Why Is A US Judge So Shocked That A Practicing Muslim Would Break Their "Oath To God"?

A federal judge has just sentenced a 58-year-old Pakistani-born Chicago taxi driver to 7 ½ years in prison for attempting to send money to a terrorist with links to al-Qaida.

What drew my interest in this story was the fact that the sentencing judge was so shocked that a practicing Muslim would break their "oath to God" i.e.  the citizenship oath made to God promising never to do harm to the United States.

"A federal judge sentenced a Pakistani-born Chicago taxi driver Friday to 7 ½ years in prison for attempting to send money to a terrorist with alleged links to al-Qaida, telling the 58-year-old he had violated a citizenship oath made to God promising never to do harm to the United States. [...] 

Khan pleaded guilty in February to one count of attempting to provide material support to terrorism. His plea agreement recommended a relatively lenient five- to eight-year sentence – well short of the 15-year maximum – in a concession for Khan's willingness to cooperate with authorities.

Judge James Zagel mostly struck a calm, professorial tone in his remarks before imposing a sentence. But he grew angry as he began talking about the oath Khan took when he became a U.S. citizen in 1988, the grizzled judge noting he had administered that oath himself hundreds of times.

"He raised his hand and swore to God he would not act against this country's interests," Judge Zagel said about Khan. That he had violated that oath, Zagel said, was a "profoundly aggravating factor." 

Most people who have grown up in societies largely influenced by Christianity, Hinduism or numerous other faiths, wrongly assume that no world-religion could possibly advocate lying or braking oaths. As with other issues, Islam is the exception to the rule.

Islam permits lying if it will further the cause of Islam

I detest the way critics like to slap silly and constrictive labels on Islamic beliefs. Yes, Islam permits lying if it will further the cause of Islam, but calling it "Taqiyya" or any of the other stupid names they have found is inaccurate and only gives apologists "wiggle room".

Technically, Taqiyya is a Shi'ite practice used by them to literally save their skin from Sunni Jihadis, but what critics generally refer to as Taqiyya is more accurately and more simply referred to as "lying for Islam". No exotic-sounding Arabic name needed.

From WikiIslam (visit original page for references):

"Islam is the only world religion which allows, encourages, and even demands lying by its followers. Lying for Islam is generally referred to as Taqiyya (تقي). Many Muslims will claim that this is not an Islamic, but a Shi'ite practice. Unfortunately, this is a lie. 

There are many verses in the Qur'an which condone lying and deception, and several classical and contemporary Sunni scholars have validated its place within main-stream Islam. In the inquisition miḥna during the Caliphate of al-Ma’mun, a number of Sunni scholars used taqiyya, attesting to the Qur’an as having been created despite believing the opposite.

Given these facts, some will go on to attack the strict definition of Taqiyya and claim that it is “only allowed to save one's own life” or that its "restricted to its use in war". Again, these statements are false. In sahih (authentic) hadith, Muhammad admits to being a liar and advises its acceptable for Muslims to do likewise, allowing his followers to use deception to silence critics. 

One of the 99 "holy names" of the Islamic deity is Al-Makir (the Deceiver), and in the Qur'an Allah refers to himself as the 'best deceiver', and admits to deceiving Muslims and creating Christianity through deception.

With all things considered, the simple fact is Islamic teachings as a whole breed dishonesty like no other religion and even elevates it to a holy status."

Muhammad himself (the "Uswa Hasana") allowed Muslims to lie and kill in order to silence critics. For example, he permitted a Muslim to lie in order to kill a Jewish poet who wrote an anti-Muslim poem that offended him:

"Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). " The Prophet said, "You may say it." [...] So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka'b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."  [Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369]

Islam permits the expiation of oaths if it is "better"

The Qur'an tells us that Allah will not call Muslims to account for what is "futile in their oaths", and deliberately breaking oaths is not much of a problem because they will be forgiven if they fast for three days:

"Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." [Qur'an 5:89]

In the Sahih Hadith we find multiple narrations telling us Muhammad had said if he took an oath and later found something else better than that, he would do "what is better" and expiate his oath.

He is basically admitting to being a liar when it suits him, and he actually encourages Muslims to lie by saying it's acceptable for Muslims to do likewise:

"[...] So we returned to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.' He said, 'It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' " [Sahih Bukhari 7:67:427]

"Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura: The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." [Sahih Bukhari 9:89:260]

There are many more similar authentic narration to be found (see here). And as this site points out,  "Since determining what is 'better' is a very subjective evaluation, then one can break any agreement with anyone else at any time he/she chooses to do so just based on one's perception of what is 'better'"

Ali Sina: Islamic Equivalent of Protestant Reformation has Already Taken Place... It's Called Salafism

I previously made a brief post about why I think "reforming" Islam to meet todays moral standards is unrealistic. I compared the Protestant Reformation to the historical split between Sunnis and Shi'ites, noting that the great "reformation" apologists say they hope for has already taken place, and its outcome leaves much to be desired.

