Thursday, January 26, 2006
It is the sole purpose of government to protect these rights. And according to the American creed, when a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it.
What will be the fate of religious freedom in the West under the "mercy" of Islam since its god commands, "Fight...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya," and, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9)?
But it is for freedom that Christ has set us free.
A Presidential proclamation:
Religious Freedom Day, 2006
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
The right to religious freedom is a foundation of America. On Religious Freedom Day, our Nation celebrates the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and the protection of religious freedom in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of freedom of religion to a stable democracy, and our Constitution protects individuals' rights to worship as they choose. We reject religious discrimination in every form, and we continue our efforts to oppose prejudice and to counter any infringements on religious freedom.
Today, we are also working to advance freedom of religion abroad. The Department of State's Office of International Religious Freedom plays an important role in these efforts, advocating for religious freedom and actively working against religious persecution around the world. In recent years, we have seen important progress, including in Vietnam, Laos, India, Georgia, and the United Arab Emirates, and with the release of many individuals in countries throughout the world who had been imprisoned because of their faith. By helping to secure the religious freedom of people in other countries, we promote the spread of liberty and human dignity.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2006, as Religious Freedom Day. I call on all Americans to reflect on the great blessing of religious liberty, endeavor to preserve this freedom for future generations, and commemorate this day with appropriate events and activities in their schools, places of worship, neighborhoods, and homes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.
GEORGE W. BUSH
"'Just in case: Baptism doesn't cleanse anybody of anything. Baptism is an outward symbol of an inward change that has already occurred (having our sins washed away and reborn by the Spirit of God) .'Baptism is God's work, not man's. By it He forgives sins, creates and strengthens faith, and gives us eternal life. To regard Baptism as only a symbol is to ignore God's clear word and negate His amazing generosity toward us sinners.
Peter answered them, "All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift" (Acts 2:38).
What are you waiting for now? Get up! Be baptized, and have your sins washed away as you call on his name (Acts 22:16).
Baptism...now saves you (1 Peter 3:21).
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them: "You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me.
"But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more.
"Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.
"Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
"Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I have coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me. I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "
1st Peter 5:1-4
The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Some thoughts regarding some of the standard techniques used to try to silence Those Who Know and to discredit them in the eyes of Those Who Don't, from Jihad Watch:
There is a recurring feature of criticism of my work and this site: critics charge that in writing about Islam I focus only on the violent teachings and teachers, and ignore those that are peaceful. Of course, since what I do in my books and at this site is explore the ideological and theological roots of jihad violence, it should be obvious why I would quote inciteful texts and violent imams.
However, the claim that I "cherry-pick" violent verses from the Qur'an and ignore peaceful ones is simply false; in my books, particularly Onward Muslim Soldiers, I give examples of both Qur'anic verses that are purportedly more peaceful and ones that are violent, and I explain how both types are treated in traditional Islamic theology, explaining the traditional doctrine of abrogation (naskh) and other elements that lead traditional Islam to favor violence and subjugation over peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals.
Nevertheless, many have said that I ignore scholars both ancient and modern who teach against the ideas of violent jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers, and against the idea that Abu Hamza espouses here, that one may gain Paradise by killing unbelievers and getting killed in the process. The problem is that no one has ever been able to come up with a single specific example of such a scholar or tradition within Islam. They simply deride me as ignorant and try to give readers the impression that there is a vast body of Islamic teaching that contradicts what I say.
Such putative reformers, of course, have existed and do exist. Daniel Pipes recently referred to one: Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85) of Sudan. Said Pipes: "Taha argued that specific Koranic rulings applied only to Medina, not to other times and places. He hoped modern-day Muslims would set these aside and live by the general principles delivered at Mecca. Were Taha's ideas accepted, most of the Shari'a would disappear, including outdated provisions concerning warfare, theft, and women. Muslims could then more readily modernize."
That's great. Pipes neglected to mention, however, that Taha was arrested and executed for heresy. Were those who tried and executed him utterly ignorant of the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah? More of those ubiquitous misunderstanders of Islam? Were Taha actually reflecting a legitimate and established tradition within Islam, would his enemies have been able to do away with him so readily?
What my critics would have you believe is that there are many Tahas and even traditions full of Tahas within Islam, and that I am ignoring them. They would have you believe that such traditions are actually the mainstream of Islam and that they are not considered heretical by most Muslims.
Very well. I will issue this request again. I know Abu Hamza is right when he says that "religous scholars" regard jihadist-martyrdom bombing as "the highest form of martyrdom." I can readily provide examples of such.
Now: prove him wrong, please. Help me out in my ignorance. Send me specific examples not only of Islamic religious scholars condemning jihadist-martyrdom bombing, for I know that some do (but I think it is reasonable to regard only such condemnations that include rejection of such acts against Israelis and other non-Muslims, not just against other Muslims). Send me also examples of Islamic religious scholars rejecting, on Islamic grounds, jihad violence against non-Muslims; rejecting the idea that Sharia law should be instituted in the Muslim and non-Muslim world; and teaching the idea that non-Muslims and Muslims should live together indefinitely as equals. Send me rejections of the ideas that women should not enjoy full equality of rights with men.
But it would be preferable if these scholars were not lone voices crying in the wilderness, with the wolves of Islamic orthodoxy ready to pounce upon them. After all, if I have somehow missed in 25 years of study these broad peaceful traditions within Islam, I would hope that someone out there would be so kind as to enlighten me. Send me examples not of lone scholars, but of entire Islamic schools of thought or sects or traditions that eschew this ideology of violence and supremacism. Send it all to firstname.lastname@example.org. And thank you.
Oh, and by the way: spare me talk of the Sufis, please. They are aiding the Chechen jihad; Hasan Al-Banna of the Muslim Brotherhood was strongly influenced by them; and some of their most revered figures, including Al-Ghazali himself, were quite clear in their espousal of violent jihad and dhimmitude for non-Muslims. See Andrew Bostom's critically important expose here.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Rather than demonstrate from Islam's "sacred" texts that I've mischaracterized Hadith and Sira revealing the intolerant, violent, and depraved words and actions of the (false) prophet, a reader has instead accused Christianity of wrongdoing (which, even when true, are demonstrably not a result of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, while the crimes against humanity committed in the name of Allah are consistent with his revelations).
Showing the "true Islam" more clearly, here is the latest in my correspondence with a guest from Egypt.
...for any American who loves his country and think that it's the MERCIFUL and PERFECT STATE...Forget it!I doubt any American would consider the U.S. "perfect." However, any honest observer of human nature and history would have to admit that the ideals on which the nation was founded and to which it aspires are indeed quite noble, and to the degree that any human institution could be considered such, "perfect."
The American creed acknowledges that the one true God (the God of the Bible) has given to all people certain rights which are unalienable--they cannot be given away, sold, stolen, or transferred to another; they come not from men, nor from government, but from the Creator Himself.
That is certainly a step above any other ideology or philosophy, especially one which requires "infidels" be fought against, subdued and humiliated, and killed in the name of its god.
My discussion with you is to talk about TRUE Islam,so I don't want to talk about Egypt...I mentioned Egypt as an example of the "true Islam." In this country (which you lament does not yet practice fully Shariah), Christians are systematically discriminated against and oppressed, a fact which at first you completely denied.
And what is the "true Islam"? How can one know it? I have cited Allah and his apostle's clear words and deeds, yet you contradict them.
Whom should we believe?
Then you mentioned Saudi Arabia and Iran in fact I don't know non-muslims position in them but if there were any unfair actions are done towards them it will prove that these states don't practice Islam in the right way…How can this be when Allah commands his people to subdue and humiliate the unbelievers under Dhimma?
...I'm talking about-is what my merciful Prophet was doing with non-muslims..."Mercy." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- -Is it merciful to make war against non-Muslims simply for the fact that they are not Muslim?
-Is it merciful to slaughter the men and to rape and enslave the rest?
-Is it merciful to kill a man and then rape his daughter the same day?
-Is it merciful to crucify and dismember prisoners of war?
