A refugee from the Muslim Middle East thinks he has discovered Islam’s 20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020 – a plan revealed in the latest issue of Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
Anis Shorrosh, author of ”Islam Revealed” and ”The True Furqan,” is a Christian Arab-American who emigrated from Arab-controlled Jerusalem in January 1967.
”The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020,” Shorrosh says. ”Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?”
1. Terminate America’s freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.
2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ”Abed.”
3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.
4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.
5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.
6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.
7. Yell ”foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran” anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.
8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.
9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).
Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.
Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can’t legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.
Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ”sleeper cells” have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.
10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America’s high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.
11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ”Centers for Islamic studies” with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.
12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.
13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.
14. Nullify America’s sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.
15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America’s justice system.
16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.
17. Raise interest in Islam on America’s campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.
18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.
19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.
20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.
Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. ”Islam Revealed” is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ”Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.”
No one has been able to definitively decode or identify the name of the Antichrist
. Biblical prophecy indicates that the Antichrist will only be fully revealed closer to the time of Jesus's return. Despite centuries of speculation, all past attempts to identify a specific person have been incorrect.
Here is what is known from biblical texts:
The mark of the Beast: The Bible states that the Antichrist's name can be identified through the number 666. In the book of Revelation, it is written that "the one who has insight" can calculate the number of the beast, as it is "the number of a man" (Revelation 13:18).
Failed interpretations: Some have attempted to use numerology and the gematria of different languages to find names that add up to 666, often targeting prominent figures like popes or other political leaders. However, these efforts have been based on speculation, requiring manipulated rules and interpretations to fit a particular name.
Other descriptions: The biblical name for the Antichrist is not directly stated, but the Bible uses other titles and descriptions for him, such as "the man of lawlessness," "the son of destruction," and "the Beast".
Deceptive nature: The Antichrist will be a master of deceit and will appear charismatic and peaceful to deceive many, making identification difficult based on public perception alone.
Spirit of antichrist: The apostle John wrote that many "antichrists" have already come into the world. He used this term to describe anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ. This suggests that the spirit of Antichrist is present throughout history, but it is distinct from the final, individual figure who will be revealed in the end times.
IN VIDEO BELOW KEN PETERS
SHARES THE VISION HE
HAD IN 1980 OF THE COMING
BEHEADING OF CHRISTIANS
DURING THE GREAT TRIBULATION
End Time Martyrdom
BY Joel Richardson
While the last chapter dealt with the concentrated hatred and murderous spirit of Islam toward the Jewish people, this chapter deals in a more general sense with the worldwide persecution and martyrdom that will be waged against anyone who is a follower of Jesus or who refuses to become a Muslim during the last-days.
Beheadings In The Last-Days
In the Book of Revelation, chapter twenty, the Apostle John sees a particular company of people. John gives us a very brief synopsis of what he sees. He is specifically describing the future end-time Martyrs:
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Revelation 20:4
I’ve dwelled on this verse many times. The Bible says that in the last-days, beheading will specifically be the primary method by which people will be martyred. They will be killed specifically for their “testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God.” It is a strange picture to try to imagine. Is the Bible implying a worldwide resurrection of guillotines in every town square? What exactly is the Bible inferring will occur that will result in a worldwide standard of using beheading specifically, as a means of executing Christians? As I have tried to envision the nature of the end-times and what they will look like, I have often wondered about this verse. There are other passages that are very similar to this one. They also speak of a future persecution and a global trend of executing Christians for their faith in Jesus:
Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. Matthew 24:9
Here Jesus warns His disciples that they will be hated and ultimately put to death as a result of their identification with Him. But then there is a prophetic expansion on this prediction. Jesus says that “you will be hated by all nations because of me.” Jesus specifically predicted a global element to this future persecution against Christians. This next verse gives us even further insight:
All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you. John 16:1-4
In this passage from the Gospel of John, Jesus is initially speaking to the disciples outside of a strictly end-time context. He first warns the disciples that in the days ahead they would see his followers put out of the synagogues. This prophecy came to its fullest expression after what became known as the Bar Kochba rebellion in 132-135 A.D. It was during the Bar Kochba rebellion that the final separation of church and synagogue took place. Bar Kochba was a false Jewish Messiah. He was supported and endorsed by the highest level of the rabbinic authority at the time, the renowned Rabbi Akiva. As a result of Akiva’s support, Bar Kochba was authenticated as Messiah in the eyes of the Jewish people. When Bar Kochba led the Jews in a rebellion against Rome, any Jew who did not participate was viewed as a traitor to the Jewish nation. The Jews who were followers of Jesus however, who before this time, still regularly participated in the synagogue services, could not support a rebellion led by someone whom they knew to be a false Messiah. As a result the Jewish followers of Jesus were expelled from the synagogues en masse and Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled in the second century.
