The Muslim Brotherhood

1. Shariah places great importance on an “Information War,” a “Civilization Jihad” against the USA, featuring political and psychological warfare via an international group of Islamists known as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan).

2. The MB uses non-violent, stealthy techniques to establish relations with, influence and, wherever possible, penetrate a government’s circles in executive and legislative branches at the federal, state and local levels; the law enforcement communities; intelligence agencies; the military; penal institutions; the media; think tanks and policy groups; academic institutions; non-Muslim religious communities; and other elites; all to destroy a country and then establish shariah.

3. The MB is the leader of the Islamic Movement throughout the world; and is by far the strongest and most organized.

4. The MB’s “Civilization-Jihadist Process” is primarily conducted by groups posing as peaceable, “moderate” and law-abiding Muslim community organizations; while, behind-the-scenes, its mission is sedition in the furtherance of shariah’s supremacist agenda.

5. The Ikhwan’s objective is a kind of grand jihad to eliminate and destroy our Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s (Allah's) religion is made victorious over all other religions.

6. They co-opt our leadership into believing a counterfactual understanding of Islam and the nature of the MB, and then coerce these leaders to enforce the MB narrative on their subordinates, with the end result being world-wide shariah, and the re-establishment of the global Islamic caliphate.

7. Nearly every major Muslim organization in the USA is actually controlled by the MB or a derivative organization.

8. Most Muslim-American groups of any prominence are factually hostile to the United States and its Constitution.

9. BH creed: “God (Allah) is our objective, the Koran is our law, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” As evidenced from the Creed, the MB is the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today.

10. The Muslim Students Assn (MSN), is a front organization created by the Ikhwan with many college chapters throughout the USA; some serving as recruiting nodes for the MB and others for violent jihadist organizations. Initially, MSA chapters presented Islam in public as an acceptable alternative to other religions, never mentioning its revolutionary aspects. MSA members are becoming more aggressive in demands for accommodations and silencing all opposition.

11. The Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘ Phased Plan’

Phase One: Inject BH members into positions of leadership using discreet and secret methods.

Phase Two: Expand Islam’s image on the public scene, infiltrate Government, befriend religious institutions and senior scholars, gain public support and sympathy, and establish a shadow government (secret) within the Government.

Phase Three: Escalate conflict and confrontation with the rulers via mass media. Currently in progress.

Phase Four: Initiate open public confrontation with Government through political pressure. Begin aggressive implementation of Phase Three. Begin training in use of weapons in anticipation of zero-hour.

Phase Five: Seize power, establish the Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups are united.

12. The Implementation of Shariah by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Elbarasse archives* and close observation of the Brotherhood’s operations reveal the following as the most important of the techniques employed by the Ikhwan in America to achieve the seditious goals of its civilization jihad:

a. Expanding the Muslim presence by birth rate, immigration, and refusal to assimilate;

b. Occupying and expanding domination of physical spaces;

c. Ensuring the “Muslim Community” knows and follows MB doctrine;

d. Controlling the language we use in describing the enemy;

e. Ensuring we do not study their doctrine (shariah);

f. Co-opting key leadership;

g. Forcing compliance with shariah at local levels;

h. Fighting all counterterrorism efforts;

i. Subverting religious organizations;

j. Employing lawfare - the offensive use of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits;

k. Claiming victimization / demanding accommodations;

l. Condemning “slander” against Islam;

m. Subverting the U.S. education system, infiltrating and dominating U.S. Middle East studies programs;

m. Demanding the right to practice shariah in segregated Muslim enclaves;

o. Demanding recognition of shariah in non-Muslim spheres;

p. Confronting and denouncing Western society, laws, and traditions; and

q. Demanding that shariah replace Western law.

Note that many of the foregoing techniques entail, in one way or another, influencing and neutralizing the American Government at all levels.

