Muslims do not assimilate they infiltrate

Normalization of Oppression: Nike Offers “Pro Hijab”

Nike will soon begin selling a performance hijab for Muslim women athletes.

pamelageller.com|By Pamela Geller

Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 9, “Repentance,” verses 1-5

Read find out what the Qur'an really teaches

November 12, 2007 8:07 am By Robert Spencer

Why do some Muslims consider it their responsibility before Allah to wage war against Jews and Christians? Because of this chapter of the Qur’an.

Sura 9, “Repentance,” is the only one of the Qur’an’s 114 chapters that does not begin with Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim — “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful.” Explanations for this vary. The caliph Uthman (and others, including the Islamic jurist Zamakhshari) explains that it was because some believed that sura 8 and sura 9 were actually one sura, and that “the holy prophet passed away without informing us whether Surah Bara’ah [sura 9] was part of Surah Anfal [sura 8] or not.” Ibn Kathir says that the omission is simply “because the Companions did not write it in the complete copy of the Qur’an (Mushaf) they collected.” Maududi asserts that the correct explanation was given by Imam Razi, who says that the Bismillah was left off because Muhammad himself didn’t recite it at the beginning of this sura. Al-Hakim says that Muhammad not only didn’t recite the Bismillah himself, but commanded that it not be recited at the beginning of this sura.

Why not? The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains Muhammad’s command by saying that the Bismillah “is security, and [sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword. One of Muhammad’s earliest followers, Ali ibn Abi Talib, agrees, saying that the Bismillah “conveys security while this sura was sent down with the sword. That is why it does not begin with security.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn adds that “Hudhayfa reports that they called it the Sura of Repentance, while it is, in fact, the Sura of Punishment.”

Punishment, that is, of the unbelievers.

The prohibition on saying the Bismillah at the beginning of this sura, in any case, remains. Scholars such as Jazari and Shatbi say that the Bismillah should not be recited at the beginning of this sura, although Bulandshahri says that if someone recites sura 9 starting from anywhere other than its beginning, he may recite the Bismillah if he chooses to do so.

According to a hadith recorded by Bukhari, sura 9 was the last to be revealed as a whole, although part of another sura came later. Another hadith says that sura 110 was actually the last, but in any case sura 9 is very late, among the last revelations Muhammad received. It came around the time, according to an Islamic tradition, of an inconclusive expedition Muhammad undertook against a Byzantine garrison at Tabuk in northern Arabia in 631, and much of its contents revolve around the events of that attempt to engage the army of the great Christian empire in battle.

Allah begins this sura, however, by addressing the pagans of Mecca. He frees the unbelievers from all obligations they may have incurred in treaties they concluded with the Muslims, and all existing treaties are restricted to a period of four months (vv. 1-3).

This restriction comes with Allah’s warning that he “will cover with shame those who reject Him” (v. 2), which the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains as “humiliating them in this world by having them killed, and in the Hereafter, by [sending them to] the Fire.” The announcement is made during the Hajj that “Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans” and call them to repent and accept Islam (v. 3). This refers only to those pagans who have violated the terms of their treaties with the Muslims; the other treaties will be honored to the end of their term (v. 4). As-Sawi says that this is an exception to the four-month limit, giving to the Damra tribe, “who still had nine months of their treaty remaining.”

Then comes the notorious Verse of the Sword, containing the injunction to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them (v. 5). This is, understandably, a verse much beloved by present-day jihadists. In a 2003 sermon, Osama bin Laden rejoiced over this verse: “Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood.”

Ibn Juzayy notes that v. 5 abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). According to As-Suyuti, “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” — that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam.”

Ibn Kathir echoes this, directing that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view commonly put forward by Muslim spokesmen in the West today — that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” — that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with Qur’an 2:191.

If the unbelievers convert to Islam, the Muslims must stop killing them. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them.” Ibn Kathir: “These Ayat [verses] allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.” Qutb says that the termination of the treaties with a four-month grace period, combined with the call to kill the unbelievers, “was not meant as a campaign of vengeance or extermination, but rather as a warning which provided a motive for them to accept Islam.”

Asad, however, says that v. 5 “certainly does not imply an alternative of ‘conversion or death,’ as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume.” He says that “war is permissible only in self-defence,” in accord with 2:190, and that “the enemy’s conversion to Islam…is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their ‘desisting from hostility.'” He points the reader to verses 4 and 6 for further elucidation.

Finally, it is noteworthy that, according to As-Suyuti, the jurist Ash-Shafi’i took this as a proof for killing anyone who abandons the prayer and fighting anyone who refuses to pay zakat [alms]. “Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun [unbelievers].” Likewise Ibn Kathir: “Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah.” Thus even Muslims who do not fulfill Islamic obligations fall into the category of those who must be fought. This is a principle that latter-day Salafist movements apply broadly and use frequently in branding governments that do not rule according to strict Islamic law as unbelievers who must be fought by those who regard themselves as true Muslims. This is playing out now in the Islamic State’s declaration that those Muslims who do not accept its authority are unbelievers and can therefore lawfully be killed.