But in the second part of this verse, Jesus is speaking of the end-times. “In Fact”, he goes on to say, “the days will come when your persecutors will do far more than merely expel you from a synagogue; they will literally kill you.” But the most bewildering and intriguing aspect of this verse is the next portion of Jesus’ statement. He says that those who kill you will literally think that in doing so, they are offering a service to God. It is this portion of the verse that is key. How could someone in today’s world literally think that God demands the killing of other human beings simply because they believe differently? It’s such a completely foreign concept to most modern western minds. It is not, however, a foreign concept to history. Both Islam and Christianity – both Catholic and Protestants, are guilty of this very thing, murdering those who are perceived to be heretics from the only true religion. Jihad, the Crusades, the Inquisitions – all fit the bill of murder for and in the name of God. One thing is for sure, an absolutely necessary ingredient in any such bloody exchange would have to be a firm conviction that God is on one’s side and that He commands such executions. It is impossible to imagine any belief system or philosophy on the earth that could carry out such a thing other than a well-established world religion. While totalitarian regimes are certainly capable of such a thing, this verse specifically says that the ones who carry out these executions will believe themselves to be serving God in doing so. No, the system that carries this out will be a religious system that views itself as the earthly steward of some form of global divine government. It must view itself as God’s only organization or community on the earth. Only such a scenario can account for the actions that we read about in these verses.
In summary then, when we compare these three verses we get a very specific picture of what end-time persecution and martyrdom will look like. Firstly, it will be global. Secondly, it will necessitate a belief system that views itself as having a divinely appointed governmental role on the earth. Thirdly, it will involve the specific method of beheading as its primary method of execution. So we have a global religion that will view itself as a divinely appointed system on the earth authorized by God to behead those who refuse to join. As we are about to see, in terms of religious systems that exist in the earth today, only the religion of Islam fulfills these requirements.
Beheadings in the News
At the time of this writing, in late 2004, there is in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and a few other countries, a new story, now just about weekly of foreigners and Christians being beheaded by Islamic radicals. As such there has been a debate raging about whether or not this practice is indeed “Islamic” or if it is merely the barbaric practice of a few radicals who are violating the true principals of Islam. Among the public statements intended to be picked up by the western media are the usual statements denouncing of such incidents as having anything to do with “true Islam.” In most cases, the western media gobbles these disavowals up and reprints them without much question. But if we examine not only Islamic tradition and history, but also the “word on the street” feelings of those Muslims who make their opinion known everyday, on Internet message and chat groups, we find a much different reality. Islamic message boards all over the Internet have been debating the legitimacy or non-legitimacy of such actions since they have become front page news stories. An article from CBS News entitled, Saudia Arabia’s Beheading Culture, dated June 27, 2004, also picked up on some of this Internet “chatter”:
And on Islamic Internet forums, mostly used by radicals, beheading has been a popular topic in recent weeks, with many participants describing it as the "easiest" way to kill an American or a Saudi from the ruling family.1
The only mistake that CBS made is to assume that most of the participants who use such forums are indeed “radicals.” I have participated in several such Islamic “communities” and have befriended many Muslims through such groups. Many in these forums presently live in the USA and Canada and many are converts from Christianity. While the writer of the CBS article assumes that because of the barbaric nature of such discussions that the individuals are all thus “radicals,” I have found many of them to simply be individuals who take their faith as a Muslim seriously, even as I take my faith as a Christian seriously. While some of the members of these discussion groups seem to be disgusted and ashamed by the recent rise of beheadings, the overarching majority seem to be far more focused on doctrinal issues such as whether the beheadings were done properly or if the specific victims were considered enemies or were innocent parties etc. Sam Hamod, who is the former director of the Islamic Center in Washington D.C., when given the opportunity to chime in on this issue, in an article featured in the Washington Times used the moment not to condemn the beheadings, but to make the point that the men committing the beheadings in Iraq and elsewhere are doing it all wrong:
“You can't do it like the idiots on TV. The right thing to do is slit the person's throat, not cut off the entire head.” 2
Beheading In Islam: Muhammad’s Example
Beheading in Islam is not a new phenomenon by any means. Due to the utter disgust of many throughout the West with regard to this practice of late by radical Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere, many moderate Muslims and Muslim apologists have repeatedly been making the claim that beheading is not an officially sanctioned Islamic practice. They claim it defies the basic tenants of Islam. These claims are made to create a better image of Islam in the western eye. Unfortunately, these claims are either made out of ignorance of Islam’s history or are made with an active intent to deceive. Indeed, as we are about to see, beheading is the very heritage of Islam. Beheading is not only commanded as a specific method of killing ones enemies in the Quran, but as we will see, it was also a favored method of killing by Muhammad and many of his followers.
When Muhammad began his career of violence and aggression, his band of Muslim warriors was still very small. Caravans traveling back and forth from Mecca and Damascus became Muhammad’s favorite soft targets. Because the inhabitants of Mecca depended on these caravans for their life they were more than a bit disturbed after several attacks by Muhammad and his gang of marauders. Finally, men from the tribe of Quraysh came from Mecca to attack Muhammad and his men. This battle, which came to be famously known as the Battle of Badr, saw Muhammad and his fledgling army gain a surprise victory over the Quraysh. Among the people who were slain was Abba Hakam.