*Elbarasse archives. In August of 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Maryland, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver of the vehicle was identified as Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in Chicago, Illinois in a Hamas case. The FBI’s Washington Field Office raided Elbarasse’s residence in Annandale, Virginia, and in the basement of his home, a hidden sub-basement was found. In the sub-basement, the FBI discovered the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The documents confirmed what investigators and counterterrorism experts had previously suspected and contended about the myriad Muslim-American groups in the United States – namely, that nearly all of them are controlled by the MB and, therefore, as shariah dictates, are hostile to this country, its Constitution and freedoms. The documents make clear their sole objectives are to implement Islamic Law in America in furtherance of re-establishing the global caliphate.

[Source: Shariah The Threat to America (Team B Report; http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20(Team%20B%20Report)%2009142010.pdf)

A good article is provided below that details a word-count analytical comparison of political violence advocated by the Bible and the Koran; conducted by Bill Warner of the Center For The Study Of Political Islam. Among other interesting topics, note that Islam grew by about 10 converts per year during the first 13 years of Mohammad's peaceful ministry, and then grew by about 10,000 converts per year during the next ten years when politics and violence was used. In my opinion, this latter process is still at work throughout the USA and other parts of the world, as evidenced by the destruction of the Twin Towers in NYC on 9/11/01 and numerous other attrocities by radical Islamist Fundamentalists who follow Mohammad's "perfect" model as spelled out in the Islamic Triology (the Koran, Sira and Hadith). Following Mohammad's model, these Islamists are masters of violent and non-violent jihad, with deceit and use of taqiyya (lying to non-Muslims), to advance their vision of Islam over us infidels (kafirs); they smile to our faces while stabbing us in the back.

=============================================

September 09, 2010

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran

By Bill Warner

One of the most frequently used arguments in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran. The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument suggests that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but the analogy is very popular since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. "See, Islam is like Christianity; Christians are just as violent as Muslims." If this is true, then you don't have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine.

However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on the in the marketplace of ideas.

Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Koran? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison, and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.

The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is what they do to the "other," or political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note that regardless of whether a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions violent, neither constitutes violence against vegans or PETA members.

The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called "fighting in Allah's cause," or jihad.

We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira, and Hadith, or the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed's biography. The Hadith are his traditions -- what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, also called the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text[1]. This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam's sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed's is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.

It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of ten new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of ten thousand per year. All the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad -- world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual, and the Hadith is a tactical manual, of jihad.

Now let's go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.

When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy[2] and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible[3]. The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.

The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is also the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts and that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics, and intellectuals. What artist, critic, or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats against and/or murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortune, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic, or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the responses to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruits from the two trees are as different as night and day.

It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.

- Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam

http://www.politicalislam.com

bw@politicalislam.com

---

[1] http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/The_Relative_Sizes_of_the_Trilogy_Texts.html

[2] http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Percentage_of_Trilogy_Text_Devoted_to_Jihad.html

[3] http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/pdf/OldTestamentViolentPassages.pdf

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_political_violence_of_the.html at September 11, 2010 - 12:01:03 PM CDT

What is Radical Islam?

WHAT IS RADICAL ISLAM?

by

Guy Rodgers, Executive Director

ACT! for America

There is no simple or singular way to define or describe “radical Islam.” One person hears the phrase and thinks “terrorism.” Others think “Islamofascism,” “jihad,” “Sharia law,” “Islamic fundamentalism,” “Islamism,” “political Islam,” a struggle against the “infidel,” or simply the “Muslim religion.” Others aren’t sure what to think.

Regardless of the name or adjective, radical Islam is a threat to our national security and our freedoms that must be taken more seriously than it has been to date.

For nearly three years I have immersed myself in a study of radical Islam, Islamic history, and Islamic doctrine. My doing so was not merely as an academic exercise, but, as a long-time political strategist, I set out to understand how our enemies think and why they do what they do, in order to effectively combat them.

What I have learned would stun the average American.

It is typical for people to view something they do not understand through the prism of their own experiences. Most Americans know very little about the history or doctrines of Islam. Thus, they tend to impose their own experiences on what they think a “religion” is or ought to be.

What they don’t understand is that Islam is very different from all other major religions of the world.

Where it is similar is the religious practices of devotion to deity and the obligation to a higher moral law. For instance, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all exhort worship, prayer and fasting.

It is not in these practices that Islam threatens the world. It is the ideology of “political Islam,” most frequently referred to as “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Islamofascism” that is the source of the existential threat to the world.

It is this ideology, enunciated in the Qur’an and Hadith (sayings and traditions of Mohammed), the holy books of Islam, that sets Islam apart from other religions.

The ideology of radical Islam has two key elements.

1. It is a supremacist political ideology that advocates the advance of Islamic Sharia law and the imposition of such law on all people. It is totalitarian and imperialistic.

2. Jihad, or “striving,” is an obligation upon the Muslim “umma” (Muslim community of believers) as a central means of advancing and imposing Islamic Sharia law.

Qur’an 9:5 is one among many Qur’anic passages commonly cited as doctrinal justification for the waging of jihad and the advance of Sharia:

Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Here is what Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi, one of the “fathers” of modern Islamism, had to say about Islam:

Islam is not a normal religion like the other religions in the world…Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man…The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order for Islam to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is jihad. (Jihad in Islam)

Do all Muslims agree with this? Of course not. The fact is most Muslims have never read the Qur’an in their own language, let alone the Hadith. Many who speak Arabic are illiterate and cannot read the Qur’an. Many others practice a more spiritual or cultural Islam. And there are many instances worldwide where Muslims are resisting the imposition of full-blown Sharia law by other Muslims.

In other words, as with any religious system, there are degrees of orthodoxy and devotion, as well as differences in interpretation and application, within Islam.

I recently finished reading Escaping Islam by Mano Bakh. Bakh was a high-ranking naval officer in the Iranian Navy prior to the Islamic revolution in 1979. Raised a Muslim, he recounts how his mother was devout while his father was more of a cultural Muslim.

As a third-year cadet at the Italian Naval Academy (a very prestigious assignment) he was given the assignment of educating the other cadets about Islam. To prepare, he gathered numerous books to obtain the information he needed, because he actually knew very little about Islam.

He writes that the more he learned, the more uncomfortable he became. After reading about the role of jihad and the violence it spawned during the early years of Islam, Bakh writes:

As I digested this information, I was stunned. I quietly closed my book, and contemplated what I had just learned. I felt a deep sadness and I was numb to my surroundings. My confusion knew no bounds as I wondered, “Did my kind and peaceful mother believe in this man [i.e., Mohammed]. How could she? How could I? (p. 73)

Surprising? Not really. How many people in America profess to be Christians yet have never read the Bible all the way through – or even parts of it? As in all religions, those who profess the Islamic faith range from the casual to the committed.

Having said this, the cold reality is that most of the world’s leading Muslim clerics, while they may phrase it differently, share Mawdudi’s exposition of the ultimate objective of what we call “radical Islam” and the means by which it is to be achieved. These leaders are serious students of the holy books of Islam as well as the five schools of Islamic jurisprudence (four Sunni, one Shi’a) that spell out the entirety of Sharia law.

They are likely familiar with these passages from the Hadith, which advocate jihad for all time:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “…jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Antichrist.” (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526: Narrated by Anas ibn Malik).

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Mohammed is His servant and His Apostle…” (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2635: Narrated by Anas ibn Malik).

These leaders, their followers, and the many organizations they have spawned, are “driving the bus” of Islam. As was the case in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Mao’s China, those zealously committed to their ideology set the agenda and the course for their nations. The same is occurring today within Islam on an international scale. It is not the moderates, or the spiritualists, or the cultural Muslims, who are setting the agenda. It is the Islamists.

They have hearkened back to the supremacist political ideology embedded in Islam’s holy books, practiced by Mohammed, the “rightly guided caliphs” who followed him, and the vast majority of the Islamic scholars who developed the five schools of Islamic jurisprudence in the early centuries following the death of Mohammed.

A study of the Qur’an and Hadith reveal hundreds of passages exhorting and commanding Muslims to wage jihad, take plunder and slaves, and impose Sharia law and the jizya (protection tax) on conquered peoples. This is the authority Islamists are citing for the growing militancy and radicalism we see among Muslims throughout the world.

