Moderate Muslims Wrong: Terrorists, Violent Jihadists, & Qur'anic Sword Verses

You won't get this in the mainstream. Also, this is original content. The concept came to me from no other human being here on Earth.

People calling themselves "moderate Muslims" are saying that others also calling themselves Muslims are taking verses of the Qur'an out of context to wage violent jihad, etc.

It is my position that those "moderates" (hereafter without the quotation marks) are mostly wrong. The following gives my reasoning.

Those "others also calling themselves Muslims" are waging violent jihad against:

1) Forces of the West (principally the United States and its closest military allies)

and

2) That West's cooperators (Muslims who have, to one degree or another, worked with, and under, the Western powers to fight other Muslims) and even those whom the West opposes, such as President Assad of Syria because he does not strictly follow the Qur'an (the most sacred book of Islam) as interpreted by the jihadists (those engaged in a Holy and violent war on behalf of Islam against the US, et al. and per the Qur'an).

This issue can be made as complicated as you want. The debate within and without Islam, per se, is for all practical worldly purposes, without end.

I will endeavor to make it plain as briefly as possible without leaving much room for accusations of having left out critical aspects.

There are verses in the Qur'an often called the "sword verses." Sometimes people refer to just one verse as the "sword verse." That verse and the others are in Chapter 9 of the Qur'an. The chapter has 129 verses, but the issue comes, in my view, in the first 39 verses.

The following are the verses translated into English in what is called the Sahih International version.

Please be aware that all English translations are the translator's or translators' work and that it is widely understood within Islam that all such translations are approximations and that none can be perfect because some Arabic words and concepts simply are not able to be translated word-for-word but must be stated using additional words in English to try to get the intended point across.

The same holds true for Christian text, such as the Gospels, which many believe were written first in the Greek of the time.

The first 39 verses of Chapter 9 of the Qur'an (the text in the square brackets and the brackets themselves are in the original translation and not my editorial additions):

9:1 [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

9:2 So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

9:3 And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

9:4 Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

9:6 And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

9:7 How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

9:8 How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.

9:9 They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.

9:10 They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.

9:11 But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know.

9:12 And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.

9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

9:14 Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people

9:15 And remove the fury in the believers' hearts. And Allah turns in forgiveness to whom He wills; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.

9:16 Do you think that you will be left [as you are] while Allah has not yet made evident those among you who strive [for His cause] and do not take other than Allah , His Messenger and the believers as intimates? And Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

9:17 It is not for the polytheists to maintain the mosques of Allah [while] witnessing against themselves with disbelief. [For] those, their deeds have become worthless, and in the Fire they will abide eternally.

9:18 The mosques of Allah are only to be maintained by those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and establish prayer and give zakah and do not fear except Allah , for it is expected that those will be of the [rightly] guided.

9:19 Have you made the providing of water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Haram equal to [the deeds of] one who believes in Allah and the Last Day and strives in the cause of Allah ? They are not equal in the sight of Allah . And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.

9:20 The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank in the sight of Allah . And it is those who are the attainers [of success].

9:21 Their Lord gives them good tidings of mercy from Him and approval and of gardens for them wherein is enduring pleasure.

9:22 [They will be] abiding therein forever. Indeed, Allah has with Him a great reward.

9:23 O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

9:24 Say, [O Muhammad], "If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people."

9:25 Allah has already given you victory in many regions and [even] on the day of Hunayn, when your great number pleased you, but it did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with its vastness; then you turned back, fleeing.

9:26 Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers and sent down soldiers angels whom you did not see and punished those who disbelieved. And that is the recompense of the disbelievers.

9:27 Then Allah will accept repentance after that for whom He wills; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

9:28 O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

9:30 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

9:31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

9:32 They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.

9:33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.

9:34 O you who have believed, indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of Allah . And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah - give them tidings of a painful punishment.

