Sunday, 30 August 2009

Apostasy Or Treason?

Here is a deceptive recent take on the Rifqa Bary case by a Muslim, Salam al-Marayati.

It is nice to see a Muslim actually commenting on the case at all, but al-Marayati's article is just another example of the unproductive approach moderate Muslims are taking towards the problematic elements of Islamic theology and law.

Of most concern is Marayati's claim that the Islamic death sentence for apostasy was actually originally conceived of as only applying to cases of treason. Marayati will have a lot of trouble making this one stick. An authoritative hadith attributed to Muhammad himself has the Prophet saying: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Sahih Bukhari v.9, b.88, no.6922, and others) He doesn't say, "Whoever changes sides and fights against a Muslim army, then kill him." The command is based solely on changing one's religion.

Similarly, if we look at Islamic law itself, it's the same story. The earliest ruling I know of on apostasy by an Islamic jurist was that of Malik bin Anas (d.712), the founder of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, who said:

“As far as we can understand this command of the prophet [in the hadith above] means that the person who leaves Islam to follow another way, but conceals his kufr and continues to manifest Islamic belief...should be executed after his guilt has been established. He should not be asked to repent because the repentance of such persons cannot be trusted. But the person who has left Islam and publicly chooses to follow another way should be requested to repent. If he repents, good. Otherwise, he should be executed.”

By "leaving Islam", Malik meant specifically (in his own words) kufr, which means unbelief, not treason.

Al-Marayati also gullibly reproduces Rifqa's father's insistence that he doesn't want to kill her, and is quite happy to have her come back home and live with them as a Christian. Really now, does Marayati honestly think that if the father does want to kill her, he would say so in public?

Saturday, 29 August 2009

More Omissions At The NY Times

The India World Report has details of the way in which the New York Times has recently been engaging in selective journalism.

On August 15th, the Times published a story about two Kashmiri Muslim women who were brutally raped and murdered by Indian soldiers. A reprehensible crime and worthy of reporting, of course.

But the Times did not cover any similar recent cases in which Bangladeshi Hindu women were abducted, raped, murdered and forcefully converted....by Muslims.

Read all the details at the link above. And remember...the NY Times has a reputation.

Friday, 28 August 2009

Is Britain Succumbing To Islamic Supremacism?


At Human Events, Robert Spencer provides some anecdotes and observations about his recent visit to the UK to film a new documentary on the Islamisation of Europe. As he says, "What I saw wasn’t shocking, but quite depressing."

Here's a particular part that didn't surprise me at all:

Unrecognized inside the mosques we were able to enter, I was warmly received as a potential convert and laden with books and pamphlets explaining the wonders of Islam -- including, courtesy the Finsbury Park Mosque, a copy of the Koran with illuminating commentary: “The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight,” we’re told, “is not, as one might think, to compel the unbelievers into embracing Islam.”

Feel better? Don’t. “Rather, its purpose is to put an end to the suzerainty of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over people. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the Truth Faith; unbelievers who do not follow this True Faith should live in a state of subordination.” So much for liberty and justice for all.

That's from the commentary of Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi (d.1979), who also happens to have been one of the most influential Muslim thinkers of the twentieth century. To read some more of his Islamic wisdom, see here. That Qur'ans containing his commentary are being given out in prominent British mosques should be cause for concern. But it isn't.

Do be sure to read the rest of the article.

Wednesday, 26 August 2009

Sebastian Faulks: Same Old Dhimmi

Earlier this week, I expressed an admittedly naive hope that author Sebastian Faulks, who got into trouble recently for criticising the Qur'an, would become a new champion of free speech in the war against Islamic fascism.

But alas, he reveals himself to be a spineless dhimmi in this piece today in the Telegraph, in which he assures Muslims that he's so very sorry he hurt their feelings, and that actually the Qur'an is probably quite wonderful after all.

Faulks cringingly writes:

While we Judaeo-Christians can take a lot of verbal rough-and-tumble about our human-written scriptures, I know that to Muslims the Koran is different; it is by definition beyond criticism. And if anything I said or was quoted as saying (not always the same thing) offended any Muslim sensibility, I do apologise – and without reservation.

In other words, because Muslims believe the Qur'an is beyond criticism, we must believe it, too, and must refrain from doing or saying anything that causes Muslims offence. But this same leniency should not - and by definition cannot - be granted to Jews and Christians.

When are you doing the Shahada, Mr. Faulks?

One of the books I read as background to my novel was Islam: A Short History, by Karen Armstrong.

Good Lord, Karen Armstrong! There was never any danger of the new Faulks book being controversial, then, given Armstrong's reputation as a blinkered apologist for Islam. Her two biographies of Muhammad have been nothing short of outright deceptive.

Sometimes the words of the Koran do have a slightly ranting rhythm to them – though this may be due to the translation, and Arabic has a different natural intonation from English.

Of course, that must be it! Faulks clearly knows none of the embarassing details of Muhammad's life which might help to contextualise these Qur'anic rants - and it's a certainty that none of his new Muslim friends will enlighten him, either.

My book is printed and I wouldn't want to change it because I believe it is fair and tolerant. But I welcome the idea put forward by Ajmal Masroor, an imam and spokesman for the Islamic Society for Britain, in this paper yesterday, that we "should sit down and talk about it" rather than navigate solo with our own cultural compasses.

If Mr Masroor is sincere in his offer, I would be pleased to learn more about Islam. I liked his response that he was more amused than offended, because A Week in December is a satirical novel; he is a man with whom I could do business. I would enter any such dialogue with a degree of humility and plenty of respect for his religion and his scripture; I feel sure he would do likewise.

What kind of "dialogue" is it going to be when he's telling you that the Qur'an is a wonderful and peaceful book, and you've already decided to agree with him?

Pathetic.

Monday, 24 August 2009

Sebastian Faulks: The New Salman Rushdie?

"It's a depressing book. It really is. It's just the rantings of a schizophrenic."


Award-winning British novelist Sebastian Faulks has "risked angering Muslims" after researching the Qur'an for a new novel, and claiming that it has "no ethical dimension" dismissing the words of Muhammad as the "rantings of a schizophrenic".

For some reason (self-censorship, perhaps?) the original article on this at the Telegraph has been pulled, but below are some extracts accompanied by my comments.

In an interview with The Sunday Times Magazine, Faulks said: "It's a depressing book. It really is. It's just the rantings of a schizophrenic. It's very one-dimensional, and people talk about the beauty of the Arabic and so on, but the English translation I read was, from a literary point of view, very disappointing."

Regarding the "schizophrenic" comment, ex-Muslim Ali Sina presents a compelling case that the "Prophet" had a number of mental disorders in his book Understanding Muhammad.

"Jesus, unlike Muhammad, had interesting things to say. He proposed a revolutionary way of looking at the world: love you neighbour, love your enemy, be kind to people, the meek shall inherit the Earth. Muhammad had nothing to say to the world other than, 'If you don't believe in God you will burn forever.'"

Indeed, it is remarkable how little space the Qur'an devotes to instructing Muslims on how to be good, faithful believers, and how much time it spends spewing vitriol at infidels. It has been estimated that almost two-thirds of the Qur'an is actually about non-Muslims.

Ajmal Masroor, an imam and spokesman for the Islamic Society for Britain, says he does not recognise Faulks' description of the Koran.

"I could list thousands of scholars, politicians and academics who have given nothing but amazing praise for the Koran, and I am talking about non-Muslims. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Bill Clinton to name just a few.

During the Barbary wars, Jefferson reported that the Muslim Barbary States were fighting America because it was "founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Meanwhile, it simply doesn't mean a thing that Bill Clinton has high praise for the Qur'an. He's still wrong.

"I actually find his comments amusing, not offensive. They sound like the braying of someone who is rather resentful and un-objective, I would like to be able to sit down and have an informed debate about the Koran with him."

I'd be happy to debate you also, Mr. Masroor!

He said Faulks' statement runs the risk of stirring religious hatred against Muslims.

"Attacks on Islam are nothing new, but the danger is this will have a "drip, drip" effect.

"People don't seem to understand the consequences of saying things like this could be quite severe. History tells us it can encourage hatred."

"People don't seem to understand the consequences of saying things like this could be quite severe." In other words, shut up or we'll kill you. A not-so-subtle threat of violence, or at the very least a complete distancing from responsibility of the Muslim community to behave rationally and not fly into another bout of murderous rage over fair criticism of their "perfect book".

Inayat Bunglawala, from the Muslim Council of Britain, said Faulks' view of the Koran was "blinkered".

"The Prophet Muhammad has had many detractors both during his own time and later on who described him as a 'madman' or 'possessed by an evil spirit' and so forth in an effort to drown out his beautiful message," he added.

"Sebastian Faulks should perhaps draw a lesson from the fact that those detractors are all now long forgotten, whereas the Prophet is remembered with love and admiration."

Of course, Bungy. And mandating the death penalty for anyone who insults the Prophet wouldn't have anything to do with it, right?

In any case, what will be most interesting to see going forward is not just how the Muslim community reacts to Faulks' statements, but also whether Faulks himself will now stick up for his views and for freedom of speech, or whether he will capitulate in an apologetic, cringing display of dhimmitude. If he's undecided, I hope he consults his fellow novelist Salman Rushdie for advice.

Tuesday, 18 August 2009

Zakat: Muslim Charity Or Terror Financing?

For Islamic jihadi hands only

Zakat, or almsgiving, is one of the five pillars of Islam. As the revered manual of Islamic law Umdat al-Salik explains: "Lexically zakat means growth, blessings, an increase in good, purification, or praise. In Sacred Law it is the name for a particular amount of property that must be payed to certain kinds of recipients under the conditions mentioned below. It is called zakat because one's wealth grows through the blessings of giving it and the prayers of those who receive it, and because it purifies its giver of sin and extols him by testifying to the genuineness of his faith."

Zakat is, in short, charity.

Why, then, have Islamic jihadists and leaders such as Osama bin Laden and Yusuf al-Qaradawi urged their fellow Muslims to donate their zakat to jihadists in order to fund terrorist attacks?

First and foremost, we have to understand the Islamic concept of charity. Like all things Islamic, charity has one overarching purpose - to serve the needs of Islam. That is why, according to Islamic law, zakat cannot be given to non-Muslims. Umdat al-Salik again: "It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim".

Because of this self-serving streak, there is no Islamic charity equivalent to the Salvation Army, a Christian charity whose ministry extends to all people, regardless of religion. Muslim charities only operate in Muslim countries or in service of Muslim interests. In Islam, only Muslims are worthy of charity.

One of those forms of charity is funding jihad warriors. The Qur'an contains a number of verses which put this form of financial jihad at least on par with jihad of the physical kind:

"Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." (9:41)

"Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." (9:20)

"O ye who believe! Shall I show you a commerce that will save you from a painful doom? Ye should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know." (61:10-11)

"The (true) believers are only those who believe in Allah and His messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah. Such are the sincere." - (49:15)

Umdat al-Salik confirms that "[t]he seventh category [to whom jihad can be given] is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people's families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it)."

Is it at all surprising, then, that jihadists should demand that they be given money from the umma for their actions, or that Islamic charities both in the West and abroad are giving their funds to terrorists?

And most of all, would it be at all surprising for the average Muslim to start believing that funding the jihad is one of his fundamental duties as a Muslim?

Monday, 17 August 2009

New Cartoonish Dhimmitude

Reproduced here in defiance

Yale University Press has decided not to republish the Danish Muhammad cartoons in a new book...about the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

There is a specialised word for this idiotic, cringing cowardice: dhimmitude. What this effectively means is that Islamic law is now in place in New Haven, Connecticut. And if the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and their puppets the UN get their way, it won't stop there, either.

Afghan Wife-Starving Law Goes Into Effect

An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law, the BBC reports.

This is the country we "liberated" from the Taliban. Good going, Dubya.

Friday, 14 August 2009

Boko Haram Statement

Here is the full text of a recent statement by the Boko Haram jihad group in Nigeria, which has declared "total jihad" on the country. Read it very carefully. Notice its uniquely and thoroughly Islamic character. And consider the following line:

"We support Osama bin Laden, we shall carry out his command in Nigeria until the country is totally Islamised which is according to the wish of Allah. [emphasis added]"

Not, you'll note, "a strict version of the wish of Allah."

More Pakistanis Want To Murder Apostates Than Want To Improve Relations With The US

According to a Pew poll:

"The new poll finds broad support for harsh punishments: 78% favor death for those who leave Islam; 80% favor whippings and cutting off hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and 83% favor stoning adulterers."

But never fear - they are also "concerned" about "extremism"!

Exile of the Last Jews

Going, going...gone

Israeli sources recently confirmed Yemeni media reports that the overwhelming majority of the final remnant of Yemen's ancient Jewish community, numbering some 250 people, are looking to leave the country due to persecution and violence.

Back in June, Barack Obama said in his Cairo speech that "
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance." Meanwhile, this is the reality, and it should not surprise anyone except for that empty-headed buffoon in the White House.

Why shouldn't it be surprising? Because:

a) Islamic texts and teachings foment hatred against unbelievers, and particularly Jews.

b) Jews in Yemen have long been known to be suffering at the hands of the Muslim population there.

c) There are historical precedents for this, not only when it comes to the relatively recent diminution of Jewish populations in the Muslim world as a whole, but also in the thousands of Jews who fled to the USA to escape from the wretched conditions they faced in the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century.

d) Just ask Middle Eastern Christians.

Thursday, 13 August 2009

Fatah: "The Myth of Moderation"

In May, I explained why Fatah do not deserve their reputation as a "moderate" Palestinian party. They are, in fact, just another Islamic jihad group who are a bit more wily in their ways than, say, Hamas.

Now comes this fantastic report which updates my previous post perfectly. It concerns the recently-concluded Sixth Fatah Congress. The congress demonstrated just how little Fatah has changed since the time of Arafat. As the report notes:

  • They still refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state and insist on the right to resettle millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants within Israel's pre-67 borders.

  • They insist on the evacuation of Jews from Jerusalem and land captured by Israel in 1967.

  • They adhere to the option of waging armed attacks against Israel if peace negotiations do not yield what they want.

  • They continue to endorse the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade – responsible for numerous suicide bombings and terrorist attacks– as their armed wing.

  • They continue to glorify terrorists and vilify Israel.

Regarding that last point, here's some video of former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alaa) openly praising the Fatah terrorists who perpetrated the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre which killed 38 civilians (including 13 children and an American photographer) and wounded 71:



And unsurprisingly, as the report also notes, the Western media either could not be bothered, or willfully refused, to cover any of this.

Wednesday, 12 August 2009

Support Rifqa Bary



Embedded above is a video of Rifqa Bary, the young Muslim girl who converted to Christianity...and now fears that her family will kill her for apostasy. Details of her heartbreaking story can be read here. And remember, this isn't happening in Saudi Arabia or Somalia - it's happening in Ohio.

It is time for Muslim communities in the West and around the world to acknowledge the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostasy. Muslims today often claim that the Qur'an contains no directive for the execution of apostates, but some scholars see in the following verse a contradiction of that assertion: “They [the Hypocrites: Muslims of insufficient faith] but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks...”

Here is Baydawi's commentary on the above commandment: “Whosoever turns back from belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard”. Ibn Kathir, Maududi and others agree that the order to kill apostates can be found in various passages of the Qur'an.

In any case, outside of the Qur'an, the death penalty for apostasy is well attested to. Muhammad said: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari v.9, b.88, no.6922, and others) During his life, he ordered the assassination of several apostates, including some traitorous livestock herders whose limbs he ordered amputated and their eyes put out with heated iron bars, after which they were left in the desert to die (Bukhari v.8, b.82, no.794-97).

All the schools of jurisprudence teach that the apostate from Islam must be executed. Malik bin Anas, founder of the Maliki school, said:

“As far as we can understand this command of the prophet [in the hadith above] means that the person who leaves Islam to follow another way, but conceals his kufr and continues to manifest Islamic belief...should be executed after his guilt has been established. He should not be asked to repent because the repentance of such persons cannot be trusted. But the person who has left Islam and publicly chooses to follow another way should be requested to repent. If he repents, good. Otherwise, he should be executed.”

The Hanbali jurist Ibn Qudama (d.1223) said:

“In the opinion of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal any adult and rational man or woman who renounces Islam and chooses kufr should be given a three day period to repent. The person who does not repent should be executed.”

The Hanafi jurist Abu Yusuf (d.798) said:

“I will execute an apostate and will not ask for repentance. If, however, he hastens to repent, I will leave him and commit his affair to God.”

According to Umdat al-Salik, the Shafi'i school teaches:

“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”
Similar cases to this one are, of course, widespread throughout the Islamic world, but even in America, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. In 2007, Aqsa Parvez, a Muslim girl from Toronto, was murdered by her father for refusing to wear a hijab. Then last year, two sisters, Amina and Sarah Said, were once again killed by their father apparently for dating non-Muslim boys.

In the wake of such incidents, Muslim leaders in America had the chance to speak out against honour killing and the killing of apostates, but they chose to either remain silent or engage in deflection tactics, denying that these horrific crimes had anything to do with Islam at all. But now, as with so many aspects of Islam, denial is no longer (and indeed never has been) a viable option.

Because the cost will be in blood.

Monday, 10 August 2009

How To Make A Martyr

Not that kind of martyr

Recently, I was debating with a Muslim on the subject of martyrdom in Islam. My central point was that there is a critical difference between the Christian and Islamic concepts of martyrdom. In Christianity, a martyr is one who undergoes great suffering to the point of death for the sake of their faith. This is a passive action. In Islam, however, a martyr is one who dies while KILLING OTHER PEOPLE in the name of their faith. To support this, I quoted the following verse from the Qur'an: “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (9:111)

But no, my opponent claimed - this verse isn't about killing people at all; it just means that someone who submits to Allah will be rewarded in Paradise.

My first reaction was to wonder whether he has reading comprehension troubles - the verse dose, after all, promise Paradise to those who "slay and are slain" in the way of Allah, a clause which he ignored completely. But I suppose I can grant him, temporarily, his point that when the Qur'an promises rewards to those who "slay" people, it might not really mean that. It might mean something else, all context considered. It's possible.

That's where context comes in. Historically, sura nine was revealed around the same time that Muhammad was involved in a war against the Byzantine Empire - that is, a literal war. The textual context is also important, so here is what some Muslim scholars say about this verse.

Ibn Kathir, one of the most famous and widely read Qur'anic commentators of them all, says that the promise made in this verse applies to "those who fight in the cause of Allah", and adds that "whether they were killed or they kill the enemy, or both, then Paradise will be theirs." Clearly, then, Ibn Kathir does not believe this verse refers to anything but physical combat and killing people.

The Tafsir al-Jalalayn, another popular Muslim commentary, says that those who reach Paradise are those who "shall fight in the way of God and they shall kill and be killed (this sentence is independent and constitutes an explication of the [above-mentioned] ‘purchase’; a variant reading has the passive verb come first [sc. fa-yuqtalūna wa-yaqtulūn, ‘they shall be killed and shall kill’], meaning that some of them are killed while those who remain, fight on)." Obviously, once again, this means that the Qur'an is talking about physical violence, and those who engage in it being rewarded for their efforts.

If those two commentaries are not modern enough, my final example comes from Muhammad Shafi (d.1979), who was the former Mufti of Pakistan, and wrote an influential commentary on the Qur'an that is widely read on the Indian subcontinent. And he says: "This is first verse [sic] about fighting and killing which was revealed in Mecca itself, though its implementation began after Hijrah." Fighting and killing? The ex-Mufti obviously did not get the memo.

Of course, all of these Muslims might have it wrong and my Muslim adversary may have it right. But I would then have had to ask what made this man such an authority on Islam that he could decide such a thing, even over such luminaries as those quoted above.

And that's the problem. Any Muslim who would say that martyrdom in Islam is some passive form akin to Christian martyrdom is simply ignoring centuries of Islamic tradition and history. In the hadith we find many examples of jihad warriors being promised luxurious rewards in the afterlife:

“Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid [holy warrior] in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.” (Sahih Bukhari v.4, b.52, no.46)

“The Prophet said...By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.” (Sahih Bukhari v.4, b.52, no.54)

“A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor) came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first?' The Prophet said, 'Embrace Islam first and then fight.' So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, 'A Little work, but a great reward.' (He did very little after embracing Islam, but he will be rewarded in abundance).” (Sahih Bukhari v.4, b.52, no.63)

In fact, not only are jihadists guaranteed a place in Paradise; they are also guaranteed to reach a higher level of Paradise than anyone else:

“It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to him): Abu Sa'id, whoever cheerfully accepts Allah as his Lord, Islam as his religion and Muhammad as his Apostle is necessarily entitled to enter Paradise. He (Abu Sa'id) wondered at it and said: Messenger of Allah, repeat it for me. He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!” (Sahih Muslim b.20, no.4645)
The Barbary Muslims who waged jihad against the United States in the 17oos believed that they would go to Paradise for their actions. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain. They were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would end piracy raids on America emanating from the Barbary States (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya). During their discussions, they asked the Tripolitan Ambassador why the Barbary States were directing their aggression, unprovoked, at the U.S. Jefferson and Adams later summed up the Ambassador's response in their report to the Continental Congress:

“…that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Where dd the Barbary pirates get this idea? And for that matter, why do so many contemporary Muslims think that suicide bombing is a legitimate Islamic act? The apologist did not address this, and only came up with inventive methods of explaining away the hadith quoted above to get out of the jam.

And once again, that's the problem. All the while Muslims fail to confront the actual doctrinal origins of suicide bombing and jihad, such acts will continue unopposed. We can't afford any more excuses. The cost of such apologetics is real, and can be measured in blood.

Friday, 7 August 2009

Mehsud Dead

It now seems very likely that the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, Baitulllah Mehsud, has been killed by an American missile.

It is, of course, always good to see another Islamic jihadist reduced to ashes, but Mehsud's death will do very little to significantly affect the Taliban's mission in Pakistan because:

a) The Islamic ideology of the group has been completely ignored by all opposing factions, thus ensuring that no effective method has been devised to deal with its spread and implications. This was demonstrated on the BBC news tonight when a studio "expert" claimed that the Taliban's goal was to "make Pakistan an ungovernable country", as if they were just a bunch of teenage anarchists - completely ignoring the Islamic form of governance the group actually want to implement in the country.

b) Mehsud had pals in the Pakistani intelligence service, which will no doubt effectively stifle any further offensives against the Taliban in the wake of his death.

Wednesday, 5 August 2009

Why Sharia Is Dangerous For Gays...And Everyone Else

Islam Q & A is a mainstream Muslim website that provides fatwas intended, in its own words, to "teach and familiarize Muslims with various aspects of their religion", via "only authentic, scholarly sources based on the Quran and sunnah, and other reliable contemporary scholarly opinions."

Would you therefore be at all surprised to learn that the website has in the past endorsed jihad against unbelievers, hatred of unbelievers, the veiling of women, and the murder of homosexuals, among a host of other things? Will the West's "moderate" mainstream advocacy groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain and the Council on American-Islamic Relations condemn the rulings on this website and demand that it be closed down so that Muslim minds can no longer be poisoned by such "un-Islamic" ideas? Will they unequivocally renounce any intention to at any time impose such laws upon their host countries, even by peaceful means?

What do you think?

They will, of course, not condemn these rulings, because they are all part of standard Islamic law (not a "strict interpretation" of it), and so to condemn them would be to condemn the law of Allah himself. And these aspects of sharia cannot at all be easily separated from the more mundane "family law" that cultural jihadists are managing to get implemented in Western countries like Britain, by means of seemingly benign sharia courts. Sharia comes as a package deal - there is no room for half-measures when it comes to God's word.

And that is why, with sharia not only fundamentally incompatible with democracy and human rights, but also widely supported in the Islamic world and being pushed aggressively by Muslims from Pakistan to the UK, all civilised people must stand up and, as one, deny sharia ANY right of return. Failure to do so will unquestionably lead to much more suffering and death.

No To Islamic Law

The police of the future...today

Daniel Pipes explains why Islamic law in the UK is bad, and why it should - nay, MUST - be opposed:

Those of us who argue against Shari'a are sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western societies long ago accommodated Halakha, or Jewish law.

The answer is easy: a fundamental difference separates the two. Islam is a missionizing religion, Judaism is not. Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews seek only themselves to live by Jewish law.

There are other reasons for opposing it, of course - i.e. its total incompatibility with Western conceptions of democracy and human rights - but this particular point is an important one. The very nature of Islamic law is that of a classic totalitarian system which seeks to impose itself upon the world by any means necessary. That is why sharia actually contains within it laws which mandate that if people do not wish to adopt it, they must be made to do so by force.

Comparisons between sharia courts in the UK and Jewish Beth Din courts fall down for the same reasons.

Monday, 3 August 2009

Muslims Persecute Christians - World Yawns

Robert Spencer beats me to the punch this morning in covering several recent instances of anti-Christian persecution in Muslim countries. He concludes with these apposite comments:

Destruction of lives and property over unsubstantiated charges that would be trivial even if they were substantiated. Kidnapping and forced conversion. Yet these incidents have received only scant attention in the mainstream media. And not only the international media, but also the human rights establishment and the United Nations, continue to take no notice. In their conceptual framework, only Westerners can do evil, and Christians cannot possibly play the role of victim. The sooner the world casts off these Leftist/jihadist fantasies, the better off we’ll all be. But there are no signs that such an awakening will take place anytime soon, if ever.