Immigrant Aydarus Yusuf, who has lived in Britain for 15 years says, in effect, that he does not feel bound by British law. “Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law.” According to the BBC, the 29-year old youth worker wants to ensure that other members of his community remain subject to the law of their ancestors, too. To this end, he helps convene an unofficial Somali court, or “gar”, in southeast London. This group tries both civil and criminal cases, without reference to the English police or England’s 1,000 year old legal infrastructure. This news simply confirmed what many in Britain already suspected. Muslim immigrants and their offspring, who constitute around 2.5% (according to Labour government figures) of the population, are running an underground parallel legal system operated along tribal lines by “elders”.
Episcopalian canon Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, himself a convert from Islam, whose own family immigrated from Guyana and who heads the Institute for The Study of Islam and Christianity, confirms that shariah courts now operate in most larger cities and operate according to their own traditions.
Dr Sookhdeo said, “The government has not been straight about this.”
I’ll say it hasn’t. The British government has based its policy vis-à-vis Islamic immigrants on appeasement. When four young Islamic terrorists blew up a part of the London Underground and a double-decker bus on a busy street during rush hour, Tony Blair raced onto TV to hector his countrymen into not taking reprisals against “the Muslim community”. Civil disorder is not a British habit and his words were received by Britons in stony-faced disbelief. (Blair has already assured “the Muslim community” that the government will not produce a bill to make forced marriages illegal.)
Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University predicts there will be a formal network of Muslim courts in Britain within the decade.
Indeed, opinion polls among Muslims indicate that 42 per cent of Muslim immigrants, and even their third generation offspring, want shariah law available to them. The Conservative Party’s spokesman for homeland security Patrick Mercer (fired by new Conservative Party chief David Cameron) said, “This is complete nonsense. If you want to live under sharia law, you should go to a country where it holds sway.”
And although only around 2.5 per cent of the British population is Muslim, they have developed, over the past decade an intricate network of official Muslim organizations that keep fueled a sense of grievance. Notes Parapundit, “It is becoming increasingly possible to use advances in media technology to help create a cultural and religious environment in an immigrant community that is at odds with the larger society they live in”.
And indeed, this is what is being essayed.
Britain is not alone on the other side of the Atlantic in suffering an assault on its advanced Western legal system. France has already had at least one stoning to death, in Marseilles, which would have been mandated by a shariah court. France, Britain and Sweden have all experienced do-it-yourself shariah murders of young girls who have “brought dishonor on the family” – usually for dating outside the “Muslim community”. Doctors in Italy, which gets many Muslim immigrants from N Africa, legal or otherwise, have experienced patients turning up with crudely amputated fingers or hands, the victims only resorting to seek medical help when “the bleeding gets too bad”, for fear of the “elders”.
The attitude of the host country is irrelevant in this aggression. The British Labour Party, slavishly conciliatory, promoted the fragmentation of Britain by terming the country “multicultural”, a notion that took the indigenous British, whose ancestors have occupied the territory for thousands of years, by surprise. The Labour party preaches that all cultures are of equal value and encourages Muslim immigrants not to integrate, free interpreters being employed in all the public services including the free medical services, free housing within ghettoes and close liaison with Islamic “community leaders”.
By contrast, France has a strict one-nationality stance, expecting all immigrants to learn fluent French, know and appreciate French history and integrate.
That, too, has been a failure, as we have seen from the riots and coordinated violence in the big cities during two Christmasses, and the burning of around 50,000 cars throughout the year, and the murders and rapes in the banlieus of young women for failing to wear a hijab. And French Muslims are now demanding a millet – a separate area of administration for Muslims.
Yet with so many Western European governments in denial, shariah-creep through the shadows is inevitable. Many hardline Muslims, after all, are in N America, Britain and Europe not as immigrants, but as advance combatants behind enemy lines.
Hi Val:
Nice to see you posting on Boyz!
