The SS recruited from throughout the west (and amongst others) for their Freiwilligen (foreign volunteers) legions in their proclaimed "fight against bolshevism."

These volunteers wore a national shield on their left sleeve below the SS eagle and came from the UK (a battalion which wore a Union Jack sleeve shield), Croatia (including Bosnian Muslims - 13th SS Mountain Div which wore a dark red fez for dress uniform and a field gray one in the mountains of the Balkans), Galicia, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Hungary, Belgium, Russia, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway, Holland, India, and amongst the Cossacks of Eastern Europe.

I have never run across any information on any American SS participation. :confused:

The Bender/Taylor books (I have most of them) and a series put out by the Imperial War Museum are some of the most authoritative (if you can find them) as is the book put out by the former members of the Waffen SS themselves - Wenn alle Bruder schweigen - which I picked up when stationed in Bad Tolz.

An interesting subject for study.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

I realize CITIZENS are protected with the 1st Amendment....are any of the people that lead, speak, and participate in this conference (and past ones) American Citizens? If they are NOT citizens, they are NOT protected! If they are advocating the overthrow of our goverment and terrorism, THROW THEM OUT! When are we going to finally say "enough is enough". I am tired of hearing, "we should try to understand their culture and religion". Well, what about OUR culture and OUR religion? When did our worth as American citizens, our culture and our beliefs get thrown under the bus??!! Why is this sort of thing allowed? Why is DHS a sleep at the wheel? :mad:
Sorry...rant over!!

CNN just discovered "son of Hamas." Great story. I predict a spike in book sales.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/...spy/index.html

Sunni make up roughly 80-90% of all Moslems.
Another point to consider is that old literature from Al-Azhar University pre-dates Saudi oil money (wahhabi influence), and Al-Azhar University is the oldest of all universities in the Moslem world. It was established in 971 A.D. by the Fatimid (Shiite) dynasty. The Reliance of the Traveller was written in the 14th century, was [is] praised by Sunni & Shia alike, and it carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam - just a thought…

And IIRC it notes in the introduction that 75-80% of Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence is identical... T-Rock can find the exact quote... my copy is packed up with the move right now...

Speaking after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Al-Azhar University head Sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi Tantawy said, "It's not courage in any way to kill an innocent person, or to kill thousands of people, including men and women and children." He also said that Osama bin Laden's call for a Jihad against the west was "invalid and not binding on Muslims", adding "Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve". He said the Qur'an "specifically forbids the kinds of things the Taliban and al-Qaida are guilty of".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1544955.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...d-Tantawi.html

But we remain at war with somebody...and so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

As defined by Islamic Law, who are innocent - Harbi women and children?
 

"...whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)

"The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..." (5:33)

The first part (5:32) sounds like a prohibition against murdering any innocent human being, but the second part (5:33) permits the killing of non-Muslims under many circumstances (corruption/kufr) according to the Qur'an.

Too bad Sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi didn't elaborate on his comments regarding "innocent people", did he mean the innocent Muslim, since the Qur'an considers non-Muslims guilty (Harbi) ? Or did he mean non-Muslims as well?

I'll find the exact page when I get home but this probably applies - in regard to "The Reliance of the Traveller"

“We certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of orthodox Sunni Islam (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jam’ah)” Al-Azhar.


“There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English-speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language.” Dr Taha Jabir al-‘Alwani, President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

FWIW, Taha Jabir Alalwani is the co-founder, together with Dr. Yusuf al Qaradawi (the reformer?), of fiqh al-aqalliyyat (Muslim minority jurisprudence) which stands for making fiqh easy in order to enable Islam to spread in the West.


Edited to add, pg. vii, the introduction of “The Reliance of the Traveller” basically states: “The four Sunni schools of Islamic Law, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and HanbalI, are identical in approximately 75% of their legal conclusions..” and that “the field of Hadith, for example, who were Shafi’is are such scholars as Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa’I, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Dhahabi, and Nawawi..”

Ah - tried and true - nothing like a little ol' fire and brimstone to keep those errant flocks from wandering away from the fold.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

*

Morality was certainly not an invention of any organized form of religious belief - it surely existed long before man felt the need to create a god.

However - YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard

*

Couldn't find this anywhere else on the site.
Islam is eager to censor images of their prophet.
They also seem eager to censor their own doctrine.

Curious to know what Ruth Nasrullah would think.

WARNING: disturbing images
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/vi...omen-in-islam/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64P62320100526

Obama doctrine to make clear no war on Islam: aide

Matt Spetalnick and Adam Entous
WASHINGTON
Wed May 26, 2010 3:59pm EDT
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new national security strategy will make clear the United States is not at war with Islam, a top adviser said on Wednesday as the administration prepared for a formal break with Bush-era doctrine.
The White House on Thursday plans to roll out Obama's first formal declaration of national security goals, which are expected to deviate sharply from the go-it-alone approach of his predecessor that included justification for pre-emptive war.

Previewing parts of the document, John Brennan, Obama's leading counterterrorism adviser, said: "We have never been and will never be at war with Islam."

"The president's strategy is unequivocal with regard to our posture -- the United States of America is at war. We are at war against al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates," he said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Brennan's words dovetailed with Obama's outreach to the Muslim world, where former President George W. Bush alienated many with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and his use of phrases like "war on terror" and "Islamo-fascism."

At West Point on Saturday, Obama laid out the broad principles of his coming National Security Strategy, a document required by law of every administration, stressing international engagement over Bush's "cowboy diplomacy."

Grappling with a fragile U.S. economy and mounting deficits, Obama also signaled he would place new emphasis on the link between U.S. economic strength and discipline at home and restoring America's standing in the world.

Obama has been widely credited with improving the tone of U.S. foreign policy but is still struggling with unfinished wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and sluggish Middle East peace efforts.

Critics say some of his efforts at diplomatic outreach show U.S. weakness.

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM THREAT

Brennan said curbing the growing threat of "homegrown" terrorism would be a top priority, along with boosting defenses against lone al Qaeda recruits who hold foreign passports that allow them to enter the United States with little to no screening.

This comes in the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner and the botched Times Square carbomb attempt earlier this month -- incidents Brennan called part of a "new phase" of the counterterrorism fight.

Obama's revised strategy is expected to implicitly repudiate the 2002 "Bush Doctrine" asserting the right to wage pre-emptive war against countries and terrorist groups deemed a threat to the United States, part of a policy Bush called a "distinctly American internationalism."

What followed was the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq despite the lack of formal U.N. authorization.

But Brennan made clear there would be no let-up in the counterterrorism fight, saying the United States would need a broad campaign that "harnesses every tool of American power, military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic."

"We will take the fight to al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates wherever they plot and train -- in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond," he said.

"We will not simply degrade al Qaeda's capabilities or simply prevent terrorist attacks against our country or citizens, we will not merely respond after the fact, after an attack that has been attempted," Brennan said.

"Instead the United States will disrupt, dismantle and ensure a lasting defeat of al Qaeda and violent extremist affiliates," he said.

(Editing by Sandra Maler)

We’re not at war with Islam, but Islam certainly has declared war on us - Islam has been at war with the free world since the 7th century.

Too bad neither Obama nor Brennan have read any of Adams essays…

“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”
~John Quincy Adams~

And then there's this...
 

The link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...e-tenet-islam/

The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims. However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West.

Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and "its terrorist affiliates."

But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."

"Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said.

The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.

"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU.

Walid Phares replies to “al-Quds” Brennan…
 

Source > http://counterterrorismblog.org/2010...deology_is.php

So here is the problem with a first post on a 76 page thread...
 

...there is so much here that I would love to respond to but push ups beckon. Besides, I should probably play my opinions fairly close to the chest, there is interesting and engaging debate, and there is getting on a soapbox and shooting your mouth off and tainting people's impression of you before you even get to basic. The later is a bad idea I feel.

So I would just like to highlight some assumptions which have frequently gone unreferenced and occasionally unchallenged:

1) Islam intrinsically promotes a polarized ideology of us vs them, dividing the world between the unconquered non-Muslim peoples (dar al harb, the house of war) and the Muslims (dar al islam, the house of submission/peace)

2) Attacks against civilians are generally condoned among the populace of the middle east and/or larger Islamic world.

