Twelve Tactics of Taqiyya

From the inimitable Trencherbone, here is a list of twelve taqiyya tactics used by orthodox Muslims with great success against their enemies in Western democracies. Below is an edited version of Trencherbone's article. Unfortunately, his original article and his blog have been taken down.

Allah is "the best of deceivers" (Quran 3.54), and since the prime directive is to spread Islam by any means whatsoever, it should not be surprising that deceiving unbelievers is acceptable behavior if carried out for the benefit of Islam.

This "sacred deception" is known as taqiyya. It can take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnations of terrorist attacks to the non-Muslims while celebrating the attacks with fellow Muslims.

Here are some of the ploys, arguments, logical fallacies and diversionary tactics used by taqiyya tacticians:

1. Taqiyya about taqiyya. Muslims deny that taqiyya exists, or that it is used to deceive infidels. "There is no such thing as taqiyya." Or "Taqiyya is something I never heard of and I had to go and look it up."

2. Playing the race card and guilt by association. An accusation of racism is such a trump card that jihadists will play it whenever they can. Despite Islam not being a race, any criticism of Islam immediately gets the knee-jerk retaliation of "racism." For example, "You are expressing the same views about Islam as racists, therefore you are a racist." This is similar logic, "Communists believe two and two make four. You believe two and two make four. Therefore you are a Communist."

3. Godwin's Law. A special (and inevitable) version of guilt by association with racism used in online discussions, whereby the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis wins the argument. The "logic" is something like this:

CRITICISM OF ISLAM = RACISM = NAZISM
Therefore, if you criticize Islam you are a Nazi.

4. Circular reasoning. The Quran says it is the word of God. So whatever it says must be true. Therefore it is true that the Quran is the word of God because it says so.

5. The infidels' quotes from the Quran are always taken out of context. For example, "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" is taken out of context, and really means "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them setting fire to your house" — or something similar.

6. Infidels can't understand the original Arabic of the Quran. So "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" is actually a Medieval Arabic expression meaning "Help old ladies across busy streets and remember to feed the birds in winter."

7. Tu Quoque (you also). "We blow people up and behead them but you do the same." Normally this is used in attempts to refute arguments that Islam is intrinsically violent. Often people refer back to the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Also "There are equally nasty parts in the Bible." Yes, there are violent episodes in the Bible, but the Bible is descriptive of battles and massacres long ago, whereas the Quran is prescriptive of battles and massacres yet to come.

8. "Abrahamic and monotheistic faith" false kin argument. This scam usually takes the form of "Islam is just a further development of Christianity, a brother Abrahamic or monotheist faith." Of course it isn't. Islam is a travesty and perversion of Christianity in many respects, and Jesus would probably have advised the pedophile Mohammed to tie a millstone round his neck and jump into the sea (Mark 9:42). In Islam, stoning of women is still a major spectator sport, whereas Jesus forbade it (John 8:7). Human sacrifice is an abomination in Judaism and Christianity, but is encouraged in Islam.

9. Quoting abrogated verses from the Quran in order to appear moderate. A favorite one is "Let there be no compulsion in religion." This verse and many like it are actually null and void and disregarded by all Muslims (though not by gullible infidels). They are peaceful Meccan verses which are completely cancelled by later and much more violent Medinan verses. Read more about abrogation here.

10. "You owe us a debt of gratitude because Islam is the basis of Western civilization." This sort of statement is usually backed up by revisionist arguments that Muslims invented everything and were responsible for the Renaissance. In some ways this is a rather pathetic quest for significance. Muslim culture has been moribund for the past 600 years, whereas the West has forged ahead. Muslims now want a stake in the success story by claiming they were somehow responsible for the West's development.

11. "A third of the world's population believe in Islam, so it deserves respect." But not so long ago a third of the world's population believed the earth was flat. Numbers don't mean anything, especially when the Islamic population is the most backward and illiterate on earth. Muslims are very keen on "respect," but someone should tell them that respect needs to be earned.