The spreading of Islam by the sword, which by some estimates left 270 million dead and millions more enslaved over the past 14 centuries, is a historical fact that is sanitized from most public school and university textbooks. In the first few centuries after Mohammed, his example was emulated as the justification for jihad and conquest.

With the codification of Islamic Sharia law by the five schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the doctrine of jihad and the subjugation of non-Muslims to Islamic law became settled law that has been considered immutable ever since. A Muslim who questions this settled law is at best strongly criticized and at worst regarded as a heretic or an apostate.

Thus, when a moderate Muslim argues against the supremacist political ideology of Islamism and its devotion to Sharia law, Islamic leaders and scholars rebut his arguments by referencing the holy books of Islam and the Islamic schools of jurisprudence and their codification of Islamic law. It is thus unsurprising that very few Muslims are willing to take on the collective leadership of their religion.

The challenge for the West is, therefore, not merely the obliteration of Islamic terrorism. Terrorism is a means, not an end. The end is the imposition of Sharia law on all people, by whatever means necessary.

In other words, if America were to win the “War on Terror”, but lose the struggle against Sharia law, we still lose. This is because Sharia Islamic law as advanced by radical Islam is thoroughly incompatible with Western law as well as the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The imposition of Sharia law is nothing less than the imposition of theological totalitarianism that, among other things, suppresses free speech, eliminates freedom of religion, and oppresses women.

Not surprisingly, the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have refused to sign this UN declaration. This should tell us something.

For instance, you will find this description of the role of women in marriage in the ancient Islamic legal text Fatawa-i-Alamgiri:

Marriage…subjects the wife to the power of restraint (by the husband) and on her it imposes submission to him when summoned to the couch and confers upon him the power of correction when she is disobedient or rebellious…

So what must the West in general, and America in particular, do to combat the threat of radical Islam?

I have concluded that, strategically, successfully resisting the advance of radical Islam will require us to do exactly what Osama bin Laden once said – show the world who the strong horse is.

In other words, we must resist the leadership, organizations and the militants who are committed to the ideology of political Islam, the waging of jihad (in all its forms, from violent to cultural), and the forced imposition of Sharia law. This will require more than fighting terrorism. On whatever front Islamists seek to advance this radical ideology, from the halls of academia to the courts of justice, we must resist and push back.

What’s more, we must be willing to unashamedly proclaim that the values of Western Civilization have, on balance, given the world its greatest opportunities for freedom, prosperity, and opportunity. It is the very self-loathing of Western Civilization, and the politically correct propensity to blame the West for all the ills of the world, that has enabled Islamism to gain such a foothold in Europe, the UK, Canada, and increasingly in America.

Organized resistance has stopped the advance of radical Islam in the past. Organized resistance can stop it again. Doing so is not only an imperative for the freedom and security of the West, it will be beneficial to Muslims everywhere who, for whatever reason, do not subscribe to the ideology of political Islam, the waging of jihad, and the imposition of Sharia law.

Americans must rise up and demand that our culture unshackle itself from the political correctness so clearly embodied in the Pentagon report on the Ft. Hood massacre, which did not make a single reference to “radical Islam,” “jihad,” or “Islamism” anywhere in the body of the report.

We must rise up and affirm that tolerance of an intolerant, supremacist political ideology is no more acceptable when the name was Nazism than when the name is Islamism. As Lee Harris notes so well in his book The Suicide of Reason, the tolerance of Islamist intolerance is not tolerance but cultural suicide.

This is why ACT! for America was founded by Brigitte Gabriel. This is why ACT! for America exists. This is its mission. All freedom-loving people, regardless of political party, ethnicity, color or creed, are invited to join us in this resistance to radical Islam.

A US Congressman candidate gets it -- radical Islam is DANGEROUS

A good article regarding radical Islam and its threat to the world community.