A parallel judicial system, when confined to non-corporeal punishments, is not only possible, it exists throughout the West. Ecclesiastical courts for jews and christians have a long history. They stay out of the physical punishment business though, they are known to the authorities, and their limits are negotiated. These shariah courts have none of these features and therefore operating them is a crime and should be treated as such. A forthright bill criminalizing such secret courts with stiff penalties should be introduced both at the national and european level. In US terms, at the state and national level. Come to think of it, I would be surprised if we don’t already have laws against such courts.
One of the more unappetizing consequences of multiculturism is the classification of people into tribal victim groups, and the subsequent fracturing of society along race, color, and creed lines in much the same way as society used to be strictly divided along class lines.
This is a reversal of the movement in US history to tear down those artificial barriers and recognize each individual as an equal citizen regardless of physical or cultural characteristics.
In combination with the post-modern race/gender emphasis in academia, the result is a catastrophic abandonment of individual identity and rights, and their replacement with totally arbitrary “rights” granted as a member of a “protected” group, whose status is as uncertain as any politically motivated benefit which can be revoked when the political winds change direction an election or two down the road.
The worst mistake any minority group can make is to claim “difference” as a group characteristic that separates it from the rest of the population in some unreachable way. By obliterating the identities of the individuals in the group, and demanding to be treated apart from everybody else as a group, Moslems have forgotten that there is an negative side to that coin.
If the majority of the population agrees, but decides it may also punish the group as a whole for transgressions, just as it has been treated as a group for benefits, the reversion to mid- 20th century thinking might be very swift, and very harsh in consequence, indeed.
Tribalism is not a benefit to be embraced, but rather a barrier to individuality to be overcome.
TM Lutas – You are right and of course these entities should be treated as criminal, but they have been tacitly encouraged as part of the Blair government’s policy of appeasement to Muslims, who vote in blocs. In fact, blank ballots are delivered to some neighbourhood mullahs who generously devote their time to filling them in for the entire neighbourhood.
Very Retired, resentment of not only muslims, but the special advantages accorded them is close to reaching tipping point in Britain.
The socialist government is aware enough of this to have started to make noises about women not wearing the niqab.
This, however, is Tony Blair’s traditional approach: appeasement and cowardice.
Wearing a mask – whether it be an actual mask, or, a la bank robber with a woman’s stocking pulled over his face to obscure his features, or a motorcycle helmet when not on a motorcyle – on the public street has been against the law in Britain for at least 200 years.
There is no reason that these hostile young women – and the offenders are largely young women born in Britain with a point to make – should not be arrested. Instead, Blair, fearful, tries persuasion. Persuasion to obey the law.
An indigenous British man waiting to cross the street with a woman’s pantyhose pulled over his face would be sequestered pretty smartly. A woman in black draperies with her face entirely hidden is enjoying her “religious freedom”.
A couple of months ago, a male terrorist suspect wearing a burqa and niqab fled Britain via Heathrow airport because, of course, no one dared challenge him, despite his height.
Val, if handy could you provide the links to “the opinion polls among Muslims indicate that 42 per cent of Muslim immigrants, and even their third generation offspring, want shariah law available to them”. Thanks.
The real front in the war on terror is being fought in the political and religious space between moderate and extremist Muslims.
In Egypt, Indonesia and other key Muslim population centers, the forces of moderate Islam are newly invigorated and gaining ground against the forces of Muslim conservatism and militancy.
It’s misleading to label Blair’s strategy “appeasement.” Britain isn’t at war with the Muslim population in general; it is, appropriately, at war with the militants only and it’s most important ally by far is the vast majority of Muslims who are moderate.
Bin Laden’s strategy is to lure the many millions of moderate Muslims into solidarity and, eventually, active support of the few thousands of extremists. To the extent that people in the West blur the distinction and paint all Muslims as “the enemy” and attempts at accommodation as “appeasement,” they are helping bin Laden achieve that.
Val,
Did you mean “that is what is being assayed” ?
Works either way!
Jack Diederich – Probably!
Clive Bartley, I cannot agree with your post. I have watched Blair like a hawk for 10 years and he is an appeaser of anyone who threatens to make him look bad. Immediately after London Transport was bombed with 51 dead and thousands maimed forever, he immediately set up a kind of muslim advisory panel in Downing St. Why? Did we have a Nazi advisory panel during WWII?