Today I stumbled upon this piece written by Ali Sina of Faith Freedom International. He raises some good points in his comparison of the Protestant Reformation to Salafism.

From AliSina.org:

Since, thanks to Islamic terrorism the interest to know Islam has peaked and Islam has come under scrutiny, the westerners began asking, where are the moderate Muslims. Well, there is none. The concept is absurd. Muslims view this issue differently. You are either a ‘good’ practicing Muslim or a bad wishy-washy Muslim. It’s the latter group that the westerners have misnamed moderate Muslims. As far as Muslims are concerned they are ‘hypocrites.’ Not surprisingly, the ‘moderates’ also confess being hypocrites. They will tell you they believe in Islam but they are not good Muslims. In the back of their minds however, they plan to become ‘good’ Muslims once they have done all the ‘sins’ and enjoyed life enough.

The Illusion of Reforming Islam

Can Islam be reformed? All other religions have reformed; why can’t Islam be reformed?

The problem with Islam is that it is rotten from its core. The evil is in its holy book. Many Muslims realize that there is something wrong with their religion. Unable to understand that the problem is the religion itself and unwilling to accept the truth, they pretend to reform Islam. The truth is that every Muslim knows that Islam cannot be reformed, but the idea has its appeal for the non-Muslims. When there is a demand for something there will be someone who will rise to satisfy that demand.

Let us consider the etymology and meaning of the word “re-form.” Reform derives from Latin refōrmāre, which means to redeem, to reclaim, to renew. All these imply restoring something to its original shape. Let us first take a look at reform in Christianity.

The Christian Reformation

The Christian Reformation began as an attempt to reform, not the Christianity, but the Catholic Church. Many believers were troubled by the Church and its practices, such as the sale of indulgences (tickets to paradise) and simony (buying and selling church positions). They considered these as false doctrines and malpractices within the Church.

Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and other reformers protested these and other practices and beliefs of the Church such as Purgatory, devotion to Mary (Marina veneration), the intercession of and devotion to the saints, most of the sacraments, the mandatory celibacy for the clergy (including monasticism), and the authority of the Pope.

None of these are doctrines of Christianity. These were practices of the Church. The reformers protested against the Church. They did not defy the authority of the Bible. They suggested that the Bible should be read literally. They rejected the allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures and took the texts of the Old and the New Testaments as something like statute law. The words meant what they said; any difficulty, contradiction, or obscure meaning was the fault of the reader and not the text.

Anything not contained explicitly and literally in the scriptures was to be rejected, and anything that is contained explicitly and literally in the scriptures was to be followed unwaveringly. [1]

This is the essence of Protestant Reformation

The Islamic Reformation

An analogous reformation also took place in Islam. It is called Salafism.

Many westerners erroneously believe that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, (1703–1792) was the founder of Salafism, an extremist sect of Islam. This is not true. Abdul Wahhab did not found a new sect. He was a reformer of Islam in the same sense that Luther was of Christianity.

The core of Abdul Wahhab’s thinking is that Islam is perfect and complete and its decline is the result of religious innovations (bid‘ah), and that an Islamic revival will result by purging the religion from foreign influences and by emulating Muhammad and his companions.

The concept that Islam was perfect in its early stages is asserted in the Quran. “Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.” (Q.5:3)

Abdul Wahhab proposed that Muslims should refrain from introducing any innovation and follow the examples of the salaf, (predecessors or early generations) hence the name Salafi.

This definition not an invention of Abdul Wahhab, but is based on a hadith that reports Muhammad saying, “The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims).[2]

It is import to note that ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328) was also a Salafi. He opposed the celebration of Muhammad’s birthday and the construction of shrines around the tombs of Sufi ‘saints’ saying, “Many of them [the Muslims] do not even know of the Christian [Catholic] origins of these practices. Accursed be Christianity and its adherents.”

There is a hadith where Muhammad says, “I am the best Salaf for you.” [3]

The desire to reform Islam and go back to its original pristine state is actually an old thought. Abdul Wahhab, however, succeeded to give shape to this concept, which took ground thanks to the Saudi kings who are his descendants through one of his daughters.

The Similarities between Christian Reformation & Islamic Reformation

There are many similarities between Protestantism and Salafism. The former rejects devotion to Mary and saints and their intercession. The latter rejects devotion to Muhammad, his intercession and the intercession of Islamic holy men (such as practiced in Shiism). Both these reform movements want to take their respective faiths to their original purity and eschew the innovations that have been added to the religion after the death of their founders.

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), when asked whether Wahhabism is an extreme right wing sect of Islam, responded, “No it’s not true to characterize ‘Wahhabism’ that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation.”[4]

The Outcome of Reform in Christianity

Although Christian Reformation and Islamic Reformation are almost identical in their scope, their outcomes have been very different. The literal reading of the Bible became the underpinning of the social theories and organization of Protestant societies and the foundation of social organization of the English colonies in America.

These reformers literally transformed the philosophical, political, religious, and social landscape of Europe. We still live in a society dominated by protestant theory of social organization.