3) Muslims as a whole have a noticeably higher contribution toward violence as a whole.

4) Jews, Christians and others are capable of reforming their religion and moving away for some the archaic and primitive practices, where as Muslims are not.

5) The groups that we are at war with in Iraq and Afghanistan are global organizations, with global, ideological concerns prioritized over local, political ones.

6) Muslims in the US have been slow to condemn terrorism, and Muslims abroad have not made any significant effort to fight it.

7) Islam's role in history has been solely to limit individual freedom, retard scientific advancement, degrade women, and heap violence and persecution on religious minorities.

This is an issue that is near and dear to me, and so I have done some independent research, and I have no good empirical reason to think that any of these are true, and several reasons to think that a few of them are not. This is coupled with some fairly sloppy thinking, and occasional blatant dishonesty from some people on both sides of the debate, and so I have discovered that I have to really dig deep and verify everything independently. And on top of that, there are a lot of very nebulous terms that are thrown around recklessly ("western civilization" comes immediately to mind). All in all it is a great exercise in skepticism and critical thinking!



I'm gonna shut my yap now.

So you feel all are not true?
 

So you "feel" all are not true?

Well, as the late great Carl Sagan said: "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."

So, no I try not to "feel" anything about them, although for the sake of honesty, I'll alway cop to my biases, and lord knows I have them. Rather what I am saying is that I have some evidence which causes problems for those statements, and no evidence (outside of the very anecdotal and emotionally charged field of the mass media) to support them.

Actually it is just this sort of "thinking with your gut" or "feeling" that I was trying to highlight and question. More then once I have heard people say this or that about Islam, Muslims, or the terrorists, and then provide no substantiation, like it is an obvious self evident axiom. Well, it is not to me, especially with so many preconceived notions and entrenched ideologies at work in this sort of discussion. I am just hoping that folks will take the time to self examine their beliefs. Hope I clarified my post.

Edit: it occurs to me that you may have been trying to goad me out of my shell a bit and really make an argument to support my opinions. I'm happy to do so, as long as it is a solicited opinion and not the wannabe SF guy expressing obnoxious opinions to his elders.

You might want to review the earlier posts in this thread, including the ones that cite Muslim works (and some of the other threads that lay out the rationale for these positions) before going down this road.

Could save you some pain, unless you are really sure of yourself.

TR

I will do so before I continue with this thread. I am confident though, because like I said I am not a stranger to this discussion, and have read many polemics on Islam, with a number of perspectives, and several arguments made here are not foreign to me. However it would be disrespectful of me not to read throughly, at very least, this thread.

Pain? what pain? I love learning, and If my opinions are undermined by someone who knows a good deal more than me, good deal, I am better for it. :lifter

This statement is inaccurate.

If you were to take the time to explore the many discussions of Islam on this BB going back several years, across a number of forums, and in scores of threads, you would find that all the points you have mentioned have been debated from many perspectives.

While, at times, the debate has been heated, even rancorous, the participants have striven, time and again, to support their arguments with references. And those references, in turn, have received many a challenge.

Perhaps I have spoken too broadly. I apologize, I did not mean to belittle anyone's intellectual courage, I am new to these forums, and my experience in this debate is outside of them.

But all the same, I do think that when it comes to these statements many people are too trusting of their sources. I will continue to explore this thread and others.

Are you familiar with "Reliance of the Traveller"?

TR

yes! I had a copy around somewhere, but I moved recently, I think it may have gotten lost in the clutter...

Good.

Do a search for it here.

Read the threads before making your own assumptions or generalizations about people here.

TR

you have an oppurtunity to either be the "bug" or the "windshield". Choose wisely your battles.

Most of us have been dealing with Islam for many years, and have proven ourselves under fire, while they tried to kill us. I hope that you have some good facts to bring to this discussion.

I think I do. But perhaps this is not the time or place for me to have this argument, not while I still have much to prove. As always I will defer to your experience, I have no reason to doubt you.

Of course, I will. I did not intend to make any generalizations about people here, just an observation about the large world. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

You jumped into..........
 

