Michael Copeland has revised this article from 2013 (originally posted at LibertyGB) and brought it up to date.
“You People Will Never Be Safe” — Jihad Killings in Islam
by Michael Copeland
The killer of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, his hands dripping with blood, told the person filming him:
“You people will never be safe.
We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.”
Why is that? It is Islamic teaching. Islam has standing instructions concerning non-Muslims, the filthy kuffar, the unbelievers. Many, many verses in the Koran — over 100 of them — command the fighting and killing of non-Muslims, or violence towards them, to establish the supremacy of Islam. The Koran — all of it — forms part of Islamic law. For example, from sura 9, the very chapter, “At Tawba”, specifically cited by the killer, verse 5:
“Kill unbelievers wherever you find them.”
The instruction is ongoing:
“Fight the unbelievers and kill them until all the rule is Islam” (8:39)
As the former terrorist Walid Shoebat asks (What the West Needs to Know video):
“My question for the West is this: what part of ‘kill’ don’t they understand?”
After all, only one “interpretation” is available.
Islam is not ‘pick your own’. The tenets of the ideology are expressed in the Koran, the hadith (traditions) and Islamic law, and the leeway is nil.
“It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and his Messenger, to have any option about their decision…”
says Koran 33:36. The Koran is promoted as “true from eternity to eternity”, explains Sam Solomon, former professor of sharia law. Every Muslim is required to believe the Koran: he is not permitted to want or believe anything different. Dr Salah al Sawy, Secretary General of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, is emphatic. For matters that are in the scriptures, he rules:
“The Muslim community possesses no power except to acknowledge and obey.”
All have to submit. Islam means “submission”. “Submission” is code for Control.
Concerning violent jihad, killing to establish the religion, Melanie Phillips in The Mail makes a sweeping generalisation:
“Of course, millions of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere totally reject this interpretation of their religion.”
Totally reject? Do they? Really? What is the source of this assertion? A survey? A breakaway movement? Or is it just a broad-brush opinion based on many conversations and interviews? Another question: what other “interpretation” of “kill” is there, apart from kill? Melanie Phillips is very knowledgeable, but here is a warning: that assertion is not quite safe.
The instruction, “Kill unbelievers wherever you find them” is cited above. Muslims who “totally reject” what it says, namely, “kill”, are denying a verse of the Koran. That is a serious matter in Islam. “To deny any verse of the Koran”, says the Manual of Islamic Law (o.8.7(7)), incurs the death penalty. This can be carried out by anyone, with no punishment, “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (o8.4). Yet “millions” reject the instruction to kill? Not so fast: nearer the mark would be to state that millions of Muslims are not, at this stage, directly involved in carrying out this Koranic command. That is fine. No-one can disagree with that. It is observable fact. The assertion can also be offered that millions of Muslims probably do not wish to be involved in carrying it out. That is probably also true. Neither of these positions, though, is the same as “totally rejecting” it.
The uncomfortable facts remain: the instruction to kill is there, and so is the death penalty for denying it. In 1990 an imam in Arizona, a gentle middle-aged scholarly man put forward his long-studied theory that two verses did not properly belong in the Koran. Another Muslim from elsewhere, a loyal, diligent, and observant ‘soldier of Allah’, hearing about it, went to frequent that mosque, and became acquainted with the imam. When the opportunity came he attacked and killed him by multiple stabbings, and disappeared. He was carrying out the sharia law penalty for denying a verse. Some twenty years later he was found in Canada, extradited, tried, and sentenced.
Like the Arizona killing, the jihad killing in Woolwich makes this subject no longer hypothetical: the example is there before us. Consider now another aspect: it is not actually necessary, in order to create a powerful effect, for “millions” to put the killing instruction into practice. It is sufficient for one or two to do so, and the effect is obtained. “I have been made victorious with terror”, said Mohammed. “We shall strike terror into the hearts of the infidels”, says Koran 3:151. It only needs a few to create a potent influence. Imagine being a resident in Woolwich, knowing that there are hard-line observant Koran-enactors in your neighbourhood driving around with machetes in the car. Are you going to proclaim out loud that you “totally reject” the Koran’s instruction, or would you consider discretion the better course of action? Murder has a distinctly silencing effect.
