Category Archives: Shariah

Want to Understand How Syef Farook and Tashfeen Malik Could Leave Behind a Baby Daughter to Kill Innocent Victims in a Jihadi Attack? Look to Islamic Doctrine

ht_tashfeen_malik_float_jc_151204_12x5_1600

by Christopher W. Holton

In monitoring the TV news in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack one theme we hear over and over again has to do with the question of how a young, prosperous couple with a baby girl could leave all that behind to launch a murderous attack on innocent civilians.

For the answers we need only look to Islamic doctrine.

First of all, Jihadists have stated repeatedly that they do not regard kafir civilians as “innocent.” Here it is stated in no uncertain terms by the Islamic State in a release from September 2014:

Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling. Both of them are disbelievers. Both of them are considered to be waging war (the civilian by belonging to a state waging war against the Muslims). Both of their blood and wealth is legal for you to destroy, for blood does not become illegal or legal to spill by the clothes being worn.

The greater question, of course is, how could they leave behind a baby girl and family members to perform such an act, even if they believed it was justified?

When Muslims die they don’t believe that they will go straight to paradise. They believe that they must endure the “torments of the grave” until judgment day. The “torments of the grave” are positively gruesome. Muslims believe that they will be able to feel all of the decomposition and associated effects while they are in the grave.

There ARE exceptions, however.

Those who die while waging Jihad for Allah believe that they will not have to endure the torments of the grave, but will go straight to paradise, with all of its wonderful benefits. Such people are called shahids.

Not only that–and this is the most important point–shahids also win passage for some 70 family members when they die waging Jihad for Allah.

So, Syef Farook and Tashfeen Malik believed that they were doing something great for their baby daughter and their families by waging Jihad and dying in that cause. By what they believe, they all, including the baby, have thus earned a trip to paradise without having to endure the torments of the grave.

This is Islamic doctrine and it explains the actions of the numerous Muslims who have joined the global Jihadist movement.

And the whole “terrorism” debate continues yet again…

jihad_global

by Christopher W. Holton

In the wake of the San Bernardino attack yesterday morning, we are once again witnessing the pointless debate in law enforcement circles, as well as the news media, as to whether the mass shooting was an act of “terrorism.”

This morning on Fox News, a so-called “expert” was dissecting the Justice Department’s official definition of terrorism to justify the FBI’s hesitation in classifying what is, let’s face it, another act of war.

That same “expert” claimed that this was another example of “self-radicalization” over the internet and thus was very difficult to classify.

Fighting through the nausea induced by the talking heads’ ignorance, I managed to utter the word, “Hogwash.”

We must refrain as a country from once again entering into a debate on what amounts largely to semantics about whether or not this latest massacre was an act of “terrorism.”

We need to get away from focusing on the term “terrorism.” Some folks still don’t consider the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing by Hezbollah which killed 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers an act of terrorism because, by some widely regarded definitions, attacks on combatants under such circumstances cannot be termed “terrorism.”

The San Bernardino massacre and the 1983 attack on the Marine Barracks, though very different, were both acts of JIHAD.

The Jihadis themselves don’t refer to themselves as “terrorists.” But they most assuredly refer to themselves as “Jihadis.”

I say let them own that title. If one of them goes out on his own and shoots up a ticket counter at LAX, beheads a grandmother with a knife in Moore, Oklahoma, or shoots up a county health facility in California, those are acts of Jihad, just as 9-11 was an act of Jihad.

This was never a war on “terrorism.”

We are at war with the Jihadists. They are waging Jihad against us and that takes many forms:

• Outright military confict (see Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs)

• Insurgency (See Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan, India, Somalia, Yemen, and others)

• Terrorism (9-11, Paris, train bombings in Spain, 7/7 bombings in the UK, Mumbai, etc)

• Individual acts of violent Jihad (DC sniper, LAX shooting, Ft. Hood, Garland, Texas, Moore Oklahoma, Chattanooga, Tennessee, etc.)

• Financial Jihad (zakat payments to Islamic charities which, by Islamic Shariah law, fund Jihad, Sharia-Compliant Finance)

•Civilizational Jihad (peaceful methods, such as political influence operations (Muslim Brotherhood fronts such as CAIR, ISNA), mass immigration, lawfare, imposing Islamic customs on the West (insisting we play by their rules)).

ALL OF THIS IS JIHAD. JIHAD IS THE KEY. WE SHOULD NOT GET WRAPPED UP IN TRYING TO CLASSIFY IT IN OUR OWN VERNACULAR. ORIENT ON THE ENEMY’S DOCTRINE AND LEARN HOW HE THINKS AND ACTS.

IT’S JIHAD.

Reality from the TV Series “Homeland”

Quinn in Homeland

By Christopher W. Holton

I’m not much on watching television, not even the news. About the only time I watch TV news these days is when there is a breaking major news story, otherwise I get my news online.

I spend even less time watching “entertainment” on television. I have never seen the series “Homeland” on Showtime. But a colleague sent me this short video this morning and I was struck by its accuracy and honesty.

This is a brief clip from the season premier of “Homeland” and it’s important, because, in the clip, a CIA operative “speaks truth to power.”

In the video, the CIA operative explains that the Jihadists’ strategy is based on centuries-old Islamic doctrine to form a Caliphate. He also questions whether or not the US has any real strategy to combat the enemy threat doctrine.

I must warn you, the clip is NOT safe for work as it contains harsh language. But if you are not offended by bad language, I urge you to take two minutes and view this.

And then spread it to your friends and colleagues.

Differing Views from Catholic Clergy on the Threat from Jihad and Shariah

Pope Francis and Turkey's Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Pope Francis and Turkey’s Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

By Christopher W. Holton

With the visit of Pope Francis to the United States, some attention has been paid to his views on Jihad in general and the September 11 attacks in particular.

On a visit to the September 11 memorial at Ground Zero, the pope made a statement that we find offensive and born of ignorance.

From USA Today:

In a remark some relatives of 9/11 victims may disagree with, the pope attributed “the wrongful and senseless loss of innocent lives” at Ground Zero to “the inability to find solutions which respect the common good.”

To what solutions could Pope Francis possibly be referring?

What “solutions which respect the common good” would have convinced Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta that violent Jihad was wrong?

Al Qaeda and all Jihadist groups have as their goal the imposition of Shariah through violent Jihad. We can only assume that the pope is unaware of this. We must also assume that he is unaware that mainstream Islamic doctrine also calls for the imposition of Shariah worldwide.

Which Catholics and other Christians should be sacrificed to live under Shariah for the “common good?”

This was not the first time Pope Francis made statements that demonstrate an ignorance of Islamic doctrine.

In his The Joy of the Gospel, the pope stated:

Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.

No one can study Islamic doctrine based on the Islamic trilogy–the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah–and come away believing that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”

It should be noted that when it comes to commentary on Islam, Pope Francis is merely stating his opinion; this is not a statement that has the authority of the Catholic church behind it since it applies to the interpretation of another religion.

But all one has to do to see the folly in the pope’s assertion here is to review the too numerous to count examples of Islamic religious leaders and Shariah scholars admonishing their followers to violent Jihad.

We could fill volumes with examples of violent exhortations in the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah. We could go into depth here about the principle of abrogation in the Quran. But rather than do that, we would like to point out that there are other members of the Catholic clergy and community who are more informed on Islam, Shariah and Jihad and they have put their thoughts in writing. In some cases, these good men are much closer to the tip of the spear in the clash of civilizations:

  1. Nigerian cardinal criticizes role of sharia, says Muslim leaders must ‘rein in their mad dogs’

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20976&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29

Nigeria of course has been wracked for several years now by horrible violence committed by Boko Haram, which has recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Cardinal Onaiyekan has seen thousands of Christians in his country slaughtered at the hands of Jihadists and he knows that Boko Haram’s stated goal is the imposition of Shariah.

2. It’s Time to Take the Islamic State Seriously

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/time-take-islamic-state-seriously

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J. expresses a very different view from that of Pope Francis on the issue of the Islamic State and the role of Islam in violence.