Original Title: The Wrong Way to Fight Jihad

Posted By Jamie Glazov On March 26, 2010 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Vijay Kumar, who is currently running for the U.S. Congress as a Republican candidate for Tennessee 5th Congressional District. The Primary vote comes on August 5 of this year, and the General Election is on November 4. When he ran before, in 2008, he received about 30% of the vote in Republican Primary. His website is kumarforcongress.com ^[1]. Visit his blog at kumarforcongress.net ^[2].

Vijay Kumar: First, Islam was conceived as a world empire to govern all mankind. It teaches that all the world, and everyone and everything in it, already belongs to Islam–some people just haven’t been made to understand that. Until they have, according to Islam, they are considered “infidels” and inferiors. Put another way, the Islamic view is that all of us in the world are subjects of the Islamic Empire, and those of us who do not acknowledge our subjugation to it must be overcome and brought to submission, through conversion or force. No other religion in the world has such a purpose of world conquest and domination. [NOTE: ABUL MAUDUDI, the most important and popular Islamic writer of the 20th Century, wrote: “The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy.”]

Second, Islam does not allow any introspection or self-criticism. It calls for total acceptance, total submission. The very word “Islam” means “submission,” and the word “Muslim” means “one who submits.” The other side of submission, of course, is domination. Islam seeks to dominate every individual and every nation into submission. In that, it shares a key element of slavery, which the civilized world has properly decried and abolished. Such submission is a political act. I am a freeman, and I refuse to submit to Islamic hegemony.

Third, Islam does not have any exit policy for its believers. The act of submission required to become a Muslim is held to be final, irrevocable, and permanent. So criticizing or questioning Islam or its teachings or leaders, or attempting to leave Islam, all are considered severe crimes against Islam, punishable by death.

In contrast, non-Islamic religions allow for dissenting views, introspection, and reasoned debate. In non-Islamic religions, if you so choose, you can leave the faith you were born into without being threatened with physical violence or death. In Islam, both criticism of the faith and apostasy are capital offenses.

All of that is what drives Jihad: Jihad is a permanent war against the unbeliever and his land to bring about his submission. It has been going on for fourteen centuries all over the world, which is why I coined the term “Universal Jihad.” Islam’s Universal Jihad is the single greatest threat to Western civilization and to the entire non-Islamic world in general. It is more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined. [NOTE: The most popular manual of Sharia law says: "Jihad means to make war on non-Muslims."]

Source: http://frontpagemag.com

FITNA Explained

Fitna and the Kafir: Part One

By Kenneth Roberts

December 1, 2009

Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing 'The Satanic Verses' bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is 'FITNA'.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.

Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.

What is fitna then?

The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.

This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.

As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.

There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means 'tempting', 'enticing' or 'luring' another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.

In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word 'fitna'.

Muslims cast a veil over 'kafir fitna'…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah's just punishment upon them.

Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention 'fitna' and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed's method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.

Mohammed is Allah's vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.

The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.

Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. 'Punishment' euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.

In the Islamic religion, Mohammed is the only one who speaks for God. Disputing Mohammed's religious monopoly in public means disagreeing with God Himself…thus putting Allah to the test before Muslims. If Allah has lost face in public, his honor and control of the situation can only be restored by violence. To disagree publicly with Mohammed is to call Mohammed and Allah liars. Koran 29:63 - "Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah?" No one! Anyone who suggests Allah or Mohammed are fakes is the worst criminal.

The Koran tells us that words disputing Mohammed/Allah are more criminal than the deed of murder. This does not make sense.

Obviously, something else is going on under the blanket of religion. That something is a political doctrine called 'supremacism'.

In art, an object is sometimes defined, not by positive use of color, but by negative space and the use of shadow. Fitna reveals Islam's key doctrine of Mohammed's supremacy veiled in shadow. Undermining Mohammed's authority does more harm than anything!

As far as Muslims are concerned, the fact that infidels have wrong thoughts in private is bad enough. The divine plan is for the whole world to agree openly that Mohammed is right. In the meantime, it is good for the infidels to be under Islamic control.

In normative Islam, the public utterance of disagreement with Mohammed is worthy of death. Practically, why is this so?