Aba Hakam was severely wounded but still alive when Abdullah, the servant of Muhammad, ran up, put his foot on Aba Hakam’s neck, got a hold of his beard and started insulting the fatally wounded man whom his own people had named “the father of wisdom.” Abdullah cut off Abba Hakam’s head and carried it to his master. "The head of the enemy of Allah!" exclaimed Muhammad joyously; ---- "Allah! There is no other god but he!" - "Yea There is no other!" responded Abdullah, as he cast the severed head at the Prophet’s feet. "It is more acceptable to me;" cried Muhammad, hardly able to contain his joy, "than the choicest camel in all Arabia.”3 (emphasis mine)
Sadly the blood lust of Muhammad and his followers only increased from here. In 627 A.D. Muhammad himself oversaw what can only honestly be called a mass slaughter. Muhammad and his army laid a siege around the Jewish village of Qurayzah. After twenty-five days, the village surrendered, hoping that Muhammad would be merciful to them. Instead Muhammad had his soldiers dig several trenches and forced between six to nine hundred men to march into them. At the hands of Muhammad’s soldiers, they were all beheaded. The trenches became mass graves. From Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul, Islam’s earliest and most well received biography of Muhammad we read the gruesome account:
Then they (Qurayza) surrendered and the apostle confined them in Medina... Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches… They were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figures as high as 800 or 900… This went on until the apostle made an end to them. 4
Apparently, after this great slaughter, something was awakened in Muhammad. Those 600-900 men from Qurayza who were beheaded were not enough. Soon after this incident, Muhammad had 400 more Jews beheaded. Muhammad was allied with two groups of men, the Khazraj and the Aus. The Khazraj were in charge of beheading the four hundred Jews but the Aus were standing by on the sidelines. When Muhammad looked and saw that the faces of the Khazraj were taking pleasure in beheading all the men and the Aus were standing on the sidelines, he ordered that the last twelve beheadings be carried out by the Aus:
Abu ‘Ubayda told me on the authority of Abu ‘Amir the Medinain, when the apostle (Muhammad) got the better of the sons of Qurayza he seized about four hundred men from the Jews who had been allies of Aus against Khazraj, and ordered that they should be beheaded. Accordingly Khazraj began to to cut off their heads with great satisfaction. The apostle saw that the faces of the Khazraj showed their pleasure, but there was no such indication on the part of Aus, and…when he saw that there were only twelve of them left he gave them over to Aus, assigning one Jew to every two of Aus, saying, “Let so-and-so strike him and so-and-so finish him off.” 5
Later, another campaign of beheading took place under Muhammad as he re-entered the city of Mecca with his army of ten thousand he called to the warriors in his army from Medina and asked them, “Do you see the soldiers from Quraysh (from Mecca)? Go and slaughter them.” Mark A. Gabriel explains the meaning of the word that Muhammad used for slaughter in Arabic:
The Arabic word for slaughter presents the picture of a farmer harvesting his crop with a scythe. In other words, Muhammad was telling them, ‘Cut their heads from their bodies as you would cut fruit from the branch of a tree.’ 6
So this is where it all began, with Muhammad. But it’s certainly not where it ended. Remember that whatever Muhammad says or does is considered just as authoritative and as inspired as the very Quran itself. It is the actions of Muhammad that dictate the model for living that Allah has ordained as his will for all Muslims:
If you love Allah, then follow me (Muhammad). -Sura 3:31 (Shakir)
Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day. -Sura 33:21.
By slaying the men of these Jewish villages this way, Muhammad set the example of what Allah has ordained and even commanded for all faithful Muslims to follow.
Beheading Among Muhammad’s Followers
Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s best friend and successor, became the first “rightly guided” Caliph of Islam after Muhammad’s death. Abu Bakr’s general was Khalid bin al-Walid al-Makhzumi who also fought under the leadership of Muhammad. Under Muhammad, Khalid fought so effectively that he earned the title, The Sword of Allah.