-Is it merciful to assassinate critics?
-Is it merciful to rape a nine-year-old girl and call it "marriage"?
-Is it merciful to oppress and humiliate an infidel people just because they refuse conversion and death?
-Is it merciful to murder anyone who leaves his Islamic faith?
1.You must take translated texts from trusted sources taking in consideration that the meaning may lost in translation operation.The translations I use are the traditionally-accepted English translations available on dozens of Islamic sites and in numerous Islamic hardcover publications.
2.You must take every text concerned to the thing you want to judge and know event it was said in and know is it a main rule or an exception?!!(ex.all verses you mentioned and hadith invite to mercy with non-muslims and in the other side verses which order to fight some of them and try to understand why it order to be merciful with them as a main rule and why it order to fight them in the other verse as an exception)and if you can't do that ask trusted Islamic sources.Again, my sources are Islam's own. And if you were as familiar with them as you say I should be, you would know that many of the earlier, more peaceful and cooperative "revelations" were later abrogated by Allah's final universal commands requiring offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.
Besides that, if you want to defend Islam, I wouldn't appeal to Hadith or Sira to explain the contexts behind Qur'anic texts; alone the Qur'an would probably be taken by most non-Muslims as the incoherent ravings of a madman--with the additional context and biography provided by them, the monstrous nature of Mohammed and his god becomes overwhelmingly and irrefutably clear.
4.You must look at the crime done by who worth punishment before you look to the punishement;as Islam is religion of mercy so it won't punish a person till his crime was bad and dangerous.Unfortunately for Infidels and Apostates, rejection of Allah alone is a "crime."
6.You must read QUR'AN as a whole and don't take small parts and build your opinion on them forgetting the rest of them..I agree. The Qur'anic texts must be understood in their historical contexts. When one does this, one understands the earlier passages requiring peace and cooperation with non-Muslims have been abrogated by Allah's final commands requiring war against the "unbelieving" world.
One also learns of the violence and depravity characterizing the (false) prophet (unless you call wanton murder, stealing, enslavement, mutilation, and rape "mercy").
(These rules are put by me not taken from texts so if there was any wrong it will be from me but please take them also as a whole)They are good and fair rules. I agree completely.
Unfortunately, the subject matter to which they must be applied are beyond hope.
Yes I'm able to provide you with a lot of evidences like films that shows Americans with the most modern tools and in the same time Arab are retardates and aren't clean and lust(sorry)is the first thing in their life like:(The Mummy:Americans are in cars and plans,Arab riding horses),...And this explains away Allah's commands and Mohammed's example in what way(s)?
Or are you implying that I am unfairly biased against Islam because I have been brainwashed by Western media into having a false and unflattering image of Arabs?
Or are you trying to imply I am racist or an ethnocentrist (since you know neither my race nor ethnicity, that would be risky)?
Perhaps you are just trying a technique traditionally used by Muslim apologists: rather than admit the (unpleasant) truth to non-Muslims about Allah's designs for them, try to change the subject and make them feel guilty by pointing out wrongs committed by their own.
I would prefer to stay on-topic.
...IT'S AN ORGANIZED WAR AGAINST MUSLIMS.."...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).
Who's making war against whom?
it's because we are the source of their civilization(and go to history)That's strange. Islam has only existed fourteen centuries. The foundation of Western Civilization, the Bible, has existed for two thousand years. YHWH's first words to His chosen people were given thirty-four centuries ago. You do the math.
And if you are appealing to Mesopotamia and the "Cradle of Civilization" don't, because if anything, Islam parasitically sucks the life out of the civilizations it conquers, destroying the symbols of its pre-Islamic history and culture.
"..you cannot, since they are from Allah."absolutely they are from ALLAH but the problem is your misunderstanding.Any way,good that you started doing a positive thing not just directing swears and accusation:I've not "directed swears and accusations." I've clearly, fairly, and accurately cited Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.
You have not demonstrated from their literary or historical contexts that I've misrepresented the commands. You have only obfuscated.
...like Christians who said that there is three or Jesus is the god however Jesus himself said when he was a baby that he is a thrall to ALLAH...No, Jesus never said He was a slave to Allah (that would be blasphemy on His part, and Christ had no sin).
Jesus said He was the Son of YHWH, the God of Israel. He said He was "I AM," claiming for His own the personal name by which the Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator revealed Himself to His chosen people.
,BUT it don't mean to fight non-muslims who aren't dangerous or harming Islamic state it's for non-muslims who are themselves fighting Islamic state or Islam and forbid Islam to reach all the world and represent danger on Islam,...Since "forbidding Islam to reach all the world" represents a "danger on Islam," it is "harming Islamic state" right? There is no "innocent" free non-Muslim, right? Every infidel who refuses to submit to Islam represents a threat to it, right?
Even so, the Qur'anic passages allowing and then requiring self-defensive warfare do not negate the later universal commands for offensive warfare against "unbelievers."
...the thing that I can say to you is leaving Islam in Islamic state is the same as crime of refusing Law in a country in all canons;and it's punishment is killing in all of them.So you agree with the "mercy" of Mohammed: kill the apostate? How enlightened of you! Now you really are revealing the "true Islam."
Jesus never ordered the killing of those who leave the faith. I know of no other major world religion that requires it either.
...my mother Aisha-may ALLAH bless her-was engaged before that to another man,and scientifically a girl ripen sexually(sorry)in the hot areas before a girl in clod areas.You must take in consideration differences of time and social habits.Justifying pedophilia. More of the "true Islam"!
and there is an important verse that reveal Justice of Islam it's.."8.Allah forbids you not, with regard to those WHO FIGHT YOU not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing KNINDLY and JUSTLY with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. 9. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who FIGHT YOU for (your) Faith, and DRIVE YOU OUT OF YOUR HOMES, and SUPPORT (others) in DRIVING YOU OUT, from TURNINR TO THEM (FOR FRIENDSHIP AND PROTECTION). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.60:8-9"....so clear,isn't it?!!And now who is TELLING HALF OF THE TUTH?!!You are.
The half-truth here is that you are trying to imply that passages allowing or requiring self-defense are all Allah says about war.
An honest person who knows Islam's "sacred" texts would admit that Allah's last commands required offensive warfare against the Infidel to make the world Islam.
That you still continue to try to suggest otherwise speaks ill either of your knowledge of Islam or of your veracity.
*What my kind, tolerant and merciful prophet did with atheists of his tribe when he entered Mecca(who KILLED MUSLIMS,TOURTREED his followers, BANISHMENT him from his motherland"Mecca" and were HARMING HIM PERSONALLY and tried to KILL HIM)?He said to them:"Go and you're free".Don't you know that?And Hitler was nice to kittens.
Even if that is true (citation?), it does not negate the fact that Allah still says, "Fight against...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya," "Fight...until all religion is for Allah," "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." And unfortunately for infidels everywhere, too many Muslims have been faithful to their god.
*And in Al-Yarmok war,Muslims had to leave countries they rule,so Abo Obayda ordered rulers to pay back Jizyah to non-muslims as they are busy and can't defend them,AND NON MUSLIMS THIS TIME WERE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A GOOD TRETMENT!!And this negates Allah and his prophets commands to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill the unbeliever how?
*If non-muslim were accused by a muslim of doing prostitution and it wasn't true;the accuser must be punished by the punishment of Al-Qazf(accusing a man/woman of doing prostitution without the evidence and the evidence in Islam is:Four men see it or confession)I don't think you want to tread into the treatment of women under Islam.
*Non-muslims aren't punished by Islamic punishment for Drinking beers and prostitution but are left to rules of their religions.That makes their subjugation, oppression, and humiliation okay? Anything for a drink, I guess!
...However I don't think that REAL CHIRISTIANITY order you to hate,swear,direct accusations to Islam and call it truths...First, I've not hated, sworn, or accused falsely anyone. I have pointed out Allah's commands and his apostle's words and deeds, to which you've offered no refutation or explanation. Instead, you've cited other passages having no bearing whatsoever on the universal requirement for jihad against non-Muslims, and you've tried to change the subject to a variety of topics, including supposed "crimes" against Islam by the West.
