Dr. Andrew Bostom

Uncreated, Uncreative Words

Dr. Andrew Bostom header image 1

Koranic Sanction for Beheading Infidels, i.e., Koran 8:12/47:4, Explained by Renowned Theologian S.A. Usmani (d. 1949)

October 5th, 2014 · Essays

The gruesome spate of IS/IL beheadings continues apace, “complemented” by Oklahoma Muslim convert Jah’Keem Yisrael’s (previously, Alton Alexander Nolen) brutal decapitation of his female co-worker, Colleen Hufford. Yisrael/Nolen’s Facebook page included a graphic beheading image, juxtaposed to the citation of Koran 8:12 (“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them”), which reads like a plausible Islamic motivation for the murderous action he took.

Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1886-1949) was a renowned theologian, writer, orator, and politician, with particular expertise in the study and interpretation of the Koran, and the traditions of Muhammad, or hadith. Usmani’s magnum opus was his Koranic commentary, Tafsir-e-Usmani, which drew upon some 14 prior commentaries. Usmani’s glosses on Koran Koran 8:12, and the same themes expanded upon at verse 47:4, in his respected commentary, far from rendering Colleen Hufford’s beheading by Yisrael/Nolen, or the IS/IL beheadings, senseless, “un-Islamic” acts of bigoted madmen—as relentlessly depicted by media pundits, and Muslim dissimulators alike—conveys with modern, chilling authority the Koranic rational for such behavior.

Regarding Koran 8:12, Usmani opines:

If the satans were encouraging the unbelievers in the person of men and were prepared to fight against the Muslims by insinuations and whisperings, they (the Muslim angels Jibraeel and Mikaeel) should confirm the hearts of the oppressed Muslims. On the one side they (Muslim angels) would encourage the Muslims, on the other side He (Allah) would cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. They (the Muslims) should smite the necks and cut the finger-joints of the unbelievers because the unbelievers united against Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad); so they should come to know what severe punishment was to be given to the opponents of Allah. The punishment which would be given Hereafter would be the real punishment but in the World too they should see a sample of that punishment and taste somewhat of the Divine Chastisement.

But it is Usmani’s gloss on Koran 47:4, a verse which reiterates these themes, where one can see mainstream, authoritative sanction for beheading infidels as an essential tactic to assure the ultimate success of Islam’s eternal jihad campaigns—cast as “severe but reforming operations”—to subjugate the world to an Islamic order.

The Truth and Falsehood are always at daggers with each other. So when there is a war between the Muslims and the unbelievers, the Muslims should perform with full strength, valor, and courage. The might of Falsehood can be smashed only when their haughty ring leaders are slain and their bands dispersed. Hence do not give way to indolence, cowardice, depression, wavering hesitation, indecision and delay in the commotion of engagement, and do not feel any fear in smiting the necks of Allah’s enemies. After wide slaughter and bloodshed when your terror prevails over them and their might is torn, at that time captivity also suffices…This imprisonment may possibly work as a lesson to them, and living in the company of the Muslims they may get the occasion of observing their and your condition and reflecting on the teachings of Islam, so happily they may adopt the path of truth and righteousness by degrees. Or if you see expedience you may set them free by grace without any ransom. At such behavior very probably many of them may be impressed by your beneficence and excellence of morality and get inclined to your and love your religion (i.e., Islam). You can also accomplish this by taking ransom money and setting them free, or you may release them in exchange for Muslim captives. There are many advantages in [these behaviors].

In brief, if you return these captives to their country, it can be done in only two ways: (1) Either set them free by grace without ransom; (2) Or set them free by exchange or compensation

The Imam (Head of the state) can adopt one of the two, according to discretion and preference…But if it is not expedient to return those prisoners of war to their country then there are three options: (1) To allow them to live like dhimmis (subjects of the second order; [i.e., humiliated, non-citizen pariahs subjected to all the legal and religious discriminations, and physical insecurities of the Sharia]); (2) To make them slaves; (3) To slay them

Slaying the prisoner of war is allowed in the Traditions [of Muhammad] in particular conditions, when that prisoner of war has committed such a serious crime that its punishment could not be less than slaying. Of course there is no hindrance in keeping them as slaves.

Warring and smiting, arresting and imprisoning shall go on incessantly till the war lays down its weapons (loads) and the battle has ceased.

Allah has power to annihilate the unbelievers without a war from the side of the Muslims, by some heavenly chastisement…[B]ut He [Allah] desired to examine His servants by institutionalizing Jihad and slaying, to see how many Muslims are prepared to sacrifice their wealth and life in the Name of Allah, and to see how many souls among the unbelievers wake up by these severe but reforming operations, and they may avail themselves of the respite, given by Allah, that like past nations He does not seize them and exterminate them all of a sudden.

Some 13 centuries earlier, Islam’s prophet, and founder of the Muslim creed, Muhammad, encapsulated this “triumphant” formula, succinctly, as recorded in a canonical hadith (Sahih Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220):

I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)

All Articles Copyright © 2007-2014 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Comments OffTags:

West: See-No-Islam Basis of 13 Yrs Nation-Building Failure in Iraq & Afghanistan Under Sorry Banner of COIN

September 29th, 2014 · Essays

My friend and colleague, Diana West, just gave the following address earlier today (~ 2 PM, Monday, 9/29/14) at The National Security II Conference sponsored by The Center For Security Policy.

The extracted video of her comments are embedded below, followed by the text she prepared, and kindly shared with me.


For anyone still puzzled as how it could be that our leaders and pundits keep hammering home the big lie that Islam has nothing to do with jihad, that the religion of conquest is a “religion of peace,” it’s important to know that such widespread brainwashing is nothing new.

Just as today’s opinion-makers seek to divorce Islam from its impact — brutal conquest, forced conversion, religiously sanctioned sex slavery, beheadings — past opinion-makers worked equally hard to divorce communism from its impact — brutal conquest, forced collectivization, concentration camps (Gulags), mass murder.

It worked. Unlike Nazism, communism has never been judged guilty or even held responsible for the carnage and suffering it has caused. On the contrary, it remains a source of “liberal” statist ideas such as Obamacare. My recent book “American Betrayal”delves deeply into this dangerous double standard. In short, this double standard not only enables collectivist policies to strangle our remnant republic, but also explains why American students can find a drink called Leninade, emblazoned with a hammer and sickle, for sale up the road at University of Maryland. It’s also why silkscreens of Warhol’s Chairman Mao, history’s top mass murderer, are sought-after items for the homes of the wealthy.

There are no such trendy portraits of Hitler, and who would want them? Who would want to swig a bottle of Hitlerpop, decorated with a swastika? So, why Leninade? Not only does the stench of death not follow the Communist murder-cult, the brand lives.

Barring a tsunami of common sense, I predict that Islam, the brand, will remain separate in the public mind from the violence and repression it causes and has caused for more than a millennium. That’s certainly the direction leaders from both political parties have been relentlessly herding us in for over a decade, insisting against all reason — against all sacred Islamic texts — that “Islam is peace.”

Thus, while contending with this cycle of expansionist jihad — a recurrence that should be familiar from Islamic history were it, too, not subject to whitewash — we must simultaneously withstand a campaign of lies designed to subvert our understanding of how Islam, in fact, has everything to do with beheadings and other violence both in the Islamic world and now in the West – and, why more than a decade of “nation-building” “counterinsurgencies” in Afghanistan and Iraq were doomed from the start.

And yes, such whitewashing has happened before. Seventy years ago, Americans and British and other allies fought against a cruel Nazi totalitarian dictatorship in alliance with an equally cruel Communist totalitarian dictatorship. As far as body counts go, our great Soviet ally had already piled up more bodies than Hitler would. To sell this to We, the people, Americans were introduced to “Uncle Joe” Stalin. We were told that Communism had changed; that Moscow wanted only secure borders. We were told, you might say, “Communism is peace.” Anti-communist books went of style; investigations into Communist penetration went into mothballs. At the end of WWWII, yes, Hitler’s 12-year Reich was destroyed, but Stalin’s evil empire had engorged fully half of Europe. Communism-is-peace-brainwashed people were stunned. But Americans were told they had won the “good war” for liberty over tyranny, and we have celebrated ever since.

Whitewashing follows whitewashing, so, also obscured was the transformation Communism wrought here at home, where agents of influence, fellow travelers, and dupes worked to advance Moscow’s will just as Soviet tanks (and agents, too) imposed it abroad. The conventional wisdom, however, remains suspended in the amber of the “Red Scare,” the 1950s period during which anti-Communist “witch-hunters” searched for “Reds under the bed” — all allegedly in vain. Never mind that many hundreds of confirmed American traitors, loyal to the Kremlin, had infiltrated the federal government and other institutions in previous decades. The important thing, says the conventional wisdom to this day, is not to connect the dots and examine whether these proxies for Stalin influenced the “American Century.”

But the facts indicate they did. Just to mention examples rarely taught in school, agents of Stalin’s influence inside the Roosevelt administration helped subvert and topple such anti-Communist leaders in Europe as Draza Mihailovic in the Balkans, and the free Polish government in exile, clearing the way for Communist regimes. They helped destroy the anti-Communist leader Chiang Kai-shek in China, thus aiding the rise of Mao – who, a la “Uncle Joe,” was presented to the American public as an “agrarian reformer.” Mao would kill at least 60 million people and set in motion events that would draw Americans into two disastrous wars in Korea and Vietnam, killings tens of thousands of young American men.

I could go on, about how at the end of World War II, Soviet plans for Germany and slave labor reparations were put over, how the UN was fostered by a Soviet agent named Alger Hiss, how the IMF was fostered by another Soviet agent name Harry Dexter White. Much of this still-hidden history at least makes it clear why our traditions are today a shambles, where cultural relativism comes from, why it’s unlikely Congress will ever repeal Obamacare, why our college campuses are outposts of Marx. Society, however, seems to prefer silence. It prefers to burnish the gilded reputation of Franklin Roosevelt, for example, rather than reckon with the fact he presided over the biggest national security disaster in U.S. history — the massive infiltration of the U.S. government by agents of a foreign power.

And today? Islam’s prophet Mohammed is exempt from criticism – a key point of Islamic law — just as Joseph Stalin used to be – a rule of the Communist police state. Islam’s history of repression, too, is off limits to strategic planners just as Communism’s once was as well. “Mustn’t offend the Russians,” went the WWII-era mantra against “red-baiting.” “Mustn’t offend Muslims” is the mantra against “Islamophobia” today. In this way, these belief systems, both hostile to our constitutional liberties, remain protected by silence.

This silence has already cost thousands of American lives in our time.

It started right after 9/11, as soon as President Bush declared Islam was a religion of peace, officially delinking Islam from specifically Islamic jihad. Official policy to this day absolves Islam of jihad, and, most recently, absolves Islam of the jihadists known as the Islamic State.

This see-no-Islam policy has also been deeply flawed basis of 13 years of nation-building failure in Iraq and Afghanistan under the sorry banner of couninteriinsugency, or COIN, doctrine. Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor sums the problem up this way: “The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people. The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.”

I maintain It would have been widely seen as utter nonsense had Islam and its law, Islam and jihad, Islam and dhimmitude, been under open consideration rather than tightly under wraps. Instead, the last two presidents sent Americans to die for nations whose constitutions, written with American support, enshrine sharia – Islamic law.

And what does that mean? Quite simply, sharia outlaws the liberties we in the West hold sacred: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal rights before the law, and more.

Such prohibitions themselves are sacred to Islam. Indeed, Islamic “liberty,” or “hurriyya,” couldn’t be more different from our own. It is defined by a slavish devotion to sharia. This tells us — or should have – that infidel armies, infidel governments, were never going to win “hearts and minds,” or “trust,” of Islamic peoples – the linchpin of the COIN theory — no matter how much our people bribed, bled or died.

This deduction is confirmed by the most recent polling data compiled by Pew. These data tell us that 91 percent of Iraqis believe sharia should be “the law of the land.” That percentage is exceeded by only one country: Afghanistan, where fully 99 percent agree sharia should be “the law of the land.”

What does a US lawmaker, a COIN strategist, do with data like this? If that lawmaker, that strategist wants to be a mover and shaker in Washington, DC, he forgets about them. Whatever he does, he doesn’t connect any dots. History shows our leaders rarely do. And somehow, they still end up on pedestals.

All Articles Copyright © 2007-2014 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Comments OffTags:

Like OK Beheader, Mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America Condones Stoning Adulterers, and Sharia Supremacism

September 27th, 2014 · Essays

Oklahoma beheading suspect, and Muslim convert Alton Nolen, aka “Jah’Keem Yisrael,” per a local newspaper account in the McCurtain Gazette (reproduced by Caleb Howe of Truth Revolt),

…was telling coworkers Thursday (9/25/14) of an Islamic teaching that said women should be stoned for an offense, and that an argument followed the remark. Nolen was later fired and returned later Thursday, when he beheaded Colleen Hufford.

The Islamic law, i.e., Sharia-based “offense,” and its requisite punishment by stoning to death, which Jah’Keem Yisrael alluded to Thursday, was certainly adultery.

Reuters reported today, Saturday 9/27/14, from Somalia, a graphic, real time illustration of this living, sacralized Islamic barbarity. The stoning to death yesterday (Friday 9/26/14), of a 33 year-old Somali, as described by Reuters, comported with the Sharia-complaint worldview of the Oklahoma beheading suspect Nolen/ Jah’Keem Yisrael:

Hundreds gathered to watch the killing of Safia Ahmed Jimale in an open field. The 33-year old mother was buried up to her shoulders and pelted with stones by masked al Shabaab fighters and local men…The killing was witnessed by the al Shabaab governor for the region. Her body was then dug out of the ground and carried away for funeral prayers, said resident Ahmed Abdullahi, who was in the crowd. A man who presented himself as an al Shabaab judge said Jimale had confessed to having three husbands. He said the three men were not aware they were married to the same woman and had testified against her.

The Hedayah (translated by Charles Hamilton) of classical jurist Sheikh Burhanuddin Ali (1135-1183), is one of the most important Sunni texts of Islamic Law used throughout the Indian subcontinent to this day. An extract from pp. 178-79 of this authoritative text demonstrates the traditionalist Sharia rationale for the draconian punishment of stoning adulterers:

A married person convicted of whoredom is to be stoned—When a person is fully convicted of whoredom; if he be married, let him undergo the punishment of Rajim, that is, lapidation, or stoning to death, because the Prophet condemned Maaz to be thus stoned to death, who was married; and he has also declared, It is unlawful to spill the blood of a Muslim, excepting only for three causes, namely apostasy, whoredom after marriage, and murder”—and in this all the companions likewise unite….Mode of executing lapidation.—“It is necessary, when a whoremonger is to be stoned to death, that he should be carried to some barren place, void of houses or cultivation; and it is requisite that the stoning be executed—first by witnesses, and after them by the Imam or Qadi, and after those the rest of the by-standers, because it is so recorded from Ali…An unmarried free person is to be scourged with one hundred stripes—If the person convicted of whoredom be free, but unmarried, the punishment with respect to him is one hundred stripes, according to what is said in the Koran [Koran 24:2], “The whore and the whoremonger shall ye scourge with one hundred stripes;”—for although this text is cancelled with respect to all other than those who are married (NOTE: i.e., married persons are stoned to death] the law must be executed in conformity to it.…The punishment of whoredom is the same with respect to both sexes, as all the texts which occur in the sacred writings upon this subject extend equally to both…”

Contemporary validation of the ongoing Sharia mandate to stone adulterers to death was provided March 31, 2005, via “question and answer” format at Islam Online (now On Islam), didactic website of the esteemed cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, whose regular Al-Jazeera program on Sharia is wildly popular, and in whose name the government of Qatar recently created the Al-Qaradawi Centre for Islamic Moderation.

Under the heading, “Stoning: Does It Have Any Basis in Shari`ah?,” the following exchange was posted:

Question: “Dear scholars, as-Salamu `alaykum. I have heard that the punishment specified for the person who commits adultery is 80 lashes. I would like to ask, from where did you get the punishment of stoning to death. Moreover, if you say that it is based on the Sunnah, I can say that how to depend on Sunnah in this regard. Isn’t it a fact that the Qur’an is the source of legislation for all Muslims? Jazakum Allah khayran.”

Answer: “Coming to the issue of stoning to death as a punishment for married adulterer and adulteress, the statement that there is no verse stipulating that punishment is not correct. It is to be made crystal clear that the punishment is explicitly sanctioned by both the Qur’an and the Prophetic Tradition.” “…we would like to note that there are many incidents in the Sunnah and the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in which the Prophet stoned the married adulterer and adulteress to death. This happened in the case of Ma`iz and the Ghamidi woman. All this makes it clear that the punishment is proven and authentic and is not debatable.”

In the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, we read the following:

Ibn Qudamah wrote: “Muslim jurists are unanimous on the fact stoning to death is a specified punishment for married adulterer and adulteress. The punishment is recorded in number of traditions and the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stands as an authentic source supporting it. This is the view held by all Companions, Successors and other Muslim scholars with the exception of Kharijites.”

Al-Bahuty said: “The authentic practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) supports stoning to death as a punishment specified for adultery. In addition, the verse commanding this punishment was revealed in the Qur’an. Later, it was verbally abrogated but its ruling is still binding. `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Almighty Allah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with the truth and revealed unto Him the Qur’an. Among the revelation (brought by him) was the verse stipulating that married adulterer and adulteress should be stoned to death. We read, comprehended and understood it. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) acted in accordance with that and so did all of us. I fear, by the passage of time, that some people will say: ‘We do not find this verse in the Qur’an’, and thus they go astray abandoning an obligation given to them by Allah. Stoning to death is a Divine obligation and punishment specified for any married adulterer or adulteress once there is four witnesses or the confession of the accused.”

In another narration, `Umar added: “By the One in Whose hands is my soul, had it not been that people would say: ‘`Umar added to the Book of Allah, I would have reinserted it. It (the verse) read: “A married man and woman, if they commit adultery, stone them to death. This is a punishment from Allah. Allah is Almighty and Wise.”

Finally, we would like to note that there are many incidents in the Sunnah and the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in which the Prophet stoned the married adulterer and adulteress to death. This happened in the case of Ma`iz and the Ghamidi woman. All this makes it clear that the punishment is proven and authentic and is not debatable.

A concluding—and very chilling—example validating the application of stoning to death for adultery, perhaps most relevant to Nolen/ Jah’Keem Yisrael’s Islamic views, has an active American source: the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA). The mission statement  of AMJA maintains the organization was,

…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities…

With regard to the Sharia, specifically, AMJA’s stated purpose is to “clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America.” AMJA is well-accepted by the mainstream American Muslim community.  The Islamic scholars affiliated with this group maintain influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. Notwithstanding this mainstream acceptance, including uncritical endorsement of its annual American conferences to train American imams, AMJA openly sanctions the stoning to death of adulterers, albeit with the “caveat” that the adultery involves intercourse.

AMJA has also issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here), “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”; here), and condone marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr. Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:

The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.

It is also of grave concern that AMJA, as an American organization, offers only grudging and conditional support to the fundamental notions of acquiring citizenship in, and swearing allegiance to, the U.S. and our Sharia-antithetical governing legal system. Responding to the query: “Is acquiring an American citizenship lawful or prohibited?” AMJA issued fatwa #77223:

As for optionally obtaining citizenship of a non-Muslim country it is definitely prohibited without a doubt, moreover it could be a form of apostasy or main means leading to apostasy because willingly accepting the laws of disbelievers and obeying it without any valid excuse or enforcement, or ignorance is considered a nullifier to Tawheed and Islam, as long as the proof has been established upon this person and the matter and its consequences are as I clarified. As for obtaining citizenships in light of circumstances of Muslims today who are residing outside the lands of Islam — on the condition that they do not accept indefinitely the law and legislation of that country and being indefinite belonging to the nation of the non-Muslim country so that they become loyal to all their allies and an enemy to all their enemies — and obtaining the citizenship is considered a required means in order to organize the affairs of Muslims who already live there while ensuring fulfilling vows and agreements between them and host countries, and exists due to urgent necessities and needs and this Muslim kept his loyalty to Allaah and His Messenger, then it would not be farfetched to say that it would be permissible.

Moreover, what one might wish to deem as circumscribed, “purely Islamic” rulings, fit within a larger disturbing—and entirely unacceptable—seditious context. AMJA’s own words make plain the organization’s long term commitment to superseding the US legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.

Nolen/ Jah’Keem Yisrael’s Facebook page stated this shared Islamic “vision” more bluntly:

Sharia Law is Coming!

All Articles Copyright © 2007-2014 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Comments OffTags: