Both Sunnis and Shi’ites believe in the use of sacred violence. The right to coerce the infidels and subdue them was given by Allah to Mohammed as owner of the earth.
Theologically, mocking Mohammed’s method of controlling the infidels is blasphemy, for the violent method of Mohammed comes directly from Allah.
Allah’s method trumps human logic, even the Western ideal of free speech that is based on mere human philosophy and mere human reasoning, rather than Allah’s Divine Command.
In mere human philosophy, Mohammed’s fitna-prevention method is built on a fallacy of logic called the Appeal to Force in place of logical argument. But this fallacious argument is the main argument of the Koran. Muslims know that the Koranic argument for violence against the infidels takes up 2/3 of the Koran and they further know that the Koranic argument cannot be wrong, for it comes directly from Allah and Allah is not a liar.
Mohammed’s method for eliminating fitna is jihad and all Muslims should freely use Mohammed’s method, since Mohammed is their role model. This is what Muslims did in the Danish cartoon riots.
It is also what motivated Dr. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.
Normally, Muslims will not kill infidels for merely thinking non-Islamic thoughts. After all, who knows what another person is thinking, even one’s own spouse? Sacred violence is authorized when open disagreement with Mohammed is expressed in the public domain, as with a cartoon or an anti-Islamic book. It need not be the guilty person who is punished, so we can never be sure of the physical safety of any infidels, since throughout history, jihads have often included mass slaughters and genocides of men, women and children.
Mohammed approved of such indiscriminate killing of unbelievers on occasion, if it was convenient for him. During a night-time sneak attack on a town, Mohammed was asked about his customary method of sparing women and children (so that they could be sources of revenue as slaves). According to the Hadith by Abu Muslim 19:4322 , Mohammed responded, “They are of them.” In other words, the women and children are accomplices in the fitna of the defending males. And besides, it was inconvenient to attack and carry lanterns to check everything that moves in the dark.
Here Mohammed authorized wholesale slaughter of an entire community. The justification for this was the political charge of fitna. So no infidel is ever innocent of fitna, a capital crime.
Such logic was used by Major Nidal Hasan when he committed a wholesale slaughter http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/islamic-mind-major-nidal-hasan of 13 unarmed American soldiers: …the American army opposes Mohammed’s method…it is guilty of fitna…and the 13 slaughtered soldiers ‘are of them.’
This made Dr. Hasan a hero to the former mullah of his mosque, because he executed the enemies of Mohammed using deceit and surprise, just like Mohammed did. Mohammed frequently executed unarmed prisoners of war. Dr. Hasan is a rational, pious Muslim. His ideas agree with the official scholarly concensus of normative Islam.
Mohammed’s brilliant method of ruthless assassination silences fitna by paralyzing the brain with fear. Mohammed’s method may not be judged by any external standard, because his method is itself the standard. Forget the obvious ethical flexibility or opportunism. Mohammed’s method takes a position above human logic, ethical analysis and philosophical discourse. To analyze Mohammed’s ethical inconsistencies is fitna.
Today, Islamic governments are seeking new ways to control fitna beyond their borders. Kafir fitna is temptation or luring that tempts Muslims to question or lose their faith. Kafirs commit fitna every time they disagree with Sharia law in the public domain, when they mock Mohammed’s violent method in cartoons or use reason or logic on the Internet to show Mohammed is wrong.
Such politically incorrect utterance keeps the Islamic state from insuring all information supports the unity and power of that State and its jihadist army.
Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.
Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.
When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean ‘fitna’…public disagreement with Mohammed.
Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.