And, if that isn’t effective, then by the sword or forcing subject people to accept Dhimmi status. Living in dhimmitude relegates subjects to second-class status, with vastly diminished rights, including no right for the Dhimmi peoples to defend themselves. Muhammad conquered many with that simple statement, Aslim Taslam, which was intended to strike terror into the hearts of those offered the choice, and it did. This is the beginning of the Muslim Mafia mentality, perfected by the Ikhwan, Wahhabis, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.
Likening it to the Mafia is no facile rhetorical device. Islam offered three choices to the “people of the book”: Convert, Pay the Jizyah tax or lose the right to life and property. So when Islam characterized this choice as the benefit of protection, one must ask, protection from whom? Obviously, the answer is protection from Islam, which reserved the right to take life and property if the conditions of conversion or the payment of the Jizyah tax were not met. How different is this from the Black Hand extorting protection money from the neighborhood grocer?
If Islam does not succeed in becoming the world’s only true religion, then Muslims will not have fulfilled Allah’s commands in the Qur’an. Thus, Muslims are obligated to proselytize Islam throughout the world through da’wa and Jihad. Whether violently or nonviolently, this is accomplished with 100% impunity from Allah, as per the Qur’an. One could make the comparison with Christianity being a proselytizing religion, but Christianity as found in the Gospels does not allow the use of violence to spread the faith, whereas Islam specifically does. Muslims may quote the Koran saying, “There is no compulsion in religion.” But, that statement is superseded and abrogated by later statements in the Koran that enthusiastically endorse violent compulsion in the spread of Islam.
Professor Faisal Kutty went on to make further incredible claims, saying that terrorism had only killed five people in the last ten years. In this, presumably he was referring to within the US, and ignoring events such as Major Hassan’s slaughter of fellow military personnel at Fort Hood, Texas. But he also ignored the more than 10,000 terror attacks worldwide in the last 10 years, almost all committed by Muslims, and in which, ironically, many of the victims were fellow Muslims. Thousands of Christians, Jews and Hindus were victims as well.
He also claimed that the popular definition of jihad is only accepted by the Taliban and by al-Qaeda, stating that they had sought to reinterpret the historical meaning of jihad to support their violent means. In this he ignored 1,400 years of written teaching on Islam readily available from Muslim sources, as well as established treatment of jihad in recognized Sharia sources such as The Reliance of the Traveller, Shafi’i Shari’ah, Section O9.1, Page 600 — Justice-jihad.
In reality, his analysis is Taqiyya and Kitman. Is this what law students are taught about jihad by a respected law professor?
Lecture number two was delivered by Amara Chaurhry-Kravitz, a secular female Muslim lawyer, who detailed her experience with Arab/Muslim Civil Rights in the Arab/Muslim community, pointing out that the profiling was cultural, not racially based, because Islam is a culture not a race. She spoke of her work representing women and LGBT victims, seeming to suggest the many violations known to occur within the community against women in child custody, domestic violence and inheritance rights.
We further “learned” from Ms. Chaurhry-Kravitz, who locally represents CAIR, how absurd it is that her organizations, Council American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) should be associated in the popular mind with terrorism. She made light of the Holy Land Foundation Trial, and their being named unindicted Muslim Brotherhood co-conspirators.