...but in contrary IT ORDERS YOU TO BELIEVE IN PROPHET MOHAMMED or you didn't read your Bible(I don't know which one is yours..Matta or Birnaba or Louqa…etc)If your knowledge of Islam's "sacred" texts is as thorough as your knowledge of the Bible, perhaps you should reconsider your opposition to my arguments.
The Bible in no way commands anyone to believe in Mohammed; if anything, it reveals clearly and for all time that Mohammed was a false prophet preaching a false gospel, lying about YHWH and His Christ. (And as the Apostle Paul wrote, if even an angel from Heaven preaches a false gospel, let him be anathema!)
I've cited Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira to support my statements regarding Allah, his apostle, and his religion. Support your claim. Provide the Biblical reference(s) commanding Christians to believe in Mohammed.
I don't want you to forget what is happening to my brothers all over the world ON HANDS OF CHRISTIANS AND AMERICANS AND OTHERS like:Citing places around the world where Jihad is murdering innocent non-Muslims? That hardly helps your case. Why not mention the Christian girls in Indonesia on their way to school being beheaded for Allah?
Israeel,Nigeria(ON HANDS OF CHRISTIANS),Thailand...
Iraq(on hands of Americans and it's full of works the least thing can be said about it that it's barbaric insolent,lippy works but any way it reveals AMERICAN NATURE and baseborn needs)…..and current affairs show that..and if these news don't reach you;it'll be another proof for American policy in fighting Islam and Muslims not a proof that it didn't happen,as when one do shameful works he'll hide it.Yes, building schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, and spending American blood and money to kill Muslims who slaughter other Muslims (even children) for Allah--yes, that does reveal American nature!
*What about Israel: Palestinians are defending their country not practicing terrorism as if you backed about 60 years...We can go through the history of Israel and the way in which its Muslim neighbors sought to annihilate it when it was reborn, but I doubt that will be helpful.
*And again about Jesus:what if a man-who trusts Jesus well-be week in front of appeals of life and his humanity defeated him and do a sin by his complete will and then he knew that he was mistaken?Is he forgived by just this knowledge and without asking god(I don't know which of the three)to forgive him?One God.
A man is forgiven his sins by the blood of Christ, not anything he does. And if you think you don't sin, it would be good to remember that Jesus taught that whoever lusts or hates or covets breaks the Commandments of YHWH.
I think that you have a thing called Confession,Right?If you made a mistake with Sam,will you ask his servant to forgive you or you ask him personally to forgive you?The Bible teaches that when Jesus Christ died, His death reconciled the whole world to God. The way in which a person actually experiences this forgiveness is through faith in Christ, for apart from Him, there is no forgiveness of sins.
And how non-christians are forgived however they don't trust in Christ?Isn't this a contradiction?!!!
Confessing one's sins to another Christian is a means by which we can be reminded of the forgiveness Christ has won for us.
And I don't believe that Jesus(Prophet Eisa)is son of the god!I know that his birth was amazing and also he was doing amazing things but it don't prove that he is son of the god but he was doing these things by ALLAH(his God).Allah was not Christ's God; His God and Father is the God of Israel, YHWH. And certainly, you have the freedom to believe whatever you will.
And also he isn't son of the god because of more than one reason:Was he eating,going to bathroom,crying is that from physicals of god(or even son of him)?and he himself didn't say that he is the god!!And if he was son of the god why he hasn't brothers?!!If you said that it's more than strange…We're talking by the mind here...Who has the authority and knowledge to speak of God? Whom should one believe? Christ, or you?
Through His prophets, YHWH revealed many things about the Messiah to come; when Jesus came, He proved Himself to be God in the Flesh. Jesus said of Himself that He was the "I AM," which is why His hearers--who knew that He was claiming to be equal with God--tried to kill Him for blasphemy.
And If he was really son of the god(he isn't)so Christians don't have a prophet!!!!Can a mere man tell God what He can and cannot do? If the One Who spoke and the universe leapt in being can become flesh and live among us, can He not also be Prophet, Priest, and King? (Yes!)
Besides, Christians, as followers of Israel's Messiah, have as their own all of God's (true) prophets.
..."War is deceit",it means that in wars you should be more intelligent than your enemy and cheat him to make victory on him.That's my point.
*"You're leaving out what 1400 years of Dhimma make painfully clear…"so now you think that there is not just contradiction in Islamic texts but it is fully against non-Muslims!IT'S YOU WHO ARE TELLING HALF OF THE TRUTH and leave merciful Islamic treatment towards non-muslims under REAL ISLAMIC STATE..."Fully" is your word. How dishonest of you! I've never claimed all of Islam's texts command violence against non-Muslims; rather, I've pointed out a few of the many texts that do.
I've accurately cited Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Instead of demonstrating that I've misrepresented those passages from their own contexts, you've misrepresented my position and called the kettle black (even when it isn't), just like this:
...also you're forgetting what was done by Muslims in Andalusia(Spain and Portugal)after Muslims have been beaten BY CHIRISTIANS after 800 years of golden era of progress and also treating non-muslims mercifully and kindly as they weren't forced to convert Islam and took a lot of rights!!Do you know what was done in Andalusia?!!European Christians after ATTACKING MUSLIMS in butcherly wars;they FORCED Muslims to CONVERT CHIRISTIANITY and who refuse was KILLED.In response to the eight centuries of the "mercy" of Islam you just admitted.
Do not the subjugated have a right to throw off a tyrant? If it was as good as you claim, why would they rebel?
*" Allah's religion encourages, condones, and requires brutality…..", " and since Mohammed and his followers regularly engaged in the worst kinds of violence against …. "," there is a huge difference between Muslim and non-Muslim.."I won't comment but just hope that this message replied for these LIES.I cite Allah and his apostle's words and actions and the actions of his people against non-Muslims, and you say I am lying?
Allah will not be pleased.
*Making sex with slaves is a way for setting them free;as when the man make sex(sorry)with the slave she is considered as his wife and take rights of wife in Islam and on her will be rights of husband and her sons from him are free,and before Islam her sons from her master were slaves.(Islam didn't try to end slavery,Right?)First a man rapes her with Allah's approval, then he gets to beat her too? What a Casanova!
Do you realize you're now justifying raping slaves?
...Did you see a religion that orders its followers to kill people,slay them and refuse any other non-follower of it;Yes! Allah commands "...fight...until all religion is for Allah," "Fight...against the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya," and "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."
However I profess your God(it's Allah),your Holy Book(Bible sent from Allah not written several times by people from their minds) and your Prophet(Jesus the sent prophet by Allah).You clearly do not believe in my God. If you did, you would follow Christ and honor Him just as you should honor the Father (as Jesus stated).
...But when the other side still telling obviously lies or he don't understand before he write and don't hear what you're saying and also forget so quickly or ignore intently!What will you do?!!So, Allah lies? Mohammed lies? Maududi, Qutb (you can't be a "revivalist" if there was nothing there originally to revive), et al., are lying too?
How is citing your "holy" texts telling lies? You've not demonstrated that any of the passages I've cited have been misquoted or misrepresented. They best you've been able to do is to cite out-of-context a passage or two regarding self-defense (which I've previously acknowledged exist).
How is citing Islam's history of oppression, rape, and murder of non-Muslims (continued to this very day around the world) lying? Even you began to admit some of the injustice.
The problem for you (and for the non-Muslims unfortunate enough to have to endure Jihad and Dhimma) is that Allah's last commands and Mohammed's words and deeds clearly require violence against the Infidel and the Apostate. This you have not refuted, because you cannot.
...ALLAH ordered me to:" Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."And if we won't convert, "Fight...until all religion is for Allah," "Fight...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya," and "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."
That's some choice!
LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE(SHOLARS AND SCIENTISTS) EXPLANING THEIR RELIGION..as a last advice.If I were to have had any doubt about whether or not I was misunderstanding the clear words of Allah and his apostle (I can read), Hadith, Sira, and your experts reassure me that I am not.
If you were to listen to traditional Islamic scholars from history and the present day, you would have to admit that I am representing Islam fairly and neutrally. Since you do not admit this, one must question either your knowledge of Islam or your veracity.
Some questions for you:
1. Do you renounce bin Laden as an unbeliever misrepresenting Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira?I'll be waiting.
2. Do you reject all offensive warfare against all non-Muslims?
3. Do you agree that all non-Muslims and women under an Islamic state should have fully the same rights as do male Muslims?
4. Do you reject Dhimma as unequal and unjust?
5. Do you reject Sura 9 and all other Islamic "sacred" texts requiring offensive violence against non-Muslims as false revelations?
6. Do you reject Mohammed's clear command to kill anyone who leaves his Islamic religion?
7. Do you acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a free nation in its historical homeland?
Thursday, January 19, 2006
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-20).
"Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?
"Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren, especially concerning the day you stood before the LORD your God in Horeb, when the LORD said to me, 'Gather the people to Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.' Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness. And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice. So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone" (Deuteronomy 4:5-13).
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Islam wishes France a "Happy New Year!" in The Great Train Razzia:
French opinion makers are against the clash of civilizations the same way they are against the war in Iraq: fervently sure of their own moral superiority. But reality has a way of its own, and the Great Train Razzia that rang in the New Year on the Côte d’Azur is a smashing illustration of the clash of civilizations.And Jihad against the Infidel has been raging for 1400 years.
One hundred drunk and disorderly “youths” from the “sensitive neighborhoods” outside of Marseille were let loose in a train carrying revelers from Nice to Lyon via Marseille. They vandalized the train, terrorized the passengers, stole from them, sexually assaulted several young women, made convincing death threats and, when all these wicked deeds were done, pulled the emergency brake and jumped the train on the outskirts of Marseille.
It took several days for the story to break. Apparently management of the state-owned SNCF railway system and local police officials thought they could avoid bad publicity by keeping the information to themselves. Even more surprising: no local journalist scooped the story, no eyewitnesses came forward to reveal it, the media blissfully announced that New Year’s Eve had been surprisingly calm -- only 425 cars torched and 13 gendarmes injured -- that the state of emergency was lifted.The news broke on the 4th: 600 passengers returning at dawn from Nice to Lyon were terrorized for three hours by a gang of “youths.” As the bare details filtered through several layers of protective screening, it became clear that a major clash of civilizations…in fact a head on crash of civilizations had taken place on the 1st day of the year 2006. Joyful partygoers on the star-studded Riviera were delivered into the hands of a hundred drunken marauders.
Every official involved in the incident behaved stupidly, no one communicated, no one took responsibility, and the result would be comical if it were not so ominous. The train was not hermetically sealed. The conductor’s cabin was not occupied by terrorists armed with box cutters. There are all sorts of stations between Nice and Marseille. Though the hoodlums stole cell phones, several hundred remained in the hands of their owners. And the ordeal went on for hours.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
"Islam always set equality between all people from all countries."Only if they are Muslim, for Allah requires his people to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and "Fight...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9).
"When Islam came;Slavery was a wide trade but it set alot of ways aiming at deleteing it and examples are alot like..."It is true that slavery existed before Mohammed; it is not true that Islam tried to end it. In fact, the holy texts of Islam show that not only was slavery allowed (and not ameliorated and refuted as in the Bible), it was encouraged. Mohammed made a killing (pun intended) reaping the spoils of war, in goods and in people, making sex slaves even of those whose husbands and fathers he had killed earlier that very day.
Allah's religion encourages, condones, and requires brutality against, and the mutilation, enslavement, and killing of, non-Muslims. And since he commands the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of Infidels (and since Mohammed and his followers regularly engaged in the worst kinds of violence against--and degradations of--non-Muslims), it is no wonder that Islam's enslavement of unbelievers is as vile, persistent, and pervasive as it is today.
*Prophet Mohamed said:"There is no credit between Arabian and a non-arabian,the difference is in holy..."Again, you are telling only part of the story: there is a huge difference between Muslim and non-Muslim (it is the difference between Life and death), for Allah still commands, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and "Fight...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9). Many other passages from Islam's holy texts require the same kind of offensive violence against non-Muslims.
"So Islam is accuseed now of slaving people.."Because it is true. Mohammed practiced it. Allah commanded it. What else can be said?
"we're all slaves for ALLAH.."For too many non-Muslims, that is literally true.
"Do you know what that mean?it means that we all worship Him..and in Arabic Slave means(Abd)Only for Muslims.
and Worshiper(the man who do worship)means also(Abd)"
Saturday, January 14, 2006
NEWARK — Seven hellish days of torture in an Egyptian prison did nothing to diminish Muslim-turned-Christian Majed El Shafie’s faith in God, but it did ignite a passion for helping other persecuted Christians worldwide.
El Shafie, founder of Toronto-based One Free World Ministries, will share his harrowing story and testimony at 7 p.m. Sunday at Em-manuel United Methodist Church in Newark. Through his ministry, he has reached out to lawmakers in the United States, Canada and Israel to relieve the plight of persecuted Christians in Asia and the Middle East. El Shafie urges love and forgiveness in the face of terrible hardship.
“I decided to forgive those who tortured me, but with forgiveness comes action,” he said. “We have to help the people that are suffering for their beliefs.”
Born into a prominent Muslim family in Cairo, El Shafie seemed destined to go into law. His father and brother are successful attorneys and an uncle serves as a judge on a high court.
“When you’re born into a family like this, you have lots of books on law, justice and freedom,” he said.
While studying law in Alexandria, El Shafie was shocked to see the harsh treatment of Christians. Building churches is illegal in Egypt, he said, and Christians are treated worse than second-class citizens.
Struck by this intolerance, El Shafie began studying the Bible. In 1998, when he was about 20, he converted to Christianity and organized an underground congregation that attracted 24,000 worshippers within two years.
It was literally an underground church, worshipping in caves near the outskirts of the city.
El Shafie ran afoul of the Egyptian government when he appealed for equal rights for Christians. He also took issue with the harsh teachings of the Koran, which the government used to justify persecuting Christians.
“It’s not that they’re bad because they’re Muslims,” he said. “Our problem was with their teaching of Islam.”
Obviously, the problem is not "their" version of Islam, but Allah's.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Then Jesus answered and said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life."
Thursday, January 12, 2006
So it is again, and so it always will be. From Power Line:
"...Churchill's great speech upon becoming Prime Minister in May 1940--the speech in which he said, 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.' This...is the key passage from that speech:You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, 'Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?'
The Jews answered Him, saying, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.'
Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, 'I said, 'You are gods?' ' If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?' If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.'"
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
April 12th, 2005
A public protest in Washington, DC, April 5, 2005 highlighted the current (ongoing, for centuries) plight of black Mauritanians enslaved by Arab masters. The final two decades of the 20th century, moreover, witnessed a frank jihad genocide, including mass enslavement, perpetrated by the Arab Muslim Khartoum government against black Christians and animists in the Southern Sudan, and the same governments continued massacres and enslavement of Animist-Muslim blacks in Darfur. These tragic contemporary phenomena reflect the brutal living legacy of jihad slavery.
The fixed linkage between jihad- a permanent, uniquely Islamic institution- and enslavement, provides a very tenable explanation for the unparalleled scale and persistence of slavery in Muslim dominions, and societies. This general observation applies as well to “specialized” forms of slavery, including the (procurement and) employment of eunuchs, slave soldiering (especially of adolescents), other forms of child slavery, and harem slavery. Jihad slavery, in its myriad manifestations, became a powerful instrument for both expansive Islamization, and the maintenance of Muslim societies.
Juridical Rationale and Role in “Islamization”
Patricia Crone, in her recent analysis of the origins and development of Islamic political thought, makes an important nexus between the mass captivity and enslavement of non-Muslims during jihad campaigns, and the prominent role of coercion in these major modalities of Islamization. Following a successful jihad, she notes:
Male captives might be killed or enslaved, whatever their religious affiliation. (People of the Book were not protected by Islamic law until they had accepted dhimma.) Captives might also be given the choice between Islam and death, or they might pronounce the confession of faith of their own accord to avoid execution: jurists ruled that their change of status was to be accepted even though they had only converted out of fear. Women and children captured in the course of the campaigns were usually enslaved, again regardless of their faith…Nor should the importance of captives be underestimated. Muslim warriors routinely took large numbers of them. Leaving aside those who converted to avoid execution, some were ransomed and the rest enslaved, usually for domestic use. Dispersed in Muslim households, slaves almost always converted, encouraged or pressurized by their masters, driven by a need to bond with others, or slowly, becoming accustomed to seeing things through Muslim eyes even if they tried to resist. Though neither the dhimmi nor the slave had been faced with a choice between Islam and death, it would be absurd to deny that force played a major role in their conversion. 
For the idolatrous Hindus, enslaved in vast numbers during the waves of jihad conquests that ravaged the Indian subcontinent for well over a half millennium (beginning at the outset of the 8th century C.E.), the guiding principles of Islamic law regarding their fate were unequivocally coercive. Jihad slavery also contributed substantively to the growth of the Muslim population in India. K.S. Lal elucidates both of these points: 
The Hindus who naturally resisted Muslim occupation were considered to be rebels. Besides they were idolaters (mushrik) and could not be accorded the status of Kafirs, of the People of the Book – Christians and Jews… Muslim scriptures and treatises advocated jihad against idolaters for whom the law advocated only Islam or death… The fact was that the Muslim regime was giving [them] a choice between Islam and death only. Those who were killed in battle were dead and gone; but their dependents were made slaves. They ceased to be Hindus; they were made Musalmans in course of time if not immediately after captivity…slave taking in India was the most flourishing and successful [Muslim] missionary activity…Every Sultan, as [a] champion of Islam, considered it a political necessity to plant or raise [the] Muslim population all over India for the Islamization of the country and countering native resistance.
Vryonis describes how jihad slavery, as practiced by the Seljuks and early Ottomans, was an important modality of Islamization in Asia Minor during the 11th through the 14th century 3:
A further contributing factor to the decline in the numbers of Christian inhabitants was slavery…Since the beginning of the Arab razzias into the land of Rum, human booty had come to constitute a very important portion of the spoils. There is ample testimony in the contemporary accounts that this situation did not change when the Turks took over the direction of the djihad in Anatolia. They enslaved men, women, and children from all major urban centers and from the countryside where the populations were defenseless. In the earlier years before the Turkish settlements were permanently affected in Anatolia, the captives were sent off to Persia and elsewhere, but after the establishment of the Anatolian Turkish principalities, a portion of the enslaved were retained in Anatolia for the service of the conquerors
After characterizing the coercive, often brutal methods used to impose the devshirme child levy, and the resulting attrition of the native Christian populations (i.e., from both expropriation and flight), Papoulia concludes that this Ottoman institution, a method of Islamization par excellence, also constituted a de facto state of war: 
…that the sources speak of piasimo (seizure) aichmalotos paidon (capture) and arpage paidon (grabbing of children) indicates that the children lost through the devşirme were understood as casualties of war. Of course, the question arises whether, according to Islamic law, it is possible to regard the devşirme as a form of the state of war, although the Ottoman historians during the empire’s golden age attempted to interpret this measure as a consequence of conquest by force be’anwa. It is true that the Greeks and the other peoples of the Balkan peninsula did not as a rule surrender without resistance, and therefore the fate of the conquered had to be determined according to the principles of the Koran regarding the Ahl-al-Qitâb: i.e. either to be exterminated or be compelled to convert to Islam or to enter the status of protection, of aman, by paying the taxes and particularly the cizye (poll-tax). The fact that the Ottomans, in the case of voluntary surrender, conceded certain privileges one of which was exemption from this heavy burden, indicates that its measure was understood as a penalization for the resistance of the population and the devshirme was an expression of the perpetuation of the state of war between the conqueror and the conquered… the sole existence of the institution of devshirme is sufficient to postulate the perpetuation of a state of war.
Under Shah Abbas I (1588-1626 C.E.), the Safavid Shi’ite theocracy of Iran expanded its earlier system of slave razzias into the Christian Georgian and Armenian areas of the Caucasus. Georgian, Armenian, and Circassian inhabitants of the Caucasus were enslaved in large numbers, and converted, thereby, to Shi’a Islam. The males were made to serve as (primarily) military or administrative slaves, while the females were forced into harems. A transition apparently took place between the 17th and 18th centuries such that fewer of the slaves came from the Caucasus, while greater numbers came via the Persian Gulf, originating from Africa.  Ricks notes that by the reign of Shah Sultan Husayn,
The size of the royal court had indeed expanded if the numbers of male and female slaves including white and black eunuchs are any indicators. According to a contemporary historian, Shah Sultan Husayn (d. 1722) made it a practice to arrive at Isfahan’s markets on the first days of the Iranian New Year (March 21) with his entire court in attendance. It was estimated by the contemporary recorder that 5,000 male and female black and white slaves including the 100 black eunuchs comprised the royal party. 
Clement Huart, writing in the early 20th century (1907), observed that slaves, continued to be the most important component of the booty acquired during jihad campaigns or razzias: 
Not too long ago several expeditions crossed Amoû-Deryâ, i.e. the southern frontier of the steppes, and ravaged the eastern regions of Persia in order to procure slaves; other campaigns were launched into the very heart of unexplored Africa, setting fire to the inhabited areas and massacring the peaceful animist populations that lived there.
Willis characterizes the timeless Islamic rationale for the enslavement of such “barbarous” African animists, as follows: 
…as the opposition of Islam to kufr erupted from every corner of malice and mistrust, the lands of the enslavable barbarian became the favorite hunting ground for the “people of reason and faith”—the parallels between slave and infidel began to fuse in the heat of jihad. Hence whether by capture or sale, it was as slave and not citizen that the kafir was destined to enter the Muslim domain. And since the condition of captives flowed from the status of their territories, the choice between freedom and servility came to rest on a single proof: the religion of a land is the religion of its amir (ruler); if he be Muslim, the land is a land of Islam (dar al-Islam); if he be pagan, the land is a land of unbelief (dar al-kufr). Appended to this principle was the kindred notion that the religion of a land is the religion of its majority; if it be Muslim, the land is a land of Islam; if it be pagan, the land is a land of kufr, and its inhabitants can be reckoned within the categories of enslavement under Muslim law. Again, as slavery became a simile for infidelity, so too did freedom remain the signal feature of Islam…The servile estate was hewn out of the ravaged remains of heathen villages – from the women and children who submitted to Islam and awaited their redemption…[according to Muslim jurist] al-Wanshirisi (d.1508), slavery is an affliction upon those who profess no Prophecy, who bear no allegiance to religious law. Moreover, slavery is an humiliation – a subjection- which rises from infidelity.
Based on his study and observations of Muslim slave razzias gleaned while serving in the Sudan during the Mahdist jihad at the close of the 19th century, Winston Churchill wrote this description (in 1899): 
all [of the Arab Muslim tribes in The Sudan], without exception, were hunters of men. To the great slave markets of Jeddah a continual stream of negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the traffic…Thus the situation in the Sudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was increasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved them…The warlike Arab tribes fought and brawled among themselves in ceaseless feud and strife. The negroes trembled in apprehension of capture, or rose locally against their oppressors.
All these elements of jihad slavery- its juridical rationale, employment as a method of forcible Islamization (for non-Muslims in general, and directed at Sub-Saharan African Animists, specifically), and its association with devshirme-like levies of adolescent males for slave soldiering- are apparent in the contemporary jihad being waged against the Animists and Christians of southern Sudan, by the Arab Muslim-dominated Khartoum regime. 
