BRIGETTE GABRIEL SENDS PRESIDENT TRUMP AN URGENT WARNING ABOUT IRAN PEACE TREATY

 

Why a true lasting peace with Islam is not possible: Authentic Sunni doctrines do not allow for it!

A few days ago a Muslim asked me if I agreed with the following statement:
"We are all servants and worshippers of God, I believe that we should strive for peace and understanding of one another instead of senseless arguing and conflict."

I had to answer him honestly. "Ideally we would strive for peace and mutual understanding. Unfortunately, the authentic doctrines of Islam do not allow this as a realistic possibility. It is only Muslims who are not fully aware of all the teachings of Islam or have received them in a partial manner who genuinely believe this is possible."

With this in mind, let's look at the Sunni doctrines on this. I have mainly, but not exclusively focused here on presenting material from manuals of Islamic Law. Online Muslims who don't know any better sometimes object that such books are the words of 'random scholars'. But nothing could be further from the truth. These fiqh books reflect the systematic synthesis of legal rulings from the Qur'an and Sunnah according to the agreed upon methods of the juristic schools. They are the books of the experts of Islamic Law and these rulings reflect authentic Sunni legal doctrines.

(1) Jihad is offensive:

The Mukhtasar al-Quduri (Hanafi fiqh):

• “Jihād is a collective obligation; when a group of the people establish it, [the obligation] lapses from the rest, but if none of them establish it, [then] all of the people are guilty of wrongdoing by its omission.” (p.678) (https://ibb.co/KrRftCh)

• “Fighting unbelievers is obligatory, even it they do not initiate it against us.” (p. 678) (https://ibb.co/KrRftCh)

Reliance of the Traveller (Shafi'i fiqh):

• “Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others…. If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin.” (p. 600) (https://ibb.co/9p3rrH7)

• “there are two possible states in respect to non-muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation… meaning upon the Muslims each year.” (p.600) (https://ibb.co/9p3rrH7z

• “The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” (p.602) (https://ibb.co/s650VGP)

• “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.” (p.603) (https://ibb.co/7zbQ1Tg)

Minhaj et Talibin (Shafi'i fiqh): (https://archive.org/details/cu31924023205390)

• “War against infidels was already during the lifetime of the Prophet an obligation for which the Moslem community was jointly responsible though some authorities maintain that at that period it was an obligation incumbent upon each individual Moslem.” (p. 457) Al-Risala (Maliki fiqh) - https://ia802701.us.archive.org/10/items/TheRisala/TheRisala-ATreatiseOnMalikiFiqh.pdf

• “Linguistically jihad is derived from jahd, which, acording to al-Misbah, is effort in what someone does, or juhd which is ability. It is a technical term for the Muslim fighting the unbelievers who have no treaty with the intention of elevating the word of Allah or presenting Islam.” (Section 30.1)

Al-Umda fi 'l-fiqh (Hanbali fiqh):

• “It is permissible to launch a surprise attack on the unbelievers, to shoot missiles at them with the catapult, and to fight them before declaring war on them.“ (p. 314) (https://ibb.co/py45cmj)

Tafsir ibn Kathir:

• “Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because They are Idolators and Disbelievers” (https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/9.30)

• “Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets. Hence Allah's statement, (Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)” (https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/9.28)

• “The pure religion reached its deepest aims against Allah's enemies, and whenever Muslims overcame an Ummah, they moved to the next one, and then the next one, crushing the tyranical evil doers. They did this in reverence to Allah's statement, (O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you)” (https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/9.123)

Tafsir al-Qurtubi:

• “It is an UNQUALIFIED COMMAND to fight without any precondition of hostilities being initiated by the unbelievers. The evidence for that is in the words of Allah: ‘and the dīn belongs to Allah alone.’ The Prophet said, ‘I was commanded to fight people until they say, “There is no god but Allah.”’ The āyah and ḥadīth both indicate that the reason for fighting is disbelief because Allah says: ‘until there is no more fitnah,’ meaning disbelief in this case. So the goal is to abolish disbelief and that is clear.” (2:193) (https://ibb.co/6PNcsyG)