Muslims, as you know, are opportunistic, and they immediately set about advising Blair on strategy which happened, by an astounding coincidence, to be in line with all the islamic aims in Britain. Jusef Islam, formerly Cat Stevens and formerly something else, is on it. So is a “barrister” who practices out of a subsidised council flat. I don’t know whether he has ever pled a case in court, but he has published several bonkers books. So is extremist Iqbal Sacranie (who Blair had knighted and is now proudly Sir Iqbal), formerly head of the extremist lobby group The Muslim Council. It was astounding. All these radicals had access to Downing St and were advising the prime minister on policy for native British citizens.
Today, five extremists have been jailed “for life” – meaning,in Blair’s Britain, until, oh, Christmas maybe. They had the makings of bombs to kill thousands and had targetted power stations, a busy nightclub with hundreds of young dancing the night away, a gigantic shopping centre, and several synagogues.
Egypt and Indonesia are moderate, as you note, yes, and they are also weak. They have to go along to get along.
Your error, Clive Bartley, with respect, is, you don’t seem to understand the underpinnings of islam.
I would welcome enlightening comments.
Wade – It was all over the British media. Even the BBC, which has never encountered a Muslim it couldn’t hug, felt obliged to cover it.
Link
There are dozens, if not hundreds of entries on this. There was another recent poll within the last few days, if you Google it, so I don’t make the page look so tatty.
“The real front in the war on terror is being fought in the political and religious space between moderate and extremist Muslims.”
I want badly to agree with you but I can’t. Moderate Muslims support extremists – they just aren’t willing to go the distance themselves.
“In Egypt, Indonesia and other key Muslim population centers, the forces of moderate Islam are newly invigorated and gaining ground against the forces of Muslim conservatism and militancy.”
Again, wish I could agree but I can’t. I’m married into an Egyptian family and every time my spouse and I visit Egypt we wonder how we will ever convince ourselves to return for the next visit. “Moderates” in Egypt want to finish the holocaust. “Moderates” in Egypt believe that the only acceptable outcome in the world is an Islamic caliphite ruling the whole planet. Moderates use Americans and Jews as scapegoats in exactly the same way the Nazis did. In fact, you get the sense that you’re in the Middle Eastern version of Nazi Germany there. Conspiracy theories are accepted as scientific fact. Women are treated as property. Oh, I should mention that these “moderates” also happen to be college educated.
There is NO debate between the moderates and the extremists in Egypt. The only difference between a “moderate” and an “extremist” there is that one will actually go to the effort of murdering “kafurs” while the other will cheer from the sidelinesn and finance the effort. Non-Muslims are regarded as lower life forms – that’s why they don’t feel compelled to submit to British law. Check out MEMRI.org for a taste of mainstream Egyptian and other Arab press, then tell me if you think they’re “moderate”.
There is a tiny minority of liberal Muslims – which is what I suspect you really mean by “moderate” – in the Middle East and a larger Minority in the US but their number is far too small to be considered part of the mainstream. They are happy for Western freedoms and relegate Islam to a personal realm. This is not the way most Muslims view Islam. Most Muslims do not view it as a mere religion but as an all encompassing system of life. It is as much political ideology as it is religion as we know it. It’s difficult to reform this notion because it is spelled out in the Koran.
Val is absolutely correct.
Methinks – Thanks for the benefit of your experience.
There can be no accommodation with Islam in the West, because Islam is dedicated, heart, soul, sinews and life, to obliterating free thought and dedicating all life to their god.
What you didn’t mention is the islamic belief that everyone is born islamic.
In their view, you were born islamic, because this is what human beings are, and if you adhere to another religion, you are already an apostate and worthy of a violent end.
This is why Iqbal Sacranie et al can go on TV in Britain after a horrendous assault on our country and say, with a straight face, “Of course we regret the loss of innocent life!” As though adhering to British/Western civilisation rules of behaviour.