American political discourse is essentially Calvinistic. In other words its social organization is based on the literal meaning of Christian scriptures.

According to Calvin and Zwingli, not only should all religious belief be founded on the literal reading of Scriptures, but Church organization, political organization, and society itself should be founded on this literal reading.

Luther wrote a letter to Pope Leo, (which resulted in his excommunication from the Church) in which he explained the substance of his ideas. The letter is entitled “On the Freedom of the Christian.” This letter explains the core of Luther’s thinking. According to Luther, the essence of Christianity is “freedom,” or “liberty.”

It is this concept that eventually gave rise to the notion of individual freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom.

Most of the European Enlightenment revolves around freedom and the project of “liberating” people: liberating them from false beliefs, false religion, arbitrary authority, etc.–this is, what is called “liberation discourse.” Westerners still participate in this Enlightenment project today.

That is why America invaded Iraq, to prevent a dictator taking control of most of the world’s oil reserves and to liberate Kuwaitis, and a decade later, to liberate the Iraqis. That is why America has fought nearly forty wars abroad, from Japan to Germany, to Italy, to Panama to Nicaragua, to Kosovo, to Vietnam, to Korea, to Angola, to Somalia, to Afghanistan. Whether these wars were right or wrong, the nation’s motivation has been always the same, to liberate people, to stop dictators, to export democracy and freedom. This idea of “liberating” people, so entrenched in America’s international politics, comes out of Luther’s idea of “freedom.”

Other factors have also played a role in these wars, such as protecting the economic and political interests of America. However, the underlying denominator has generally been liberating people from tyranny. Liberating people and defending American interest are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

There have been exceptions where America has acted purely out of self-interest or perhaps out of ignorance, such as when in 1953 the government of Dr. Mossadq, the Prime Minister of Iran was overthrown.

The Outcome of Reform in Islam

What is the essence of the reformation in Islam? The essence of the Wahhabi belief is that man is a slave of Allah. People are ibad (slaves).

This is diametrically a different discourse from the discourse of Protestantism, and here lies the essential difference between Christianity and Islam.

On the surface, there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. Both believe in a god; both rely on an intermediary between man and God; both faiths are eschatological – have a hell, a heaven and an afterlife, etc. However, in their core, they are very different, in fact opposite to one another. The reformation of both faiths took the same road, but going back to their roots, they went to opposite directions. Islam is not a continuation of Christianity, as Muhammad and Muhammadns claim. It is an anti-Christian belief. Christianity advocates freedom of man, Islam, his slavery. One brings the message of liberation, the other, of submission.

 The discourse of freedom, so essential to Christianity is contrary to what Islam stands for. When Muslims carry placards that read “democracy is hypocrisy,” and “freedom go to hell,” during their laud demonstrations, they are expressing the true message of Islam, which is anti-freedom, anti-democracy, pro slavery and pro subjugation.

Muslims are not free to choose, but they should obey Allah and His Messenger. “And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.” (Q. 33:36)

It is not up to Muslims to decide what is good for them. This decision is already made for them and all they have to do is to obey, even when they don’t like it. “Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know.” (Q. 2:216)

Islam can be distilled in its name: ‘Submission.’ Allah knows best. Therefore man must accept his command, blindly and unwaiveringly.

Democracy means the government of people by the people. In Democracy men make the law. In Islam the law comes from God. Man must obey even if those laws appear contrary to reason and are oppressive.

This is the reason why “moderate” Muslims cannot abrogate stoning, killing the apostates or other abuses of their fellow practicing Muslims, and that is why their protests don’t go beyond a lip service, and that too is only for the consumption of the western media.

Both Christianity and Islam underwent reformation. They took similar paths, but they ended up in two opposite poles. While Christian reformation brought freedom, Enlightenment and democracy, Islamic reformation bore oppression, dictatorship and terrorism.

Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab were reformers of Islam. Among the contemporary Islamic reformers we can name Maududi (1903 – 1979) who wrote an interpretation of the Quran and Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), the leading intellectual of Muslim Brotherhood in 1950s and 1960s, who was the inspiration to all Muslim terrorists including Ayatollah Khomeini and Bin Laden.

Reformation vs. Transformation

What today’s so called Islamic reformers are proposing is not reformation, but transformation of Islam. Unlike the above mentioned reformers, these new reformer wannabes don’t want to go to the origin of Islam. They want to eschew a part of the Quran and the entire Sharia and invent a different religion, still calling it Islam.

This is delusional thinking and impractical, both logically and logistically. It is also strictly prohibited in the Quran.

These neoreformers want to change Islam and bring bid’a. Is that possible? Can believers have an opinion contrary to what the Quran says? We already saw that the Quran 33:36 prohibits the believers to have any choice in their OWN matter when Allah and his Messenger have made their choice. How can they decide what is good for the RELIGION?

When the Quran says, “Fighting is ordained for you, even if you don’t like it,” the message is clear. This is God speaking. So how can you dispute with God? Once you accept the Quran as the word of God you cannot pick and choose and discard what you don’t like. This is strictly prohibited, not once, but repeatedly.

“Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection, they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85)

“Am I, then, to look unto anyone but God for judgment [as to what is right and wrong], when it is He who has bestowed upon you from on high this divine writ, clearly spelling out the truth?” (Q.6:114)

Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but guess. (Q. 6:116)

Verily, as for those who suppress aught of the revelation which God has bestowed from on high, and barter it away for a trifling gain – they but fill their bellies with fire. And God will not speak unto them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He cleanse them [of their sins]; and grievous suffering awaits them. (Q. 2:174)

See also 16:89 39:23,

Such as We send down for those who make division, Those who break the Quran into parts. Therefore, by the Lord, We will, of a surety, call them to account, (Q.15: 90-92)

there is none that can alter the words of Allah. (Q. Q. 6:34 )

There is no changing the Words of Allah that is the Supreme Triumph. (Q.10:64)

And recite that which hath been revealed unto you of the scripture of your Lord. There is none who can change His words, and you will find no refuge beside Him. (Q. 18:27)

How can one claim to believe in the Quran and disregard all these warnings?

The so called reformers of Islam are misguided at best and deceptive at worst. Their efforts should not be welcomed. Whatever their intention, whether genuine or disingenuous, they are pulling wool over the eyes of non-Muslims and as the result giving legitimacy to a very dangerous creed.

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly:

Muslims can be classified in three categories, the good, the bad and the ugly.

The good Muslims are those who follow the Quran and the examples set by Muhammad and become terrorists.

The bad Muslims are those wishy-washy Muslims who don’t practice Islam completely, don’t read the Quran, don’t pray and rarely, if ever, go to mosque. Their knowledge of Islam is deficient even though their faith may not be necessarily weak. However, because of their lack of understanding of Islam they don’t harbor ill feelings towards non-Muslims, although they are often suspicious of them and they strive to improve their lives and live like others.

Many of these bad Muslims will admit that they are not good Muslims and hope that eventually they will summon enough faith to become good Muslims. These are the majority.

The ugly Muslims are those who know the truth about Islam but lie about it. They try their best to portray Islam in a good light. They even agree with you that the good Muslims are bad, and claim that Islam has been hijacked by the good Muslims.

Only truth can set us free. By sugarcoating Islam you cannot change its nature. You can purify filthy water and drink it. You can even purify urine into drinking water. But can you purify gasoline enough to make it drinkable? The essence of Islam is evil. It is not a contaminated good faith. You cannot reform it enough to make it a humane faith. Can you reform Nazism? This whole notion is misguided and absurd.

What is the point of reforming a religion founded by a mentally deranged man who committed so much evil on Earth, who lied, decieved, rapied, tortured, raided, looted, massacred and committed the most despicable crimes? Why keep his cult alive and his memory honored? That man deseves scorn, not recognition?

Reforming Islam is impossible. It is either a dilution or a ruse. Jiahd is based on two pillars, war and deception. I don’t want anyone to be fooled by the soothing promises of Muslim reformers. Moderate Islam does not exist. It’s a myth.

I do not trust Muslims who are against Sharia. I do not understand them. What they say does not add up. I don’t know what they are up to. I do not trust people who say, I am a follower of Muhammad, but I do not follow Muhammad. There is something fishy, something dishonest and hypocritical about their claim.

If you are a Muslims, be a Muslim. I don’t agree with you but at least I know where you stand and where I should stand to be safe from you. But if you are a Muslim and against Islam and the Sharia, I don’t trust you. You are either a fool or a crook. “You are neither hot nor cold. I will spit you out.”

Some of these so called reformers hide their identity and face claiming to ‘fear Muslims.’ Why should they? They are not saying anything that CAIR does not say when it wants to Con Americans with Islamic Ruse. This is all sham.

Reforming Islam is impossible, but to transform it you need divine authority. Only God can change his words. Where is that divine authority? If you are allowed to pick and choose from the Quran, why Osama Bin Laden should not have the same right? Which Islam is the right Islam? Wouldn’t this lead to more division and fight among Muslims?

The only serious reformer of Islam was Baha’u’llah. He realized Islam cannot be reformed. So he founded a new religion and announced that he was vested with authority from God to annul all His previous mandates in the Quran.

He told Muslims, whereas before you were told to slay the unbelievers, now God wants you to love all the people irrespective of their faiths. Whereas before He told you women are deficient in intelligence, beat them if you fear they may disobey you, now He says men and women are equal and give preference to the education of your daughters, because they will be the mothers an the primary educators of future generations. Whereas in the previous dispensation God told you all non-believers will go to hell, now He says it’s your deeds that matter and your faith without good deeds is worthless and that He is not going to discriminate against anyone because of his belief. It’s the purity of heart that matters not what you profess with your tongues. Whereas before He had built a huge rotisserie to burn humans for disbelief, He has actually shut it down. He wants you to obey him for the love of Him alone and not because you fear him. Just act as mature people. There is no threat. Whereas before He said ”fighting is good for you,” now He is tired of all the fighting and says fighting behoove the ferocious beasts and choiced deeds behooves humans. Whereas before you were promised virgins, there are no virgins. Your body will rot here. The rewards are all spiritual in nature, like joy and love. There is no hanky-panky in paradise. Also there is no punishment, except the regret that you’d feel for losing the chance to develop spiritual limbs in this world.