Upon Abu Bakr’s orders, in 633-634 A.D., Khalid extended an invitation to the people of Arabia to accept Islam. This “invitation” however, was actually nothing more than an overt threat of war and death to those who refused to convert and submit to the rule of Islam. The actual invitation read as follows:
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. From Khalid bin al-Walid to the governors of Persia. Embrace Islam so that you may be safe. If not, make a covenant with me and pay the Jizyah tax. Otherwise, I have brought you a people who love death just as you love drinking wine. 7
After this “invitation” to Islam, many refused to convert to Islam. Among those who refused were a group of Persians and Christians from Ullays on the Euphrates River. Khalid attacked them in 633 A.D. The battle was fierce and so Khalid made a vow to Allah during the battle that if he could defeat them that he would make the canal that surrounded their village literally run with their blood. He commanded that all who were defeated by taken alive. There were so many captives that it actually took a day and a half to behead all of the men. The blood however, coagulated and Khalid’s troops were forced to eventually release water into the canal in order that it would run red with the blood of the slain lest Khalids vow be left unfulfilled. Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir At-Tabari, the early Islamic historian and theologian recorded this event:
Khalid said, “O Allah, if you deliver their shoulders to us, I will obligate myself to You not to leave any one of them whom we can overcome until I make their canal run with their blood.” Then Allah defeated them for the Muslims and gave their shoulders to them. Khalid then commanded to his herald to proclaim to his men, “Capture! Capture! Do not kill any except he who continues to resist.” As a result the calvary brought prisoners in droves, driving them along. Khalid had detailed certain men to cut off their heads in the canal. He did that to them for a day and a night. They pursued them the next day and the day after, until they reached the Nahrayn and the like of that distance in every direction from Ullays. And Khalid cut off their heads. 8
Some of Khalid’s men proclaimed to him:
“even if you were to kill all the population of the earth, their blood would still not run… Therefore send water over it, so that you may fulfill your oath.” Khalid had blocked the water from the canal. Now Khalid brought the water back, so that it flowed with spilled blood. Owing to this it has been called Blood Canal to this day. 9
Amir Taheri, an Iranian born journalist, in an article from the New York Post, May 14, 2004 entitled “Chopping Heads”, outlines several other incidents throughout Islam’s history of the practice of beheading:
In 680, the Prophet's favorite grandson, Hussein bin Ali, had his head chopped off in Karbala, central Iraq, by the soldiers of the Caliph Yazid. The severed head was put on a silver platter and sent to Damascus, Yazid's capital, before being sent further to Cairo for inspection by the Governor of Egypt. The Caliph's soldiers also cut off the heads of all of Hussein's 71 male companions, including the one-year-old baby boy Ali-Asghar. 10
Thus the pattern had been established and now the principal that Muhammad had modeled now came back and touched his own family. Eventually stories of beheading came to fill Islam’s history. Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad points out that in the late fifteen century,
Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, who is revered as a paragon of Muslim tolerance by modern revisionist historians, recorded the following in his autobiographical “Baburnama,” about infidel prisoners of a jihad campaign: "Those who were brought in alive [having surrendered] were ordered beheaded, after which a tower of skulls was erected in the camp." 11
Skipping forward to a slightly more modern era, Taheri continues:
In 1842 the Afghani Muslims overtook the British garrison in Kabul and beheaded over 2000 men, women and children. The heads were placed on sticks around the city as decorations. 12
The practice continued during the 1980’s, in Afghanistan, where an estimated 3,000 Soviet troops were beheaded by the Afghani warriors. The practice of beheading was also a common practice throughout the Iranian revolution:
In 1992, the mullahs sent a "specialist" to cut off the head of Shapour Bakhtiar, the shah's last prime minister, in a suburb of Paris. When the news broke, Hashemi Rafsanjani, then president of the Islamic Republic, publicly thanked Allah for having allowed "the severing of the head of the snake." 13
Taheri even makes reference to one Algerian “specialist” named Momo le nain, who was recruited by an Islamic group known as the GIA specifically for the purpose of chopping off heads:
In 1996 in Ben-Talha, a suburb of the capital Algiers, Momo cut off a record 86 heads in one night, including the heads of more than a dozen children. In recognition of his exemplary act of piety, the GIA sent him to Mecca for pilgrimage. Last time we checked, Momo was still at large somewhere in Algeria. 14
Taheri likewise relates the situation in Pakistan where:
Rival Sunni and Shite groups have made a habit of sending chopped off heads of each other’s activists by special delivery. By one estimate, over 400 heads have been chopped off and mailed since 1990. 15
And today, we see the power of beheading on the Indonesian Island of Borneo, where Muslims have been using beheading as means to drive out the Christian majority. Nearly half of the Christians have fled the island.
And beyond all of these very incriminating examples there are also the government sanctioned beheadings that take place weekly in Saudi Arabia after Friday prayers just outside the Mosques:
The Saudi government beheaded 52 men and one woman last year for crimes including murder, homosexuality, armed robbery and drug trafficking… A condemned convict is brought into the courtyard, hands tied, and forced to bow before an executioner, who swings a huge sword amid cries from onlookers of "Allahu Akbar!", Arabic for "God is great." 16
Allahu Akbar was also the phrase being screamed by the murderers of Nicholas Berg, the Jewish-American contractor, and Kim-Sun-il, the Korean translator and evangelical Christian, whose dream of one day being a missionary to Muslims was indeed both fulfilled and brought to an end in the very same moment…
So while it is clear what the history of Islam teaches, we also need to look at what the scriptures and scholars of Islam have to say about this subject.
The Value Of A Non-Muslim Life
Whenever a Muslim “extremist” carries out a horrifying act in the name of Islam, most Muslims that I know are very quick to state that, “That is not Islam! Islam is not to be judged by the behavior of a few, but needs to be studied to see what it really teaches.” Fair enough. So the question then is: What does Islam really teach about the killing of non-Muslims?