But apostates (in other words, people who “left” islam at birth) cannot be innocent. So their deaths are understandable in the wider frame. They are apostates. (This, incidentally, describes why converts to islam are described, by islam, as “reverts”.)
This is a crucial point that never gets mentioned in the debate, because there is no arguing with it – and because it doesn’t fit in with the leftist “religion of peace” philosophy.
If you “left” islam at birth, you are an apostate, and your crime is punishable by death.
Val, you are completely correct, of course. In fact, didn’t Iqbal in a later interview make that very point?
There are MANY things which I did not mention – there are just too many hideous things to mention.
For example: it’s not good enough to be Muslim – what is Islam and what isn’t can’t be defined by the individual. It must be defined by a ruling body and anyone who doesn’t conform is a heretic – otherwise known as apostate and deserving of the punishment of an apostate. Death.
People will point out that the Catholic Church wasn’t much different hundreds of years ago. What they fail to emphasize is that was HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO and the Muslims behave this way NOW.
It is fascism. It is 1930’s Germany.
The real puzzle for me has always been why the liberal left has embraced this ideology. This speech by Evan Sayet at the Heritage Foundation helped me understand why.
Methinks – thank you so much for Evan Sayet’s talk. It is brilliant and I am going to try to get it on a conservative blog in Britain.
Iqbal Sacranie did not make the point that as non-islamics are not “innocent”, then when he said he was saddened for all the “innocent lives” lost in 7/7, it did not include non-islamics. It was a journalist who questioned him closely on the point and he was finally forced to admit it.
This is a technique known as “kitman” and is for use against “infidels” aka “normal people”. Kitman is deceit by omission. So you can say you grieve for innocent lives lost, and intend that your listener makes the assumption that you are grieving for everyone who died or was injured. With kitman, you leave unsaid the critical saving clause. In other words, you do not say, “Of course I grieve for all the innocent lives lost, although not lives of non-moslems because they are not innocent.”
Taqya and kitman are known techniques. Taqya is outright lying. Kitman is deception by, usually, omission. Both are specifically taught to be used in the promotion of islam.
Thank you for Evan, Methinks. He is unbelievably clever. Halfway through, I accidentally clicked it off and lost my place. As I’d listened to around 25 minutes in, I tried to move the button forward to approximately halfway, but it just freezes. Does anyone know how I can watch the end of the speech without listening to the whole thing again? Thank you if you can help.
Taqiyya and kitman: The role of Deception in Islamic terrorism
Taqiyya and kitman: The role of Deception in Islamic terrorism
http://www.ci-ce-ct.com
Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one’s convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions…
Taqiyya and kitman or ‘holy hypocrisy’ has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: ‘he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’
The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.
During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ’ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’.
Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations.
The theory and practice of counter terrorism would be counter productive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya and kitman and the crucial role of deception ranging from Islamic jurisprudence to Al Qaeda training manuals, which carry detailed instructions on the use of deception by terrorists in Western target countries.
According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.
” Verily the most honourable of you in the sight of God is the most pious among you; verily, God is knowing, aware!” 49:13
Shi’a interpret the phrase above as “he among you who exercises Taqiyya most”
Like many Islamic concepts taqiyya and kitman were formed within the context of the Arab-Islamic matrix of tribalism, expansionary warfare and conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split ‘the enemy’. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.
Sydney NSW Australia: 2 November 2002
Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly, the controversial Grand Mufti of Australia, is enjoying lunch with his trusted assistant Keysar Trad. The journalist writing of the meeting with the Sheik noted:
‘Several times, when direct responses to questions about passages in the Koran begged a simple yes or no, both men preferred to avoid the issues by talking about the difficulties of translating passages from Arabic to English.’
Referring to the Sheikhs blithe dismissal of his virulent anti-Semitic remarks in 1998, the journalist reflected:
‘I can only muse at the facility of my guest, who has also praised suicide bombers in more recent times, to dismiss his notorious and abominable remarks with such ease and without actual apology. It seems clear that he is considering the way his remarks will be construed by the Sunday Telegraph’s huge and influential audience when they are translated into Arabic for Muslims to debate. He’s walking a tightrope.’