That requires courage. Now this was in 19th century in the middle of Shiite Persia. Of course Baha’u'llah was put in a dungeon and spent the rest of his life in exile. Many of his followers were executed. However, there is a logic in that argument. The logic is that only God has the authority to abrogate His laws. This logic remains valid, until you ask, what was God smoking when he sent Muhammad? Baha’u'llah is the only credible transformer of Islam. But again, Baha’i Faith is not Islam. It’s entirely a different religion.

You cannot reform Islam and you cannot transform it. All you can and should do, is dump it. Please, let us stop this charade. Either be a Muslim and do as Muhammad said or leave Islam and don’t become a shield for the terrorists. Don’t muddy the waters. Don’t mix among the enemy and pose as a friend. This is the same tactic that Palestinians use in war. They mix among civilians and innocent children to make it difficult for their enemy to target them. You are causing confusion. You provide a protective shield for the enemy. I am not writing this for you. I know you are not going to change. You are a deceiver. I am writing this for the non-Muslims so they do not fall into your trap and don’t provide for you free podium to deceive them.

Islam cannot be reformed. They tried it in every imaginable way. The Mu’tazelis tired it, the Sufis tried it, hundreds of old and new schools tried it and they all failed. If you cannot stomach the Sharia, why do you want to keep Islam at all? Islam belongs to the toilet of history. Dump it and flush. Get rid of it and don’t fool yourself with this nonsense. Accept the truth. Yes truth matters. Islam is a lie. Mhammad was a mentally sick conman. Get over with it and stop this ridiculous farce of reformation.

[1] A History of the Modern World by R.R Palmer, Joel Colton, P 78-79. 1950

[2] Bukhari 3:48:819 and 820 and Muslim 31:6150 and 6151. Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in,

[3] Sahih Muslim: no. 2450

[4] http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1470

Daniel Maldonado's Wikipedia Page, Iran and Thoughts on an Islamic "Reformation"

Wikipedia is notorious for its Western apologist-filtered fantasy version of Islam. It follows something which they refer to as "verifiability, not truth". In regards to Islam, this has meant that they accept what "notable/reliable" Western commentators say about its religious text and Muslims over what the religious text and Muslims actually say themselves (Karen Armstrong, anyone?).

For anything even remotely "controversial" (i.e. politics or religion), it can be pretty useless. However, it still can be great as a starting point, even for topics related to Islam, and I regularly use it for non-religious related material. I was browsing it the other day and stumbled upon their page for Daniel Maldonado. This page left me thinking, "sometimes the truth is staring people in the face, but they refuse to acknowledge it ":

Daniel Maldonado, also known by his adopted Muslim name Daniel Aljughaifi, is a U.S. convert to a fundamentalist Islam who faces charges for an alleged association with terrorism.

Maldonado converted to Islam in 2000 in Methuen, Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe his views became so extreme his mosque's imam asked him to either quit criticizing the mosque's other members, or to leave, according to a friend of Maldonado, Soner Uguz, of Lawrence, Massachusetts:

"He was arrogant; he knew the book [the Koran] better than anyone, He went from loving rap to hating poetry."

In mid-February 2007 Maldonado was charged with playing a role in terrorist activities in Somalia. Maldonado is notable because his charge, in a Houston, Texas court, was the first time a US citizen faced charges for participating in terrorism in Somalia.

The Boston Globe reported that, as a youth, Maldonado had minor brushes with the law, but nothing serious. Maldonado, his wife, Tamekia (née Cunningham) and three young children, moved to Egypt in November 2005. The Boston Globe reports that an FBI affidavit asserts he moved to Somalia a year later, where he undertook training in bomb-making and military skills.

According to a speech FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III delivered on March 28, 2007 at National Defense University

... such as the arrest of suspected terrorist Daniel Maldonado. Maldonado, an American citizen who converted to the Muslim faith, moved from Houston to Egypt in November 2005. He then traveled to Somalia to practice what he called 'true Islam'. According to the indictment, while in Mogadishu, Maldonado participated in a jihadist training program that included weapons and explosives. He said that he was willing to fight on behalf of Al Qaeda and even offered to act as a suicide bomber. Kenyan military authorities captured Maldonado in January. Members of the Houston Joint Terrorism Task Force transported him back to the United States.

If you read the underlined portions, you will note that, instead of correcting Maldonado's "erroneous" and "extremist" interpretations of  a "peaceful religion", his mosque's imam tells him to either shut up or leave. Could this have anything to do with the fact that Maldonado "knew the book [the Koran] better than anyone", a fact that left an imam unable to correct a mere convert?