12. "We are victims of Islamophobia." Orthodox Muslims are always playing the victim, if not of racism then of the even more heinous thought-crime of Islamophobia. Of course there is no such thing as Islamophobia, since a phobia is an irrational fear, whereas fear of Islam as a clear and present danger is a totally rational reaction from any infidel.

Learn more about taqiyya and how it is used here.

See a video about taqiyya here.

Read more...

The Third Jihad

Partly because of a new and indiscriminate tolerance, and partly because of a huge influx of jizya, Orthodox Islam has gained the confidence to begin its "third jihad." The term refers to the murder of non-Muslims around the world (for the crime of being non-Muslims), but includes much more than that. There are many ways to wage jihad, and nearly every Muslim can play a part.

For example, orthodox Muslims have deliberately emigrated into foreign lands in order to fulfill Allah's command to make the whole world submit to Islamic law. In those new countries, they are organizing and building up their political power. Orthodox Muslims are recruiting new Muslims into their ranks every day. Some have gained vast wealth and are using it to build mosques and madrassas all over the world. Orthodox Muslims have infiltrated the political machinery in Western nations, they've successfully manipulated movies and the press and disabled and silenced resistance against them, and of course, they are also killing non-Muslims around the world. This is the third jihad.

Jihad means "struggle," but a particular kind of struggle. Jihad means to struggle to make Islam dominant over all other religions and governments. This is one of the religious duties of all devout Muslims, and according to Mohammad, it is the most important obligation a Muslim must fulfill.

The first jihad started with Mohammad. His armies conquered all of Arabia. In the hundred years after his death, his armies conquered most of the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. The first jihad lasted from 622 AD until 750 AD. Read more about that here.

The second major jihad started in 1071 AD. Islamic armies toppled Constantinople and spread into Europe, India, and further into Africa. The second jihad began to decline when the Muslim army was stopped on September 11th, 1683 at the gates of Vienna, Austria. Read more about the second jihad here.

The Islamic push to dominate — all other cultures, all other religions, and all other governments — has never stopped. But we are referring to large waves of success for the Islamic expansion; periods where vast new territories were brought under the control of Sharia law.

Now we are in the third jihad, the third great wave.

Non-Muslims in the past have fought back, of course (otherwise the whole world would already be ruled by Islam). Some successfully resisted subjugation.

But many countries and cultures took too long to recognize the threat or organized their resistance too slowly, and they were swallowed up by Islam's relentless aggression. So we have 57 countries today who are Islamic enough to be members of the OIC.

Orthodox Muslims are waging jihad in subtler and more clever ways (waging jihad by gaining concessions, for example), in addition to simple violent aggression and intimidation, but non-Muslims around the world are beginning to notice the pattern and are rousing themselves to defend their cultures, their religions, their governments, and their lives.

I hope you join us in stopping the third jihad. We need you to help others recognize the threat. We need your participation in organizing an effective resistance. And we need to move quickly. Here's how to get started.

Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence. Subscribe to Citizen Warrior updates here. You can send an email to CW here.

Read more...

Definition of Multiculturalism

MULTICULTURALISM is a philosophy that appreciates ethnic diversity within a society and that encourages people to learn from the contributions of those of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. In fact, it's wonderful. It makes the world a better place. It enriches everybody. But wholesale, indiscriminate, across-the-board, reckless multiculturalism is incomplete. It is missing one simple distinction, and that makes it blind.

Multiculturalism is great. Blind multiculturalism can get us into trouble.

The missing distinction is mutuality. It's great to tolerate other religions or ethnic customs if the people following those religions and customs also tolerate ours. It is self-inflicted abuse to tolerate them when they do not tolerate ours. And it is cultural suicide to tolerate a religion that actively tries to undermine or destroy ours.

It is a crime against humanist values to let them be taken away (one small concession at a time) by a less-tolerant culture simply because the less-tolerant culture is more insistent, aggressive, and relentless.

Read more: Multiculturalism and the Defense of Liberty.

Read more...

Termite Jihad

ISLAM HAS a political goal: To bring everyone on earth under the rule of Sharia law. This is the prime directive. This is the religious duty of every Muslim. According to Islam, all forms of government and law are to be abolished except the law of Allah.

One of the ways of accomplishing this goal is by warfare. That's what Osama bin Laden did with 9/11. That's how Islam did it during the first and second jihads. But many in the Muslim world now see that approach as mistaken, especially when dealing with the United States and Western Europe. When someone attacks the West, we do not cower in fear, we become angry. Until Muslims have a much greater numerical and military superiority, outright attacks are now realistically seen as counterproductive.

So according to documents captured in FBI raids, the primary political organizations representing the largest Muslim organization in the world — the Muslim Brotherhood — have a different strategy in the West. Here's an excerpt from the captured memorandum:

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan (Brotherhood members) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

In other words, the strategy is to immigrate to the West and sabotage the countries from within until they are destroyed. This is the stealth jihad Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney talk about. I call it "termite jihad." In other words, let's not blow the house down; let's eat away at the foundation until it crumbles.

But how can anyone "sabotage" a Western democracy from within? One way is by winning small concessions — to make a country's laws and customs give way to Islam. Here are some examples. When an American judge upholds Sharia even when it goes against American laws, when prisons are sued for not accomodating Muslim prisoners' demands, when newspapers are cowed into censoring themselves, when Western democracies ban movies, it is termite jihad, slowly eating away at the structure of our civilization.

We take it for granted that the structure of our society is strong. Everything still looks good from the outside. But inside, the structure is weakening.

Another very important way to sabotage a Western democracy from within is to make Westerners believe Islam is benign by influencing textbooks, politicians, government agencies, media outlets, and even Hollywood. All of this is being done while staying within the law. Disarming non-Muslims is an important key to the sabotage process.

Another way is to use our own laws, customs, and kindness against us to shut down any public criticism of, or education about, Islam by accusing people engaged in political and religious criticism of the tenets of Islam of racism, bigotry, hate speech, and "Islamophobia." Another way is to close down sources of information (and methods of non-Muslims uniting and organizing) — youtube videos, facebook pages, etc.

Now, of course not all people who call themselves Muslims are involved in this. But enough of them are participating to justify serious concern. Most of the links above go to articles about events that have already happened.

The process is well underway, while many of us are going about our business. The structure of the house is being eaten away, gradually and quietly.

What can you do about it? Go to WhatYouCanDoAboutIslam.com and get busy. We have a lot to do.

Read more...

“Radical” is a Misleading Term

LOTS OF PEOPLE use the word "radical" to describe devout, orthodox Muslims. I've always been bothered by that term because it is misleading. If a Christian prayed for forgiveness, or gave to charity, would you call that “radical?” If a Buddhist meditated every day, would you call that “radical?”

No, you would call them "practicing Buddhists" or just Buddhists. They are practicing the basic ideas of their faith.

Let's stop using the word "radical." Non-Muslims have been using it to avoid offending “non-radical” Muslims, but it makes our educational efforts more difficult because it gives the illusion that "normal Islam" is not "radical."

The idea that the "terrorists" have "hijacked" Islam is widespread and ultimately mistaken. The mistaken notion causes confusion when people begin to learn about Islam. The use of the term "radical" supports this confusion. Let's stop using it, even when talking to people who know very little about basic principles of Islam. Eventually they need to learn what's really happening, and the more people use misleading or confusing terms, the more difficult it will be for them to learn.

At least, that's what I think. Words are important. Let's try to use words that make things clearer, not more murky.

Read more...

What Should We Call the Two Kinds of Muslims?

When we speak about Muslims, I think most of us try to make the distinction between those Muslims who follow core Islamic teachings on the one hand, and those who call themselves Muslims but who ignore a great deal of the basic principles of Islam.

I've often had to clarify myself when someone takes offense at something I say by making this distinction: "I'm criticizing Islamic doctrine. If someone doesn't follow the doctrine, then I am not criticizing them."

I have tried various words and phrases to make this distinction in my speech, so instead of saying "Muslims believe X," for example, I will say, "Islamic supremacists believe X." It bypasses one of my listener's most obvious objection to what I'm saying.

Others are doing this too, and I see "true believers" being called Jihadis, Jihadists, Islamists, militant Muslims, Mujahedeen, Islamofascists, fundamentalists, extremists, insurgents, and the ridiculously meaningless term, "radical Muslims" (which is almost as bad as the phrase "war on terror"). I just read an article by Mohamed Akram and he used the phrase "observant Muslim." I thought that was pretty good. But I think two of the best are Brigitte Gabriel's phrase, "practicing Muslims" and Vijay Kumar's "literal Muslims." Actually, Kumar uses the term "literal Islam," but I like that word "literal." Bill Warner's use of the phrase "political Islam" is good too.

This topic is newsworthy these days as Obama's administration has tried to avoid using any language in their national security organizations that might imply a religious motivation to Muslims who kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam. Their newly-released National Security Strategy came up with a term we can add to our list. The report referred to practicing Muslims by using the clumsy and misleading term, "al-Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates."

The nomenclature for Muslims who don't really follow the teachings is sparse. "Moderate Muslims?" That's pretty much worthless. How about "mainstream Muslims?" That's a meaningless phrase unless you don't know anything about Islam, at which time it becomes mistakenly meaningful. Some have used the oxymoronic term, "secular Muslims." Of course, Muslims themselves use the term "apostates."

I've experimented with a couple of names for this category of Muslims. For instance, JRMs (Jihad Rejecting Muslims) isn't bad. But my favorite is MINOs (Muslim in Name Only). The MINOs themselves might not like it, but it's clear enough for our purposes.

My vote is "practicing Muslims" for the devout ones and MINOs for the non-devout. What do you think? Leave your vote (or additional nomenclature) in the comments or email them to me and I'll post them for you (anonymously if you like): citizenwarriorgeneral@gmail.com. Tell us which phrases you like to use and why you think they are better than the others.

Read more...

Islamic Supremacism

ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM is the belief that Islam is superior to other religions, cultures, and governmental systems, and the belief that Islam's superiority entitles Muslims to dominate, control, and rule non-Muslims.

Islam is a supremacist religion. The Hadith and Qur'an command every Muslim to strive until Islam dominates all other religions. The Qur'an says very clearly that the only legitimate form of government is Allah's. According to mainstream, well-established Islamic teachings, the goal of Islam is to make the whole world submit to the law of Allah (Shari'a).

If Islam is an inherently supremacist religion, then the term "Islamic supremacism" is redundant. Simply "Islam" will do. But I often use the term "Islamic supremacism" rather than simply "Islam" because first of all, most people don't know Islam is inherently supremacist. So if I say something critical of "Islam," some people will immediately stop listening because I am clearly a bigoted Islamophobe, or they think I must be ignorant if I'm implying "all Muslims are terrorists."

The use of the term "Islamic supremacists" when talking about Muslims waging jihad against non-Muslims, prevents this reaction and allows the uninitiated to listen.

Most people believe Islam has been "hijacked" by a small percentage of extremists, and they think that's who I'm talking about when I say "Islamic supremacists," so they're comfortable and can listen to the information.

Hopefully, they will eventually learn that Islam has not been hijacked and that the "fundamentalists" are following basic, mainstream Islamic teachings, and that Islam is political at its core. They will hopefully learn Islam not only encourages intolerance and violence against "unbelievers," but commands all Muslims to show their devotion to Allah by fighting for Islamic domination over all other governments and nations.

But in the meantime, by using this term, we can begin the education process.

Another reason to use the term "Islamic supremacism" is to avoid arousing the ire of those who call themselves "Muslim" but reject the political nature of Islamic teachings.

If you are one of the people who don't know about the supremacist nature of Islam, I encourage you to read the Qur'an for yourself. Some people will say Islam is a religion of peace. Others will say the teachings mandate continual warfare against anyone who resists the domination of Islam. If you haven't read the Qur'an, how can you determine who is correct?

You might think maybe they're both correct. Maybe the Qur'an is written in parables and vague, mystical language; maybe it it full of contradictions, and people can pick and choose passages to justify anything they want.

I have read the Qur'an and I can tell you it is no such thing. It is written in clear and forceful language by a single man. There are contradictions in the Qur'an, but the Qur'an itself tells the reader how to deal with the contradictions (the peaceful, tolerant passages have been abrogated, that is, they've been canceled and replaced by intolerant, violent passages).

Should you believe me? No, you shouldn't. You should read the Qur'an yourself. It isn't that hard to do. Then you will know for sure.

Read about a version of the Qur'an that's readable to Westerners.

Once you are initiated, I encourage you to use the term "Islamic supremacism" when you're talking to people, at least until you discover how much they know. If they know about the supremacist nature of Islamic teachings, you can streamline the phrase by dropping the word, "supremacism."

Read more...

Islamophobia

In Robert Spencer's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, he quotes somebody else's long definition of "Islamophobia," which includes "attacking the entire religion of Islam as a problem for the world." And then Spencer writes:

Does labeling as "Islamophobic" the practice of "attacking the entire religion of Islam as a problem for the world" mean that it is also Islamophobic to focus attention on the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet as motivations for terrorist activity? If so, then jihad terrorists worldwide are themselves "Islamophobic," for, as we have seen, they routinely point to jihad passages from the Qur'an and Hadith to justify their actions.

In other words, if I say Islam is a political religion that mandates intolerance and violence against non-Muslims, that makes me an "Islamophobe." But it also makes Osama bin Laden an Islamophobe.

Islamophobia is a misleading term, as I'll explain in a minute, and yet it is used with great seriousness by governments all over the world, in the media, and even by the United Nations.

But "Islamophobia" is a made-up word. It isn't tenable, plausible, or convincing once you really look at it. Using the term is merely a way to slander those who have legitimate concerns about implications and consequences of the teachings of Islam. It is a way to prevent legitimate criticism and debate about an important global problem. As the historian, Victor Davis Hanson wrote:

There really isn't a phenomenon like "Islamophobia — at least no more than there was a "Germanophobia" in hating Hitler or "Russophobia" in detesting Stalinism. Any unfairness or rudeness that accrues from the "security profiling" of Middle Eastern young males is dwarfed by efforts of Islamic fascists themselves — here in the U.S., in the UK, the Netherlands, France, Turkey, and Israel — to murder Westerners and blow up civilians.

Since a phobia is an unreasonable fear of something, the term is inappropriately applied to Islam. It is not unreasonable to fear being blown to smithereens in the name of Islam. As of today, 15,754 deadly attacks have been carried out in the name of Islam since 9/11. They can strike anywhere. They could be a man, woman, or child. They don't look any particular way; they could be Chinese or European or African or Middle Eastern, young or old. But they are driven by a particular ideology — specifically, the teachings of the religion of Islam.

Islamophobia is not a good word for it. A better term might be "legitimate concern."

So here is a message to Islamic apologists: Try something else. Your feeble attempt with the pseudo-word, "Islamophobia" has failed. The term is discredited. As Ralph Waldo Emerson might have put it: "I hope in these days we have heard the last of Islamophobia. Let the word be gazetted and ridiculous henceforward."

Read more about the untenable nature of the word:

1. This is an article that will help you clarify what you're doing when you criticize Islam. It articulates what is wrong with the term "Islamophobia."

2. This is an article written by Ali Sina, the famous ex-Muslim, writing about the term "Islamophobia" and what, specifically makes the term meaningless.

3. This is a video: Robert Spencer's simple plan to end Islamophobia. It's kind of tongue-in-cheek, but he makes some good points, and you might want to send it to anyone who accuses you of being an Islamophobe.

4. And this is an article I wrote to peaceful Muslims who often write to me and tell me I shouldn't criticize Islam. I talk a bit about "Islamophobia" in the article.

5. Bill Warner created a test for Islamophobia: Take the Acid Test for Islamophobia.

Read more...

Long-Range Jihadists

IN A DISCUSSION with European policy makers, Walid Phares made what I believe to be a significant distinction between "hot-headed Jihadists" and "long-range Jihadists."

The hot-headed Jihadists are blowing up subways and flying planes into buildings. The long-range Jihadists are involved in indoctrination of the young. They are creating the pools Jihadist recruiters can later draw from. This is the well-funded production of young Jihadist-slanted minds. They are also involved in vigorous PR efforts to prevent non-Muslims from catching on to the bigger picture.

The significance of this distinction is that almost all of the security efforts in the United States and Europe are aimed at stopping the hot-headed Jihadists. It is a law-enforcement model. It seeks to track down and incarcerate terrorists.

It does nothing to address the much bigger threat: The long-range Jihadists. That's what we're interested in most on CitizenWarrior.com — stopping Islam's relentless encroachment (in other words, defeating the plans of the long-range Jihadists). Our number one goal is to raise public awareness of the aims and methods of the long-range Jihadists so new policies can be instigated nationally to stop the Jihadists from waging long-range jihad by gaining concessions from the West. Public awareness is the first step. Find out how you can help.

Read more...

Orthodox Islam's Relentless Encroachment

MAINSTREAM MEDIA focuses on terrorism because acts of violence are supremely newsworthy. But terrorist violence by Jihadis is only the tip of the iceberg. Underneath the radar is a huge political movement going on right under our noses, undermining freedoms and aiming relentlessly at gaining concessions for Muslims everywhere.

This sounds very rabble-rousing and extreme, but it is nothing of the kind. We have no need to try to guess their purposes — Jihadis state their goals openly and fervently, and they have one primary goal. It's a goal Allah has given all Muslims, and to which Allah expects full participation: The establishment of the law of Allah throughout the world.

Islam is a political religion. It makes the attainment of political goals a religious duty.

Allah said (through Mohammad, and written down in the Qur'an) he does not want his followers sitting around meditating or spending their lives in a monastery. Allah expects good Muslims to demonstrate their devotion and faith by working toward a time when the whole world "submits" to Allah.

There is no more important goal in Islam and everyone has a part to play.

Muslim women can give birth to as many healthy children as possible (helping to gain a numerical superiority) and raise them to be devout Muslims; the Imams can keep their listeners motivated; Muslim merchants can support jihad financially; warriors can fight; Muslim lawyers can sue anyone who criticizes Islam, hackers can shut down web sites that try to expose Islamic teachings, and Muslims with charisma can lure people to the faith and hoodwink the enemies of Allah (anyone opposing the movement toward Islamic domination) with taqiyya.

There is no better way to show Allah your devotion than jihad, according to the Qur'an. As far as Allah is concerned, actions speak louder than words. It doesn't matter how you feel. It doesn't matter if you'd rather just live a good life. Allah expects you to fight for Islam wherever you are and even if you don't feel like it, and to fight in whatever way you can.

When Muslims do not have the political power to impose their will, they are charged with the task of gaining that power. In democratic countries, the task is the constant, unrelenting pressure to gain concessions. This blog illustrates what kind of concessions I'm talking about.

Each concession may seem small, but they are adding up. Meanwhile, the Muslim population is growing in democratic countries.

Read more: Waging Jihad By Gaining Concessions.

Also: The Islamization of the West.

Many people recognize what is going on, of course, and some are even effectively doing something about it. You can read about these heroes at Citizen Warrior Heroes.

If you'd like to do something to reverse Islam's relentless encroachment, start here: What Can a Civilian Really Do? There is quite a bit you can do, right where you are.

Read more...

Definition of Abrogation

To abrogate means to abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by authority.

This is a key term in studying the Quran. There are some peaceful, tolerant verses in the Quran. But the violent, intolerant ones have abrogated them. The Quran itself explains what to do with conflicting verses. If two passages conflict, it says, the one written later is better than the one written earlier. The earlier passage has been abrogated by the later one.

The bad news for non-Muslims is that almost all the peaceful passages were written earlier, and the intolerant, hateful, and violent ones were written later (read more about this).

The two key abrogation passages in the Quran are these:

2:106 "Whatever of Our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superior or comparable. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that Allah reigns sovereign over the heavens and earth and besides Him you have no protector or helper? Would you question your messenger as Moses was questioned in his time? Those who exchange their faith for disbelief have gone astray from the right path."

16:101 "When We exchange one verse for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say, 'You are making this up.' Most of them do not understand."

Bill Warner writes, "There are as many as 225 verses of the Koran that are altered by later verses. This is called abrogation."

Another good article is Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam.

Another good article on abrogation is here: Abrogation of the Koran, Koranic Contradictions and Muslim Taqiyya. I thought this was interesting (from that article):

Of the Koran's 114 suras (chapters), only 43 are without abrogated or abrogating verses. That is naturally surprising, and so unexpected that few Westerners are aware that significant segments of the Koran have been theologically annulled. Mohammed's non-Muslim contemporaries were just as surprised.

From the ex-Muslim's site, FaithFreedom.org:

"Abrogation" means the canceling or replacement of one Quranic passage by another. It seems that as circumstances changed during the 23-year period that Muhammad dictated the Quran, the directions and precepts found therein sometimes changed to accommodate new and changing political and military realities, sometimes quite dramatically. Thus, the Quran abrogates or cancels itself in various passages and presents seemingly conflicting statements. Muslims do not view this sort of abrogation as a contradiction, but rather, as improvements to better suit varying circumstances or needs, or to fit Muhammad's religious concepts.

For further reading, see the articles below.

Abrogation:
http://answering-islam.org/Index/A/abrogation.html

Abrogated Verses Of the Quran:
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/abrogatedverses.html

Abrogation in the Koran:
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Quran/abrogation_koran.pdf

The Problem of Abrogation in the Quran:
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm

Ahmad, Allah, and Abrogation:
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/abrogation.htm

Read more...

Definition of Sedition

Sedition is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.

Sedition is the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction. Because it is limited to organizing and encouraging opposition to government rather than directly participating in its overthrow, sedition is regarded as falling one step short of the more serious crime of treason.

Every legitimate government in existence has a law against sedition. It is a basic principle of the survival of a government that it doesn't allow itself to be usurped. Those governments who did not have laws against plotting to overthrow the government do not exist any longer. They have been overthrown.

The bad news for Jihadis is that as soon as enough of us non-Muslims realize that jihad and Shari'a — in other words, primary Islamic teachings — are inherently seditious and punishable according to already-existing laws. The sooner we have that collective insight, the sooner the relentless Islamic political encroachment will be stopped.

Here's how you can help that time come sooner.

Read more: Is Shari'a Seditious?

Read more...

Definition of Apatheist

In the Atlantic magazine, Jonathan Rauch described apatheism as "a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion and even a stronger disinclination to care about other people's" (Rauch, Jonathan, Atlantic May, 2000).

Lucky for non-Muslims, many Muslims are apatheists. They may be afraid to leave their religion for fear of the death penalty for apostates. But they don't care about its teachings, particularly the Qur'an's instructions to fight in jihad. Or any of its other terrifying ideas.

Read more...