ISIS is the most genuine Islam in the world

Power of God unto Salvation Gospel Mission and PastorAllister Watkins shared Islam Uncut's photo.
'ISIS is the most genuine Islam in the world

By Tim Dunkin

The extent to which the decadence of a society may be measured is in the lengths to which its "leaders" will go to deny obvious truths which inconvenience them. Nowhere is this more obviously the case in America than in the response of the Obama misadministration to the threat of ISIS, and of Islamic terrorism in general. High-ranking officials like outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder refuse to even acknowledge that Islamic terrorism is either "Islamic" or "terrorism." Pres__ent Obama opines that Islamic terrorists who burn people to death in cages and murder thousands of innocent civilians have "legitimate grievances," and that they are better dealt with by jobs programs than by military force (maybe they'll scream "Allahu Job Fair!" while boxing your cheeseburger?). Meanwhile, the administration rebukes Egypt and other nations in the region who actually are doing something to fight ISIS, while refusing to assist our allies in the region like the Kurds, who have been slowly regaining ground against ISIS after a long, hard battle (which Obama's intransigence has made all the more difficult). Obama and his minions constantly blather on about "the peaceful nature of Islam," as if tens of thousands of terrorist attacks and tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of Muslims were just one long string of "isolated incidents" having no common denominator or relation to each other whatsoever.

Truly, there can be no other term for the response by Obama and his senior administration officials than that of "treason." No wonder Obama wants to shut down Gitmo – he might be afraid of ending up there himself, if a sane presidential administration ever gets back into office.

The ability of the Pres__ent and his cronies to lull many Americans to sleep is abetted by the fact that most Americans are ignorant of Islam. They don't know anything about it, so when the Pres__ent makes some sort of glib assertion about "the true peaceful nature of Islam" or "those who are perverting Islam," they accept it at face value, because researching it all out for themselves is hard and takes time. Yet, as I've pointed out before, nearly everything you hear about Islam from the news media and from most of our political establishment is intentionally wrong.

However, if we're going to have a proper understanding of what really and truly is an existential threat to the West, to our western traditions of broad-based liberty, free inquiry, and the rule of law, then we need to face the facts about this alien tradition that seeks to destroy our own. For an in-depth study of these myths about Islam that we are told by the apologists and revisionists, see my online book Ten Myths about Islam in which I address ten of the most common falsehoods perpetuated by those who seek to make Islam seem palatable, and even harmless. Below, I'd like to address some of them more briefly while demonstrating that ISIS – said to be some sort of "perversion" or "twisting" of Islam, is in fact real, genuine Sunni Islam as it was envisioned when the Muslim religion first developed out of the more general abrahamic traditions from which it arose. Indeed, we could go so far as to say that ISIS is the MOST Islamic of all the Islamic groups and traditions and sects out there. ISIS IS genuine Islam.

Let me make an obvious point – if you want to know what a religion believes, then go to its holy writings and read what they say, and then see what the general run of interpretation of these writings has been throughout that religion's history. This is infinitely more useful than listening to what Oprah or Rick Warren or any other non-Muslim apologist for Islam has to say. In the case of Islam, we should see what the Qur'an and the ahadith (traditions which purport to relate what Mohammed and his companions said, did, and believed) say. These sources quite clearly teach Muslims to wage war against "infidels" and to wage offensive jihad against them. Just a few of the more well-known examples,

"[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." (Qur'an, Surah 8:12)

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an, Surah 9:5)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an, Surah 9:29)

Now, the pushback from Muslim apologists in the West, as well as their enablers in academia and the media, will be that these verses are "taken out of context." Some will attempt to appear more technical, and therefore credible, by rehearsing a brief version of Muslim history in Mecca and Medina, asserting then that these verses only applied to those times. This argument, however, is complete and utter falsehood. A long history of orthodox Muslim commentary, both medieval and modern, exists which has basically served to define Muslim doctrine in this area all throughout its history.