9:35 The Day when it will be heated in the fire of Hell and seared therewith will be their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs, [it will be said], "This is what you hoarded for yourselves, so taste what you used to hoard."

9:36 Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].

9:37 Indeed, the postponing [of restriction within sacred months] is an increase in disbelief by which those who have disbelieved are led [further] astray. They make it lawful one year and unlawful another year to correspond to the number made unlawful by Allah and [thus] make lawful what Allah has made unlawful. Made pleasing to them is the evil of their deeds; and Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.

9:38 O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah , you adhere heavily to the earth? Are you satisfied with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But what is the enjoyment of worldly life compared to the Hereafter except a [very] little.

9:39 If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him at all. And Allah is over all things competent.

There is some debate as to whether the term polytheist there can rightly be applied to Christians, even though there seems to be little to no debate that Islam considers the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to constitute polytheism at least to some degree.

Regardless, Muslims do not believe Jesus was the son of God or divine, which I believe means that they believe Christians are worshiping more than one God regardless of whether Christians maintain that Father and Son are one (and one with the Holy Spirit).

It does seem clear that Mohammed differentiated between Christians, per se, and polytheistic pagans.

Christians were not considered pagans, per se, but simply deluded due to textual emendations, etc., in the Gospels, which "additions/edits" in the Gospels according to Mohammed happened over the years, decades, and centuries before Mohammed and as a result of Christian Bishops altering the text to further an ostensible sinister agenda.

Of course, as a Christian, I completely reject that; but it's a different argument or debate, and I do know of some slight emendations in some even "older" versions of Gospel text.

Also, Islam had its own problem of multiple versions of the Qur'an and decided to round up all versions and burn all versions but one: the one we still have now in Arabic. I don't mean to digress here but offer that up simply as some background, as the same issue comes up over and over again when discussing these things with Muslims, whether moderate or not.

The context of the verses, per the Muslims, is discussed in the following Wikipedia article: Wikipedia contributors, "Battle of Tabouk," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Tabouk&oldid=641231886 (accessed January 14, 2015).

The Battle of Tabouk (also called the Battle of Tabuk) was a military expedition, which, according to Muslim biographies, was initiated by Muhammad in October, AD 630. Muhammad led a force of as many as 30,000 north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of engaging the Byzantine army. Though not a battle in the typical sense, if historical the event would represent the opening conflict in the coming Byzantine-Arab wars. There is no contemporary Byzantine account of the events, and much of the details come from later Muslim sources. Noting this, as well as the fact that the armies never met, some Western scholars have questioned the authenticity of the details surrounding the event;[1] though in the Arab world it is widely held as historical.

Reasons for war

According to Ar-Rahiq al-Makhtum, a modern Islamic hagiography of Muhammad written by the Indian Muslim author Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, the reason for war against the Byzantine Empire, was that one of Muhammad's ambassadors was killed by Sharhabeel bin ‘Amr Al-Ghassani (the governor of Al-Balqa). This immediately led to the Battle of Mutah. But Mubarakpuri also claims that event was one of the reasons of the Battle of Tabouk also. Mubarakpuri further mentions that the emperor of the Byzantine Empire, Heraclius was preparing a force to demolish the growing Muslim power in the region.[2]

The non Muslim scholar William Muir claims that one of the reasons Heraclius decided to go to War was that he wanted to prevent the recurrence of the Expedition of Ukasha bin Al-Mihsan against the Banu Udrah and military campaigns similar to it.[3] The Banu Udhrah was a Christian tribe that was aligned to the Byzantine Empire, before converting to Islam and aligning themselves to Muhammad.[4] The tribe converted to Islam after Khalid ibn Walid carried out a military campaign in the area, however there were some who were still disaffected, so another campaign was carried out in the area.[5]

Preparations for War

All the Muslims as well as allies of Muhammad, received an urgent call to join the campaign. But the Arab's of the desert showed little interest. Many came up with excuses not to participate. Muhammad provided incentives to persuade the Arabs to join, and provided many with gifts.[5]

