07 February 2006
ISLAM TAKING OVER CALIFORNIA:California Schools Proselytize for Allah
If your child is unfortunate enough to study in California, he or she will be taught Islam is a fountain of modernity, liberty, and feminism. More importantly, he will be taught every aspect of the Islamic faith is historically accurate (OUR KIDS WILL BE LOOKING LIKE THIS SOON)
The Houghton-Mifflin textbook, currently in use in many schools, lists one Shabbir Mansuri, Founding Director of Council on Islamic Education, as its consultant. Mansuri is a businessman with a degree in chemical engineering, and not an academic. That did not prevent the California State Board of Education (SBE) from inviting Mansuri to a closed-door meeting, apparently to advise the board on Hindu edits, on January 6, 2006.
Revelation as history
The textbook presents Islamic beliefs as verifiable history. A paragraph, introducing the origins of the Quran, begins innocuously, “The first verses of the Quran, believed by Muslims to be the written record of God’s words,” and makes the subtle shift to add, “were revealed to him at that time.” From there on, the textbook abandons any pretense of objectivity and begins indoctrination:
Then, in the cave, something more far-reaching happened. A being he [Prophet Muhammad] later identified as the angel Gabriel, or Jibril [juhBREEL] in Arabic, came to him, telling him to read, or recite. Trembling, Muhammad responded that he didn’t know how to read or what to read. [p. 58]
As the text progresses, the authors are absolutely convinced that revelations to Muhammad were indeed historical events: “Muhammad’s revelations occurred from 610 until his death in 632.” [p. 61]
For the followers of Islam, the Quran completes the earlier revelations of Old Testament prophets and Jesus. The Quran is the final revelation, just as Muhammad is the final prophet…But Muslims considered these other religions [Christianity and Judaism] to be less correct. That is because the Quran teaches that the Bible has suffered loss and change with time. [p. 62]
California children will now grow up assured that revelations are a historically verifiable phenomenon – and other faiths (perhaps those of their families for generations) are inferior.
Holy Muhammad
Textbook authors portray Prophet Muhammad as a righteous and just man and demonize those who refused to follow the diktats of Muhammad – even if these people may never have existed:
Failing to convince Muhammad and his followers to give up their beliefs, the Quraysh leaders refused to trade with them, causing the Muslims great suffering…Quraysh leaders plotted to kill Muhammad. [p. 59]
The basis for this “fact” is a 16th century Islamic hagiographic text written by chronicler, Ibn al Dayba`, who accuses the Quraysh of treachery after admitting that the Quraysh feared violence at the hands of Muslims. [Motzki, Harald: The Biography of Muhammad – the Issue of the Sources, p. 163]. Textbook writers did not bother to ascertain facts when they decided to demonize the Quraysh, solely based on this dubious claim.
The demonizing of the Quraysh is contrasted with the complete sanitizing of Muhammad’s conduct, after he seized Mecca in 630 A.D.:
One of the first things Muhammad did was to forgive all those who had opposed Muslims for long. He also removed the idols from the Kabah. [p. 60]
Muhammad “forgave” these less powerful people by invading their shrines and desecrating their idols. Likewise, a proposed textbook from Prentice-Hall depicts Muhammad as a virtuous man who militated against “depraved” pre-Islamic society:
But he [Muhammad] was critical of Meccan society. All around him, he saw greed, corruption and violence. Arab traditions of honor and duty were being ignored. [p. 69]
Historical facts about how Muhammad and his party raided caravans and butchered defenseless people are now interpreted as the struggle of a righteous man against the knave.
Whitewashing Terrorism
The textbook also apologizes for the violent Muslim terrorism of jihad:
An Islamic term that is often misunderstood is jihad [jeeHUHD]. It means “to struggle,” to do one’s best to resist temptation and overcome evil. [p. 64]
Having disingenuously defined jihad, the textbook continues with the sleight of hand:
The Quran and Sunna allow self-defense and participation in military conflict, but restrict it to the right to defend against aggression and persecution, Jihad, for example, was first carried out against the Meccans who had forbidden Muslims to practice or preach their religion.
In the early periods of Islamic conquest, Muslim forces gave others 24 hours to choose between Islam and death. California students now learn that Muhammad’s demolishing the idols of Kaba after terrorizing his opponents was as much “self-defense” as “forgiveness.”
Islam, the tolerant religion
In the Orwellian world of California textbooks, destroying idols is self-defense, and forced marriage and conversion are tolerance:
While Islam forbade forced religious observance in the 600s, most rulers in the world at the time decided what religion their subjects would follow and persecuted those who refused. [p. 64]
Muhammad attacked the Jewish settlement of Khaybar, looted its wealth, massacred most of its men, and took as his “wife” [read: sex slave] the beautiful 17-year-old Safiyyah b. Huyayy, who had been wed for merely a month when Muhammad massacred her husband and father in cold blood. [Lings, M.: Muhammad, His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, p. 268] What does one make of the Quranic injunction urging Muslims to slay the pagans [9:5]?
The Prentice-Hall textbook has similar things to say about the spread of Islam:
Another factor helping Arabs was their tolerance for other religions. The Arabs generally allowed people to practice their own customs and beliefs. Before capturing Damascus, the Arab general Khalid ibn al-Walid made the following promise:
“This is what Khalid would grant the inhabitants of Damascus if he enters therein: he promises to give them security for their lives, property, and churches. Their city wall shall not be demolished, neither shall any Muslim be quartered in their houses. Thereunto we give them the pact of Allah and the protection of His Prophet. So long as they pay the poll tax, nothing but good shall befall them.” [p. 79]
Islam spread by imposing the debilitating poll tax, or jizya, on those who refused to convert to Islam under duress. They were reduced to dhimmitude, and in places like India, Syria, and Egypt, subject to terrible humiliations. They were nearly as “tolerant” as the Taliban.
Islam for progressive women
Islam did not just grant rights to infidels; it was also a forerunner of Gloria Steinem:
In contrast to some other societies of the time, Muslim women were also given clear rights in marriage and the right to an education. They had the right to control the earnings from their work, to make contracts, and to serve as witnesses in court. [p. 64]
Marital rights for Muslim women came with a few insignificant caveats:
If the wives of Muhammad do not “behave” themselves, Allah will replace them with others [66:5]. You cannot possess a woman against her will, except when she is “guilty” of lewdness [4:19]. Since, Islam ordains a woman to be veiled [24:31, 33:59], she should have been prone to be charged with “lewdness” as often as a man wishes. It does not appear that the lovely maidens with wide eyes and fair complexion who dwell in the Islamic heaven enjoy any marital rights, as Allah has reserved them [44:54] for the fidayeen, who are on the Islamic heaven-bound cargo, post-mortem, after crashing a 747 into some infidel’s skyscraper. Of course, while a woman is married, she is a tilth unto her husband, who can go to her as he wills [2:223].
So what if the textbook does not reveal that a woman “enjoys” half the property rights as a man [4:176], or that a woman’s worth is half of a man’s [2:282]? These are minor compromises one needs to make to transform Islam into a feminist religion for progressive women.
And Californian school children.
POSTED BYBy Kalavai Venkat
FrontPageMagazine.com
08:56 Posted in UNITED STATES | Permalink | Comments (16) | 
Facebook |
Comments
Now use your money wisely.
I see " LOTS OF CHRISTIAN DOLLARS SPENT ON CONVERTING PEACEFUL TRIBAL PEOPLE A, HINDUS, BUDDHISTS, IN ASIA, SOUTH AMERICA, AFRICA TO CHRISTIANITY.
PLEASE CONCENTRATE ON CONVERTING MUSLIMS EVERYWHERE. THIS IS THE BEST BET FOR YOUR MONEY AND EARTH'S FUTURE. "
Posted by: MLKSHEIKH | 07 February 2006
There are lots of christian organization spreading Gospel all over the world. Sadly, there's a part of the world, called 10/40 window, in which teaching about Jesus is perilious and is often being fought by local governments/religious leaders.
Almost all of 10/40 window area is populated by followers of Muhammad. Remember that in Islam conversion to other religion equals apostasy, and for apostasy there's a capital punishment in shari'a law. In many muslim countries (f.e. Saudi Arabia) even possesion of Bible or cross is forbidden. For more information read this:
http://1040window.org/
Posted by: Slavomir | 08 February 2006
Salam alaykum(Peace be upon you), my name is Simon and im from Sydney i am an embryologist and have been for the past 9 years since i came across Ahmed Deedat who is Muslim(Someone who submitts to the will of GOD) scholar of the Bible, since watching a few of his debates i got really interested in Islam(Submission to the will of GOD) and kept looking into it...after three years of study i was scared everyday more and more as i realised that Islam is a true religion of GOD...Honestly i hated Muslims and Islam with all of my heart and at some stage i remeber saying that i would rather die than become a Muslim...but GOD guided me to the truth and made my life so much more...I was a practicing Catholic before i reverted(every human being is borne in this state but some are misguided because a lack of knowledge) to Islam, my wife, mother,father,sister and Inshallah(By the will of the creator) my brother will soon as well who is in England...I can admit that i used to hate muslims so much but i had the most biggest misconceptions about the, i would definatelly recommend for everyone to look into this faith and the last messenger from an Islamic point of view, get yourself a copy of the Quran(Last scripture which is still intact sent from GOD) and read with uunderstanding and if you are a Christian go straight to the chapter called Maryam(Mary)...wat is a month or more worth of looking into the religion and reading...you have nothing to lose...
Posted by: Simon McCartney | 13 February 2006
Religion is the root of all evil!
Posted by: Eddie Johnson | 14 February 2006
no Eddie or whoever you are only ISLAM nice try
Posted by: zak | 15 February 2006
I agree with Eddie... look at Simon's response, the only reason he was subdued into Islam is because of religious belief... all relgious belief is ridiculous. It just so happens that Islam takes it to the next level.. it practices devious mind control tactics, guilt tactics and other such crap.
Then we get into the violent aspects of the religion, or the fact that _ALL ART_ is forbidden within the religion. Suppression... control... submission.
Praise allah indeed!
But, we non-religious and non-muslim have alot to lose in the coming years as the scourge of Islam spreads across the globe.
Mohammed (May Piss Be Upon Him!)
Posted by: freek | 15 February 2006
Compare Christianity with Islam:
Christians have freedom; Islamics have entrapment (they can be killed if they leave Islam).
Christians preach love; Islamics preach hatred, terrorism and suicide killing of innocents
Christians have peace with God; Islamic's demonic god tells them to fight and kill
Christian nations are wealthy and blessed by God; Islamic countries are barren and poverty stricken.
Christians show tolerance of others; Islamics show intolerance.
Christian countries allow God's Word; Islamic countries ban God's Word
Christian countries accept Islamic refugees and help them; Islamic countries imprison and persecute Christians.
Christian countries have prosperous democracies; Islamic countries have tyranical persecuting religious regimes.
Question: If open Christian countries help Islamic refugees to such an extent that the Christian countries population of Islamics grows to exceed the number of Christians and then by using their new democratic rights, the Islamics outvote the Christians to convert everything to Islam and persecute and kill their Christian helpers (now in the minority) is this a not-so-subtle way for Islamic countries to "conquer" Christian countries and thereby achieve their stated aim of bringing the whole world into submission to satanic Islam as proof that the only prophecy that their false prophet Mahommed ever made and that has never yet come true will they hope come true (that is Islam will take over the whole world) and thus finally prove that Mahommed was really a prophet without which proof their religion falls apart as a sham based upon lies and deceptions that have been the work of the Devil to lead them away from the simple truth of the Gospel and the free offer of salvation in Jesus and eternity in heaven?
Posted by: God Is Love | 16 February 2006
How many have been oppressed or killed by "Christians"?
Posted by: Eddie Johnson | 16 February 2006
I don't know how many have been killed by "Christians" but none have been killed by Christians. As Jesus said You'll know them by their actions for Jesus told His followers to love and not hate, heal and not hurt. In contrast the false prophet told his followers to kill the "infidels". The "Christians" are those who say that they are Christians but their deeds prove them to be otherwise. The path is wide and many take it on the way that leads to eternal destruction but few indeed take the narrow path the Way of the Lord that takes you to eternal life.
Posted by: God Is Love | 16 February 2006
Appears to me, you are all full of hate, and/or hatred for the other.
Posted by: Eddie Johnson | 16 February 2006
God is Love you make a distinction between "Christians" and Christians. Is there a distinction between "Muslims" and Muslims? Just curious.
Posted by: Arthur Anderson | 17 February 2006
Distinction is made because Jesus preached:
-Love thy God and thy Neighbour (the first and the great commandment)
-Love thy enemies, bless them, pray for them
-Do not resist(oppose) evil-doers
-Leave avange on evil-doers for thy God on Judgement day
So everyone who claims that he/she is a christian and DO NOT do what's above is a liar. As "God is Love" said - you will know them by their deeds.
Contrary to Jesus theaching, Mohammed preached:
-submit to your "god" (be slave to him, no close relation, no love, god doesn't need you and doesn't love you - he's dreadful and cruel)
-respect only brothers from umma (muslims)
-fight, persecute, kill indifiels (gentiles, Jews, Christians)
-make the will of "god" by hands of the faithfull (jihad, terror, war, jizza tax, lie to indifiels (al-Taqyyia)and in the end - subimt all earth to the will of allah-satan by force and deception)
So if a "christian" persecutes, kills, fights and so on, he/she is only a liar, he/she never knew Jesus, he/she IS NOT annoited by the Holy Spirit.
Muslims may (or should i say must?) kill, persecute, fight, oppress and they stay sound with their doctrine of hate and submision.
Posted by: Slavomir_Poland | 18 February 2006
The photographs showing churches and Christians under attack really drive home the message. But, don't you think it is also proper to look for some pictures from Iraq, especially from Abu Gharib prison, Falluja, and Basra. Then you can illustrate how the Christians "save" Muslims in those cities. Maybe, some of the Bosnian pixtures will also be good. Then, there is Israel where the Jewish soldiers serving Palestinians will also have a nice impact!
Posted by: The observer | 20 February 2006
for observer
falluja and abu gharib its country agnist anther country but here we are talking about muslim belive that make the muslim in anywhere in the whole world hate and wants kill you for just been not muslim
Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123) cow http://mychristianblood.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/02/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-peace.html#more
read it than we talk
Posted by: zak | 21 February 2006
If you want to fight back join us.
Keep up the good work!!
http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org
Posted by: chris | 25 February 2006
Observor,
We were fighting for Iraqi freedom in Falluega,this is what Muslims do in every Islamic countr.All is not equal.
Dont believe anything Muslims say.
Print This Article
Lying in Islam
By Abdullah Al Araby
Like most religions, Islam in general, forbids lying. The Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28. In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, "Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell."
However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: "Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."
In exploring this puzzling duplicity within Islam, we will examine first some examples from recent and ancient Islamic history. These examples demonstrate that lying is a common policy amongst Islamic clerics and statesmen.
In June of 1967 Egypt was defeated by Israel and lost the Sinai Peninsula during the "Six Day War." Subsequently, Egypt's primary focus became to regain the lost territory. President Nasser, and then, President Sadat, adopted the motto: "No voice should rise over the voice of The Battle." The soldiers that had been drafted in 1967 were kept in service and remained on high alert in the expectation that at any day "the battle" would ensue. Nonetheless, years pasted and Egypt's people became disgruntle with the political hype and the "no peace, and no war" status. In 1972 Sadat proclaimed with finality that it was to be the year for the long anticipated battle. Throughout the year he swore, "I swear to you by my honor that this year will not pass by, before we launch The Battle." People believed him because he was staking his reputation and honor through an oath. To everyone's amazement the year passed without a single shot being fired. As a result many, inside and outside Egypt, began to dismiss him as a "hot air bluff". This opinion was confirmed in the following year of 1973. He made no further mention of his oath about the battle. Many of the draftees were released and numerous officers were given vacation furloughs. Then without warning, in October of 1973, he launched the attack and what was known as the Yom Kippur war began.
As a military commander, Sadat was expected to use the element of surprise to trick the enemy. As a devout Muslim, Sadat was not the least bit concerned about his un-kept oath. He understood that the history and teachings of Islam would exempt him from spiritual accountability if he used lies as a foundation for a strategic military maneuver.
This point is proven by many incidences in the life of Mohammed. He often lied and instructed his followers to do the same. He rationalized that the prospect of success in missions to extend Islam's influence overrode Allah's initial prohibitions against lying. A good example of sanctioned lying is the account of the assassination of Kaab Ibn al-Ashrf, a member of the Jewish tribe, Banu al-Nudair. It had been reported that Kaab had shown support for the Quraishites in their battle against Mohammed. This was compounded by another report that infuriated Mohammed. It was alleged that Kaab had recited amorous poetry to Muslim women. Mohammed asked for volunteers to rid him of Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf. As Mohammed put it, Kaab had "Harmed Allah and His Apostle." At that time Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf, and his tribe were strong, so it was not easy for a stranger to infiltrate and execute the task. A Muslim man by the name of Ibn Muslima, volunteered for the murderous project on the condition that Mohammed would allow him to lie. With Mohammed's consent, Ibn Muslima, went to Kaab and told him fabricated stories that reflected discontent about Mohammed's leadership. When he had gained Kaab's trust he lured him away from his house one night and murdered him in a remote area under the cover of darkness.
A similar example can be found in the story of killing Shaaban Ibn Khalid al-Hazly. It was rumored that Shaaban was gathering an army to wage war on Mohammed. Mohammed retaliated by ordering Abdullah Ibn Anis to kill Shaaban. Again, the would-be killer asked the prophet's permission to lie. Mohammed agreed and then ordered the killer to lie by stating that he was a member of the Khazaa clan. When Shaaban saw Abdullah coming, he asked him, "From what tribe are you?" Abdullah answered, "From Khazaa." He then added, "I have heard that you are gathering an army to fight Mohammed and I came to join you." Abdullah started walking with Shaaban telling him how Mohammed came to them with the heretical teachings of Islam, and complained how Mohammed badmouthed the Arab patriarchs and ruined the Arab's hopes. They continued in conversation until they arrived at Shaaban's tent. Shaaban's companions departed and Shaaban invited Abdullah to come inside and rest. Abdullah sat there until the atmosphere was quiet and he sensed that everyone was asleep. Abdullah severed Shaaban's head and carried it to Mohammed as a trophy. When Mohammed sighted Abdullah, he jubilantly shouted, "Your face has been triumphant (Aflaha al- wajho)." Abdullah returned the greeting by saying, "It is your face, Apostle of Allah, who has been triumphant. (Aflaha wajhoka, ye rasoul Allah)."
Provisions for lying in Islam
Most Muslims are familiar with the principles of Islam that will justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Among these are:
War is deception.
The necessities justify the forbidden.
If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two.
These principles are derived from passages found in the Quran and the Hadith.
In the Quran, Allah, allegedly, says:
" Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." Surah 5:89
"Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225
"Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." Surah 16: 106
The noted Islamic commentator, Al-Tabary explained Surah 16:106 as a verse that had been revealed to Mohammed after he learned that Ammar Ibn Yasser was forced to deny his faith in Mohammed when kidnapped by the Banu Moghera tribe. Mohammed consoled Ammar by telling him, "If they turned, you turn." (Meaning: if they again capture you, you are allowed to deny me again.)
These and similar passages from the Quran clearly reveal that Muslims' unintentional lies are forgivable and that even their intentional lies can be absolved by performing extra duties. It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims can lie while under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts.
In the Hadith, Mohammed, emphasizes the same concept.
From "Ehiaa Oloum al-Din," by the famous Islamic scholar al-Ghazali, Vol. 3: PP.284-287:
One of Mohammed's daughters, Umm Kalthoum, testified that she had never heard the Apostle of Allah condone lying, except in these three situations:
For reconciliation among people.
In war.
Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.
One passage from the Hadith quotes Mohammed as saying: "The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies except those uttered to help bring reconciliation between Muslims."
Another says, "Aba Kahl, reconcile among people."(Meaning: even through lying.)
The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the prophet permitted lying. "The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies with these exceptions: During war because war is deception, to reconcile among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife."
The principle of Al-Takeyya
The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:
"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28
According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.
Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:
Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
Renounce belief in Allah.
Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
Utter insincere oaths.
The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya
Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.
The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam's image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.
An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed's ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers
In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts.
Posted by: chris | 25 February 2006
The comments are closed.