Extent and Persistence
The scale and scope of Islamic slavery in Africa are comparable to the Western trans-Atlantic slave trade to the Americas, and as Willis has observed (somewhat wryly),  the former “…out-distances the more popular subject in its length of duration.” Quantitative estimates for the trans-Atlantic slave trade (16th through the end of the 19th century) of 10,500,000 (or somewhat higher ), are at least matched (if not exceeded by 50%) by a contemporary estimate for the Islamic slave trade out of Africa. Professor Ralph Austen’s working figure for this composite of the trans-Saharan, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean traffic generated by the Islamic slave trade from 650 through 1905 C.E., is 17,000,000.  Moreover, the plight of those enslaved animist peoples drawn from the savannah and northern forest belts of western and central Africa for the trans-Saharan trade was comparable to the sufferings experienced by the unfortunate victims of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. 
In the Nineteenth Century, slaves reached the ports of Ottoman Tripoli by three main Saharan routes, all so harsh that the experience of slaves forced to travel them bore comparison with the horrors of the so-called “middle-passage” of the Atlantic.
This illuminating comparison, important as it is, ignores other vast domains of jihad slavery: throughout Europe (Mediterranean and Western Europe, as well as Central and Eastern Europe, involving the Arabs [Western/Mediterranean], and later the Ottoman Turks and Tatars [Central and Eastern Europe]); Muscovite Russia (subjected to Tatar depredations); Asia Minor (under Seljuk and Ottoman domination); Persia, Armenia, and Georgia (subjected to the systematized jihad slavery campaigns waged by the Shi’ite Safavids, in particular); and the Indian subcontinent (razzias and jihad campaigns by the Arabs in the 7th and 8th centuries, and later depredations by the Ghaznavids, during the Delhi Sultanate, the Timurid jihad, and under the Mughals). As a cursory introduction to the extent of jihad slavery beyond the African continent, three brief examples are provided: the Seljuks in Asia Minor (11th and 12th centuries); the Ottomans in the Balkans (15th century); and the Tatars in southern Poland and Muscovite Russia (mid-15th through 17th centuries).
The capture of Christians in Asia Minor by the Seljuk Turks was very extensive in the 11th and 12th centuries.  Following the seizure and pillage of Edessa, 16,000 were enslaved.  Michael the Syrian reported that when the Turks of Nur al-Din were brought into Cilicia by Mleh the Armenian, they enslaved 16,000 Christians, whom they sold at Aleppo.  A major series of razzias conducted in the Greek provinces of Western Asia Minor enslaved thousands of Greeks (Vryonis believes the figure of 100,000 cited in a contemporary account is exaggerated ), and according to Michael the Syrian, they were sold in slave markets as distant as Persia.  During razzias conducted by the Turks in 1185 and over the next few years, 26,000 inhabitants from Cappadocia, Armenian, and Mesopotamia were captured and sent off to the slave markets.  Vryonis concludes: 
…these few sources seem to indicate that the slave trade was a flourishing one. In fact, Asia Minor continued to be a major source of slaves for the Islamic world through the 14th century.
The Ottoman Sultans, in accord with Shari’a prescriptions, promoted jihad slavery aggressively in the Balkans, especially during the 15th century reigns of Mehmed I (1402-1421), Murad II (1421-1451), and Mehmed II (1451-1481).  Alexandrescu-Dersca summarizes the considerable extent of this enslavement, and suggests the importance of its demographic effect: 
The contemporary Turkish, Byzantine and Latin chroniclers are unanimous in recognizing that during the campaigns conducted on behalf of the unification of Greek and Latin Romania and the Slavic Balkans under the banner of Islam, as well as during their razzias on Christian territory, the Ottomans reduced masses of inhabitants to slavery. The Ottoman chronicler Ašikpašazade relates that during the expedition of Ali pasha Evrenosoghlu in Hungary (1437), as well as on the return from the campaign of Murad II against Belgrade (1438), the number of captives surpassed that of the combatants. The Byzantine chronicler Ducas states that the inhabitants of Smederevo, which was occupied by the Ottomans, were led off into bondage. The same thing happened when the Turks of Menteše descended upon the islands of Rhodes and Cos and also during the expedition of the Ottoman fleet to Enos and Lesbos. Ducas even cites numbers: 70,000 inhabitants carried off into slavery during the campaign of Mehmed II in Morée (1460). The Italian Franciscan Bartholomé de Yano (Giano dell’Umbria) speaks about 60,000 to 70,000 slaves captured over the course of two expeditions of the akinğis in Transylvania (1438) and about 300,000 to 600,000 Hungarian captives. If these figures seem exaggerated, others seem more accurate: forty inhabitants captured by the Turks of Menteše during a razzia in Rhodes, 7,000 inhabitants reduced to slavery following the siege of Thessalonika (1430), according to John Anagnostes, and ten thousand inhabitants led off into captivity during the siege of Mytilene (1462), according to the Metropolitan of Lesbos, Leonard of Chios. Given the present state of the documentation available to us, we cannot calculate the scale on which slaves were introduced into Turkish Romania by this method. According to Bartholomé de Yano, it would amount to 400,000 slaves captured in the four years from 1437 to 1443. Even allowing for a certain degree of exaggeration, we must acknowledge that slaves played an important demographic part during the fifteenth-century Ottoman expansion.
Fisher  has analyzed the slave razzias conducted by the Muslim Crimean Tatars against the Christian populations of southern Poland and Muscovite Russia during the mid-15th through late 17th century (1463-1794). Relying upon admittedly incomplete sources (“…no doubt there are many more slave raids that the author has not uncovered” ), his conservative tabulations  indicate that at least 3 million (3,000,000) persons – men, women, and children – were captured and enslaved during this so-called “harvesting of the steppe”. Fisher describes the plight of those enslaved: 
…the first ordeal [of the captive] was the long march to the Crimea. Often in chains and always on foot, many of the captives died en route. Since on many occasions the Tatar raiding party feared reprisals or, in the seventeenth century, attempts by Cossack bands to free the captives, the marches were hurried. Ill or wounded captives were usually killed rather than be allowed to slow the procession. Heberstein wrote… “the old and infirm men who will not fetch much as a sale, are given up to the Tatar youths either to be stoned, or thrown into the sea, or to be killed by any sort of death they might please.” An Ottoman traveler in the mid-sixteenth century who witnessed one such march of captives from Galicia marveled that any would reach their destination – the slave markets of Kefe. He complained that their treatment was so bad that the mortality rate would unnecessarily drive their price up beyond the reach of potential buyers such as himself. A Polish proverb stated: “Oh how much better to lie on one’s bier, than to be a captive on the way to Tartary”
The persistence of Islamic slavery is as impressive and unique as its extent. Slavery was openly practiced in both Ottoman Turkey , and Shi’ite (Qajar) Iran , through the first decade of the 20th century. As Toledano points out,  regarding Ottoman Turkey, kul (administrative)/ harem slavery,
…survived at the core of the Ottoman elite until the demise of the empire and the fall of the house of Osman in the second decade of the 20th century.
Moreover, Ricks  indicates that despite the modernizing pressures and reforms culminating in the Iranian Constitutional Movement of 1905-1911, which effectively eliminated military and agricultural slavery,
The presence of domestic slaves, however, in both the urban and rural regions of Southern Iran had not ceased as quickly. Some Iranians today attest to the continued presence of African and Indian slave girls…
Slavery on the Arabian peninsula was not abolished formally until 1962 in Saudi Arabia, 32 and 1970 in Yemen and Oman. 33 Writing in 1989, Gordon  observed that although Mauritania abolished slavery officially on July 15, 1980,
…as the government itself acknowledges, the practice is till alive and well. It is estimated that 200,000 men, women, and children are subject to being bought and sold like so many cattle in this North African country, toiling as domestics, shepherds, and farmhands.
Finally, as discussed earlier, there has been a recrudescence of jihad slavery, since 1983 in the Sudan. 