The death sentence is required for the sake of the political harm done to the Islamic chain of command and the readiness of Muslims as a solid fighting force (Koran 61:4).

Basically, all Muslims constitute one army of which Mohammed is the head. First and foremost, every Muslim male is a potential soldier…a holy warrior…a jihadist. If Islam is to go forward, the Muslim male needs to be emotionally, psychologically and mentally ready for jihad and the Islamic community needs to enthusiastically support jihad.

Jihad is Mohammed's method, the way Islam grows. Mohammed is the only expert on Islam. Anything that stands in the way of jihad is evil, satanic and treasonous! Satan and his followers need to be weakened and destroyed or at a minimum brought under the coercive control of the Islamic state. The Islamic army will be ready only if there is an absence of fitna, so fitna control means information control. Information control precedes jihad.

The tactic of information control was first demonstrated by Mohammed by assassinating his vocal critics, usually at night. Mohammed also gave his complete support to freelance assassins who murdered family members who criticized Mohammed at home…also usually at night.

Disagreeing with Mohammed is not permissible if a Muslim is present or becomes aware of it. Mohammed used violence to stamp out the utterance of disagreement and he approved of others who did the same on their own initiative. Mohammed is the role model for all Muslims to emulate.

Assassination is the normative punishment for the crime of fitna. Killing a critic of Islam is a good deed, since it restores the honor of Allah/Mohammed and removes the threat of fitna from the community. Any Muslim is free to carry out the death sentence in the matter of fitna. In Sharia-dominated countries, no punishment will be given and the killer will be a hero. As well, the assassin is guaranteed entry to the highest rank in paradise.

Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, 'Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.' Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be 'fought' (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.

Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: 'Don't say Islam is violent or we'll kill you!'

But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.

Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)

No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.

The cartoonists disagreed that Mohammed's violent method is right and made fun of it. The cartoonists removed Mohammed's halo. As a consequence, Allah and Mohammed both lost face. If Allah/Mohammed said violence against the infidels is right… and the infidels laugh at Allah's Divine Command…the infidels obviously need to be taught a lesson. The infidels need to accept that Mohammed owns the earth and their position is one of political inferiority to Muslims. Islamic supremacism is Allah's divine plan and violence is Mohammed's method.

The infidels are to be brought under the control of the Islamic state in thought, word and deed and they are given no choice in submitting to it or not. Allah commanded violence so the infidels will be forced to receive the divine benefit of Islam…'even if the infidels are averse to it!' (Koran 9:33)"

Muslim logic is: The infidels do not understand. They are blinded by Satan. Muslims have to use violence to help the infidels. The infidels should be in terror of Allah and the coercive power of the Islamic Nation. It is for their own good. Allah is great! And has the ability to do all things. And Allah knows best!

That final phrase ends every Islamic verdict and the deeds of jihad follow. Further disagreement is impossible.

Throughout the West, the infidels did not understand! The purpose of the cartoon riots was not to reassert the lost human rights of Muslims under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to proclaim the political supremacy of Muslims over the infidels and show the willingness of Muslims to support jihad and bring the infidels under their control. Put negatively, the purpose of the cartoon riots was to declare the inferiority of infidels, who should know their place and commit no more 'fitna'. That is…the infidels needed to learn not to disagree with Mohammed in public.

Source: Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.
Permalinkcopyright (c) CBSX, LLCpoliticalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

What can Local Citizens do to Stop Radical Islam?

Radical Islamists (jihadists) invade countries by any means possible to gain the upper hand; typically through immigration, non-violent and violent methods. They encroach upon a country’s freedoms to establish a repressive and fascist form of Islamic (Sharia) law. What can one do to help stop this? A list of things that you can do is provided below.

1. Join ACT! for America; participate in local chapters; share email articles; sign petitions; provide funding. Visit Brigitte Gabriel’s two websites and view her story: http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/, and http://www.actforamerica.org/. Read her two books: Because They Hate, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2006; and They Must Be Stopped, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2008.