The first thing that should be pointed out is that according to Islamic law, Muslims are for all practical purposes, allowed to kill non-Muslims. This is based on the law of Qisas. Qisas is essentially the law of reciprocity. It is the Islamic version of an “eye for an eye.” Qisas for instance states that if a Muslim murders another Muslim, then that Muslim will likewise be executed. Amazingly though, this law does not apply to a Muslim who murders a non-Muslim. This teaching is found in a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated Ash-Sha'bi: Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked Ali, 'What is (written) in this sheet of paper?' Ali replied, it deals with The Diyya (compensatory blood money paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever). 17(emphasis mine)
In some cases of course, other penalties such as prison or a fine might be given to the murderer. But sadly, reality bears out that in such a culture that does not value the life of non-Muslims as much as that of Muslims, a blind eye is most often turned to the murder of non-Muslims. If you go to the website of the Voice of the Martyrs at www.persecution.org, or the Barnabas Fund, at www.barnabasfund.org, you can read hundreds of stories, updated daily, of Christians who are mistreated or even murdered without any legal repercussions for the Muslim murderer. The statement below is a perfect example of the mentality that I have often encountered when talking to many Muslims from the Middle East. This statement was made on an Internet interfaith discussion group. Notice the attitude toward the killing of non-Muslims (kaffirs):
The kaffirs (unbelievers) have been attacking Muslim countries killing Muslim people from the beginning of time… when we have done nothing. Like the people of Israel attack the Muslims from Palestine because they do it for the land and because they hate Arabs/Muslims ...we defend them for Allah.We try and spread Islam, The one and only true word of Allah. They rejected it, therefore we are allowed to kill them. It is not haram (forbidden/illegal) to kill a kaffir. Of course we want to Inshallah (by the will of Allah) peacefully live with them and Inshallah teach them about the beautiful religion. 18 (emphasis mine)
Do you see the altogether twisted mentality expressed in the above comment? The “beautiful religion” that allows the killing of those who do not belong to it??
The Quran On Killing Infidels
Perhaps the quranic verse that is most often quoted by westerners to demonstrate the violent nature of the Islamic religion is the verse known within and without Islam as “the verse of the sword”:
So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the obligatory charity, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. -Surah 9:5 (Shakir) (emphasis mine)
As many times as this verse is quoted, there has been a Muslim who has stated that this verse is not applicable today. While I would certainly love to believe this, the real question that needs to be asked is: How do the teachers and scholars of Islam interpret this verse? Do they say that it still applies today? The overriding majority of modern and classical Muslim scholars agree that it does. Remember the concept that the behavior of all Muslims is dictated by both the Quran andthe Sunna (sayings, actions and behavior of Muhammad). From Ibn Kathir, the renowned eighth-century scholar, we learn the true Islamic interpretation of this verse. Kathir begins by citing for support of his interpretation, several eminent early Muslim Hadith narrators/scholars; Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman. Kathir then explains the meaning of the verse:
The four months mentioned in this verse refer to the four-month grace period mentioned in an earlier verse: “So travel freely for four months throughout the land.” Allah said next, “So when the Sacred Months have passed,” meaning, upon the end of the four months during which [Allah] prohibited you from fighting the idolaters, Muslims are to, “fight and kill the idolaters wherever you may find them.” “Whenever you find them” means, on the earth in general… Allah said here, to execute some and keep some as prisoners. “Besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush” means, do 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… Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s closest friend and successor upon Muhammad’s death] used this and other honorable verses as proof for fighting against those who refrained from paying the obligatory charity tax. This verse allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.19
This doesn’t really leave any room for debate. Ibn Kathir lays it out as clearly as anyone could. We see that Muslims are allowed and even commanded to fight against the unbelievers (Mushrikun) and even seek them out where they are in order to force them to convert to Islam or accept death. Again it must be noted that Kathir is not an “extremist” Muslim but is perhaps one of Islam’s most universally received classical scholars.
Another pertinent verse from the Quran that applies to our discussion is the infamous “beheading: verse:
If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks -Surah 47:4 (Khalifa)
When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads. –Surah 47:4 (Rodwell)
Ibn Kathir explains that the purpose of this verse is to:
(Guide) the believers to what they should employ in their fight against the idolators, Allah says, “So, when you meet those who disbelieve (in battle), smite their necks,” which means, when you fight against them, cut them down totally with your swords. “Until you have fully defeated them,” meaning, you have killed and utterly destroyed them. This is referring to the prisoners of war whom you have captured. 20
So when we look at these verses we see that Muslims are commanded to behead (or at a bare minimum “smite the necks”) of those non-Muslims whom they are fighting against. Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad, judge of the Shari'ah (Islamic Law) court in Great Britain, as well as the secretary general of the Islamic World League and the spokesman for the International Islamic Front however, has a slightly different opinion:
What's the verdict? "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement." 21
After examining just a sampling of Islamic texts as well as the opinions of Islamic scholars, spokesman and everyday Muslims, we see that Islam not only commands the killing of non-Muslims but also supports a culture where killing non-Muslims has become an acceptable practice. But before we finish this discussion, there is one more very specific tradition that will surely come into play if indeed the person of the Mahdi ever becomes a reality.