The skilled journalist should not be puzzled as the Sheik’s target audiences were Australians and not Arab readers. Taqiyya, or dissimulation, is a key feature in Islamic public discourse and confuses Western audiences.
It is meant to, according to the Koran:
‘Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that; they shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution….that ye may guard yourselves’. 3:28
Al Taqiyya is with tongue only; not the heart. A believer can make any statement as long as the ‘heart is comfortable’. The 9/11 terrorists lived and visited in the United States for two years before the 9/11 attacks. How did they acculturate? By the use of taqiyya. Meaning: I hate you but I smile at you-in public.
Taqiyya and ‘Outwitting’ in contemporary political discourse and debates
Outwitting: Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of ‘outwitting’. The matter under discussion is not to be debated or discussed; rather the opponent is to ‘outwitted’ through taqiyya, by diversion of the subject and obfuscation aided at times with a mystical reference to God or Allah.
The claim that difficulties in translating from Arabic to English make communication with non-Arab speakers difficult or impossible, is another form of outwitting. The tactical use of a translator offers considerable advantage.
Role playing as victim: Claiming to be ‘the victim’ of religious discrimination and intolerance during debate or discussion is another form of distraction and ‘outwitting’.
Manipulating ambiguity: Sheik Hilaly of Sydney, Australia is on public record as (a) ’condemning’ the 9/11 attacks in ambiguous terms and (b) praising suicide and martyr operations However, Islamic spokesmen will rarely condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.
Diversion: For example, questions relating to the 9/11 terrorists attacks will be diverted by a causally irrelevant counter reference to the plight of the Palestinians, the nefarious role of Israel and US foreign policy and support for Israel as ‘causes’ of terrorism.
Anti-Semitism, a core belief of Islamic fundamentalism is also skillfully diverted by misleading and exaggerated historical references to the alleged status enjoyed by Jews and non-believers under Islamic rule, thereby deflecting critical examination of the virulent contemporary Islamic anti-Semitism.
Demanding ’evidence’: Islamic spokesmen practice a form of taqiyya defined in psychology as ‘cognitive denial’ by repetitive and extreme requests for ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ of alleged terrorist acts, which they know cannot be disclosed.
Tactical denial: Rather than admitting that a proposition concerning a state of affairs can be partly true, an Islamic spokesman will deny a claim or proposition in absolute terms. For example, “It is impossible to be a Muslim and a terrorist’ , which is false and ‘Islam forbids suicide’, which is true, but irrelevant as suicide or martyrdom attacks are not forbidden in the Koran.
Exploiting cognitive dissonance: Islamic spokesman tend to be baffle television interviewers and puzzle viewers as they resort to double talk ‘clichés and platitudes’ concerning Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance-holding two contradictory beliefs and attempting to resolve them- is induced in viewers as they attempt to process the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion with the dissonant facts of Islamic terrorist acts and operations.
The Islamic ’defence’ script: Islamic spokesmen repeat the same predictable platitudes concerning Islam in London as do Islamic spokesmen in Seattle and often appear to follow a prepared script from “Islam is tolerant and peace loving’ to the claim by Islamic spokeswomen invariably claiming that wearing the veil offers them more freedom (women in Muslim countries are therefore ‘freer’ than women in western countries), thereby precluding further examination into the real status of women under Islamic rule.
Islamic platitudes are also echoed uncritically by Western politicians, for example ”A small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great religion’. The timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the ‘hijacking’ of Islam was introduced into public, political and media discourse by an Islamic ‘spokesmen’ in the United States shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The “Islam has been hijacked’ diversionary theme is now a conventional media and political reference deflecting attention from empirical and historical examination of the doctrinal, political and religious continuity of Islamic terrorism. A related theme that a small minority of Muslims are engaged in terrorism is utterly irrelevant as Islamic terrorism is always perpetrated by ‘small minorities’ or more accurately’ small groups’.
Taqiyya as impressions and perceptions management
The tactical use of children: Australia television viewers noted that interviews with terrorist suspects raided by security authorities invariably featured veiled women holding small children or a baby as they protested their husband’s innocence and attested to his innate goodness. Trembling fingers pointed to ‘damage’ to the family residence. In some interviews the suspect / father holds the child, whilst denying involvement or knowledge of terrorism in any sense of the word: an example of taqiyya in the age of impressions and perception management.
Taqiyya and the Deceptive use of Jihad: The contemporary political meaning of jihad is clear: it is Jihad of the sword. Egyptian-based Islamic fundamentalists, from whom Bin Laden recruited his key operatives, believe jihad is the fourth pillar of Islam and is a binding belief and integral to the faith. Claiming that Jihad is a subjective and psychological state of personal struggle is taqiyya. In contemporary terms, Jihad means – holy war – against unbelievers and it in this context that Al Qaeda training manuals refer to Jihad as ‘Holy War’.
The study of taqiyya and kitman is crucial to an understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism ranging from the issuing of false terrorist threats, operational and strategic disinformation issued by Al Qaeda in the form of ‘intelligence chatter’ to the use of taqiyya and kitman by terrorists during interrogation and the use of systematically misleading expressions concerning Islam and terrorism by Muslim ‘spokesmen’.
James A Pacella – Well, thank you for that!
It reinforces, in more detail and with more authority, my assertion that lies and deceit are a critical arm of the islamics in the War against The West. Why so many in the liberal establishment, especially the media and academe, have gone along with what is, after all, a rather childish way of lying, although with malevolent intent, is explained by Evan Sayet’s outstanding speech at The Heritage Foundation. (Link above in Methinks’ post.)
One (very) small quibble. You write thusly: As the Prophet said:. I assume you refer to mohammad, given the context, although you don’t so specify. If he was indeed a prophet, he was from a long line of prophets, all of whom had names.
Thank you again for the enlightening expansion on taqyya and kitman. I am going to reread it.
The Source is here
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/ArchDetails.aspx?id=97
I am not the author.
There was also a link in the 3rd line I think.
Val,
Try this link to the Heritage Foundation. It should give you a better quality recording of Sayet’s speech.
Thank you, gentlemen.
James, I was engrossed by your post, but took exception to someone referred to as ‘the prophet’. I would like to know that prophet’s name, as we have many revered prophets in our Judaeo-Christian tradition. The word “prophet” should not become property of one individual or one religion. Therefore, the prophet being referred to should be named.
Methinks, thank you!
I thought I’d keyed in my name.
hmmmm.. the context is the Islamic religion.
a certain unnamed yet very significant prophet is mentioned.
i wonder.. who can it be…
oh… it’s Miss Cleo *MPBUH*
James, you are correct and you are too funny!
Val,
Muslims very rarely refer to Mohamed as “prophet Mohamed”. Usually it’s just “the prophet” followed by “PBUH”. If you’re reading about Islam, it’s a safe bet that “the prophet” is always Mohamed.
I’ve always found this strange, since Islam includes the Judeo-Christian prophets but it is what it is.
Methinks and James – Surely you do not think I could have written the foregoing commentary without being aware of how the islamics refer to their muhamad? Given that every schoolchild in the Anglosphere knows, via lessons in ‘multiculturalism’?
Methinks writes: “Muslims very rarely refer to Mohamed as “prophet Mohamed”. Usually it’s just “the prophet” followed by “PBUH”.”
So? That’s their choice.
We have a long tradition of prophets and we name them. No prophet is a defining prophet.
Surely you understood that?
My point for James was, I do not think that we want to wrap ourselves in islamic cloth. Therefore, when their prophet is referred to, it should not be some universal The Prophet. There have been many prophets. It should be the ‘islamic prophet Mohammad’. It should be defined.
I do not want to see the word “prophet” become a synonym for an islamic preacher.
I appreciate the contributions of both gentlemen, but I am surprised that you assumed ignorance on my part and that my point sailed over your heads.