3. Making Islam “As Banal as Catholicism”

http://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/01/30/making-islam-banal-catholicism/

Robert Royal, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., also expresses a far different view of Islamic terrorism than the one expressed by Pope Francis.

Why have these three men, two American and one Nigerian, two men of the cloth and one a prominent lay Catholic, one black and two white, reached such a different conclusion than that of Pope Francis?

To those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine over the past 15 years, the clear answer is that they have studied the Quran, the Hadith, the Sirah and Shariah. Pope Francis clearly has not. Francis is not alone in that state of being; few if any world leaders in the non-Islamic world have studied Islamic doctrine.

But those who have know what it contains and it isn’t all about peace, the “opposition to every form of violence” and “solutions for the common good.”

Mainstream Islamic Doctrine: Build a Caliphate

isis

By Christopher W. Holton

The vast majority of Westerners–especially Americans–are completely ignorant of Islamic doctrine.

When Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi claimed the title Caliph and declared the Islamic State in June 2014, many ignorant observers assumed that the establishment of the Caliphate was something that only “radicals” and “extremists” sought.

That isn’t true. A study of Islamic doctrine based on the Islamic trilogy–the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah–reveals that it is a doctrinal tenet of Islam that Muslims are supposed to work for the establishment of the worldwide Islamic state so that Allah’s law reigns supreme everywhere.

Below we have a curious example that illustrates the truth about the Caliphate and Islamic doctrine.

Syrian historian Sami Moubayed explains in an article in the UK Telegraph that the best way to battle back against the Islamic State Caliphate led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is to form a competing Caliphate led by a more appealing individual.

Essentially what this means is that even Muslims who do not approve of the Islamic State still desire to see a worldwide Caliphate ruled by Shariah dominating the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11884532/Many-Muslims-do-want-a-Caliphate-just-not-this-one.html

 

 

Paul Weston: Standing Up for Western Civilization

Churchill-Memorial-Pictures-395-cropped

On March 5, 1946, Winston Churchill delivered one of the most significant speeches of the 20th century at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.

That speech is considered by many to represent the first acknowledgement in the West of the inevitable conflict with the Soviet Union that became known as the Cold War.

The most important quote of that speech altered the vocabulary of geopolitics for generations:

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.”

There is another quote for which Winston Churchill is famous, a quote not from a speech, but from a book that he wrote in 1899, The River War:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property (either as a child, a wife, or a concubine) must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science (the science against which it had vainly struggled) the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

lrg_14318

While many dislike this passage from Churchill, anyone who has traveled extensively in the Islamic world or seen the simmering Islamic ghettos of 21st century Europe up close would have a tough time refuting the sentiments Churchill articulated 116 years ago.

Winston Churchill was one of the greatest intellectuals of all time and a giant for the cause of freedom over the course of his lifetime. He was no bigot and his thoughts on Islam were surely not borne of prejudice.

Today, many believe that Europe is going dark under a different form of an iron curtain descending like a cloak over life there–and most Europeans, especially European leaders,–are clueless as to the threat. That threat comes from Islam, both in the form of Shariah and Jihad.

Luckily, not all European leaders are clueless.

paul-weston-croydon

Paul Weston of the Liberty GB party in the United Kingdom is such a man. He is one of the few–but growing number–of British officials who recognize the security, cultural and civilizational threat posed by Islam. Moreover, Weston is light years ahead of his American counterparts in identifying and understanding the threat.

Unfortunately, Weston and those like him have a tremendously difficult uphill battle ahead of them. Why?

Not because of the advanced stage of Muslim infiltration into British society, but because of obstacles to freedom and liberty imposed by his own government. There is an object lesson in this for the rest of Western Civilization because we are seeing the the same obstacles crop up virtually everywhere else.

What are we talking about?

Well, in April of 2014, Mr. Weston was arrested just for giving a speech in Hampshire, England. The contents of his speech were deemed to constitute religious and racial harassment.

What exactly were those contents? Here they are:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. 

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property (either as a child, a wife, or a concubine) must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. 

