did, why is it not recorded in the Gospels? Why did he fail to teach his disciples to fast during Ramadan and perform Hajj?  How would he know the rituals of Islam  more than 500 years before Muhammad  invented the cult?  What Muslim would study the Torah instead of the Qur'an?  Does anyone know of a Muslim Rabbi?  

    The imposition is a blasphemous outrage and an insult to our intelligence.  The Church of England should send a qualified theologian to debate the impostors and trim them down to size. I doubt that they will do that; I expect that they will pass up a great opportunity to expose Islam as a foolish imposture.

Regular readers of my blog posts know that I waste few opportunities to blast Islam with facts. They must be wondering why I have not written about the Nov. 29 referendum which banned new minarets in Switzerland.  There are two primary reasons. First, I am not entirely in agreement with the concept. Second, I wanted to let others write first so that I could take the role of clean up writer.  

    First and foremost, I am opposed to superficial, symbolic attacks which accomplish nothing beyond the counter productive stimulation of Islamic resentment.  Beards, burkas & hijabs  are symbolic, but they are not more important to the wearer as they are to us. Their value is more than symbolic, they are warning signs. Like a skunk's stripes and a rattle snake's noisy tail, they serve to alert us to the proximity of danger.

    Second, I perceive the vote to be a temporary victory.  I have little doubt that the result will be overturned in the courts. The vote serves mainly as a signal of rising public awareness of Islam's true nature and the existential threat it poses to Western Civilization.
   
    My readers know that I will take on anyone, without fear or favor.  While other writings have been more deserving of criticism, My choice did a better job of clarifying some of the issues involved.  Dr. Sami Alrabaa wrote an exclusive for Family Security Matters:  Minarets are Symbols of Bigotry. I will quote some good parts, but you really should click the link and read the entire article because the quotes which follow are taken out of context. .

It is also true that huge lavish mosques funded by petrodollars are being constructed to prove that Islam is omnipresent everywhere and Islam – the best religion on earth! – is increasingly being accepted and practiced all over the world.

The huge mosques & soaring minarets are symbols of Islamic supremacism & domination.  

Minaret construction is an exhibition of political power spearheaded by Islamists. These “towers” are simply aggressive symbols of fanatic defying power. 

Minaret construction has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It is a symbol of bigotry.

If we allow the erection of minarets without offering resistance, our silent acquiescence is a token of surrender. The Swiss electorate decided not to surrender, but they stopped short of effective resistance. They attacked symbolism, not substance.

But when it comes to referendum, the majority in the Western world would also reject Islam as a stone-age “religion.” I am pretty sure that if the Swiss referendum were held in other European countries, the majority would also vote in favor of banning the construction of minarets. The European public is better informed than their self-appointed defenders of Islam.

I am not yet convinced that a majority are fully aware of the nature of Islam. But the Swiss vote may indicate a trend of increasing awareness.  Lapidation may be a stone age execution method, but Moe had weapons made of more advanced materials. 610 was hardly part of the stone age.

It is also true that the Swiss and the rest of the world are not against Muslims practicing their own religion in peace like all followers of other religions.

Islam can not be practiced in peace. Jihad is an intrinsic and inseverable part of Islam. Al-Anfal & At-Taubah are permanent parts of Islamic scripture. If we are not against the practice of Islam, then we are passively surrendering.

If, however, people around the globe, especially in the West, read the Koran and Hadith and realize how this religion incites to hatred and violence against non-Muslims, and discrimination against women, they would classify it as an extremist ideology, as politically incorrect and demand banning it like all extremist organizations. Check out “Is Islam a Violent Faith?” and “Women in Hadith.”

 Nevertheless, the world community, including Switzerland, accepts Islam as a “religion” and allows its followers to practice it under the principle of religious freedom.  

We accept Islam as a "religion" and allow its practice, but if we read Islam's canon of scripture and tradition we would reject it. Will anyone get a clue from those vital paragraphs?

Before the West accepts Islam as a religion it must demand that Muslim states reform Islam; accept/apply universal human rights and religious freedom in their societies.

Preaching hatred and violence must be banned and their perpetrators must be punished. Additionally, the free civilized world must demand from Muslims and their religious institutions and states: Drop all those atrocious passages from your Koran and Hadith if you want to be part of the civilized world.