Death To Those Who Dispute The Authority Of The Caliph.
The leadership role of a Caliph in Islam is a very powerful concept. The Caliph is viewed as the both the successor of Muhammad, and the leader of all Muslims. He is in a sense, the Pope of the Muslim world. The last Caliph that both Sunnis and Shia’ accept as justifiably elected was Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law. Ali died in 661. Since then, many other Caliphs have held office, but none that held the universal sway that the first four Caliphs held. Muslims have been awaiting the restoration of the Caliphate to restore unity and leadership to Islam worldwide. As we have already seen, the Mahdi is expected to fulfill this role. From a Hadith in Sahih Muslim we read of the punishment for those who dispute the authority of the Caliph:
Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day… He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the pledge of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. If a man comes forward, disputing his (the Caliph’s) authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter. 22 (emphasis mine)
The Saudi Arabian Government holds this same opinion as well. On the official Saudi Arabian Islamic Affairs Department (IAD) website, we find a similar declaration:
The Noble Prophet said: 'It is obligatory upon a Muslim to listen and obey (to the authority of the Caliph) whether he likes it or not…One who has already taken an oath of allegiance to one leader (Imam) and has committed his hand and heart to him, should obey him as much as may be possible for him. If somebody else opposes and contests the authority of that leader (Imam), the said opponent should be beheaded."23 (emphasis mine)
According to Islamic law, anyone who simply disagrees with the authority of a seated Caliph should be beheaded.
Summary and Conclusion
Now let us review the points that have been made. First, we have seen that the end-times as described in the Bible will be a time when Christians will be persecuted and murdered for their faith. The specific manner of death that the Bible mentions for Christians will be martyrdom by beheading. As we have most clearly demonstrated, it is quite undeniable that beheading is a tradition that stretches throughout Islamic history. Islam itself has thoroughly documented the fact that Muhammad and his immediate successors practiced beheading as the specific means to kill “the enemies of Islam.” This practice has continued in certain quarters of Islam to this very day. The Quran itself actually encourages beheading, or at a bare minimum, “smiting the necks” of “idolaters” and any “prisoners of war.” We noted some examples of the beheadings of such “prisoners of war” that have recently been in the news in Iraq and elsewhere. The death sentence is also prescribed for those who do not submit to or agree with the authority of the Caliph. As such it is actually very fair to assume that in the Islamic vision of the last-days, if a Caliph, specifically the Mahdi comes forward and accepts the notion that all Christians, Jews, Israelis, and any who support them are considered “enemies of Islam”, then it would be considered universally lawful and indeed even obligatory for all Muslims to “make war” and “smite the necks” of all Christians, Jews, or westerners, etc. as well as any who dispute the authority of the Caliph.
Once again then, Islam, its practices and teachings, fulfill exactly the description of the forces that will gain power and dominate the world in the biblical end-time scenario. Having seen the murderous nature of the Islamic texts, as well as the proper Islamic interpretation of them, it is important to see the reality of how this mentality plays out in the mind of an ordinary Muslim from the Middle East. Following is a post from an Islamic/interfaith Internet message board. It is the kind of post that is only too common on such forums. We end this chapter with one Muslim’s thoughts regarding the murder of Daniel Pearl, the slain American journalist:
Firstly Pearl is a Jew, a Munafiq, (a hypocrite) a Spy, and a Kaffir (unbeliever). Do not be fooled by these people. Their hatred for Islam can be seen from their mouths and what their heart conceals is much worse. I do not see where the sick part is in slaughtering… In Islam we… can't even torture the kaffir- we just slit their throat, and it’s proven when you pass a special area in the neck, they no longer feel pain.. And remember when we Muslims capture a Muslim munafiq, we do the same to him, we slaughter him. What do you think of a Dirty Jew, Stupid Munafiq, Two-Timing Spy, and a Kaffir? We do the same to him. Walhumdulilah. (Thanks be to Allah) And Remember the Rasoul (Muhammad) slaughtered a great number of Jews in one battle; the best of creation did this, because the Jews backstabbed Prophet Muhammad. And if you think this is still sick, InshaAllaahi (I hope by the will of Allah) you’re alive when Mahdi is around cause your going to see many Jew/munafiqqin (Jews/hypocrites) heads on the floor.
Christians must be prepared to answer the typical objections made against the Gospel. Most of the objections are based on simple logical fallacies. The following is a list of some of the most common fallacies used by Muslims. Note: The average Muslim does not know that his arguments are logically erroneous. He is sincere in his beliefs. Thus you must be patient and kind in sharing with him why his arguments are invalid.
1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority. Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself. Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.
2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.
If you end where you began, you got nowhere.
Examples: #1 Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah. #2 Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad. #3 Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.
3. False Analogy: Comparing two things as if they are parallel when they are not really the same at all. Examples: #1 Many Muslims erroneously assume that Muslims and Christians share the same concepts of God, revelation, inspiration, textual preservation, the Bible, prophethood, biblical history, conversion, etc... #2 Because a false analogy is drawn between Islam and Christianity, some Muslims think that any argument which refutes the Qur'an will likewise refute the Bible; any argument which refutes Muhammad will also refute Jesus Christ, etc... #3 For example, many Muslims claim that Muhammad and all prophets were sinless. They even deny that Abraham was an idol worshipper. Thus when a Christian points out all the wicked things that Muhammad did (mass murder, child abuse, lying, etc.), the Muslims will say,
"If you are right, then you must also reject your biblical prophets for doing wicked things as well."
What he is really saying is, "If you reject my prophet, then you must reject your prophets as well. If Muhammad was a false prophet, then your prophets are false as well." The root problem is that the Muslim concept of prophethood is not the same as the Christian concept of prophethood. We teach that prophets sin like anyone else. Thus while Islam is refuted by the sins of Muhammad, Christianity is not jeopardized at all. The Muslim is guilty of setting up a "false analogy." Whenever a Muslim responds to a Christian attack on the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Allah by flipping the argument around and applying it to the Bible, Jesus or the Trinity as if Islam and Christianity either stand or fall together, he is guilty of the fallacy of false analogy. Islam can be false and Christianity be true at the same time.
4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance: When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments. Examples: #1 Some Muslims argue, "The Qur'an is the Word of God because the text of the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly." This argument is erroneous for two reasons:
a. Factually, the text of the Qur'an has not been preserved perfectly. The text has additions, deletions, conflicting manuscripts, and variant readings like any other ancient writing. b. Logically, it is irrelevant whether the text of the Qur'an has been preserved because preservation does not logically imply inspiration. A book can be perfectly copied without implying its inspiration.
#2 When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth. Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar," "deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs. #3 When confronted with the pagan origins of the Qur'an, some Muslims defend the Qur'an by answering,
This argument is erroneous for several reasons.
a. It is a false analogy to parallel the pagan origins of the rites commanded in the Qur'an with the present day holidays nowhere commanded in the Bible. What some modern day Christians do on Dec. 25th has no logical bearing on what the Qur'an commands Muslims to do (eg. the Pilgrimage, the Fast, etc.). b. It is irrelevant that some Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since the Bible nowhere commands it, it is a matter of personal freedom. But Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to believe and practice things many things which came from the paganism of that day. c. The Muslim by using this argument is actually admitting that the Qur'an was not "sent down" but fabricated from pagan sources. This means he has become an unbeliever (Surah 25:4-6).
#4 Some Muslims argue that the Qur'an is the Word of God because it contains some historically or scientifically accurate statements. This argument is irrelevant. Just because a book is correct on some historical or scientific point does not mean it is inspired. You cannot take the attributes of a part and apply it to the whole. A book can be a mixture of true and false statements. Thus it is a logical fallacy to argue that the entire Qur'an is true if it makes one true statement. When a Muslim argues that history or science "proves" the Qur'an, this actually means that he is acknowledging that history and science can likewise refute the Qur'an. If the Qur'an contains just one historical error or one scientific error, then the Qur'an is not the Word of God. Verification and falsification go hand in hand. #5 The present meaning of a word is irrelevant to what it meant in ancient times. The word "Allah" is a good example. When confronted by the historical evidence that the word was used by pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times to refer to a high god who was married to the sun-goddess and had three daughters, some Muslims will quote dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to prove (sic) that "Allah means God." They are thus using modern definitions to define what the word meant over a thousand years ago! What "Allah" means now has no bearing on what it meant before Muhammad.
5. The Fallacy of Equivocation: If we assume that everyone has the same definition of such words as God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, prophet, miracle, etc., we are committing a very simple logical fallacy. #1 When a Muslim says, "Christians and Muslims worship the same God," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. While Christians worship the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Muslims worship a Unitarian deity. Obviously, they are worshipping different Gods. #2 When a Muslim says, "We believe in Jesus too," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not the Jesus of the Bible. Islam preaches "another Jesus" (II Cor. 11:4). The Jesus of the Bible is God the Son who died on the cross for our sins. But the "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not God the Son and he did not die on the cross for our sins. Thus it is erroneous for Muslims to tell Christians that they believe in Jesus too. #3 When a Muslim assumes that Christians have the same concept of revelation as Muslims, he is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. According to Islam, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah and has no earthly sources. When we prove that it comes from earthly sources, this threatens the inspiration of the Qur'an. On the other hand, the Bible does not claim that it dropped out of heaven one day. It openly quotes from earthly sources. It uses pre-existing sources without any difficulty whatsoever. Thus while the Qur'an is threatened by historical sources, the Bible is actually confirmed by them. #4 When a Muslims tells you that the word "Allah" has only one meaning: "the one, true, universal God," he is assuming a fallacy. The word "allah" has many different meanings.
a. It can be used as a generic term like the English word "God." Thus it can be applied to any god or goddess regardless if if a true or false god is in view. (ex. The "Allahs" of Hinduism.) b. The Nation of Islam uses it to refer to Wallace Dodd Ford, Elijah Muhammad, and Louis Farrakhan as "Allah" and teaches that all black people are "Allahs." c. It has been used by some Christians in Arabic speaking countries as a generic name for the Holy Trinity. d. It was used in pre-Islamic times by pagan Arabs to refer to the moon-god whowas the father of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. e. It is used by Muslims to refer to their god.
Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. The Christian worships the Holy Trinity while the Muslim worships a unitarian deity.
6. The Fallacy of Force: The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29). Some Muslims use a false analogy to answer this argument. They respond by saying, "Well, what about the Crusades? You Christians use violence just like Muslims." It is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur'an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur'an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it.
7. The Fallacy Of Confusing Questions of Fact with Questions of Relevance: Whether something is factually true is totally different from the issue of whether you feel it is relevant. The two issues must be kept separate. Examples: #1 When a Christian argues that some of the beliefs and rituals of the Qur'an came from pre-Islamic Arab paganism, the Muslim will deny it at first. But as more and more evidence is given, the Muslim will often do a flip-flop and begin arguing, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?" The Muslim has now committed three fallacies:
a. The "So what!" argument is dealing with the issue of relevance, not fact. You must stop the Muslim at that point and ask him, "Since you are now dealing with the issue of whether the pagan origins of the Qur'an are relevant, does this mean that you are now agreeing to the fact of the pagan origins of Islam?" b. The Muslim has also committed the fallacy of equivocation. The Bible is not threatened by historical sources. It freely refers to them and even quotes them (Acts 17: 28). But the Qur'an denies that it has any earthly historical sources (Surah 25:4-6). c. He also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The Bible and the Qur'an are two totally different books. The inspiration of the Bible does not depend upon the fate of the Qur'an because what Muslims claim for the Qur'an is not what Christians claim for the Bible.
8. Phonic Fallacies: The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to twist its meaning. For example, a. Some Muslims try to prove that the word "Allah" is in the Greek New Testament because of the Greek word alla. But while the word is pronounced "alla," it only means "but" in Greek. It has nothing to do with the Arabic "Allah." b. Some Muslims have claimed that the word "Allah" is in the Bible because the Biblical word "Allelujah." They then mispronounce the word as "Allah-lujah!" But "Allelujah" is not a compound Arabic word with "Allah" being the first part of the word. It is a Hebrew word with the name of God being "JAH" (or Yahweh) and the verb "alle" meaning "praise to." It means "praise to Yahweh." The Arabic word "Allah" is not in the word. c. The same error is found in the Muslim argument that the word "Baca" (Psa. 84:6) really means "Mecca." The valley of Baca is in northern Israel. d. Some Muslims have tried to go from "Amen" to "Ahmed" to "Muhammed!" Such nonsense is beyond belief.
9. "Red Herring" Arguments: When a Muslim is asked to defend the Qur'an, if he turns around and attacks the reliability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Crusades, etc., he is introducing irrelevant issues that have no logical bearing on the truthfulness of Islam. He is trying to divert attention from Islam to other issues. Furthermore, he is assuming that if he can refute the Bible, then the Qur'an wins by default. If he can refute the Trinity, then Allah wins by default. But this is logically erroneous. You cannot prove your position by refuting someone else's position. The Bible and the Qur'an could both be wrong. Muslims must prove their own book.
10. Straw Man Arguments: When you put a false argument into the mouth of your opponent and then proceed to knock it down, you have only created a "straw man" argument. Muslims sometimes either misunderstand or deliberately misquote the arguments Christians give them. Example: Some Muslims have built a "straw man" argument that claims that we teach,
"The Qur'an teaches that Allah is the Moon-god and that Muslims knowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters."
They then knock down this "straw man" argument and claim victory. Of course, we never said such nonsense. What we have said is that while the Qur'an claims that Allah is God and Muslims think they are worshipping the one true God, in reality they are worshipping a false god preached by a false prophet according to a false book.
Conclusion
The average Muslim has been deceived by Muslim apologists who use such logical fallacies without regard to reason, fact or honesty. But there are many Muslims who want to be rational in their religion and thus have an open mind to rational discourse. Once they see that their arguments are based on logical fallacies, they will be open to the wonderful news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross.
Pastor Ramin Parsha joins Samuel Smadja to share his extraordinary life journey. Raised as a Shiite Muslim in Iran, Parsha endured torture and brutality in the name of Allah. Through divine grace, he broke free from this torment and embraced Jesus. Now residing in Israel with his Jewish wife, Parsha spreads the boundless love and forgiveness he found in Christianity, echoing Jesus' message of praying for our enemies to the world. Don't miss this episode of Hear O Israel from TBN Israel!