(Revised May 2015)

AMERICA NOT FREE ANYMORE! COLUMBUS OHIO MARCH4TRUMP RALL

This is evidence that bare witness to the fact that Obama and the Social Democratic are guilt of treason and conspiracy against the American People !!

Principles for a Free Society

How Close-Minded Liberals Have Ruined Higher Education

While college administrators and professors accept disgraceful behavior, we as taxpayers, donors, and parents should not foot the bill.

Let’s look at some of that behavior.

A University of Washington Tacoma Writing Center press release told students that expecting Americans to use proper grammar perpetuates racism. The University of Nebraska Omaha will host a workshop for “anti-racist allies” to develop “action plans” that confront America’s “foundation of systemic oppression” in the context of “the current political climate.”

The workshop was inspired by professor Tammie Kennedy’s recent book, titled “Rhetorics of Whiteness.” She will lead a discussion on “taking action against white supremacy.”

Black students at the University of Michigan demand campus officials provide them with “a permanent designated space on central campus for black students and students of color to organize and do social justice work.”

Bob Lange is an associate professor emeritus of physics and an adjunct associate professor at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management. He says, “It is not terrorism to kill representatives of a government that you are opposed to.”

His remarks were reported by Canary Mission, a group of students who document people and groups who are promoting hatred of the USA, Israel, and the Jewish people, particularly on American college campuses.

It reports that Lange maintained that the 2012 terrorist attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya—which killed four people and injured 10 others—were “not terrorism.”

Orange Coast College suspended Caleb O’Neil for violating an obscure school policy against recording classroom lectures. It’s what he recorded that was disturbing to the college administration.

He recorded a human sexuality professor, Olga Perez Stable Cox, spending class time telling her students that President Donald Trump’s election was an “act of terrorism” because he is a “white supremacist” and Vice President Mike Pence “is one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.”

Additionally, the professor asked all of the Trump supporters in the classroom to stand up and be accounted for.

In a relatively rare incidence of the education establishment’s doing the right thing, the Coast Community College District’s board of trustees overrode the college president and rescinded O’Neil’s suspension and other sanctions. What the board did not do was to sanction Cox for being a thug and bullying her students.

Commentator Dennis Prager recently wrote a column titled “Why Professors Object to Being Recorded.” Prager says:

Our colleges and universities (and an increasing number of high schools and elementary schools) have been transformed from educational institutions into indoctrination institutions. With the left-wing takeover of universities, their primary aim has become graduating as many leftists as possible.

He adds:

Most professors objecting to being recorded know on some level that they are persuasive only when their audience is composed largely of very young people just out of high school. They know that if their ideas are exposed to adults, they may be revealed as intellectual lightweights.

These professors know that they are persuasive only when their audience is composed of very young people with minds full of mush. If their ideas are exposed to more mature adults, they will be seen as quacks, hustlers, and charlatans.

By the way, I’ve taught graduate and undergraduate economic theory for 36 years at George Mason University. At the beginning of each semester, I invite students to record my lectures.

I have no idea who has listened to the lectures or where the recordings wind up. But I challenge anyone to find a lecture in which I proselytized students to my political or personal values.

While professorial proselytization is accepted at most universities, I believe that to use one’s classroom to push one’s personal beliefs, particularly on immature students, is both immoral and academic dishonesty.

What’s going on at the nation’s colleges represents a threat to both liberty and academic excellence. It is a gross dereliction of duty for legislators, donors, and decent Americans to allow it to continue. (For more from the author of “How Close-Minded Liberals Have Ruined Higher Education” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/close-minded-liberals-ruined-higher-education/

This is evidence that bare witness to the fact that the news media's are part of the conspiracy and treason that is taking against the American People!

Principles for a Free Society

CNN Drops Congressman’s Feed as He Spills the Beans

A U.S. congressman was abruptly disconnected from his CNN interview Monday just as he began citing statistics revealing 300 refugees admitted to the U.S. are being investigated by the FBI in domestic terrorism cases.

CNN correspondent Dana Bash was interviewing Rep. Scott Taylor, R-Va., on the issue of President Trump’s revised travel ban, which bars entry of individuals from a list of six terror hotbeds (Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syrian and Libya) for 90 days as the administration examines the vetting process.

Bash asked Taylor if he believes Trump’s ban is necessary for America’s security.