The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir mentions in his tafsir that the Quran verse [Quran 9:49] was "revealed" about the people who make excuses not to participate in the Jihad. In this case Al-Jadd bin Qays made an excuse not participate in the Battle of Tabuk, and Ibn Kathir says that [Quran 9:49] verse was "revealed" because of his excuse. [6][7] The verse states: "Among them is (many) a man who says: "Grant me exemption and draw me not into trial." Have they not fallen into trial already? and indeed Hell surrounds the Unbelievers (on all sides)"

Many rumors of the danger threatening the Muslims was carried to Mecca by Nabateans who traded from Syria to Medina. They carried rumors of Heraclius' preparations and the existence of an enormous army said to number anywhere from 40,000 to several 100,000 besides the Lakhm, Judham and other Arab tribes allied to the Byzantines.[2] Ibn Kathir stated that verse 9:81 was also "revealed" about the Battle of Tabuk, regarding those who made excuses[8][9]

Ibn Kathir also mentions that verse [Quran 9:29] which called for fighting against the people of the book till they pay Jizyah was "revealed" while Muhammad was preparing for the Battle of Tabuk. The verse states:

Ibn Kathir's commentary on this verse is as follows:

Expedition

Muhammad and his forces marched northwards to Tabouk. The Byzantine army did initiate aggression against the Muslims. The army of 30,000 was a great one, when compared with the previous armies of Islam. Muslims had never marched with such a great number before.[2]

After arriving at Tabouk and camping there, the Muhammad's army was prepared to face the Byzantines. However the Byzantines were not at Tabouk. They stayed there for a number of days and scouted the area but they never came.[2]

Nevertheless, this expedition brought, in itself, credit to the Muslim forces that had gained military reputation in the remote lands of the Arabian Peninsula.The strategic long term consequence of the battle was that many Arab tribes now abandoned the Byzantines and joined with Muhammad, enlarging the Muslim state.[2]

Immediate Aftermath

Letter to Christian princes

When Muslims arrived at Tabuk, they halted and took a rest, rumours of a Roman Byzantine Invasion had cooled down, and there was nothing to threaten Muhammad. Muhammad dispatched Khalid ibn Walid on a military expedition to Duma.[11] Muhammad sent him to Dumatul Jandal with 400 men.[2] The Jewish and Christian tribes in the area where Muhammad was converted to Islam. According to William Muir, Muhammad sent a letter to the Christian Prince of Ayla/Aliah (called Yahna bin Rawbah[2]), threatening him to submit to Islam, or pay the Jizyah, if he did not want to be attacked.[12] The Letter stated:

William Muir claims the letter is authentic and was retained by the chiefs of Ayla, as proof of the rights Muhammad gave to the people of Ayla for their conversion, he claims that it is authentic because in the letter Muhammad's name is mentioned without affixes i.e. the phrase "Prayes and blessings be upon" him (and similar phrases) are missing, he suggests it would be forged if it did not have these affixes missing, as the affixes are added by later generation Muslims when mentioning Muhammad's name. Muhammad also sent some letters to other tribes in the area, William Muir mentions that Waqidi copied the content of some of the other letters.[13]

The local tribes gave their allegiance to Muhammad and agreed to the payment of the jizyah protection tribute. The Muslim scholar, Saifur Rahman al Mubarakpuri mentions that Yahna bin Rawbah, came to Muhammad "and made peace with him, paying him the jizyah" and Muhammad in return gave each tribe a letter of guarantee, similar to Yahna's. This letter especially guaranteed the Freedom to practice Religion.[2]

Return to Medina

After returning from Medina, some companions of Muhammad believed that there was no need to fight any longer, after looking around and seeing that there were no enemies remaining to threaten the Muslims, and after the Romans had left the Muslims alone. Muhammad's followers began to sell their weapons, but Muhammad rebuked them, claiming there will always be a need to fight and revealed a new Quran verse: [Quran 47:4] .[14] Ibn Kathir mentions this event and the verse as follows:

Islamic primary sources

Quran

According to Saif ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, many verses of Surah Tawbah (chapter 9 of the Quran) are related to the Battle of Tabuk.[2] The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir mentions that verses 9:42-48, 9:49,[6][7] 9:81,[8][9] and 9:29 are all related to the Battle of Tabuk or where revealed during the Battle of Tabuk.[6][10]

No doubt, the Wikipedia article is full of issues concerning which many Muslims would take great exception. I personally never rely upon the Wikipedia as other than a starting place to get a very general sense of what the main issues might be.

There are some excellent Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia is only as good as those who edit it. Some subject areas have better editors than others.

I included the article simply to say that the verses concern what the Muslim say is the battle discussed in the Wiki post and most importantly that once that battle was over, the verses don't apply today. The moderates are saying that to apply them today is to take them wholly out of context. It is that contention that I am saying here is completely wrong.

Before I continue and for those who are not satisfied with just the verses and the Wikipedia article (though who reading this on the Internet can't do Google or others searches for more detail and background? Some but not many), I offer you this link: http://www.quranwebsite.com/tafsir%20ibn%20kathir/ibn_009_at_towbah.html That source is rather widely highly regarded by Muslims in general who are fluent in both Arabic and English. The link is more than just a translation but also a commentary.

So, now that you are "armed" with the above, why are the moderates wrong?

The moderate say that the "sword" verses in the Qur'an are contextual and applicable only concerning the treaty-breakers and that, therefore, they can't apply now, as there aren't any people who have broken any treaty(s) with the Muslims who are attacking the Muslims. Make sure you understand that and remember it before you proceed. Do you have it?

Here's the most important part of this article. It's the proof that the moderates are very nearly completely wrong.

The "West" has treaties they have imposed upon themselves, treaties that all Muslims are supposed to be able to rely upon the Westerners not to break, which treaties say not to do to Muslims what they have been doing. Things that Mohammed said caused Mohammed to declare war upon those afflicting and persecuting the Muslims. The West has broken the international treaties time and time again when attacking Muslims and Islam and so far with near impunity.

This is widely and generally understood and agreed to by Muslims of nearly every sect. However, the moderates have not made the glaringly obvious connection. Think about it. Do you have it? Are you understanding?

The terrorists are going beyond some limits set by Mohammed (you'll have to research the rest of the Qur'an and what are called Hadiths for that, which I have done for myself), but they are not going against the "sword" verses. The so-called moderate Muslims, on the other hand, are not following those verses, which clearly cannot be dismissed as applying only to treaty-breakers then and not the treaty-breakers now (who are attacking Muslims for being Muslims, though they'll deny it, and especially for being the type who do fight back, which they, the West, won't deny and can't).

If you are a Muslim and fight the West for its actions against innocent Muslims the West has clearly afflicted and persecuted, tortured, falsely imprisoned, maimed, killed, turned into refugees, and on and on, you are still treated as a terrorist no matter how you fight back.

Moderate Muslims have been brainwashed not only by Western false-propaganda but also by "moderate" Islam. It is generational. Moderate Muslims indoctrinate their children.

The following is somewhat of an aside, but I'm dealing with it here because so many moderates claim there is no rape under Islam under any circumstances.

It is an absolute fact that Mohammed allowed his troops to get sex from captive women who totally did not want to have sex with them, as many just had their fathers, brothers, sons, and even husbands killed by those same troops. The women were coerced out of fear at the very least. It was rape! It was not consensual sex absent any threats or intimidation or fear instilled in the women, many of whom saw their husbands slaughtered. It even included those captured alive with their husbands also captured alive (can you imagine the horror of it for those women and their husbands?). How could Mohammed and those unrepentant men escape damnation?

