Raymond Ibrahim: How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior

The bottom line is...sooner or later the Muslims will attack.

Being an unqualified, yet attentive student & climber of Geological features, and also keenly facinated with Scriptures of Antiquity, I would venture to postulate that Ayers Rock was that-which-fell-from-the-sky, way-back, in the days of Abraham & Lot.

And this is why Muslim immigration into non-Muslim countries must be stopped altogether - by main force, if necessary - and why non-Muslims simply cannot trust any professing Muslim or group of Muslims. We *cannot* trust the Mohammedan colonists in our midst, not even if, right now, they are smiling and playing nice.

Because in the light of the whole of documented history of the behaviour of the Ummah toward non-Muslims, and in the light of the texts that both prescribe and explain that behaviour, we must assume that the Mohammedans in our midst are merely 'lying low' temporarily while they gather their strength, and that the moment they think they are strong enough and can get away with it, whether locally, regionally or on a national and global scale, they will treat us like sh*t; that they fully intend to do here in Australia, Canada, UK, France, USA, and everywhere else that they have infiltrated, exactly as they are doing and have done in Egypt to the Copts, in Pakistan to Christians and Hindus, in Nigeria to Christians and animists, in Bangladesh and Indonesia to Hindus, Christians and Buddhists...robbing, burning, extorting, raping, torturing and kill, kill, killing.

From an article that appeared in the Times in 2007.

Article from Times Online: September 8, 2007

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece

Our followers 鈥榤ust live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad鈥�

- Andrew Norfolk

鈥淥ur followers 鈥榤ust live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad鈥�.

EXCERPT:

'One of the world鈥檚 most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims 鈥渢o establish the supremacy of Islam鈥� worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that **Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.** {my emphasis - dda}.

'His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking'.

And here is something else, one Hamza Yousef, convert to Islam, speaking in Dubai in 2004:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/11/hamza-yousef-jihad-is-actually-considered-a-rahma-mercy-in-islam.html

'DUBAI 鈥� The Muslim society has lost the ability of strategic thinking, which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) exemplified by compromising on several points with the enemy when he signed the Treaty of Hudaibia, said leading American Muslim, Shaikh Hamza Yousuf, at a lecture on Monday...

'Elaborating his point, Shaikh Hamza Yousuf said, 鈥淭here are times when you have to live like a sheep in order to live in the future like a lion.鈥�'

"Burhami is referring to the famous Mecca/Medina division: when Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in his early Mecca period, he preached peace and made pacts with infidels; when he became strong in the Medina period, he preached war and went on the offensive. This dichotomy鈥攑reach peace when weak, wage war when strong鈥攈as been instructive to Muslim leaders for ages." -- Raymond

Indeed. Perverted muhammad was so 2-faced and evil, just as many of his followers are. In fact, anyone calling themselves a muslim is guilty by association (like calling yourself a Nazi). This comment by Raymond is sooo important for everyone on the anti-jihad side to know and ponder, so that they can keep an eye out for it in the news; especially since the mainstream media won't present the evil 2-faced side of islam to the public. And then think about how evil islam is, that any peace that muslims try to present can only be a FALSE peace. The evil that's at the core of islam completely nullifies any supposed peace being offered. Period.

One passage stands out for me:

"when Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive. "

Is this not a textbook definition of "bullying"?

Do we also remember the old proverb "all bullies are cowards"? Is this not a characteristic of the Prophet himself?

The French realist Ernst Renan said the same thing in an 1882 speech. When quranimals are weak they are passive and when strong they are aggressive.

Again, again and again: on 9-11, Pakistan was down to the last of its foreign currency reserves, under the effects of US sanctions. After Pak talibanis helped orchestrate 9-11, GWB relied on the dictate of his saudi owners, and took gullible Americans on a nation building folly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans are as yet incapable of understanding that they have been subsidizing terror for 10 years. Quranimals who had never seen a cell phone, are now using these in terror.

Forget pre-emption-of-terror as American military doctrine; facilitation-of-terror best falls on the 10 year folly.