The answer to that question is, in all probability, a resounding 'yes'. The cleric was unable to shut him up intellectually because that particular member of his congregation was the one who was interpreting Islam through it's actual texts and not filtering it through his own understandings of what is moral or not.

This is one of the many reasons why I believe that there is no hope in mainstream Islam reforming itself. The "extremists" have scripture on their side, whilst the so-called reformers only have the ignorant, agenda-driven Western media to repeat their claims to more ignorant, agenda-driven Western viewers/readers.

We've all heard of the American Muslim apologist, Laleh Bakhtiar, and her false claim that the Qur'an does not instruct men to beat their wives. The fact that her ridiculous claim has been completely dismissed by mainstream Muslims, has led to her translation being banned from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) bookstore, and that the nonsensical lie is apparent to any Arabic speaker, doesn't seem to matter to Western media/apologists and sites like Wikipedia.

The same thing has happened with the claim of Aisha, Muhammad's child bride, being anything from 12 to 21-years-old at the time of her consummation. The fact that these claims were concocted by an Ahmadi (not a Muslim), have been completely dismissed by mainstream Muslims, and have even been refuted by Muslim scholars, doesn't seem to matter to sites like Wikipedia who devote large amounts of space (undue weight) to such silly and obscure apologetic arguments.

Westerners love to say how Islam is no different to other superstitions, that all it needs is a "reformation" like Christianity. But they fail to consider two very important points:

1. Individuals who criticize mainstream Islamic doctrines are labeled by apologists and "moderate" Muslims as hate-mongering "Islamophobes", and the so-called "reformists" almost never admit there is anything wrong with Islam. You cannot reform something if you refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem with it. These "reformists" usually make excuses and pass on the blame to "Wahhabis" (who are in fact not a part of a deviant or innovative Islamic sect, but strict orthodox followers of the Qur'an and Sunnah). They also conveniently spend all of their time trying to "refute" critics rather than actually attempting reform by discussing problems within Islam with fellow Muslims.

2. The Protestant Reformation was the 16th-century schism within Western Christianity. The efforts of the self-described "reformers", who objected to ("protested") the doctrines, rituals, and ecclesiastical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, led to the creation of new national Protestant churches.

The split between Sunnis and Shi'ites resemble that of the split between Catholics and Protestants. The historic background of the Sunni–Shi'ite split lies in the schism that occurred when Muhammad died in 632, leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community. Some Muslims sided with Ali and believed he was the rightful successor to Muhammad, leading to what we know today as Shi'ite Islam.

So, the Islamic equivalent of the Protestant Reformation has already taken place, and if you want to see what post-reform Islam looks like.... go to Iran.

Are the "Overwhelming Majority" of the World's 1.5 Billion Muslims Peace Loving Moderates?

There was once a time when the media and apologists would defiantly proclaim, "Muslim extremists are only a tiny minority!!!", and Muslims and non-Muslims alike would make nonsensical statements such as "only 0.01 % of Muslims are extremists", etc.

Today, due to many in-depth polls and studies on the subject (e.g. here and here), this claim has been proven false and Islam's apologists have been forced to adapt their rhetoric. Now they tend to claim "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peace loving moderates".

So, are the "overwhelming majority" of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims peace loving moderates? This is an important question. We are now constantly force-fed this claim that they are. But does reality agree with the propaganda?

Dalia Mogahed & John Esposito 

Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito co-authored the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of a 2008 survey conducted by the Gallup polling agency, which was intended to answer this very question.

Unfortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood-connected Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito are both Islam apologists, so there is little surprise that they had to "cook the books" in order to create the desired results.

The authors claim only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are "political radicals". Yet in order to reach this figure, they were forced to term Muslims who think 9/11 was "partially" or "some way justified", who want to impose Shari'ah law, who support suicide bombings, and who oppose equal rights for women, as "moderate" followers of Islam.

From The Weekly Standard:

In that article, she and Esposito wrote: "Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radical." In the book they wrote two years later, they redefined "radical" to comprise a much smaller group--only the Fives. But in her luncheon remarks, Mogahed admitted that many of the "moderates" she and Esposito celebrated really aren't so moderate after all.

MOGAHED: I can't off the top of my head [recall the data], but we are going to be putting some of those findings in our [updated] book and our website.

To clarify a couple of things about the book--the book is not a hard-covered polling report. The book is a book about the modern Muslim world that used its polling to inform its analysis. So that's important: It's meant for a general audience, and it's not meant to be a polling report. One very important reason why is because Gallup is selling subscriptions to its data. We are a for-profit company; we are not Pew. We are Gallup. So this isn't about .  .  . it was not meant for the data to be free since we paid $20 million to collect [the data] .  .  . that we paid all on our own. So just to clarify that  .  .  .   

So, how did we come up with the word "politically radicalized" that we unfortunately used in the book? Here's why: because people who were Fives, people who said 9/11 was justified, looked distinctly different from the Fours  .  .  .  At first, before we had enough data to do sort of a cluster analysis, we lumped the Fours and Fives together because that was our best judgment.

QUESTIONER: And what percent was that?