• “When he emigrated, he was given permission to fight those idolaters who fought him when Allah said: ‘Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against’ (22:39), and then he was given permission to fight idolaters IN GENERAL.” (al-Qurtubi 2:216) (https://ibb.co/YNqjhSy)

(2) Peace is only temporary, treaties are treacherous:

The Mukhtasar al-Quduri (Hanafi fiqh):

• “If he secures a truce with them [ie non-Muslims] for a period, then later thinks that breaking the truce is more beneficial, he is to [formally] renounce [the truce] to [the enemy] and fight them.” (p. 682) (https://ibb.co/3krFmyM) Reliance of the Traveller (Shafi'i fiqh):

• “There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High Says, “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are the uppermost.” (p. 605) (https://ibb.co/0cD1rXk)

The Encyclopaedia of Islam:

• "Since a permanent state of war existed between the Islamic state (dār al-Islām ) and other countries ( dār al-ḥarb ), **Muslims were permanently in a state of hostilities with non-Muslims'." (Reddit)

• “Hostilities came to an end either by Islam’s victory over the enemy, agreement to submit to Muslim ruie at the expense of paying the d̲j̲izya in the case of d̲h̲immīs , or peace with the enemy for a limited period, if the imām decided that fighting was harmful to Islam. Such peace was of a limited duration, not exceeding ten years, until the imām could resume the war. The imām should not terminate the fighting if the number of Muslim warriors was not less than half the number of enemy warriors (Sūra VIII, 66-7), until victory was attained.” (Reddit)

• “Its perpetual character. The duty of the d̲j̲ihād exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. “Until the day of the resurrection”, and “until the end of the world” say the maxims. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.“ (Reddit)

(3) Slaves are secured through offensive jihad:

The Mukhtasar al-Quduri (Hanafi fiqh):

• “If we [the Muslims] overcome his house, then his real estate property is fay’-booty, his wife, his mount and his major children are [all] fay’-booty.” https://ibb.co/7N3L6wK

Al-wajiz fi fiqh al-imam al-shafi'i (Shafi'i fiqh) 

• "one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year… one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked. A woman and her child taken into slavery should not be separated...One may cut down their trees…. One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide… they may steal as much food as they need…" (citation found on https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Al-Ghazali).

Friends, this is Islam. ☝️

DEBUNKING ATHEISM FROM A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW

 

From a Biblical worldview, atheism is not viewed as a neutral or purely logical conclusion, but rather as a spiritual and moral condition. The Bible presents atheism as a willful suppression of the truth of a Creator, which renders the worldview self-defeating and lacking an objective foundation for knowledge, morality, and purpose. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Biblical case against atheism centers on several foundational arguments regarding truth and reality:

1. The Suppression of Truth

Scripture teaches that the existence of God is self-evident in creation and that humanity innately knows this truth. [1, 2]

• The Evidence: According to Romans 1:18-20, God’s "invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived" through the physical universe. [1, 2, 3]
• The Problem: The Bible states that humanity "suppresses the truth" in unrighteousness. Therefore, from a Biblical perspective, atheism arises not from a lack of evidence, but from a moral and spiritual desire to avoid accountability to a Creator. [1]

2. The Foolishness of Unbelief

The Bible directly addresses the denial of God’s existence, assigning it a specific categorization.

• The Verse: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1).
• The Meaning: In Hebrew wisdom literature, a "fool" (nabal) is not intellectually deficient, but rather morally deficient. It describes someone who acts as though there are no moral consequences to their actions, effectively living in denial of ultimate reality. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. Inconsistency in Morality and Reason

Apologists operating from a Biblical worldview argue that atheism is ultimately a self-refuting worldview because it borrows heavily from Christian premises to make its claims: [1, 2, 3]

• Objective Morality: If the universe is the result of blind, undirected material processes, there is no ultimate standard for right and wrong. When atheists argue that the universe is unjust or that God is immoral (such as pointing to the problem of evil), they are appealing to an objective standard of goodness that can only exist if God exists. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Laws of Logic and Science: The reliability of human reason and the uniform laws of nature presuppose an orderly, rational Creator. An atheistic worldview offers no philosophical reason to trust our cognitive faculties or to expect the universe to behave in a predictable manner.