The enemy is quran programed to either murder, enslave or convert US. Any notion of integral-civilization is nothing more than a perverse fiction, spewing from the sick minds of elite parasites like the Bush-Crime-Family. Either we deal a mortal blow to this enemy now while we are at an advantage, or later, when the quranimal predator is made strong on the financial backs of American taxpayers.

To what extent did circumstance dictate Muhammad's behavior?
The answer:
'Muhammad has spoken of our GODS in splendid fashion..'
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah p. 165-166, The Life of Muhammad (translated by Guillaume 鈥� 21st impression 2007)

Yes, Muhammad and his followers bowed down and protrated themselves in honor of the gods of the pagans!!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/10/muhammad-and-satan_24.html

In a surprisingly honest disclosure of policy and strategy, did you spot the lie?

When the Prophet first arrived in Medina, he made conciliation with the Jews, conciliation without jizya... However, when they breached the covenant, he fought them...

How did the Jews breach the covenant?

(1) The covenant stated that anyone who was friendly to the Muslims would be treated like an equal. It was a leading Muslim, Abu Bakr himself, who slapped the face of a Jewish rabbi because he could not dispute the rabbi's logic.

(2) The covenant stated that Jews would maintain their own religion in peace and security. Yet when the Jews made a formal statement that they did not believe Mohammed was a prophet, it was Mohammed who announced that Muslims were no longer to have friendships with Jews.

(3) The covenant stated that it was not designed to protect "criminals and unjust persons"; any such person would forfeit the protection of the covenant. It was Mohammed who ordered the assassination of an old pagan-turned-Jew, Abu Afak, whose only crime was to comment on the political situation (which was legal and socially-accepted behaviour in that culture). Neither Mohammed nor the assassin paid blood-money, let alone forfeited the covenant.

(4) It was Mohammed who told the Qaynuqa tribe that he would attack them as he had attacked at Badr if they did not convert to Islam. When they responded that, in that case, they would defend themselves, Mohammed did attack. He won, and he sentenced them to death.

(4) When a pagan-chief-turned-Muslim pleaded for the lives of his old allies the Qaynuqa, presumably as a condition of continuing his own support for Mohammed, Mohammed transmuted the sentence to banishment, but he announced that if anyone else ever interfered in his dealings with another tribe, that person or tribe would forfeit the covenant. The Jews must have experienced some surprise that Mohammed still assumed the covenant to be in any force! The Qaynuqa emigrated to Syria, but they left their possessions behind. (The whole attack had coincided with a time when Mohammed needed money.)

(5) A few months later Mohammed ordered the assassination of a Nadir poet. This man was not a pauper singing for his supper, but a wealthy hobby-poet who was one of the major players on the political scene. His murder was an insult to the whole Nadir tribe. Did Mohammed suffer any financial penalty or other punishment for this breach of the covenant? You guess.

(6) The next day, Mohammed ordered the Muslims to kill any Jew who fell into their hands. What were the terms of that covenant again? The chiefs of the Nadir and Qurayza tribe actually visited Mohammed to ask him that question. He told them to behave themselves or something worse would happen. However, he must have called off the random-killings order, because there were no more of them.

(7) The covenant had guaranteed the security of everyone's property and possessions. When Mohammed announced that the Nadir chiefs were trying to kill him, Abu Bakr and Omar hinted that they hadn't noticed anything even though they had been in the room at the time. Mohammed replied that the angel Gabriel had told him so. Therefore he ordered the Nadir to leave Medina. They said no; he fought them; he won; they had to leave. They settled in Khaybar, where some of them owned a castle.

The only Jewish tribe left in Medina were the Qurayza. By modern standards, nobody could seriously believe they still had any kind of contract with Mohammed. Their tragedy was, their leader, Kaab ibn Asad, was a man of his word. There is some evidence that he still believed he ought to keep his covenant with Mohammed.

(9) The original covenant had stated that the tribes of Medina would all ally together if an outside enemy attacked the city. In 627, a huge Meccan army did besiege Medina, their goal to oust Mohammed. The Qurayza did help dig the famous trench around the city that kept the invaders out; but they never put on their armour and never fired an arrow - not that this made any difference to the outcome. Only about a dozen people (total on both sides) died because so little fighting actually occurred. Does this mean they broke the covenant? How does it compare with the many ways in which Mohammed had already broken the covenant?

(10) The Meccans desperately tried to get the Qurayza to sell out the Muslims. All they had to do was unbolt the door to their fortress, then close their eyes while the Meccan army streamed in to attack the Muslim quarter. The Nadir chief himself reappeared, begging Kaab ibn Asad to consider the benefit to the human race if only he would treat the covenant the same way Mohammed had always treated it. But Kaab (as on a similar occasion with a different enemy ten years earlier) would not break his word.

When the siege was lifted, Mohammed beheaded all the Qurayza men because, he said, they had broken the covenant.

Kaab ibn Asad's choices may look strange by our standards, but I think the man deserves a little more credit than history has given him. We have only Muslim sources about his life. Yet they indicate quite strongly that Kaab ibn Asad died because he kept his covenant to the bitter end.

Click on the link of Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami (Egypt鈥檚 Salafi movement) at top of this subject page) to see a large carbuncle bump on al-Burhami's forehead.

The raised, calloused bump is made by al-Burnami hitting his forehead on his prayer rug on the ground thousands of times. It's a sign to faith to other Muslims of his pious faith.

Incredible but true. Only a moronic, brain-dead, belief system-cult could make someone deface themselves in this horrendous display to show how "Allahu Akbar" their faith is to others.

Raymond writes:

"Burhami is referring to the famous Mecca/Medina division: when Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in his early Mecca period, he preached peace and made pacts with infidels;"

The problem with the way of describing it is that it is contrary to what the Quran and Sira say Muhammad was doing and saying in Mecca. Even in Mecca from the earliest stages of his "prophetic" career, Muhammad was blasting away rhetorically at the polytheists, reviling them and threatening them, condemning them to hell-fire, stirring up trouble, with his companions getting in fights with the polytheists. Muhammad, even in the Meccan phase in the Quran, glorified qital in the cause of Allah. He proposed to rule over the non-believers and impose the jizya on them. He threatened to "bring [them] slaughter."

Even his superficial mentioning of the word peace was coupled with (a) the implication that the mention of the word peace itself was a ruse, and (b) threats uttered in the same breath. Imagine someone tells you "Hey, peace!, but I'll get you sooner or later!"

Key Meccan verses:
43:88 "And he saith: O my Lord! Lo! these are a folk who believe not.
43:89 Then bear with them (O Muhammad) and say: Peace. But they will come to know."

Al-Jalalayn
"God, exalted be He, says: Then disregard them, leave [them] be, and say, 鈥楶eace!鈥�, [I will stay away] from you 鈥� this was [revealed] before he was commanded to fight them. For they will [soon] come to know (ya鈥榣am奴na, may also be read as [second person plural] ta鈥榣am奴na, 鈥榶ou will [come to] know鈥�), [meant] to threaten them."

Ibn Abbas
"(Then bear with them (O Muhammad)) it was said to him: turn away from them (and say: Peace) words of truth. (But) this is a threat (they will come to know) what will be done with them on the Day of Badr, Uhud, the Troops. Then, after this, he was commanded to fight them; it is also said that this means: but they will come to know the hunger and smoke that will befall them'."

Ibn Kathir
"[...] (and say Salam (peace!)) means, `do not respond to them in the same evil manner in which they address you; but try to soften their hearts and forgive them in word and deed.'
(But they will come to know.) This is a warning from Allah for them. His punishment, which cannot be warded off, struck them, and His religion and His word was supreme. Subsequently Jihad and striving were prescribed until the people entered the religion of Allah in crowds, and Islam spread throughout the east and the west. And Allah knows best. This is the end of the Tafsir of Surat Az-Zukhruf."

Exactly as we understand it. Whatever their fault, we can't accuse them for not warning us non Muslims however in a round about way.