2. Study about Islam: (1) attributes of Allah; (2) teachings of Mohammed; (3) fusion of religion and politics, political Islam; (4) the Islamic trilogy (Koran, Sira, and Hadith); (5) Islamic ethics – duality, Islamic superiority, submission, taqya; (6) unbelievers, kafirs, infidels, hypocrites, and apostates; (7) Islamic (Sharia) law and finance; (8) dhimmitude and jizya; (9) conflict between Islam and “man’s laws” (e.g., the Constitution) and why good Muslims cannot swear allegiance to the US; (10) lack of women’s rights; (11) physical jihad – use of violence and terror; (12) subversion of host-country’s laws; (13) Islamic rules of war; (14) use of taqya; (15) People of the Book; (16) use of Islamic immigration; (17) Wahhabism; (18) the umma; Dar Al Islam and Dar Al Harb; (19) Islamic peace. Activity -- write a paragraph or two about each topic.

3. View/discuss jihadist-oriented videos: (1) Fitna; (2) Obsession; and (3) The Third Jihad, and share them with friends. Encourage your liberal/non-religious friends to see Religulous, and your patriotic, Christian, or Jewish friends to see An American Carol. (Both movies broach the subject of jihad. Afterwards, the topic may be easier to discuss.)

4. Become familiar with the Koran. Some good sites are: (1) The Koran, translated by N.J. Dawood, Penguin Classics; (2) The Glorious Qu’ran, translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. This translation is used by American mosques and by CAIR. A free copy can typically be picked up at any local mosque; (3) A searchable Koran created by the MSA that includes three simultaneous English translations: www.usc.edu/dept/mas/quran.

5. Study websites about Islam. Some good sites are: (1) Robert Spencer’s website about jihad: http://www.jihadwatch.com/; (2) Website run by ex-Muslims: http://www.fathfreedom.org/; (3) Muslim website about Muslims, with official state sponsorship: http://www.memri.org/. Invaluable for its presentation and translation of Arabic and Iranian topics. Contrast this to what Muslims tell non-Muslims; (4) a Muslim religious website for Muslims: http://www.islamonline.com/, click on “Fatwah and Counseling;” (5) another Muslim religious website for Muslims. http://www.islam-qa.com/, click on the English version.

6. Study websites regarding grass-root activities to stop radical Islam. Some good sites are: (1) http://www.citizenwarrior.com/; and (2) Mapping-Sharia Project at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/06/mapping_sharia.html. Do a Google search on related topics listed in paragraph 2 above, among others.

7. Read books about the “true” nature of Islam. Some good books are: (1) The Islamic Trilogy, Volume 10, Mohammed, Allah, and Politics, The Islamic Political Doctrine, Center for the Study of Political Islam, http://www.cspipublishing.com/; (2)
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades), Robert Spencer, Regnery Press, 2005; (3) The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, Robert Spencer, Regnery Press, 2009; (4) America Alone, Mark Steyn, Regnery Press, 2006.

8. Learn about CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and MSA (Muslim Student’s Association). Get active in local school councils to stop Islamization of textbooks and “Jihad on Campus” activities at schools and universities, etc.

9. Urge politicians to be aware of the true nature of (radical) Islam and to take actions to stop its relentless encroachment.

10. Submit articles to local newspapers that address the true aspects of Islam – especially “radical” Islam.

11. Purchase and use “ACT! for America” business cards at meetings etc. (you can make free cards at: http://www.vistaprint.com/).

12. Join related political/social clubs and ask to give talks about “true” nature of Islam (a 3-5 page handout is recommended).

13. Join related political/social clubs and ask to give talks about “true” nature of Islam (a 3-5 page handout is recommended). Ask local libraries to order books and videos that illuminate radical Islam. For example:
Books: Why They Hate (Brigitte Gabriel); They Must Be Stopped (Brigitte Gabriel); The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (Robert Spencer); The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran (Robert Spencer); Muslim Mafia (Gaubatz and Sperry); Infidel (Ayaan Hirsi Ali). Videos: Islam: What the West Needs to Know; Obsession; The Third Jihad; Fitna. (act-arizona@cox.net)


[Reference: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/09/what-can-civilian-really-do.html]