Just today, the FBI comes out and says that 30 percent, 30 percent, of their domestic terrorism cases that they’re investigating are from folks who are refugees,” Taylor replied. “It’s important not to label all refugees bad people, that’s not why I’m here, but …”

That’s when the feed suddenly cut out. Taylor’s face and voice were replaced by an image of colored bars and a loud buzzing noise. (Read more from “CNN Drops Congressman’s Feed as He Spills the Beans” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/cnn-drops-congressmans-feed-spills-beans/

WikiLeaks Publishes CIA Trove Alleging Wide Scale Hacking

March 7, 2017

/by Raphael Satter and Jack Gillum

WikiLeaks on Tuesday published thousands of documents purportedly taken from the Central Intelligence Agency’s Center for Cyber Intelligence, a dramatic release that appears to expose intimate details of America’s cyberespionage toolkit. It was not immediately clear how WikiLeaks obtained the information, which included more than 8,700 documents and files. The CIA tools, if authentic, could undermine the confidence that consumers have in the safety and security of their computers, mobile devices and even smart TVs. WikiLeaks said the material came from “an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virginia.” It didn’t say how the files were removed, such as possibly by a rogue employee, by hacking a federal contractor working for the CIA or breaking into a staging server where such hacking tools might be temporarily stored. (Read more from “WikiLeaks Publishes CIA Trove Alleging Wide Scale Hacking” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/wikileaks-publishes-cia-trove-alleging-wide-scale-hacking/

SWEDEN: Muslim “NO-GO Zones” are so dangerous, ambulance drivers won’t go into them without armed police escorts

Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate!
To the leftist media apologists for Islam, who continue to deny that there is any such thing in Europe as “NO-GO Zones” (at least 55 in Sweden, 750 in France, and dozens in every other EU country) where non-Muslims dare not go, here is further evidence.
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0Wd2AQL7J8

Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate!

Wanna get out of America for a little while?

You won’t even need a passport. Just head for Dearborn (better known as Dearbornistan) Michigan…where you’ll feel like you are in downtown Baghdad.
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjTxvUJ93ro

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More…

Bare Naked Islam

to read all articles go to http://www.barenakedislam.com/

The WATCHMAN ON THE WALL SOUNDING THE ALARM

Nearly a third of FBI domestic terrorism cases involve Muslim refugees

March 7, 2017 / 

And those are just the ones the feds knows about. How do we know they are Muslim? Because 99% of refugees Obama imported to the U.S. are Muslim. Source: 300 refugees subjects of FBI terror investigations, U.S. officials say Nearly a third of the 1,000 FBI domestic terrorism cases – 300 – involve those admitted to the U.S. as refugees, a Department of Homeland Security official said Monday. That number was confirmed later in the day by Attorney General Jeff Sessions during a news conference. Officials said some of those 300 came to “infiltrate” the U.S., while others were radicalized once they were in the country. The officials who spoke Monday morning didn’t detail the current immigration status of those 300 people who were subjects of government terror probes, Reuters reported, citing a source. Several refugees have already participated in mass attacks in recent years motivated by apparent Islamic radicalism. Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan rammed his car into a crowd at The Ohio State University in November after posting a message on Facebook warning America not to interfere with Muslim communities. Somali refugee Dahir Adan reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar” and asked one victim if they were Muslim during a September rampage in which he stabbed and injured nine people at a Minnesota mall. Seddique Mateen, the father of Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen, is an Afghan refugee. Countless other refugees have been convicted of plotting attacks or planning to join ISIS abroad. Daniel Greenfield links to the White House statement where the 300 figure originates: 300 Muslim Refugees are Under Investigation for Terrorism The new travel pause is out. It exempts Iraqis. It doesn’t focus in on Syrians. Much of it is aimed at defending the previous executive order. And spelling out why the six countries are on the terror list. There’s also an interesting, but unsurprising, reference. Recent history shows that some of those who have entered the United States through our immigration system have proved to be threats to our national security. Since 2001, hundreds of persons born abroad have been convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States. They have included not just persons who came here legally on visas but also individuals who first entered the country as refugees. For example, in January 2013, two Iraqi nationals admitted to the United States as refugees in 2009 were sentenced to 40 years and to life in prison, respectively, for multiple terrorism-related offenses. And in October 2014, a native of Somalia who had been brought to the United States as a child refugee and later became a naturalized United States citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction as part of a plot to detonate a bomb at a crowded Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. The Attorney General has reported to me that more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I guess that’s the enhanced vetting that the media keeps crowing about. We let refugee terrorists into this country and then we keep on vetting them for years and years. Until they kill someone. Or rape multiple women. Or sexually assault under-age girls. Or boys. Or drive around neighborhoods threatening to rape women. Or beating them with American flags. Or steal millions from taxpayers. Or send suitcases full of taxpayer-funded welfare cash to jihadists. Or…the list goes on. Apparently Americans can’t be protected from Muslims who do those things, unless they protect themselves, which of course is Islamophobic. Please Share & Help Wake America Up

Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate!

The Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) Destructive Agenda

… and its ties to a number of leading Democrats.