The “millions of Muslims” who allegedly “totally reject” the violent killing “interpretation” of Islam’s instruction to kill are nevertheless involved in another way. This is through zakat, their financial contribution. Zakat is normally translated as ‘alms’, thereby infusing it with an old-fashioned charitable glow. Its principal purpose, after paying towards the mosque, is charitable, but restricted to other Muslims only: non-Muslims are specifically excluded. Part of zakat, however, is obliged by sharia law (the Koran) to be devoted to jihad, that is, the support of jihadi warriors, their weapons, explosives, and so on. Because of this mechanism all Muslims, whether they want to or not, are involved in supporting jihad, including violent, killing jihad. Islamic charity after Islamic charity has been prosecuted for transferring funds to terrorist entities. In reality every mosque is involved with sending funds to jihad. They are obliged to do so by sharia law. Muslims cannot opt out.
A further complication in the picture is the Islamic doctrine, Koran-based, of taqiyya, authorised deception. Islam not only permits, but in some cases makes mandatory, the deception of non-Muslims in the cause of Islam. To put it bluntly, Muslims are authorised to lie. This is not academic or theoretical. The Times Square would-be jihad mass-murderer in New York, Faisal Shahzad, whose bomb-packed car failed to explode, was a naturalized US citizen. The judge reminded him that he had sworn the Oath of Allegiance. His answer?
“I sweared, but I did not mean it”
When this factor is included, how reliable are all those protestations of “totally rejecting” Islam’s core doctrines? A recent high profile rape case in New York had to be discontinued when it was shown that the accuser had earlier lied on a visa application: her evidence would have had no credibility in court. Those announcements by imams and Islamic centres after the Woolwich killing that they denounce acts of terror on innocent civilians need to be taken with this in mind. Two other details, though, also need to be explained. Of course, a soldier is not a civilian, and non-Muslims, in Islam’s teaching, are all guilty of not following the one true faith: they are not innocent.
Have we people been safe? In the USA there have been the Boston Marathon bombing, the Orlando night club mass shooting, the San Bernardino mass shooting, the Halloween van-ramming in New York, the subway bomb, the New York bombs and other plots thankfully foiled. In Canada there have been the foiled railway bomb plot, the War Memorial shooting, the Danforth shooting in Toronto. In the UK there have been the beheading of Palmira Silva, the Westminster Bridge attack, the Borough Market stabbings, the van-ramming near Parliament, the Manchester concert bomb, the Fishmongers’ Hall stabbings, and numerous foiled plots.
No, we people have not been safe.
We are left with some uncomfortable knowledge:
- Islam commands the ongoing killing of non-Muslims in jihad.
- There is the death penalty for denying this.
- Part of all funds given to Islam go towards jihad.
- Islam authorises Muslims to lie to non-Muslims.
These are matters that Western leaders seem not to know.
Since this article was first published in 2013 there has been the Great Invasion of 2015. Western leaders still appear to have learnt very little. People now are, indeed, far from being safe. From recent news items here are two extracts.
Sweden February 2020 — Swedish television:
The parents are living a more limited life, because they must pick up their children at schools
and drive them to their leisure activities because the juveniles don’t dare go alone. They don’t dare go outside when it gets dark. They don’t dare go outside if their friends don’t follow them.
Bosnia-Herzegovina — Inhabitants of Bihac, interviewed on the street, December 2019:
Naturally I have had enough. We were never able to go out; we could never have anything in our hands, not even our phones, because they take it from us. We are terrified in our own homes; we lock everything, because we are afraid the migrants will break in. It is terrible situation. [woman pensioner]
They bother me, the migrants, very much so. They are dirty, Messy; they throw garbage away everywhere. This is unacceptable! [citizen]
…We are not safe here; after 6PM we can’t go outside, because it is extremely dangerous. [girl]
The population is under significant stress. [citizen]
We’re having a hard time because of this. [citizen]
With the arrival of the migrants crime increased by 30-40% in the city. [reporter]
The migrants have the latest smartphones; they have unlimited funds.
These experiences are so different from those of the elite. Hear the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen:
“I got to know a warm, vibrant, colourful, multicultural society — the likes of which I had not really experienced before…”
Our leaders in their comfortable bubble abandon us, the ordinary people, to Muslim Roulette.
- Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller
- General reference: www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.