An Overview of Eunuch Slavery-the “Hideous Trade”
Eunuch slaves – males castrated usually between the ages of 4 and 12 (due to the high risk of death, preferentially, between ages 8 and 12),  were in considerable demand in Islamic societies. They served most notably as supervisors of women in the harems of the rulers and elites of the Ottoman Empire, its contemporary Muslim neighbors (such as Safavid Iran), and earlier Muslim dominions. The extent and persistence of eunuch slavery – becoming prominent within 200 years of the initial 7th century Arab jihad conquests , through the beginning of the 20th century  – are peculiar to the Islamic incarnation of this aptly named “hideous trade”. For example, Toledano documents that as late as 1903, the Ottoman imperial harem contained from 400 to 500 female slaves, supervised and guarded by 194 black African eunuchs. 
But an equally important and unique feature of Muslim eunuch slavery was the acquisition of eunuchs from foreign “slave producing areas”  , i.e., non-Muslim frontier zones subjected to razzias. As David Ayalon observed, 
…the overwhelming majority of the eunuchs, like the overwhelming majority of all other slaves in Islam, had been brought over from outside the borders of Muslim lands.
Eunuch slaves in China, in stark contrast, were almost exclusively Chinese procured locally. 
Hogendorn  has identified the three main slave producing regions, as they evolved in importance over time, from the 8th through the late 19th centuries:
These areas were the forested parts of central and eastern Europe called by Muslims the “Bild as-Saqaliba” (“slave country”), the word saqlab meaning slave in Arabic (and related to the ethnic designation “Slav”); the steppes of central Asia called the “Bilad al-Atrak” (“Turks’ country” or Turkestan); and eventually most important, the savanna and the fringes of the wooded territory south of the Sahara called the country of the blacks or “Bilad as-Sudan”.
Lastly, given the crudeness of available surgical methods and absence of sterile techniques, the human gelding procedure by which eunuchs were “manufactured” was associated with extraordinary rates of morbidity and mortality. Hogendorn describes the severity of the operation, and provides mortality information from West and East Africa: 
Castration can be partial (removal of the testicles only or removal of the penis only), or total (removal of both). In the later period of the trade, that is, after Africa became the most important source for Mediterranean Islam, it appears that most eunuchs sold to the markets underwent total removal. This version of the operation, though considered most appropriate for slaves in constant proximity to harem members, posed a very high danger of death for two reasons. First was the extensive hemorrhaging, with the consequent possibility of almost immediate death. The hemorrhaging could not be stopped by traditional cauterization because that would close the urethra leading to eventual death because of inability to pass urine. The second danger lay in infection of the urethra, with the formation of pus blocking it and so causing death in a few days.
…when the castration was carried out in sub-Saharan West and West-Central Africa…a figure of 90% [is] often mentioned. Even higher death rates were occasionally reported, unsurprising in tropical areas where the danger of infection of wounds was especially high. At least one contemporary price quotation supports a figure of over 90% mortality: Turkish merchants are said to have been willing to pay 250 to 300 (Maria Theresa) dollars each for eunuchs in Borno (northeast Nigeria) at a time when the local price of young male slaves does not seem to have exceeded about 20 dollars…Many sources indicate very high death rates from the operation in eastern Africa.. Richard Millant’s  general figure for the Sudan and Ethiopia is 90%
Contemporary manifestations of Islamic slavery—certainly the razzias (raids) waged by Arab Muslim militias against their black Christian, animist, and animist-Muslim prey in both the southern Sudan and Darfur—and even in its own context, the persistence of slavery in Mauritania (again, black slaves, Arab masters)—reflect the pernicious impact of jihad slavery as an enduring Muslim institution. Even Ottoman society, arguably the most progressive in Muslim history, and upheld just recently at a United Nations conference as a paragon of Islamic ecumenism, never produced a William Wilberforce, much less a broad, religiously-based slavery abolition movement spearheaded by committed Muslim ulema. Indeed, it is only modern Muslim freethinkers, anachronistically referred to as “apostates,” who have had the courage and intellectual integrity to renounce the jihad, including jihad slavery, unequivocally, and based upon an honest acknowledgement of its devastating military and social history. When the voices of these Muslim freethinkers are silenced in the Islamic world—by imprisonment and torture, or execution—the outcome is tragic, but hardly unexpected. That such insightful and courageous voices have been marginalized or ignored altogether in the West is equally tragic and reflects the distressing ignorance of Western policymaking elites.
Dr. Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine and author of the forthcoming, The Legacy of Jihad on Prometheus Books
Notes1. Patricia Crone. God’s Rule. Government and Islam. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004, pp. 371-722. K.S. Lal, Muslim Slave System India, New Delhi, Aditya Prakashan, 1994, pp. 46, 69.3. Speros Vryonis, Jr. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism and the Islamization of Asia Minor, 11th Through 15th Century, 1971, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 174-175.4. Vasiliki Papoulia. “The impact of devshirme on Greek society” in East Central European society and war in the prerevolutionary eighteenth century. Gunther E. Rothenberg, Béla K. Király and Peter F. Sugar, editors. Boulder : Social Science Monographs ; New York : Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1982, pp. 555-556.5. Thomas Ricks. “Slaves and Slave Trading in Shi’i Iran, AD 1500-1900”, Journal of Asian and African Studies, 2001, Vol. 36, pp. 407-418.6. Ricks, “Slaves and Slave Trading in Shi’i Iran”, pp. 411-412. 7. Clement Huart. “Le droit de la guerre” Revue du monde musulman, 1907, p. 337. English translation by Michael J. Miller. 8. John Ralph Willis. “Jihad and the ideology of enslavement”, in Slaves and slavery in Muslim Africa- vol. 1. Islam and the ideology of enslavement, London, England; Totowa, N.J.: Frank Cass, 1985, pp. 17-18; 4.9. Winston Churchill. The River War, Vol. II , London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899, pp. 248-50. 10. John Eibner. “My career redeeming slaves”, Middle East Quarterly, December, 1999, Vol. 4, Number 4, http://www.meforum.org/article/449 . Eibner notes:
…based on the pattern of slave raiding over the past fifteen years and the observations of Western and Arab travelers in southern Darfur and Kordofan, conservatively puts the number of chattel slaves close to or over 100,000. There are many more in state-owned concentration camps, euphemistically called “peace camps” by the government of Sudan, and in militant Qur’anic schools, where boys train to become mujahidun (warriors of jihad).
11. John Ralph Willis. Slaves and slavery in Muslim Africa, Preface, p. vii.12. This controversial topic is discussed here: Philip D. Curtin, Roger Antsey, J.E. Inikori. The Journal of African History, 1976, Vol. 17, pp. 595-627. 13. John Ralph Willis. Slaves and slavery in Muslim Africa, Preface, p. x. 14. John Wright. “The Mediterranean Middle Passage: The Nineteenth Century Slave Trade Between Triploi and the Levant”, The Journal of North African Studies, 1996, Vol. 1, p. 44. 15. Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism, p.175, note 245.16. Bar Hebraeus. The chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew physician, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus; being the first part of his political history of the world, translated from the Syriac by Ernest A. Wallis Budge, Oxford University Press, 1932, Vol. 1, pp. 268-273; Michael the Syrian, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199), translated by J-B Chabot, 1895, Vol. 3, p. 331. 17. Michael the Syrian, Chronique, Vol. 3, p. 331. 18. Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism, p.175, note 245.19. Michael the Syrian, Chronique, Vol. 3, p. 369. 20. Michael the Syrian, Chronique, Vol. 3, pp. 401-402; Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography, Vol. 1, p. 321.21. Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism, p.175, note 245. 22. M-M Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru. “Le role des escalves en Romanie turque au XVe siecle” Byzantinische Forschungen, vol. 11, 1987, p. 15. 23. Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, “Le role des escalves en Romanie turque au XVe siecle”, pp. 16-17. 24. Alan Fisher “Muscovy and the Black Sea Slave Trade”, Canadian American Slavic Studies, 1972, Vol. 6, pp. 575-594.25. Fisher “Muscovy and the Black Sea Slave Trade”, p. 579, note 17.26. Fisher “Muscovy and the Black Sea Slave Trade”, pp. 580-582.27. Fisher “Muscovy and the Black Sea Slave Trade”, pp. 582-583.28. Reuben Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, Cambridge University Press, 1957, p. 88.29. Ricks, “Slaves and Slave Trading in Shi’i Iran”, p. 408. 30. Ehud Toledano. Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998, p. 53.31. Ricks, “Slaves and Slave Trading in Shi’i Iran”, p. 415.32. Murray Gordon. Slavery in the Arab World, New York: New Amsterdam, 1989, p. 232.33. Gordon. Slavery in the Arab World, p. 234.34. Gordon. Slavery in the Arab World, Preface, second page (pages not numbered).35. Eibner, “My career redeeming slaves”. 36. Jan Hogendorn. “The Hideous Trade. Economic Aspects of the ‘Manufacture’ and Sale of Eunuchs”, Paideuma, 1999, Vol. 45, p. 143, especially, note 25. 37. Hogendorn. “The Hideous Trade”, p. 137.38. Ehud Toledano. “The Imperial Eunuchs of Istanbul: From Africa to the Heart of Islam”, Middle Eastern Studies, 1984, Vol. 20, pp. 379-390.39. Toledano. “The Imperial Eunuchs of Istanbul”, pp. 380-381.40. Hogendorn. “The Hideous Trade”, p. 138.41. David Ayalon. “On the Eunuchs in Islam”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 1979, Vol. 1, pp. 69-70.42. Hogendorn. “The Hideous Trade”, p. 139, note 5.43. Hogendorn. “The Hideous Trade”, p. 139.44. Hogendorn. “The Hideous Trade”, pp. 143, 145-146.
Andrew G. Bostom
Enlighten yourself: "Ignorance, the Greatest Threat Facing America," by Amil Imani (2006/01/10)
The intention of this article is to provoke a much needed debate on the nature of a phenomenon called Islamic Terrorism. Most people in
Americaassume that the phenomenon called Islamic Terrorism started after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Centerin . Actually, the world was in a deep coma about the nature of Islamic Terrorism before the events of September 11, 2001. In some cases, people still are in denial of Islamic Terrorism. However, this phenomenon did not start on or about September 11, 2001. This event was conceived and put into action 1400 years earlier on the hot sands of New York City Arabia.
The word “Islam” means submission. One may ask submission to what or whom? A Muslim is a person who is obedient to the will of Allah. According to the words of the Prophet of Islam, Allah is the author of the Quran, thus a Muslim is a person who must do what the book says. If he or she does not follow the Quran, he or she is not considered to be a Muslim. Muslims insist that the almighty Lord of all living things is synonymous with what is known in Arabic as Allah. Muslims confess that every word in the Quran is the word of Allah. It contains 114 Surahs (chapters) and over 6000 verses. Ironically, the greatest enemy of Islam is this very book which Muslims vow to be pure from errors.
Islamic scholars proudly state that the Quran is unrivalled in its recording and preservation. They proudly say that the holy book has remained unchanged even to a dot over the past fourteen hundred years. However, they won't allow any one to question any parts of it. Questioning any part of the holy book will result in death. As we have witnessed, the Islamic zealots do not tolerate opinions contrary to their own. For Quran’s teachings you may go to http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm.
Nowadays, we hear from the Muslim apologists that Islam has been hijacked by the militant Muslims. Even some Americans utter the same thing. Muslims keep repeating that Islam means “peace”, something my American friends say as well. In reality though, Islam means war. It is through so many wars that Islam established itself as another religion. It is through fear, intimidation and indoctrination of innocent people that Islam has made its loyal follower to adhere to this ideology of hate. It is through sacrifices and the killing of innocent people that Islam has lasted as long as it has. It is with the sword of Islam that people became Muslims.
There is no such thing called good Muslims or bad Muslims. “Good Muslims” are nominal Muslims, the ones who have never read the Quran and do not understand or do not want to understand the nature of Islam. They merely were born into a Muslim family. Those who think Islam has been hijacked by the bad Muslims are not true Muslims. Bad Muslims are those who execute the words of Allah. Therefore, the bad Muslims are the true believers who follow the path of the prophet of Islam. In other words, the Islamic Terrorists are the true sons and daughters of the Islamic faith.
Understanding what Islamic Terrorism is and identifying the signs or association with those who may become Islamic terrorists, may help us detect and prevent or capture the terrorists before they commit crimes against the innocent civilians. A better understanding of the true nature of Islam will alarm people of the dangers of Islamic Terrorism.
1-Islam rewards those who are willing to die for Allah. Everybody hates and fears death. Only those who believe in a life after death and its promised rewards would be seeking death.
2-Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
3-If the unbelievers do not “offer you peace” (submit) kill them wherever you find them.
4-Those who oppose the messenger and become unbelievers will go to hell.
5-Christians are wrong about the Trinity. For that they will have a painful doom.
These are the messages of the Quran.Islam is worse than a plague, worse than leprosy, worse than hunger and famine, which cause bodily damage to humans. Islam slowly, like a canker, gnaws at the soul and the spirit. Islam stops your brain from thinking, and empties out your love and kindness for others. Islam will turn you into a killing machine. We may be able to cure the plague, leprosy and other diseases, but we are unable to deal with Islamists. We can’t cure them with medical technology. We can’t take them to a doctor to see where it hurts. Once you become an Islamist, no earthly medicines are able to cure you. True Muslims literally have turned into walking missiles.
Everyone eventually will face death. However, the destination after death is not the same for those who believe and those who don’t. Those who believe in Allah and follow what his messenger said will be in paradise. In other words, those who commit crimes against humanity, murder the infidels, rape little girls, burn the cities of disbelievers, hijack airplanes, fly them into buildings and bring down towers and cast terror in the hearts of people will spend their eternal rest in heaven. To top it, 72 virgins will greet them at the gate with a bottle of French wine.
For those who deviate from executing the words of Allah, an eternal blazing Fire (Hell) will be awaiting them. In other words, every good person, kind person, giving person and innocent person on earth will taste eternal fire.
Muslims still insist that Allah is the same as the eternal God, the Creator of the Universe, Lord of all lords, King of all kings, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, yet he needs blood and lots of it.
Since its inception 1400 years ago, Islam has been at war with the people of this planet. Millions of people have been [literally] butchered with the sword of Islam. Some may argue that all religions at one point in time have committed crimes against humanity. That may be so, but none of the existing world religions’ foundations have been based upon shedding the blood of its innocent victims. Islam lives, breaths and grows on blood. Once one takes away this red element from Islam, Islam will vanish completely. Islam cannot possibly live in the hearts and minds of its believers. Islam needs to shed the blood of the infidels, meaning all non-Muslims. Islam is about world domination.
You can’t reason with people blinded by hate. You can’t argue with people blinded by Islamic faith. Islam hates the power of the individual. Islam hates the achievements of women. Islam hates progress. Islam hates the religious freedom of others. Islam hates the pre-Islamic heritage of other nations. Islam hates the light of truth. Islam is against free will and hates democracy, liberty and justice for all. Islam simply loves to eat you alive. That is what Islam does and that is what Islam is. Worshipping that? NEVER!
Americans are slowly waking up from their long winter sleep. However, there are still millions of Americans who are extremely naïve about the dangers of Islamic terrorism. Americans are good people; they are sympathetic people. They are giving people. They like to see the goodness in human beings and for that; they unconsciously refuse to believe that a faith can make wild animals out of humans.
The greatest threat facing
today is Americans’ ignorance about Islam. Until Americans understand the threat of Islam on its society and its soil, people will continue to die. Until there is a true understanding of this faith and means to control it, Americans, along with other people will continue to die. The threat of Islam is real. Until the Americans understand that all violent Islamic fundamentalist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hezbollah and others are true Muslims who wish to kill all Americans, they will continue to die. America
No, Islam has not been hijacked by the Islamic militants. The cult of Islam has hijacked humanity for almost 14 centuries. Until we digest this and do something about it, innocent people, including Americans, will continue to die.