For instance, Al-Mahili (d. 1486) wrote about Surah 9:5,

"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed." (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, on Surah 9:5)

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) wrote about the universality of jihad, that it applies to all Muslims at all times,

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in Islam, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same." (Al-Muqaddimah, Bk. 1, Ch. 3.31)

Many other widely-read and well-respected Muslim commentators of the Qur'an such as al-Tabari, al-Mawardi, al-Qayrawani, al-Baidawi, ibn Taymayya, and many others wrote about these same set of verses, and understood them to be teaching offensive jihad against infidels, at all times and in all places.

The most influential modern Muslim commentators of the Qur'an also affirm this same doctrine. For example, the prominent Syrian mufti al-Buti (who died in a bomb blast in 2013 during the Syrian civil war), dispensed with all of the "defensive war" nonsense and clearly affirmed,

"The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students of Islam would like to tell us) because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars." (M.S.R. Al-Buti, The Jurisprudence of the Biography, pp. 323-324)

The well-known Pakistani teacher Syed Maududi wrote,

"The division of Islamic Jihad into "offensive" and "defensive" is not permissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at one and the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim party attacks the rule of an opposing ideology, and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is constrained to capture state power in order to protect the principles of Islam in space-time forces." (Jihad in Islam, p. 13)

The India Muslim quranic commentator Syed Pirzada said of jihad,

"The reasons stated in the verse for waging a war against the people of the Book clearly show that it is not for a defensive war, the command for a defensive war was given much earlier....The fact is that it is not correct to limit jihad within the circle of defensive war, nor is it correct to term it, what is today called, 'an aggressive war,' because jihad is not a war that is fought for conquering land, national prejudices, material gains, and false ideologies, it is fought for the noble purpose of freeing the slaves of God from the lordship of the false gods, to end aggression and tyranny and to give them a pure and virtuous atmosphere. This war is synonymous with the act of surgery of the rotten part of the body to provide healthy life to humanity." (Dawat ul-Qur'an, Bk. 1, on Surah 9:29)

Many, many other modern commentators on the Qur'an and the ahadith from all over the Muslims world could be cited who essentially say the same things – jihad is not merely defensive, but is fought to bring lands under the control of Islam, this is a universal and timeless rule for Muslims, and the "holy war" verses in the Qur'an quite clearly are used to support these.

Simply put, Islam's texts do indeed teach Muslims to commit violence against "unbelievers" and to wage war against them. And as the testimony of the history of Islam with its neighbors shows, this was a teaching that Muslims regularly followed in India, North Africa, Central Asia, and Europe for centuries. They acted this way because they were taught by their religion to do so.

So when ISIS beheads a bunch of Copts, they are merely acting on the injunction to "strike upon their necks." When ISIS puts someone in a cage and burns them to death? They are merely making them "pebbles to burn for hellfire." And they are doing so with the full weight and authority of fourteen centuries of Islamic theology and practice to back them up.

The same can be said for ISIS' treatment of captured women. The traditional treatment was for female prisoners to become sex slaves to their Muslim captors – just as we are seeing take place today. In regions where ISIS has gained control, women are required to adhere to strict Islamic law as it has been understood for centuries. This is why ISIS throws acid in the faces of women in Iraq that it deems to be not sufficiently covered. After all, traditional Islamic doctrine says that a woman is like a private part which the devil casts a glance after (Mishkat al-Masabih, Bk. 2, Ch. 27, no. 123) – in other words, the very fact that a woman's face or hair might be visible in public is a temptation that justifies defacing her.

Much ado was made recently about the belief expressed by ISIS spokesmen that Jesus was going to return and destroy the antichrist, ushering in the apocalypse and the end of the world. This was used by the news media to try to cast ISIS as some kind of weird, apocalyptic cult that is way outside the mainstream of Islamic belief, as a way of divorcing ISIS from the "moderate" Islam that the news media tell us is the "real" Islam. Yet, this is not the case. In fact, the belief that Isa (Jesus) will return and destroy ad-Dajjal (the antichrist) and bring about the end of the world is traditional, mainstream Sunni Muslim doctrine.

Even the fact that ISIS systematically seeks to use the Islamapologists in the Western media and political "elite" to hide their agenda is basic Islamic theology. It involves the principle of taqiyya – which is a sanctified form of lying for the benefit of Islam that is acceptable in Islamic doctrine.

"Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind), and Allah is your Protector. He is the Knower, the Wise." (Qur'an, Surah 66:2)

"The Prophet said, 'If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, Bk. 67, No. 427)

"Prophet Muhammad said, "Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people." (Sahih Muslim, Bk. 32, no. 6303)

"Allah's Messenger said, 'Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.' Maslama got up saying, 'Would you like me to kill him? The Prophet proclaimed, 'Yes' Maslama said, 'Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.' Muhammad said, 'You may do so.'" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Bk. 59, No. 369)

Lying for the sake of Islam serves several purposes, as illustrated in the quotes above. It can be used to lull enemies of Islam into a false sense of security by making treaties with them that the Muslims never intend to keep (this is especially common among the Palestinians who will make truces with the Israelis, only to break them later the same afternoon). It also covers more general forms of lying, so long as "advancing the cause of Islam" is the justification. This taqiyya can also take the common form of lying so as to create "justifications" for offensive warfare – e.g., support for Israel or the "oppression" of Muslims in Western countries can be used to create a casus belli in the minds of faithful Muslims like those in ISIS, legitimizing (in their own minds) their violent actions. Hence, spokesmen for ISIS point to the anti-western and anti-Christian rhetoric spewed forth by Obama and his cronies, the ignorant, unhistorical blather about "crusades" and "inquisitions," and use it as justification for what they do.

In summary, what we need to understand is that ISIS is not some fringe, outside-the-Muslim-mainstream group. It faithfully represents the long traditions and history of both Islamic doctrine and practice. The main difference between it and the "mainstream" of Muslim fundamentalism that doesn't commit violent acts (confining itself to merely preaching them) has more to do with the sociopathy and the violent personality disorders of ISIS members than anything else.

-kg-'
Islam Uncut
ISIS is the most genuine Islam in the world

By Tim Dunkin

The extent to which the decadence of a society may be measured is in the lengths to which its "leaders" will go to deny obvious truths which inconvenience them. Nowhere is this more obviously the case in America than in the response of the Obama misadministration to the threat of ISIS, and of Islamic terrorism in general. High-ranking officials like outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder refuse to even acknowledge that Islamic terrorism is either "Islamic" or "terrorism." Pres__ent Obama opines that Islamic terrorists who burn people to death in cages and murder thousands of innocent civilians have "legitimate grievances," and that they are better dealt with by jobs programs than by military force (maybe they'll scream "Allahu Job Fair!" while boxing your cheeseburger?). Meanwhile, the administration rebukes Egypt and other nations in the region who actually are doing something to fight ISIS, while refusing to assist our allies in the region like the Kurds, who have been slowly regaining ground against ISIS after a long, hard battle (which Obama's intransigence has made all the more difficult). Obama and his minions constantly blather on about "the peaceful nature of Islam," as if tens of thousands of terrorist attacks and tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of Muslims were just one long string of "isolated incidents" having no common denominator or relation to each other whatsoever.

Truly, there can be no other term for the response by Obama and his senior administration officials than that of "treason." No wonder Obama wants to shut down Gitmo – he might be afraid of ending up there himself, if a sane presidential administration ever gets back into office.

The ability of the Pres__ent and his cronies to lull many Americans to sleep is abetted by the fact that most Americans are ignorant of Islam. They don't know anything about it, so when the Pres__ent makes some sort of glib assertion about "the true peaceful nature of Islam" or "those who are perverting Islam," they accept it at face value, because researching it all out for themselves is hard and takes time. Yet, as I've pointed out before, nearly everything you hear about Islam from the news media and from most of our political establishment is intentionally wrong.

