Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery

Nothing new to those of us who are already familiar with islam but do share this.

by Muhammad Hussain, 28 February 2009, the Post Chronicle
Divided in eight chapters, after recounting the ongoing often-contradictory debates surrounding the true nature of Jihad and what Muslims fundamentally believe about their creed in the first two chapters, the book establishes, in the next, an ideal paradigm of Jihad with compelling references from the Quran (God’s words), as well as from the examples of how Prophet Muhammad had himself applied those divine commands of Jihad. With great insights and analyses, this book makes it crystal clear that the paradigmatic model of Jihad is overwhelmingly violent; and that it lies at the heart of Islam, as it says, “Violent Jihad is the heart of Islam; without it, Islam would, most likely, have died a natural death in the seventh century itself” (p. 79).
-The concept of jihad has spread islam while allowing muslim to eat their own. The biggest killers of muslims have always been other muslims. Do not think this generation of muslims are strong enough to challenge the jihad.

It clearly identifies, in this ideal model of Jihad, three major strands of Jihadi actions, namely forced conversion, imperialism and slavery—all of which are commanded by God (Allah) and practiced by Prophet Muhammad. In accordance with the Muslim belief that the command of the Quran and actions of Prophet Muhammad are eternal in nature, it goes on to demonstrate in subsequent chapters (Chapter 4–7) with compelling historical documentation that, those commands of Jihad were perpetuated by later Muslim holy warriors and rulers; and that this practice continues to this day, although in severely suppressed forms in Muslim societies.

In these latter chapters, the book first gives clear outlines of the Quranic commands of forced conversion, imperialism and slavery and their ideal models set by Prophet Muhammad. Thereafter, each chapter goes on to anecdote extensive historical examples of these practices exercised by Muslim invaders and rulers over the centuries. The tales recounted in these chapters entail mindless brutality perpetrated, in the name of Jihad, by Muslim invaders, which involved mass-slaughter of the vanquished, their mass-conversion at the point of the sword, the enslavement of mainly women and children in mind-boggling numbers, and the imposition of brutal imperial rule involving crushing economic exploitations and horrible persecution of non-Muslim subjects.

The chapter on Islamic imperialism also recounts how Muslim invaders have deliberately destroyed rich cultural heritage of many great civilizations of the pre-Islamic days as their God-ordained duty that “the vestiges of the pre-Islamic jahiliyah age must be replaced by the perfect religious, political and cultural civilization of Islam” (p. 164). The practice continues today, such as the destruction of Bamyan Buddha statues by the Taliban and attacks on similar structures of pre-Islamic heritage by fundamentalist Muslims in many Islamic countries.
-A process taking place in the UK.

CPAC: Obama’s a Communist and a Foreigner

In case you missed the Conservative Political Action Conference, yesterday,  Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid had the fortitude to openly mention Obama’s deception:

Obama Seen as Muslim by Muslims

Some interesting perspectives in here that we have pointed to in the past, only to be called racist Islamophobes:

My Muslim President Obama
Asma Gull Hasan – Forbes
Why members of the Islamic faith see him as one of the flock.

I know President Obama is not Muslim, but I am tempted nevertheless to think that he is, as are most Muslims I know. In a very unscientific oral poll, ranging from family members to Muslim acquaintances, many of us feel, just as African-Americans did for the non-black but culturally leaning African-American President Bill Clinton, that we have our first American Muslim president in Barack Hussein Obama.

I know it’s odd to say this. At first, I thought I was the only Muslim engaging in this folly, and I am reluctant to express it lest right-wing zealots try to use “Muslim” as a smear and cite my theory as proof of an Islamic traitor in the White House or some such nonsense. But, since Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, “I have to support my fellow Muslim brother,” would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice.

“Well, I know he’s not really Muslim,” I would quickly add. But if the person I was talking to was Muslim, they would say, “yes he is.” They would cite his open nature and habit of reaching out to critics, reminiscent of the Prophet Muhammad’s own approach, and also Obama’s middle name, Hussein. Most of the Muslims I know (me included) can’t seem to accept that Obama is not Muslim.

Of the few Muslims I polled who said that Obama is not Muslim, even they conceded that he had ties to Islam. These realists said that, although not an avowed and practicing Muslim, Obama’s exposure to Islam at a young age (both through his father and his stint in Indonesia) has given him a Muslim sensibility. In my book, that makes you a Muslim–maybe not a card-carrying one, but part of the flock for sure. One realist Muslim ventured that Obama worships at a Unitarian Church because it represents the middle ground between Christianity and Islam, incorporating the religious beliefs of the two faiths Obama feels connected to. Unitarianism could be Obama’s way of still being a Muslim. (And let’s not forget that the church Obama worshiped at for so many years had a minister who reminds most Muslims of their own raving, excitable ministers. Even if Obama really is Christian, he picked the most Muslim-esque minister out of the bunch to guide him.)

Mexico says U.S. is arming cartels

Great title; is everyone now convinced this mess on our southern border was a direct assault by the U.S.? The U.S. is responsible for Mexico’s insurgency. Imagine the reaction if a major American newspaper had led with “Millions of Violent Mexican Insurgents Assault the U.S. Yearly”.

Traci Carl, 28 February 2009, (AP)
MEXICO CITY — Mexico blames Americans for arming the world’s most powerful drug cartels, a complaint supported Friday by a U.S. government report that found nearly all of Mexico’s escalating drug killings involved weapons from north of the border.
-Where they got the weapons is being used to distract from the real problem. Mexican gangs have gotten powerful enough to attack the government. Focus on the real problem.

President Felipe Calderon told The Associated Press that his police and soldiers are dangerously outgunned because U.S. authorities are failing to stop the smuggling of high-powered weapons into Mexico. His attorney general called for more aggressive prosecutions of gun smugglers, saying that the U.S. constitutional right to bear arms doesn’t protect them.
-Laws are already on the books that limit the transfer of weapons but that will stop them from using this as a method to disarm a small time rancher.

“The Second Amendment was not put there to arm foreign criminal groups,” Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora told the AP on Thursday.
-It was put there so American’s could defend themselves from them. If they are really as dangerous as they sound then the government should be supplying all of us with assault rifles. Anything from Rock River would be ok with me.

Calderon has complained for two years that the U.S. isn’t carrying its weight in the cross-border drug war, despite the fact that American drug users ultimately finance the cartels.

“I’m fighting corruption among Mexican authorities and risking everything to clean house, but I think a good cleaning is in order on the other side of the border,” Calderon said.
-Hey Paco, you stop illegal’s from entering the U.S. and I will stop weapons from entering Mexico-deal?