So Islam must be reformed; the violent passages must be removed from its canon of scripture & tradition. You forgot one, Dr. Alrabaa :  Shari'ah.  Islamic law reflects Islamic scripture & tradition.  How many of those texts exist in book stores and in libraries all over the world?  How many exist in computer hard disks and web pages?  How do you hope to edit all of them?  Who will edit all the copies of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and Riyad us-saliheen?

    Allah tells us in 5:3 & 11:1 that Islam and its scripture are perfected. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah tells us in 6:115,  10:64 and  30:30 that the Koran and the  "religion" of which it is the foundation can not be changed. In Sahih Bukhari 9.78.174 Moe is on record cursing anyone who changes Islam after his death, saying that they will be far removed from mercy.  Abu Dawud 23.3455 has Moe saying that if Muslims abandon Jihad in favor of agriculture, "Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion." [Emphasis added.]
 

    Muslims who would reform Islam risk fatwa as apostates. Muslims Against Sharia is a prime example.  Their Koran revision leaves As-Saff 10-13 intact.  while Surah At-Taubah has been entirely excised. Surahs 8 & 47  lose context & continuity when the violent ayat are removed.  

    Perhaps you'd prefer to re-interpret the Koran. But the gates of ijtihad have been closed for 900 years. They are not about to spring open.  Who knows the interpretation better than the one who revealed it?  His Sunna & Sira show us what the Koran means.  What does this mean?

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Moe will tell you what it means!

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."  [Emphasis added.]

    Allah's jihad  imperatives mean exactly what they say. They can not be edited, and if they were, they would eventually be restored.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4278:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it.

    The Swiss initiative is symbolic, with no effect beyond giving visibility to the rising tide of rejection of Islam. Islam is an intolerable predator which can not be reformed. That leaves Western Civilization  one alternative: Islam must be prohibited by law. Ban the substance, not its symbols.  

    Dr. Sami Alrabaa asserts that we would reject Islam and favor banning it if we understood it from reading the Koran & hadith.   You can test that hypothesis without slogging through thousands of pages of musty text. The ayat most relevant to Islamic aggression, the tafsir which explain them and the ahadith which confirm them are contained in EgregiousAyat.chm, along with the most important part of Shari'ah which codifies them into law.

    The practical application of those texts is found in fiqh: rulings by Islamic jurists. FOMIJihad.chm's Jihad in Fiqh chapter presents a significant sample of relevant rulings.  For those who prefer the hard slog method, the Muslim Student Association at USC maintains a data base containing  three parallel translations of the Koran and four of the six canonical hadith collections.

    For those who need the look, feel, permanence & aroma of printed text:

• The Meaning Of The Holy Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Hardcover - May 2004) Buy new: $24.95 $20.60 
• The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari With the Arabic Text (9 volume set) by Muhammad Ibn Ismail Bukhari and Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Hardcover - Oct 1996) 2 new from $158.98 2 used from $169.23
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir (10 Volumes; Abridged) by Hafiz Ibn Kathir (Hardcover - Sep 1, 2000) Buy new: $279.50
• Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib and Noah Ha Mim Keller (Hardcover - Jul 1, 1997) Buy new: $29.95 $25.60

World Net Daily has initiated a petition campaign against  civilian trials for terrorists. After stating the obvious logical reasons for opposing the New York show trials, they cite Article III, Section 1of the  Constitution  as the legal basis for Congressional control of lower court jurisdiction and resolve:

We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States in demanding the Congress of the United States use its authority to stop this show trial and any future abuses of American jurisprudence by making a simple declaration:

"Federal district courts shall have no jurisdiction over any case involving unlawful enemy combatants, as that term is defined in the United States Code (Title 10, Section 948a)."

    Foreign terrorists, captured on foreign soil, who are not U.S. citizens, are not entitled to the rights, privileges & immunities of citizens.  They do not have a  right to get off Scott-free by trickery or technicality.  

    We do not owe them a soapbox from which to spew their anti-civilization venom.  We do not  need to subject the survivors of the Abomination to the daily grind of news coverage which will surely tear open their  psychic wounds.

    We must not subject the residents of  New York  City and the surrounding area to increased risk of terrorism, particularly that of hostage taking designed to win the release of the terrorists.

    3,528  people have signed the petition, I am one of them. Please sign it and urge your family, friends & associates to sign it.  Lets say no to treasonous, suicidal idiocy!