Creeping Sharia

To read all articles go to ,https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

The watchman on the wall sounding the ALARM

Vessels from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps force US Navy ship to change course

March 6, 2017

  By Robert Spencer

The official said attempts were made to communicate over radio, but there was no response and the interaction was “unsafe and unprofessional.” “Unprofessional”? No. It was a deliberate provocation. This weak and limp schoolmarmery from the Navy only encourages more such provocations. Note also that Reuters refers to the “Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,” leaving out the “Islamic” from the group’s name. “U.S. Navy ship changes course after Iran vessel interaction: U.S. official,” Reuters, March 6, 2017: WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) – Multiple fast-attack vessels from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps came close to a U.S. Navy ship in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, forcing it to change direction… …the IRGCN boats came within 600 yards of the USNS Invincible, a tracking ship, and stopped. The Invincible was being accompanied by three ships from British Royal Navy and forced the formation to change course. The official said attempts were made to communicate over radio, but there was no response and the interaction was “unsafe and unprofessional.”

Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate!

Sweden: Muslim migrant teens rape 14-year-old girl at school, they stay at school, she is transferred

March 7, 2017 8:29 am By Robert Spencer 20 Comments

Jihad Watch

To read all articles go to https://www.jihadwatch.org/

The watchman on the wall sounding the ALARM

Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 8, “Booty,” verses 31-75

November 5, 2007 6:29 am By Robert Spencer

Part 25
 ( Read find what the Qur'an really teaches )

Allah then discusses the perversity of the pagan Quraysh, whom the Muslims have just defeated in the Battle of Badr (vv. 31-40). They reject Muhammad’s preaching as “legends of the former peoples” (v. 31) and keep the Muslims out of the Sacred Mosque in Mecca (v. 34). In verses 38-40, Allah tells Muhammad to call them to accept Islam, “And fight them until there is no fitnah and the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.” (v. 39).

According to Ibn Abbas, Abu Al-Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi bin Anas, As-Suddi, Muqatil bin Hayyan and Zayd bin Aslam, the statement that Muslims must fight until there is no more fitnah means that they must fight “so that there is no more Shirk.” Shirk is the association of partners with Allah — i.e., calling Jesus the Son of God. So this verse, although it was revealed in the aftermath of a seventh-century battle between Muslims and pagans, has a universal application: the Tafsir al-Jalalayn glosses it this way: “And fight them until sedition, idolatry, is, exists, no more and religion is all for Allah, alone, none other being worshipped.” Muhammad himself said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.” (Sahih Muslim 30)

Allah then speaks about the battle itself (vv. 41-44). After the Muslims’ victory, Allah directs the Muslims to give a fifth of the booty to Muhammad (v. 41). An Islamic tradition amplifies this with an account of Muhammad’s generosity: after one battle, Muhammad prayed “facing a camel from the war booty,” and then, holding some of the camel’s hair between his fingers, said to his men: “This is also a part of the war booty you earned. Verily, I have no share in it, except my own share, the fifth designated to me. Even that fifth will be given to you.” Muhammad continued by exhorting the Muslims to turn over all the spoils of war to him for just distribution: “Therefore, surrender even the needle and the thread, and whatever is bigger or smaller than that (from the war spoils). Do not cheat with any of it, for stealing from the war booty before its distribution is Fire and a shame on its people in this life and the Hereafter. Perform Jihad against the people in Allah’s cause, whether they are near or far, and do not fear the blame of the blamers, as long as you are in Allah’s cause. Establish Allah’s rules while in your area and while traveling. Perform Jihad in Allah’s cause, for Jihad is a tremendous door leading to Paradise. Through it, Allah saves (one) from sadness and grief.”

Then Allah reminds Muhammad of various events before and during the battle, emphasizing how Allah controlled events and saved the Muslims (vv. 42-44).

After that, Allah address the believers (vv. 45-63), telling them not to imitate those who, like the “the people of Pharaoh and of those before them…disbelieved in the signs of Allah, so Allah seized them for their sins. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and severe in penalty.” (v. 52). (Here again, “signs” is ayat, the word used for the verses of the Qur’an.) For “the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe ” (v. 55) — another indication that unbelievers are worthy of no respect or consideration. If the Muslims “fear treachery” from unbelievers with whom they have a treaty, they should simply break the treaty (v. 58). Ibn Kathir says this means that Muslims should tell the unbelievers “that you are severing the treaty. This way, you will be on equal terms, in that, you and they will be aware that a state of war exists between you and that the bilateral peace treaty is null and void.” The Muslims should “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies” (v. 60), while being ready to make peace if the enemy wishes to do so (v. 61). Some however, do not believe this truce should be indefinite in length. Qutb explains:

At the time when this surah was revealed, God instructed His Messenger to remain at peace with those groups who refrained from fighting him and the Muslims, whether they entered into a formal treaty with the Muslims or not. The Prophet continued to accept a peaceful relationship with unbelievers and people of earlier revelations until Surah 9 was revealed, when he could only accept one of two alternatives: either they embraced Islam or paid jizyah [a tax levied on non-Muslims, per Qur’an 9:29] which indicated a state of peace. Otherwise, the only alternative was war, whenever this was feasible for the Muslims to undertake, so that all people submit to God alone.