You jumped into a thread that had been running for 4 years and in a sense said we were all full of crap.

And when called on it you have been crawfishing around.

You seem like a person with lots of "opinions" on things.

The next time you post one of your "opinions" have multiple sources with facts to back it up - or your time here will be short.

If coming up with facts to back your case is too hard, well then.............

I wonder if coming up with supporting evidence and arguing my case would save my ass here or just shorten my stay further? Or should I say "roger, out" and get on with life?

It is a sincere question, I am not trying to be difficult at all. I have just gotten myself in a situation in which I am not sure if the best thing to do is just drop the argument and accept that totally convincing evidence is posted elsewhere on this board, or stand my ground and fight.

I should also say that I did not and do not think you are full of crap. If that is the impression I gave the onus is on me for the miscommunication.

That would depend on the quality of your work.

TR

Roger, TR! That helps my position a good deal. I'll be back in a few days after I have studied previous arguments more closely.

Thanks for the guidance.

#1 is all I have time for right now…below are “some” references…

Islamic Theology as well as Sharia divides the world in two spheres. The Theology and Legal system of Islam (theo-political / Jihad, etc.) are the tools of Islam's control mechanism, it is a political system, culture, and a religion. The political system of Islam determines the treatment of Kafirs and the governance of muslims.

Islam does promote a polarized ideology of us vs them - because, the Qur'an, Hadith, and Islam as a whole, refer to unbelievers as "Kafir" - and never identifies humanity as a unified whole - humankind is divided into whether a person believes mohammed is the prophet of allah or not, and those who don't are labeled Kafir... - "Kafir" - "Disbeliever" -“Infidel” - “Non-muslim” - “Pagan” - “Oppressors” - “The Immoral” - “Mischief makers” all interchangeable...with “Kafir”

What’s below seems quite polarizing to me, and divisive.....not my words, theirs…

* Kafir - Non-Muslim / Non-Believer
* Kufr - Unbelief/infidelity
* Apostate - One who denies the ultimate truth of Islam.
* Apostacy - The act of any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, and leaves the faith.
(Reliance of the Traveller - index for above - see pages 1132,1170,1172,1207).

Kafir are arrogant and divided:

Nay, but those who disbelieve are in false pride and schism. (Sura 38:2)

Kafir are close-minded:

As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. (Sura 2:6)

They desire to deceive Allah and those who believe, and they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive. In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. (Sura 2:9-10)


Kafir are deaf, dumb and blind:

The likeness of those who disbelieve is as the likeness of one who shouts to that which hears nothing, save a call and a cry; deaf, dumb, blind -- they do not understand. (Sura 2:171)

Such are they whom Allah curseth so that He deafeneth them and maketh blind their eyes. Will they then not meditate on the Qur'an, or are there locks on the hearts? (Sura 47:23-24)

Kafir are evil:

O ye who believe! spend of that wherewith We have provided you ere a day come when there will be no trafficking, nor friendship, nor intercession. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers. (Sura 2: 254)

And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers. (Sura 5:45)

The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of God: and God guides not people who do wrong. (Sura 62:5)

Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked. (Sura 24:55)

No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers.(Sura 7:5)

O Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you as he caused your (first) parents to go forth from the Garden and tore off from them their robe (of innocence) that he might manifest their shame to them. Lo! he seeth you, he and his tribe, from whence ye see him not. Lo! We have made the devils protecting friends for those who believe not. (Sura 7:27)

Kafir are greedy:

And you will most certainly find them the greediest of men for life (greedier) than even those who are polytheists; every one of them loves that he should be granted a life of a thousand years, and his being granted a long life will in no way remove him further off from the chastisement, and Allah sees what they do. (Sura 2:96)

Kafir are like animals:

If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect. (Sura 7:176)

Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road. (Sura 5:60)

When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." (Sura 7:166)

Or thinkest thou that most of them listen or understand? They are only like cattle; - nay, they are worse astray in Path. (Sura 25: 44)

Kafir are perverse:

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! (Sura 9:30)

When thou lookest at them, their exteriors please thee; and when they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of Allah be on them! How are they deluded (away from the Truth)! (Sura 62:4)

Kafir are Unclean:

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. (Sura 9:28)

Kafir are unintelligent:

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence. (Sura 8:65)

Kafir are the worst of creatures:

For the vilest beasts in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who understand not. (Sura 8:22)

For the worst of beasts in the sight of God are those who reject Him: They will not believe. (Sura 8: 55)

Verily those who believe not, among those who have received the scriptures, and among the idolaters, [shall be cast] into the fire of hell, to remain therein [for ever]. These are the worst of creatures. (Sura 98:6)

Therefore, the Kafir can be Hated:

They who dispute the signs of Allah [kafirs] without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart. and despised by Allah. (Sura 40:35)

The Kafir can be mocked:

On that day the faithful will mock the kafirs, while they sit on bridal couches and watch them. Should not the kafirs be paid back for what they did? (Sura 83:34)

The Kafir can be punished:

Say to the kafirs: My Lord does not care for you or your prayers. You have rejected the truth, so sooner or later, a punishment will come. (Sura 25:77)

The Kafir can be beheaded:

When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thor-oughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly. (Sura 47:4)

The Kafir can be confused:

Some among them listen to you [Mohammed], but We have cast veils over their [kafirs] hearts and a heaviness to their ears so that they cannot understand our signs [the Koran]. (Sura 6:25)

The Kafir can be plotted against:

They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the kafirs and leave them alone for a while. (Sura 86:15)

The Kafir can be terrorized:

Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the kafirs' hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fin-gers!" (Sura 8:12)

The Kafir can be annihilated:

So the kafirs were annihilated. All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. (Sura 6:45)

The Kafir can be killed:

If they do not keep away from you or offer you peace or withdraw their hostilities, then seize them and kill them wherever they are. We give you complete authority over them. (Sura 4:91)

The Kafir can be crucified:

The only reward for those who war against Allah and His messengers and strive to com-mitt mischief on the earth is that they will be slain or crucified, have their alternate hands and feet cut off, or be banished from the land. This will be their disgrace in this world, and a great torment shall be theirs in the next except those who repent before you overpower them. Know that Allah is forgiving and merciful. (Sura 5:33)

War should be made on the Kafir:

Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [jizya], and they are humiliated. (Sura 9:29)

A Muslim should not be friends with the Kafir:

Believers should not take kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah's protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him. (Sura 3:28)

A Kafir can be cursed:

They [kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and mur-dered. It was Allah's same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah's ways. (Sura 33:60-61)

Source > http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/c.../muslim/quran/
> http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/c...muslim/hadith/


Sharia Law

Many things cannot be done without the Caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.

o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(588-595)

f 12.26 ...keeping the company of oppressors or immoral...
(182-183)

f 21.2 (prayer)....Non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state who attend are not hindered from doing so, but may not mix with us. (Kafir)
(216-217)

m 4.2 (marriage) ..(1)..."Allah has chosen the Arabs above others"

Unbelief (Kufr):

The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist." (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)

a 1.5 ...a person is not morally obligated by Allah to do or refrain from anything unless the invitation of a prophet and what Allah has legislated have reached him (n:w4) ....
...."We do not punish until we send a messenger" (Koran 17:15)
(2-3)

Invitations from messengers to “Embrace Islam”
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/osama.b....2.247097.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...129-irna01.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...510-irna01.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...ape/index.html


c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment...

(3) and unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and neccessitate stating the Testification of faith (Shahada)...
(pgs 30-31)

o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595)

o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed

o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one therby immediately commits unbelief:

(15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent:

(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Pages 30-45, 588-595, 595-610).


o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

o9.8 The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians [kafirs] (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) - which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral regions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.

(A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).

Edited to add - Source > http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728

Adding Daniel Pipes input to this discussion:

Title of the story sums it up neatly here:
Lion's Den: Jihadi undercuts president
By DANIEL PIPES
06/29/2010 22:28

The Times Square bomber flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy.

The jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism.

Shahzad’s statements stand out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining.

Consider a few examples:
• Naveed Haq, who assaulted the Jewish federation building in Seattle, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

• Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway Snipers, explained that “one reason for the shootings was that white people had tried to harm Louis Farrakhan.” His partner John Allen Muhammad claimed his innocence to the death chamber.

• Hasan Akbar killed two fellow American soldiers as they slept in a military compound, then told the court: “I want to apologize for the attack that occurred. I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options. I also want to ask you for forgiveness.”

• Mohammed Taheri-azar, who tried to kill students on the University of North Carolina by running over them in a car, and issued a series of jihadi rants against the US, later experienced a change of heart, announced he was “very sorry” for the crimes and asked for release so he could “reestablish myself as a good, caring and productive member of society” in California.

THESE EFFORTS fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle.

Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11’s would-be 20th hijacker, came close: His court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into “not guilty”) and then pleading guilty to all charges.

Shahzad, 30, acted in an exceptional manner during his appearance in a New York City federal court on June 21. His answers to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum’s many questions (“And where was the bomb?” “What did you do with the gun?”) offered a dizzying mix of deference and contempt.

On the one hand, he politely, calmly, patiently, fully and informatively described his actions. On the other, he in the same voice justified his attempt at cold-blooded mass murder.

The judge asked Shahzad after he announced an intent to plead guilty to all 10 counts of his indictment: “Why do you want to plead guilty?” A reasonable question given the near certainty that guilty pleas will keep him in jail for long years. He replied forthrightly: I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times forward because – until the hour the US pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] US, and I plead guilty to that.”

Shahzad insisted on portraying himself as replying to American actions: “I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attacks,” adding that “we Muslims are one community.”

Nor was that all; he flatly asserted that his goal had been to damage buildings and “injure people or kill people” because “one has to understand where I’m coming from, because... I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”

WHEN CEDARBAUM pointed out that pedestrians in Times Square during the early evening of May 1 were not attacking Muslims, Shahzad replied: “Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same.”

His comment reflects not just that American citizens are responsible for their democratically elected government, but also the Islamist view that, by definition, infidels cannot be innocent.

However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness. Shahzad’s willingness to express his Islamic purposes and spend long years in jail for them flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy, preferring such lame formulations as “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters.”

Americans – as well as Westerners generally, all non- Muslims and anti-Islamist Muslims – should listen to the bald declaration by Faisal Shahzad and accept the painful fact that Islamist anger and aspirations truly do motivate their terrorist enemies.

The writer (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

FULL STORY:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columni...aspx?id=179923

Mountains vs Molehills?
 

Interesting, though perhaps there is a more practical explanation. If I am interpreting Mr. Pipes correctly, in contrast to the examples of the individuals who facing punishment reverted to the universal criminal excuses of, insanity, self defense, and remorse (for being caught), Shahzad's cold responses are ample evidence of the dangers of Islamism. None of these people mentioned have the "moral stamina" Kaplan refers to in soldiers who fight other armed men, can you expect cowards who prey on unarmed civilians to accept the punishment for their crimes with dedicated resolve?

If you need an example of dedicated "moral stamina" for a cause, think of the late Admiral James Stockdale who underwent years of torture in the Hanoi Hilton and actually bashed his own face in with a stool so the North Vietnamese didn't dare put him in front of a camera for propaganda purposes against the USA. That is a man, that is a warrior, that is a dedicated dangerous combatant who walked the walk.

In contrast Shahzad was either poorly trained or lost his nerve, the Obama administration should be taken to task, but for fostering a climate of incompetence in which this "Kramer-esque bomber" almost flew away unscathed. IMHO, Mr. Pipes is giving Shahzad far too much credit, when a far simpler excuse will suffice. Shahzad knows you don't get caught trying to blow up Times Square without a lifetime in prison. So he is trying to cover his @ss, literally, his testimony described as "jaw dropping" is actually pre-emptively "soap dropping", since a "stone cold killer" in the pen is less likely to get a rude surprise when he drops the soap in the shower than a bumbling Jihadi bomber...

Al Qaeda is now crooning about their failed attempts, we need to keep the pressure on them so they can't recover.

Bump

:munchin

:D

Nice.


:lifter

No, they did it cause they were 'losers' like their Uncle said....now that IS dangerous.
If all the losers I know start setting off pressure cookers we are in for a real cook out.