4. Lack of Ultimate Meaning

Without a Creator, the atheistic worldview posits that human life ends in absolute nothingness and possesses no inherent, eternal purpose. The Biblical worldview offers a stark contrast, establishing that humanity is uniquely created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and possesses intrinsic worth, ultimate meaning, and the hope of redemption through Jesus Christ. [1, 2, 3]

To explore this perspective further, apologetic resources and Biblical commentary are available on platforms like Answers in Genesis or academic examinations through resources like The Shepherd's Institute.

RECOMMEND READING

ABOUT THIS BOOK

"There is only one way to deal with bullies, even in this politically correct world—and that is to crush them."

USA Today bestselling author Anthony DeStefano is tired of playing nice. After years of responding patiently and agreeably to the pseudo-intellectual arguments and tactics of today’s militant atheists, he’s had enough. In this entertaining, no-holds-barred retort to atheism and its proponents, DeStefano reveals the intellectual bankruptcy at atheism’s core and equips believers to respond to its hollow arguments.

A witty and devastating takedown of the "new atheist" position, Inside the Atheist Mind systematically debunks the theories of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and others, revealing how inconsistent, illogical, and frankly ludicrous their conclusions truly are. Poking fun at atheists in a clever and intelligent way, DeStefano demonstrates just how full of holes the new atheism is and reveals that it is actually a "religion" of its own, complete with a creed, a set of commandments and sacraments, and a rigid moral code with rewards and punishments. More than that, DeStefano exposes that atheism is itself a "superstition" of the worst kind.

Using irony and a healthy dose of playful sarcasm, Inside the Atheist Mind lampoons, teases, and deflates the atheist position, unmasking it for what it is--an empty, intellectually barren philosophy, devoid of any logic and common sense.

ALTERED STATES: THE USE AND ABUSE OF ANABOLIC STERIODS

 

The Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-647) was a landmark U.S. federal law that amended the Controlled Substances Act to classify anabolic steroids as Schedule III controlled substances. [1, 2]

Core Provisions of the Act

• Classification: Legally reclassified anabolic steroids, which previously faced little federal regulation, into Schedule III alongside narcotics like codeine and hydrocodone. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Definition of Anabolic Steroid: Defined the term to include any drug or hormonal substance chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids) that promotes muscle growth. [1]
• Penalties: Criminalized the unauthorized possession and distribution of steroids, subjecting offenders to up to one year in prison for simple possession and up to five years for distribution. [1]
Targeting Advisors: Imposed specific criminal penalties on physical trainers, coaches, and medical advisors who attempt to persuade or induce individuals—particularly minors—to use or possess these substances.

Impact and Subsequent Legislation

By classifying these drugs federally, the 1990 Act shifted steroids from fitness and bodybuilding supplements to strictly monitored, illegal narcotics. Over time, however, underground chemists began manufacturing "designer steroids" designed to evade the exact chemical definitions laid out in this law. [1, 2, 3, 4]

To close these loopholes and update the original legislation, Congress later passed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 and the Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2014. These subsequent acts expanded the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) scheduling authority to ban new synthetic variants automatically. [1, 2, 3, 4]

What Doctors Found Inside Dead Bodybuilders Will Shock You. These men destroyed their own bodies with their own hands. And they paid for it in the most horrifying ways imaginable. They injected chemicals so toxic that their blood turned to sludge. Some swallowed compounds so powerful their organs forgot how to function without them. Others drained every drop of water from their own bodies just to get bigger. And when doctors finally cut them open, what they found inside was not human anymore. Organs dissolving. Livers crumbling apart at the touch. And honestly, what doctors found inside each of these body builders will completely mess you up! Watch this shocking video below for all the details.