Allah then address Muhammad himself, giving him various instructions (vv. 62-75). Allah tells him that he will give pious Muslims more victories, even if they face odds even more prohibitive than those they had overcome at Badr, although this promise is almost immediately backtracked: originally a hundred would defeat a thousand unbelievers (v. 65), but this is then reduced to a hundred believers vanquishing two hundred unbelievers (v. 66). These became recurring themes of jihad literature throughout the centuries, up to the present day: piety will bring military victory, and the Muslims will conquer even against overwhelming odds.

According to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, verse 67 — “It is not for a prophet to have captives until he inflicts a massacre in the land” — was revealed when the Muslims “ransomed those taken captive at Badr.” The Muslims had released some of the prisoners at Badr, but this was out of their base desire for material gain: the money they would receive in ransom. The tafsir continues: “You, O believers, desire the transient things of this world, its ephemeral gains, by ransoming, while God desires, for you, the Hereafter, that is, its reward, through your killing them.” In other words, they should have killed the captives rather than ransoming them. However, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn concludes by asserting that v. 67 was abrogated by 47:4, which allows for ransom. Ibn Kathir notes that “the majority of the scholars say that the matter of prisoners of war is up to the Imam. If he decides, he can have them killed, such as in the case of Bani Qurayzah. If he decides, he can accept a ransom for them, as in the case of the prisoners of Badr, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners.”

(Revised May 2015)

Allah then discusses the perversity of the pagan Quraysh, whom the Muslims have just defeated in the Battle of Badr (vv. 31-40). They reject Muhammad’s preaching as “legends of the former peoples” (v. 31) and keep the Muslims out of the Sacred Mosque in Mecca (v. 34). In verses 38-40, Allah tells Muhammad to call them to accept Islam, “And fight them until there is no fitnah and the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.” (v. 39).

According to Ibn Abbas, Abu Al-Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi bin Anas, As-Suddi, Muqatil bin Hayyan and Zayd bin Aslam, the statement that Muslims must fight until there is no more fitnah means that they must fight “so that there is no more Shirk.” Shirk is the association of partners with Allah — i.e., calling Jesus the Son of God. So this verse, although it was revealed in the aftermath of a seventh-century battle between Muslims and pagans, has a universal application: the Tafsir al-Jalalayn glosses it this way: “And fight them until sedition, idolatry, is, exists, no more and religion is all for Allah, alone, none other being worshipped.” Muhammad himself said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.” (Sahih Muslim 30)

Allah then speaks about the battle itself (vv. 41-44). After the Muslims’ victory, Allah directs the Muslims to give a fifth of the booty to Muhammad (v. 41). An Islamic tradition amplifies this with an account of Muhammad’s generosity: after one battle, Muhammad prayed “facing a camel from the war booty,” and then, holding some of the camel’s hair between his fingers, said to his men: “This is also a part of the war booty you earned. Verily, I have no share in it, except my own share, the fifth designated to me. Even that fifth will be given to you.” Muhammad continued by exhorting the Muslims to turn over all the spoils of war to him for just distribution: “Therefore, surrender even the needle and the thread, and whatever is bigger or smaller than that (from the war spoils). Do not cheat with any of it, for stealing from the war booty before its distribution is Fire and a shame on its people in this life and the Hereafter. Perform Jihad against the people in Allah’s cause, whether they are near or far, and do not fear the blame of the blamers, as long as you are in Allah’s cause. Establish Allah’s rules while in your area and while traveling. Perform Jihad in Allah’s cause, for Jihad is a tremendous door leading to Paradise. Through it, Allah saves (one) from sadness and grief.”

Then Allah reminds Muhammad of various events before and during the battle, emphasizing how Allah controlled events and saved the Muslims (vv. 42-44).

After that, Allah address the believers (vv. 45-63), telling them not to imitate those who, like the “the people of Pharaoh and of those before them…disbelieved in the signs of Allah, so Allah seized them for their sins. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and severe in penalty.” (v. 52). (Here again, “signs” is ayat, the word used for the verses of the Qur’an.) For “the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe ” (v. 55) — another indication that unbelievers are worthy of no respect or consideration. If the Muslims “fear treachery” from unbelievers with whom they have a treaty, they should simply break the treaty (v. 58). Ibn Kathir says this means that Muslims should tell the unbelievers “that you are severing the treaty. This way, you will be on equal terms, in that, you and they will be aware that a state of war exists between you and that the bilateral peace treaty is null and void.” The Muslims should “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies” (v. 60), while being ready to make peace if the enemy wishes to do so (v. 61). Some however, do not believe this truce should be indefinite in length. Qutb explains:

At the time when this surah was revealed, God instructed His Messenger to remain at peace with those groups who refrained from fighting him and the Muslims, whether they entered into a formal treaty with the Muslims or not. The Prophet continued to accept a peaceful relationship with unbelievers and people of earlier revelations until Surah 9 was revealed, when he could only accept one of two alternatives: either they embraced Islam or paid jizyah [a tax levied on non-Muslims, per Qur’an 9:29] which indicated a state of peace. Otherwise, the only alternative was war, whenever this was feasible for the Muslims to undertake, so that all people submit to God alone.

Allah then address Muhammad himself, giving him various instructions (vv. 62-75). Allah tells him that he will give pious Muslims more victories, even if they face odds even more prohibitive than those they had overcome at Badr, although this promise is almost immediately backtracked: originally a hundred would defeat a thousand unbelievers (v. 65), but this is then reduced to a hundred believers vanquishing two hundred unbelievers (v. 66). These became recurring themes of jihad literature throughout the centuries, up to the present day: piety will bring military victory, and the Muslims will conquer even against overwhelming odds.

According to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, verse 67 — “It is not for a prophet to have captives until he inflicts a massacre in the land” — was revealed when the Muslims “ransomed those taken captive at Badr.” The Muslims had released some of the prisoners at Badr, but this was out of their base desire for material gain: the money they would receive in ransom. The tafsir continues: “You, O believers, desire the transient things of this world, its ephemeral gains, by ransoming, while God desires, for you, the Hereafter, that is, its reward, through your killing them.” In other words, they should have killed the captives rather than ransoming them. However, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn concludes by asserting that v. 67 was abrogated by 47:4, which allows for ransom. Ibn Kathir notes that “the majority of the scholars say that the matter of prisoners of war is up to the Imam. If he decides, he can have them killed, such as in the case of Bani Qurayzah. If he decides, he can accept a ransom for them, as in the case of the prisoners of Badr, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners.”

(Revised May 2015)

The Daily Jot Daily

reporting and analysis of current events from a biblical and prophetic perspective Bill Wilson Getting to the bottom of the wire tapping NOTE: When writing about God and Jesus, The Daily Jot means YHVH as God and Yeshua Ha Mashiach as Jesus--the actual original names and the true nature and character of them.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017 President Donald Trump accused the ex-"president" of wire-tapping his campaign, setting off a barrage of sanctimonious denials from Democrats and from the ex "president." The former "president's" spokesman Kevin Lewis said, "A cardinal rule of the [sic] Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither the [sic] "president" nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false." The facts, dating back to the 2012 campaign, however, indicate just the opposite. In fact, the White House had routinely ordered surveillance on US citizens. In June 2013, the UK Guardian released an investigative story on how the White House used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to bypass the Patriot Act. The Guardian published documents submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), signed by Attorney General Eric Holder July 29, 2009. The documents indicate the White House used this court to back door "authority" to collect information on American citizens. The Guardian reported that the broad scope of the court orders and nature of the procedures established in the documents appeared "to clash" with assurances from the White House that our telephone and email information could not be accessed without warrants. Also in June 2013, The ACLU filed a lawsuit in the US District Court against James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander, Defense Secretary Charles Hagel, Attorney General Eric Holder, and FBI Director Robert Mueller III for spying on Americans. The suit claimed these agencies illegally obtained "a comprehensive record" of citizens' "familial, political, professional, religious, and intimate associations." On May 13, 2013, AP reported that the DOJ had secretly obtained two months of telephone records of Associated Press reporters and editors during the 2012 campaign. Wire-tapping was routine at the previous White House. CBS and Fox News reporters were also confirmed to be targets of the Administration's surveillance. The story that tipped off Trump to the ex-"president's" wire tapping hobby was found in the New York Times January 19 article, stating " Numerous news outlets, including The New York Times, have reported on the F.B.I. investigations into Mr. Trump's advisers. BBC and then McClatchy revealed the existence of a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government." There is also documentation that in June 2016 the ex-"president" submitted a request to the FISC to monitor communications by Trump, which was denied. In November 2016, HeatStreet reported "that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of 'US persons' in Donald Trump's campaign with ties to Russia." No evidence was found, but the wire-taps were continued, according to HeatStreet and the New York Times, under the pretext of national security. While the ex "president" himself may or may not have ordered wire taps and surveillance on Trump, even after he was elected, evidence suggests the ex "president's" Administration did spy on Trump and numerous other US citizens during his two terms in office. It is reported, documented and was considered routine. They are lying to cover it up. In John 3:20, Jesus said, " For everyone that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." We need to continue to expose these deeds and demand accountability, otherwise your freedom of religion and of speech will be crushed in darkness. Have a Blessed and Powerful Day! Bill Wilson www.dailyjot.com PS. Please use the "Share This Email" link below to pass this on to as many people as you can!

This Isn’t Over: SCOTUS May Have Put Its Trans-Bathroom Case on Hold, but More Are to Follow

School administrators trying to set common-sense bathroom safety policies received a temporary respite from the Supreme Court Monday. But the fight is far from over.

The court announced Monday morning that in the case of G.G. vs Gloucester County School Board, the judgment has been vacated and remanded to the Fourth Circuit appeals court in light of the Trump administration’s recent rescinding of the Obama-era transgender bathroom guidance.

The Supreme Court decided that it would not hear the case of biological teenage girl Gavin Grimm, who sued her local Virginia school board to use the boys’ room, citing federal discrimination law under Title IX, the 14th Amendment, and the Obama-era set of administrative guidelines.

A vacate and remand offers the parents and administrators temporary respite from complying with any court orders to the subject, as a vacated decision renders all previous judgement – which sided with Grimm – void, while allowing the competing arguments to be evaluated without Obama’s bureaucratic interpretation in the mix.

“The first duty of school districts is to protect the bodily privacy rights of all of the students who attend their schools and to respect the rights of parents who understandably don’t want their children exposed in intimate changing areas like locker rooms and showers,” reads a statement from Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kerri Kupec, whose organization represents the school board.

“It only makes sense for the Supreme Court to vacate the 4th Circuit’s earlier decision and instruct it to reconsider this case,” Kupec said. “The 4th Circuit should affirm the plain meaning of Title IX, which protects boys’ and girls’ privacy in locker rooms, showers, and restrooms. School officials should be free to protect their students’ privacy, safety, and dignity without federal government interference.”

This development follows the news that both parties actually wanted to press forward with the case, despite the rollback of the Obama administration edict.

According to SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe, while the parties still wanted the case heard by the high court, they differed on the when. The student’s ACLU legal team wanted the justices to hear the case and rule as planned, while the school board asked for more time.

However, the debate over who sets privacy policies in public schools – judges, bureaucrats, legislators, or educators and parents at the local level – isn’t over.

In addition to the eventual Fourth Circuit decision, there still remains the issue of the plaintiffs in the Sixth Circuit and two lower-level cases that were awaiting a ruling in Gloucester that will now be “coming out of hibernation,” ADF senior counsel Gary McCaleb explained in a phone interview.

Simply, for opponents of unconstitutionally rewriting federal discrimination law, this is more a breather than a win.

At heart, the cases raise the question of which branch writes our laws and further highlights the need for legislative or administrative language clarifying what Title IX actually means.

Title IX is the product of a 1972 law that prohibits schools receiving federal funds from discriminating “on the basis of sex.” While the law was clearly passed by Congress with biological sex in mind, there has been a concerted push from the Left in recent years to redefine that understanding to mean gender (which, of course, is based on thoughts and feelings, rather than science).

As we have previously pointed out at CR, legislation that would analogously redefine sex as gender identity in federal law has already been introduced in multiple congressional sessions, to no avail. Since Democrats have failed to get this sort of legislation through Congress thus far, that effort has now moved to the courtroom with these such cases.

Last year, Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas (F, 58%) introduced a bill aimed at clearing up this confusion once and for all. The Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2016 would have sought to “prevent the [Obama administration] from unilaterally rewriting Federal civil rights laws,” by barring the executive branch from interpreting Title IX’s provisions on “sex” to mean “gender.”

There may no longer be a soft mandate from the executive branch, but the ongoing nature of these cases shows that the American people have the option to answer this question via Congress, or leave it up to the federal judiciary. (For more from the author of “This Isn’t Over: SCOTUS May Have Put Its Trans-Bathroom Case on Hold, but More Are to Follow” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/isnt-scotus-may-put-trans-bathroom-case-hold-follow/

Will Trump Act to End Common Core’s Disastrous Math Slump?

The verdict is in on Common Core and it’s bad. International tests towards which Common Core was supposed to be “benchmarked” show that American students’ reading and science scores are stagnant. And math scores are tanking badly. Of the 35 industrialized nations, U..S. students have slipped into the 31st place in math achievement.

“We really are doing a lot worse in math than we are in science and reading,” Peggy Carr, the acting commissioner for the National Center for Education Statistics, told The Hechinger Report. Students across the board in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests are doing worse, from bottom to middle to top performance.

The sharp drop in math performance on the international test confirms the lower scores seen on the United States’ National Assessment on Education Progress, in which both 4th graders and 8th graders posted lower math scores on the 2015 test.

Why the Drop in Math Performance is Not Surprising

To critics of Common Core this should come as no surprise. The “Common Core moms” were repeatedly derided by the experts for noticing the sudden strange collapse in math teaching standards. I first wrote about one such mom, Heather Crossin, in 2013:

In September 2011, Heather suddenly noticed a sharp decline in the math homework her eight-year-old daughter was bringing home from Catholic school. “Instead of many arithmetic problems, the homework would contain only three or four questions, and two of those would be ‘explain your answer,’” Heather told me. “Like, ‘One bridge is 412 feet long and the other bridge is 206 feet long. Which bridge is longer? How do you know?’ She found she could not help her daughter answer the latter question: The “right” answer involved heavy quotation from Common Core language. A program designed to encourage thought had ended up encouraging rote memorization not of math but of scripts about math.

When Heather and other parents complained to the principal — at a private Catholic school mind you — he threw up his hands and said he didn’t like it either but they had to teach to the state test which was now based on Common Core standards. Yet Common Core advocates persist in the Big Lie that national standards leave states free to develop their own curricula. Here’s the truth: If you control the standards you control the curriculum.

Mothers like Heather Crossin were called ignoramuses. They were told that the experts had developed wonderful new standards that were “internationally benchmarked,” that is, that they were the kind of standards countries with high performing math students use. That was also a Big Lie. The one actual mathematician on the board that developed them, Stanford mathematics professor R. James Milgram, rejected the Common Core math standards. Prof. Milgram concluded that the Common Core standards are, as he told the Texas state legislature, “in large measure a political document that … is written at a very low level and does not adequately reflect our current understanding of why the math programs in the high-achieving countries give dramatically better results.”

The education school math education “experts” managed to impose on almost the entire country standards based on untested education theories, not empirical evidence. Most of its advocates probably had no clue. They trusted the “experts” in spite of the fact that such progressive education theories get it wrong time after time. (Remember “whole language” reading wars?)

They should have known better: When most states adopted Common Core the standards had not yet been written. They were buying a pig in a poke. And students are paying the price.

Trump Recognized Common Core’s Problems — At First

Donald Trump, to his credit, acknowledged the problem.

Or at least on the campaign trail he did. He opposed Common Core from the first moment he announced his campaign in June 2015, to the closing argument on his whirlwind tour the day before the election. He used it as a club to beat back Jeb Bush (the leader of the Republican support for Common Core, whose protégé, Betsy DeVos, now heads up the Education Department).

As Breitbart’s Dr. Susan Berry reported, “Numerous reports have observed the presence of Jeb Bush supporters and Obama holdovers in the federal education department. U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos herself was both a generous contributor to and board member of Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE), which promoted Common Core nationwide. Bush himself said of DeVos’s nomination, ‘I’m so excited.’”

Common Core critics are now increasingly concerned that President Trump has gone silent on Common Core.

As Fred Barnes pointed out, “He didn’t mention it … in his hour-long speech to a joint session of Congress. He didn’t repeat his promise to end it in his inaugural address a month ago. And he neglected to cite it in his rousing talk at the Conservative Political Action Conference.”

Trump’s education policy since taking office has been all school choice, with dramatic silence on Common Core. But school choice has little meaning if “common standards” put pressure on virtually every public, charter, and private school to create Common Core curricula, driven by state-imposed standardized tests.

Republicans who originally supported Common Core meant well. They thought they were endorsing high academic standards that would help students learn. That’s why they made a deal with the Obama administration. But now we know the truth.

Will President Trump care enough about the Common Core moms like Heather to deliver on one of his most-frequently repeated campaign promises?

Common Core Re-branded is Still Bad

As Frank Cannon, president of the American Principles Project (where I am a senior fellow) told Breitbart, given the Jeb-heavy cast of his education appointments, “I think it’s important for Trump to personally drive to completion on this promise, as he has on so many other promises.”

There are practical steps that can be taken immediately to ease the federal pressures on states to continue with failed math standards and the curriculum craziness produced by those standards. (Given the failure of Common Core to improve reading and silence standards, states should be free to experiment across the board.)

Jane Robbins, a senior fellow at American Principles Project (see full disclosure above) has been working with state legislatures on what they can do to undo Common Core. She finds the heavy hand of the federal government is still playing an outsize role:

DeVos can ease federal mandates on standards and testing, letting states choose their own standards — that is, ditch Common Core — without fear of federal penalty, and giving them a waiver from testing requirements while they revamp their standards and aligned tests. She should also comb through all 1,061 pages of Every Child Succeeds Act passed in 2015 and push Congress to eliminate its mandates.

“What we can’t have is the components of Common Core and have it be rebranded as something else. We can’t have the testing, we can’t have the lowering of standards that is part of Common Core, we can’t have the one-size-fits-all and pretend because the words Common Core have been removed from the education lexicon, that we removed the content and substance of that,” says Fank Cannon.

Here’s the thing: Unless Trump takes a personal interest in delivering on his campaign promise, nothing in Betsy DeVos’ background as a Bush protégé makes it likely she will act. A good first step would be getting Common Core critics like Prof. Milgram, Sandra Stotsky, Jane Robbins, and Heather Crossin in a room with the President and the Education secretary to share their concerns about what must be done. (For more from the author of “Will Trump Act to End Common Core’s Disastrous Math Slump?” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/will-trump-act-end-common-cores-disastrous-math-slump/