However, if we're going to have a proper understanding of what really and truly is an existential threat to the West, to our western traditions of broad-based liberty, free inquiry, and the rule of law, then we need to face the facts about this alien tradition that seeks to destroy our own. For an in-depth study of these myths about Islam that we are told by the apologists and revisionists, see my online book Ten Myths about Islam in which I address ten of the most common falsehoods perpetuated by those who seek to make Islam seem palatable, and even harmless. Below, I'd like to address some of them more briefly while demonstrating that ISIS – said to be some sort of "perversion" or "twisting" of Islam, is in fact real, genuine Sunni Islam as it was envisioned when the Muslim religion first developed out of the more general abrahamic traditions from which it arose. Indeed, we could go so far as to say that ISIS is the MOST Islamic of all the Islamic groups and traditions and sects out there. ISIS IS genuine Islam.

Let me make an obvious point – if you want to know what a religion believes, then go to its holy writings and read what they say, and then see what the general run of interpretation of these writings has been throughout that religion's history. This is infinitely more useful than listening to what Oprah or Rick Warren or any other non-Muslim apologist for Islam has to say. In the case of Islam, we should see what the Qur'an and the ahadith (traditions which purport to relate what Mohammed and his companions said, did, and believed) say. These sources quite clearly teach Muslims to wage war against "infidels" and to wage offensive jihad against them. Just a few of the more well-known examples,

"[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." (Qur'an, Surah 8:12)

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an, Surah 9:5)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an, Surah 9:29)

Now, the pushback from Muslim apologists in the West, as well as their enablers in academia and the media, will be that these verses are "taken out of context." Some will attempt to appear more technical, and therefore credible, by rehearsing a brief version of Muslim history in Mecca and Medina, asserting then that these verses only applied to those times. This argument, however, is complete and utter falsehood. A long history of orthodox Muslim commentary, both medieval and modern, exists which has basically served to define Muslim doctrine in this area all throughout its history.

For instance, Al-Mahili (d. 1486) wrote about Surah 9:5,

"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed." (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, on Surah 9:5)

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) wrote about the universality of jihad, that it applies to all Muslims at all times,

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in Islam, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same." (Al-Muqaddimah, Bk. 1, Ch. 3.31)

Many other widely-read and well-respected Muslim commentators of the Qur'an such as al-Tabari, al-Mawardi, al-Qayrawani, al-Baidawi, ibn Taymayya, and many others wrote about these same set of verses, and understood them to be teaching offensive jihad against infidels, at all times and in all places.

The most influential modern Muslim commentators of the Qur'an also affirm this same doctrine. For example, the prominent Syrian mufti al-Buti (who died in a bomb blast in 2013 during the Syrian civil war), dispensed with all of the "defensive war" nonsense and clearly affirmed,

"The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students of Islam would like to tell us) because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars." (M.S.R. Al-Buti, The Jurisprudence of the Biography, pp. 323-324)

The well-known Pakistani teacher Syed Maududi wrote,

"The division of Islamic Jihad into "offensive" and "defensive" is not permissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at one and the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim party attacks the rule of an opposing ideology, and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is constrained to capture state power in order to protect the principles of Islam in space-time forces." (Jihad in Islam, p. 13)

The India Muslim quranic commentator Syed Pirzada said of jihad,

"The reasons stated in the verse for waging a war against the people of the Book clearly show that it is not for a defensive war, the command for a defensive war was given much earlier....The fact is that it is not correct to limit jihad within the circle of defensive war, nor is it correct to term it, what is today called, 'an aggressive war,' because jihad is not a war that is fought for conquering land, national prejudices, material gains, and false ideologies, it is fought for the noble purpose of freeing the slaves of God from the lordship of the false gods, to end aggression and tyranny and to give them a pure and virtuous atmosphere. This war is synonymous with the act of surgery of the rotten part of the body to provide healthy life to humanity." (Dawat ul-Qur'an, Bk. 1, on Surah 9:29)

Many, many other modern commentators on the Qur'an and the ahadith from all over the Muslims world could be cited who essentially say the same things – jihad is not merely defensive, but is fought to bring lands under the control of Islam, this is a universal and timeless rule for Muslims, and the "holy war" verses in the Qur'an quite clearly are used to support these.

Simply put, Islam's texts do indeed teach Muslims to commit violence against "unbelievers" and to wage war against them. And as the testimony of the history of Islam with its neighbors shows, this was a teaching that Muslims regularly followed in India, North Africa, Central Asia, and Europe for centuries. They acted this way because they were taught by their religion to do so.

So when ISIS beheads a bunch of Copts, they are merely acting on the injunction to "strike upon their necks." When ISIS puts someone in a cage and burns them to death? They are merely making them "pebbles to burn for hellfire." And they are doing so with the full weight and authority of fourteen centuries of Islamic theology and practice to back them up.

The same can be said for ISIS' treatment of captured women. The traditional treatment was for female prisoners to become sex slaves to their Muslim captors – just as we are seeing take place today. In regions where ISIS has gained control, women are required to adhere to strict Islamic law as it has been understood for centuries. This is why ISIS throws acid in the faces of women in Iraq that it deems to be not sufficiently covered. After all, traditional Islamic doctrine says that a woman is like a private part which the devil casts a glance after (Mishkat al-Masabih, Bk. 2, Ch. 27, no. 123) – in other words, the very fact that a woman's face or hair might be visible in public is a temptation that justifies defacing her.

Much ado was made recently about the belief expressed by ISIS spokesmen that Jesus was going to return and destroy the antichrist, ushering in the apocalypse and the end of the world. This was used by the news media to try to cast ISIS as some kind of weird, apocalyptic cult that is way outside the mainstream of Islamic belief, as a way of divorcing ISIS from the "moderate" Islam that the news media tell us is the "real" Islam. Yet, this is not the case. In fact, the belief that Isa (Jesus) will return and destroy ad-Dajjal (the antichrist) and bring about the end of the world is traditional, mainstream Sunni Muslim doctrine.

Even the fact that ISIS systematically seeks to use the Islamapologists in the Western media and political "elite" to hide their agenda is basic Islamic theology. It involves the principle of taqiyya – which is a sanctified form of lying for the benefit of Islam that is acceptable in Islamic doctrine.

"Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind), and Allah is your Protector. He is the Knower, the Wise." (Qur'an, Surah 66:2)

"The Prophet said, 'If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, Bk. 67, No. 427)

"Prophet Muhammad said, "Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people." (Sahih Muslim, Bk. 32, no. 6303)

"Allah's Messenger said, 'Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.' Maslama got up saying, 'Would you like me to kill him? The Prophet proclaimed, 'Yes' Maslama said, 'Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.' Muhammad said, 'You may do so.'" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Bk. 59, No. 369)

Lying for the sake of Islam serves several purposes, as illustrated in the quotes above. It can be used to lull enemies of Islam into a false sense of security by making treaties with them that the Muslims never intend to keep (this is especially common among the Palestinians who will make truces with the Israelis, only to break them later the same afternoon). It also covers more general forms of lying, so long as "advancing the cause of Islam" is the justification. This taqiyya can also take the common form of lying so as to create "justifications" for offensive warfare – e.g., support for Israel or the "oppression" of Muslims in Western countries can be used to create a casus belli in the minds of faithful Muslims like those in ISIS, legitimizing (in their own minds) their violent actions. Hence, spokesmen for ISIS point to the anti-western and anti-Christian rhetoric spewed forth by Obama and his cronies, the ignorant, unhistorical blather about "crusades" and "inquisitions," and use it as justification for what they do.

In summary, what we need to understand is that ISIS is not some fringe, outside-the-Muslim-mainstream group. It faithfully represents the long traditions and history of both Islamic doctrine and practice. The main difference between it and the "mainstream" of Muslim fundamentalism that doesn't commit violent acts (confining itself to merely preaching them) has more to do with the sociopathy and the violent personality disorders of ISIS members than anything else.

-kg-