Val: Please relax. I do not in any way have any favor for the religion of satan. I copy and pasted an article.. I am not going to go edit it to change what is just a plainly stated belief of theirs into some lawyer-type 10 paragraph exposition on what the word prophet means to every culture and every religion in the world and what each of their reaction would be to reading a story about Islam which mentions a mysterious unnamed warmonger prophet in the context of holy war.
“I copy and pasted an article.. I am not going to go edit it to change what is just a plainly stated belief of theirs..”
That’s pretty much why I went to the trouble of an explanation. I figured you knew that James’ post was a C&P and just didn’t know that “the prophet” implied Mohamed. Miss Cleo would have been better, but we’re stuck with Mohamed.
My husband and I often call him “Mo” for short. However, with my Muslim relatives I always refer to Mo as “the prophet”. This is because I prefer to escape the Middle East with my life.
I had no idea that they were forcing you to learn about Mo as part of your “multicultural” education. So Mo is Kosher but they’ve stopped teaching the crusades and the Holocaust! What the hell?
I was taught NOTHING about Islam in school.
1980-1988 1-8 grade
1988-1992 HS
1992-1993 Univ failed indoctrination
there was some question about why islam refers to chrisitan/jewish prophets as prophets… well they dont
they claim those people are Islamic prophets. Islam coopts the heritage of J and C, while denying them their own legitmacy by claiming that J and C are corrupted and not valid.
my website has lots of info on islam
http://vincep312.home.comcast.net
everything i learned i learned on my own and it required a lot of unlearning of baseless assumptions that are so prevalent in our society.
James is correct when he refers to the verbal sleight of hand of piously and pacificly referring to Jewish and Christian prophets as “part of the Ibrahamic tradition”.
More taqyya and kitman. What they are doing, as James points out, is co-opting our religions to give their own belief system some ballast.
Anyway, I have long maintained that islam is not a religion, but a warrior cult, and I think that is very hard to deny.
I continue to have my level of concern about the world bumped up to higher and higher levels.
Muslims around the world are imminently expecting the manifestation of thier messiah, the Mahdi.
Islam places belief in the “Last Days” 2nd in the list of 5 things all Muslims must believe.
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets…-Surah 2:177 (Pickthall)
(In order:)
1. Belief in Allah.
2. Belief in the Last Day.
3. Belief in angels.
4. Belief in the Scripture.
5. Belief in the prophets.
Who is the Mahdi and what does he do? Well if you look at the list of bullet points here, a Christian cant help but notice that the Mahdi is the AntiChrist.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch04_the_mahdi.htm
After reviewing the various Islamic traditions and opinions of the Muslim scholars, let’s now review and walk through a list of what we have learned about the person and the mission of the Mahdi as he exists in the minds of many of the 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide.
The Mahdi is Islam’s primary messiah figure.
He will be a descendant of Muhammad and will bear Muhammad’s name (Muhammad bin Abdullah).
He will be a very devout Muslim.
He will be an unparalleled spiritual, political and military world leader.
He will emerge after a period of great turmoil and suffering upon the earth.
He will establish justice and righteousness throughout the world and eradicate tyranny and oppression.
He will be the Caliph and Imam (vice-regent and leader) of Muslims worldwide
He will lead a world revolution and establish a new world order.
He will lead military action against all those who oppose him.
He will invade many countries.
He will make a seven year peace treaty with a Jew of priestly lineage.
He will conquer Israel for Islam and lead the “faithful Muslims” in a final slaughter/battle against Jews.
He will establish the new Islamic world headquarters from Jerusalem.
He will rule for seven years (possibly as much as eight or nine).
He will cause Islam to be the only religion practiced on the earth.
He will appear riding a white horse (possibly symbolic).
He will discover some previously undiscovered biblical manuscripts that he will use to argue with the Jews and cause some Jews to convert to Islam.
He will also re-discover the Ark of the Covenant from the Sea of Galilee, which he will bring to Jerusalem.
He will have supernatural power from Allah over the wind and the rain and crops.
He will posses and distribute enormous amounts of wealth.
He will be loved by all the people of the earth.