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. 

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science (the science against which it had vainly struggled) the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

That’s right. In 2014, Paul Weston was arrested on the streets of England for reading aloud the words of the greatest British prime minister of all time, Winston Churchill.

We are truly through the looking glass.

Basis in Islamic Jurisprudence (Shariah) and Scripture for Execution of Jordanian Pilot

“Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”

Quran Sura 4:56

In the burning scene video the Islamic State gave the Islamic edict straight from the top Islamic authority of Ibn Taymiyya’s jurisprudence:

“So if horror of commonly desecrating the body is a call for them [the infidels] to believe [in Islam], or to stop their aggression, it is from here that we carry out the punishment and the allowance for legal Jihad”

Ibn Taymiyya was one of the most esteemed Sunni Islamic scholars of all time. He is considered one of the originators of the Hanbali school of Shariah. He originated the practice of declaring Jihad on Muslims who did not follow the Shariah based on the belief that they were not true Muslims, despite their claims to the faith.

Taymiyya

A Few Words on “Radical,” “Extremist,” Ideology and Doctrine

By Christopher Holton

Over the past few months we have heard increasing calls for the Obama administration to “call the enemy what it is” or “identify the enemy by name.”

It is true that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t identify.

These calls are invariably followed up by naming the enemy. Only the names assigned to our enemies seem to always be wrong. A few of the wrong names:

• Radical Islam

• Islamic extremism

• Radical Islamic extremism

• Islamist extremism

• Radical Islamist extremism

The problem with all these names is that they are names that we in the West have made up to describe our enemies. They don’t use any of them. No member of the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Lashkar e Taiba, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab or Abu Sayyef ever refers to himself as “radical” or “extremist.” No where in their communications will you see the modifiers “radical” or “extremist.”

They don’t subscribe to radical Islam or Islamist extremism.

In fact they claim that the basis for what they do is simply Islam. Every Jihadist organization bases its actions on Islamic scripture. Maybe they got it wrong, but seeing as THEY think that have it right, we best understand THEIR version of Islam if we are truly going to understand our enemies.

According to their own words, they are all Islamic Jihadis. That’s what they are and it’s what they call themselves.

We didn’t make up names for the Nazis in World War II. There were no “radical Nazis,” or “Nazi extremists.” There were only Nazis.

Today we have Islamic Jihadis.

And Islamic Jihad has a doctrinal basis in Islam. Which brings me to the next section of this posting.

Ideology or Doctrine?

I am hearing references to “radical” Islamic ideology on the news more and more. I try to avoid the term ideology. Jihad is based on doctrine, not on ideology and Jihad is what we’re confronted with. There IS a difference between doctrine, ideology and theology.

Doctrine is TAUGHT. For instance, Biblical doctrine is defined as those things that are taught from the Holy Bible. Islamic Doctrine is based on the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah.

6183g0glblL

Ideology and theology, on the other hand, are man-made disciplines, fields of study. Many people do not see the difference between doctrine and ideology/theology. However, there is a substantial difference in how the two are developed in a practical way and it is important that we make the distinction.

Islamic doctrine is the teaching that comes directly out of the word of allah and is founded on the very words believed by Moslems to be spoken by allah and the life of the prophet Muhammed. To teach doctrine is to begin with full faith in the words of the Quran, the life of Muhammed in the Hadith and Sirah to dig out all that Islam says about a subject, and to organize that material in the way that best agrees with the approach that allah himself makes on the subject.

Ideology, by its nature, puts greater emphasis on systems built by man. In the Islamic context, ideology tends to begin with a man-made system and then goes to Islamic scripture for support, while doctrine begins with the scripture.

This is important because ideology can be explained away as man-made perversions of Islam, whereas, doctrine by its very definition cannot be disowned…

Islamic doctrine is embedded into Muslims from the time they can talk and read.

Jihad is an integral part of Islamic Doctrine. It is not part of some ideology that someone ginned up. It’s been there right from the start.

Make no mistake, Jihad is what is being waged against us, not “terrorism.” And our enemies are Jihadis not terrorists. This is not a war on terrorism. It is a defensive war against Jihad.

JIHAD ISN’T ALL ABOUT ISRAEL

By Christopher Holton

If you listen to some political pundits on both sides of the aisle, you might get the misimpression that Jihadists target America and America is viewed negatively in the Islamic world because of our support for Israel.

The problem with that line of thinking is that ignores some 1400 years of Islamic doctrine.

Each Jihadist terror organization around the globe has a specific goal in mind and that is the formation of an Islamic state ruled by Shariah.

This is very important to understand because this is a common goal of all the major Jihadist organizations across the world. It is shared by Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Lashkar e Taiba, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and others and transcends any localized disagreements over borders and pure politics.

Israel could evaporate tomorrow and the overriding goal of the formation of Islamic states ruled by Shariah would not change a bit.

Those who blame Jihad on Israel need to ask themselves some important questions:

  • Did ISIS wage Jihad in Iraq and Syria to establish an Islamic state ruled by Shariah law because America supports Israel?
  • Did the Jihadist terrorist group Boko Haram in Nigeria kidnap 300 young girls this spring because America supports Israel?
  • Did the Taliban seize power in Afghanistan in 1996 to establish an Islamic state ruled by Shariah law because America supports Israel?
  • Did the Jihadist terrorist group Al Shabaab attack the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, in September 2013, killing 67 innocent civilians, because America supports Israel?
  • Did the Jihadist terrorist group Lashkar e Taiba launch terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India in 2008, killing 154 innocent civilians because America supports Israel?
  • Did the Jihadist terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah bomb resorts in Bali, Indonesia in October 2002, killing 202 innocent civilians because America supports Israel?
  • Did Chechen Jihadist terrorists massacre 334 people, mostly school children, in Beslan, Russia, because the US supports Israel?
  • Did Jihadist terrorists with the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) detonate a bomb in Marrakesh, Morroco in April 2011, killing 17 innocent civilians, because America supports Israel.

Of course, the answer to each and every one of these questions is no and the questions and answers prove a point. Jihad is truly global. Tragically, it is one of the most successful “exports” in the world over the past decade.

None of the regions mentioned above have a thing to do with Israel. Most don’t have anything to do with America.

The doctrine behind global jihad is over a thousand years old. In other words, the jihadist doctrine has been around far longer than America has even been in existence.

The Jihadists are not motivated only by our actions. They don’t just react to what we do. They have their own reasons for waging violent Jihad which have nothing to do with America, Israel or anything that you or I have any control over.

The quicker our politicians—both Democrat and Republican—gain a full understanding of this, the better.

And Again in Pakistan

What we have seen overnight in Pakistan with the slaughter of 120–mostly schoolchildren–at the hands of Taliban jihadists is not a new phenomenon.

In September 2004, Chechan jihadists slaughtered hundreds of schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia.

Two attacks, ten years apart, in two different countries. One an Islamic country in southwest Asia, the other the nation that bridges East and West.

There is one common thread: Islamic jihad. Both attacks were carried out by Muslim terrorists as acts of Jihad.

Both the Chechen jihadists and the Taliban jihadists base their existence and their actions on Islamic doctrine. Both have the same goal: the establishment of an Islamic state ruled by Shariah.

We ignore these facts at our peril, yet the West collectively continues to ignore the facts of jihad. In fact, we are in active denial about the doctrine that underpins the actions of our enemies.

As horrible as the attack overnight in Pakistan was, it is undeniable that this is truly a case of Frankenstein’s monster coming back to attack its creator.

The Taliban were formed and trained by the Pakistani secret intelligence service. And the Taliban could never have seized power in Afghanistan years ago without the support of the Taliban.

Now the Taliban have turned on the Pakistani military in a horrible way.

Finally, the Western denial about the doctrinal basis in Islam for our jihadist enemies continues to be outrageously dangerous.

It is only Tuesday. So far this week, jihadists have struck in Sydney, Australia and Peshawar, Pakistan. Don’t be shocked if this week ends as badly as it began.

taliban_symbol_2

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,472 other followers