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. (Qur'an 4:24)

Certainly will the believers have succeeded:
They who are during their prayer humbly submissive
And they who turn away from ill speech
And they who are observant of zakah
And they who guard their private parts
Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed - (23:1)

The moderates also completely fail to either comprehend that the people doing the stoning allowed under Islamic law are all sinners and do to others what they would not have those others do unto them.

The decision as to which sin is worthy of stoning was arbitrary, even after Jesus Christ convinced the Jews to drop their stones in shame before God. Under Islam, adulteresses may be stoned but not men who rape captive married women who may then be sold into slavery. What kind of religion is that?

Yet, Pope Frances has recently stated that it is the falsification of Islam that causes "terrorism." If he's not being deliberately deceptive, he has swallowed the moderate-Muslim narrative hook, line, and sinker, as have so many others, Barack Obama and Angela Merkel included.

Which "Islamic" countries have any agreements with the US such that those countries aren't fighting the US, which has broken treaties not to attack Muslims minding their own business and not threatening (per the common usage of the term) the US except that plutocrats running the US want to dominate the world for the sake of mammon first and foremost and who are not Christians at all, not even close?

Has the US, ruled by those plutocrats via controlled democracy (false democracy), backed the Zionists, who have worked to, and who are not finished working at, ethnically cleansing Palestine of Arab Muslims and even Arab Christians who stand opposed to political Zionism? Yes, the US has. Does doing that break the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concerning which the US is signatory and that applies per the US to every Muslim on the planet? Yes!

The sword verses apply now while the moderate Muslims sit there not even comprehending, hopefully being conflicted now, though perhaps trying to remain in denial in their minds and hearts.

They want to be "moderates" and Muslims while sitting idly by watching the US slaughter Muslims and helping, funding, training, equipping, guiding (hi-tech intelligence and targeting...), and exhorting others to slaughter Muslims, even Muslims to kill Muslims. The moderate Muslims are being very insane.

Tom1

Tom Usher

I'm not exhorting them to violence. I'm telling them that they don't want to follow those sword verses because those verses run contrary to the moderates' nature that they do so much want to be peaceful, as Jesus Christ commands in the Gospels.

They don't know which spirit they are of.

Wake up, moderate Muslim. You've been sleeping. Don't fall back to sleep.

Celebrations of Hebdo cartoonists was about approving anti-Muslim messages.

Update: Here's a telling reply from a self-styled "moderate" Muslim reacting to the same evidence above only in a more condensed version because he already knew the verses and about the battle, etc., but where I refuted other of his claims about the Gospels versus the Qur'an. It's by Abdulsamad Fakhri:

you know what is the difference betwen me and you?you are a faithless cursed pagan that the first one who would throw you to to the hill will be jesus, you are claiming to be acting in accordance with the jesus's sayings while at least 60 percent of the main bible is altered,the words your atributing to jesus are the words of your bishops,not jesu's,iam sure he hates pagans like you,there are tens of versions of bible which have been alterd in favour and neither of them matche each other,which is an abolute evidence proving your heading toward darkness,who is this faked-bishop made jesus? the real jesus was not crossed,cause he would never die for the pagans like you,i love jesus and he loves me,and i believe he is in heavens and one day would destroy you,many americans have realized to your lies,thats why a growing number of americans prefere to be secular rather than being decieved by your nonsens,i proud of being the follower of the grratest relagion of the world,the strongest,the most influential papulated relagion of the universe,but what about you,your own people hats you,you are just a mercenry, i accept the quran with all of its conditions,talking further with the logic-deprived humans like you is in vain,we call guys like you "pig" who is deprived of human senses by sticking to theire desires.we now how to behave with the americans in my country,they are funding us giving as security,thanks to them to day iam a well-known student in my country and those who have slaughtering by the terrorists are not us, but they are ,they are not fanatic,cursed beast like you,dont feed back,cause i hate you with your feed backs. Comment link

See also: An Amazing, Firsthand Eye-Opener as to What "Moderate" Muslims Think Islam Is

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.