MOGAHED: I seriously don't remember but I think it was in the range of 7 to 8 percent [actually, 6.5 percent].

QUESTIONER: So it's seven Fours and seven Fives?

MOGAHED: Yes, we lumped these two and did our analysis. When we had enough data to really see when things broke away, here's what we found: Fives looked very different from the Fours, and Ones through Fours looked similar. [Mogahed then explained that, on another question, concerning suicide bombing, respondents who said 9/11 was only partially justified clustered with those who said it wasn't justified at all.] And so the Fives looked very different; they broke, they clustered away, and Ones through Fours clustered together. And that is how we decided to break them apart and decided how we were to define "politically radicalized" for our research.

Yes, we can say that a Four is not that moderate .  .  . I don't know. .  .  .You are writing a book, you are trying to come up with terminology people can understand. .  .  . You know, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but this is how we made our cluster-based analysis.

So, there it is--the smoking gun. Mogahed publicly admitted they knew certain people weren't moderates but they still termed them so. She and Esposito cooked the books and dumbed down the text. Apparently, by the authors' own test, there are not 91 million radicals in Muslim societies but almost twice that number. They must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes. To paraphrase Mogahed, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but their neat solution seems to have been to redefine 78 million people off the rolls of radicals.

The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents--300 million Muslims--who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don't utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.

And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of "who is a radical." Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not "completely" justify 9/11 is . . . "moderate."

As you can see from the above figures, 36.6 percent of Muslims think the mass-slaughter of innocent non-Muslim (and some Muslim) civilians on 9/11 was either completely, partially or some way justified. This does not support the claim that the "overwhelming majority" of Muslims are peace loving moderates.

Sure, "peace loving" Muslims, according to this survey, are a majority. But when almost 4 out of every 10 Muslim is a terrorist-supporting "radical", they are hardly "overwhelming". It is a proven fact that Islamic extremists are certainly not "a tiny minority".

Support for Shari'ah & Killing Apostates

As The Weekly Standard's Robert Satloff rightly pointed out, this "test" involving questions about 9/11 to ascertain who is and who is not a moderate, is fundamentally flawed. Even if a Muslim disagrees with the Islamic terrorist attacks on innocent US civilians, if they still want to impose Shari'ah law on others and if they oppose equal rights for women etc., how on earth could they ever be considered "moderates"?

The number of possible extremists is a lot larger than you would think, when you consider that a Muslim country that has only a little support for Jihad, could still have a large number who support the execution of apostates. The percentage who support execution are obviously extremists regardless of their views on Jihad and visa-versa.

Pakistan, Indonesia & the United Kingdom

I previously did some number-crunching for "extremists" in Pakistan after it was reported that a December 2010 Pew poll found that even today “The majority of Muslims would favor changing current laws in their countries to 'allow stoning as punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft, and death for those who convert from Islam as their religion'”.

Using Pakistan as an example, I noted that the poll found that 76 percent of Pakistanis agree apostates are to be killed. In a country with a population of 172,800,000 (96 percent of whom are Muslim) that would be more than 126 million people in a single country. Conversely only a mere 13  percent of Muslims opposed killing apostates.

So, according to indisputable facts, Muslim "extremists" are not a "tiny minority", but form the vast majority of the population in Pakistan and some of the other countries polled. In fact, the number of "extremists" in Pakistan alone form about 8 percent of the world's entire 1.5 billion Muslim population. We reach this shocking figure even before we take into consideration the possibility that a lot of those Pakistanis who disagree with killing apostates may still support jihad.

Over in "moderate" Indonesia, a survey conducted from 2001 to March 2006 found 43.5 percent of Muslim respondents were "ready to wage war for their faith" and 40 percent would use violence against those blaspheming Islam. 85 percent, or 200 million, of the country's 230 million population are Muslims. This means approximately 87 million Indonesians, or more than 4 out of every 10 Muslim there, is a violent Islamic "extremist".

Note that this massive figure is not for those Indonesian Muslims who simply support a violent interpretation of Islam, but for those Muslims who are actually prepared to act on them by committing violence against others.  If we were to know the number of those who simply support jihad but are not prepared to join in themselves, like in Pakistan, the "extremists" would most certainly be in the majority. And again, this is without taking into consideration that many of the Indonesians who support stoning adulterers to death [42%] or killing apostates [30%] may not support jihad at all, but would also clearly have to be labeled as "extremists" for holding such barbaric views.

The picture is not much brighter when we learn the views of young Western-born Muslims who often tend to be more "extremist" than their older Eastern-born counterparts. For example; in the United Kingdom, where 1 out of every 3 British Muslim aged 16 to 24 agree that apostates should be put to death, and where only 3 percent of all Muslims are "consistently pro-freedom of speech".

Anecdotal Evidence

In addition to indisputable figures, there is also a lot of anecdotal evidence that suggests the claim that Muslim extremists are only a "tiny minority" or that the "overwhelming majority" of Muslims are peace-loving people, is complete rubbish. For example;

In Egypt, a mob of nearly 20,000 Muslims attempted to break into and torch a Christian church. They were demanding the death of the church's pastor. They terrorized the Copts trapped inside (who didn't even make up 100 in number) by pelting the church with stones, and torching Christian-owned homes and cars. Seriously, how on earth would you find 20,000 "extremist" Muslims in one place if the vast majority of Muslims were peaceful and tolerant?

In Bangladesh, at the urging of local Muslim leaders, police tortured a pastor and two other Christians for legally proclaiming their religion. The next day, thousands of Muslim villagers demonstrated in front of a local government office chanting, “We want a Christian-free society,” and “We will not allow any Christians in Cuadanga.” There is no way that this was a "few" Muslim extremists, it was probably the entire Muslim population of the village.

Again in Egypt, a mob of over 3,000 Muslims attacked Copts in the village of Kobry-el-Sharbat (el-Ameriya). Coptic homes and shops were looted before being set ablaze.

In Pakistan, three churches, two houses of priests, one convent, one high school and the homes of three Christian families were set alight by a mob of around 2,500 Muslims.

Again in Egypt, two nuns were trapped inside a guest-house belonging to the Notre Dame Language Schools by an estimated 1,500 angry Muslim villagers brandishing swords and knives. They even threatened to burn them out.

And more than 300 Egyptian Muslim lawyers (yes, lawyers, not a band of uneducated village folk) issued death-threats and prevented defense lawyers representing a Christian accused of "blasphemy", from going into court. These educated men even tried to assault the chief judge who managed to escape a lynching via a rear door.

The Insignificant Peaceful Majority 

There is a lot of statistical data available about Muslims and in the future I plan on expanding my analysis of Pakistan and Indonesia to cover all Muslim countries. But before I wrap up this post, I would like to add something that a friend of mine noted (I've been planning on writing about the "tiny minority" myth for a while, but this is what spurred me on):

[...]of 1.5 billion muslims the overwhelming majority live in peace. Most of them are law obeying citizens. Well that’s true. But so were the Nazis in Germany in the forties. Most of them were good fathers and mothers who only wanted what was best for their children. Only a small percentage worked in concentration camps or committed war crimes. When muslims get to rule I expect more or less the same. A small group fanatics takes control and the rest are law obeying citizens who will turn their head away when a holocaust occurs. They'll probably even say that it’s against Islam.

In essence, whatever the case may be, a silent majority is an insignificant one. The situation non-Muslim minorities find themselves in today proves this. All over the Islamic world, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and other groups are being "ethnically cleansed" from their ancestral homes. To these unfortunate communities who are facing Nazi-like atrocities, the percentage of peace-loving moderate Muslims may as well be 99.99 percent for all the difference it would make to them.

Or if we take this a little further, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

Study: Counter to Stereotypes, Female Terrorists are Likely to be Educated and Employed

Numerous other studies on Islamic terrorism have found similar result.

From e! Science News:

Much like their male counterparts, female terrorists are likely to be educated, employed and native residents of the country where they commit a terrorist act, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association. The findings contradict stereotypes presented in previous studies that describe female terrorists as socially isolated and vulnerable to recruitment because they are uneducated, unemployed and from a foreign land, psychologists reported in a study published online in the APA journal Law and Human Behavior. These assumptions are not supported by evidence, according to the study authors.

"We discovered that some of the popular notions about female terrorists do not reflect what has occurred in the past," said the study's lead author, Karen Jacques, PhD. "A more realistic description is helpful because it provides insights into the social dynamics that might promote an individual's involvement in terrorist activities."

Researchers at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom examined archival biographical data from multiple sources on 222 female and 269 male terrorists connected to one of 13 conflicts involving nationalist-separatists, social revolutionaries or religious fundamentalists, including al Qaeda, the Irish Republican Army and the Popular Liberation Army of Colombia.

Jacques and her co-author, Paul J. Taylor, PhD, examined eight variables for each terrorist: age at first involvement, education, employment status, immigration status, marital status, religious conversion, criminal activity and activist connections.

The majority of both female and male terrorists were between 16 and 35 years old, native residents, employed, educated through secondary school, not converted from another religion and rarely involved in a previous crime, the study said. Compared to male terrorists, the researchers found, women had on average more education, with the majority continuing beyond secondary school, and were more likely to be divorced or widowed, less likely to be employed and less likely to be immigrants. Collectively, the findings for female terrorists indicated more of an emphasis on individual motivations, such as personal revenge for the death of a loved one, rather than collective engagement in terrorism, the authors said.

"A surprising finding was that, unlike for other criminals, there were very few instances of previous involvement in criminal activity among both females and males," said Jacques. "This could be because they were unwilling to confess to other crimes, because criminality could attract authorities' undue attention to potential terrorists, or the possibility that having a criminal career is not a significant precursor to terrorism."

About a third of both male and female terrorists had prior connections to terrorism activities via their families. However, more than 50 percent of those with family connections to terrorism indicated that family influence did not motivate them to carry out terrorist activities, the study said.

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 137,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare.