Tuesday, 29 June 2010

Egypt And Forced Islamisation

Zeenahom Nady Adly

At Continental News, they have just picked up on a story which actually surfaced quite a while ago, but which has not, to my knowledge, been mentioned AT ALL by the English-speaking media except in this singular article.

It concerns a Middle Eastern journalist who believes that “one of the most explosive issues in the relations between Christians and Muslims of Egypt is the abduction of Christian Coptic minor girls, to force them to embrace Islam, after humiliating and demeaning them psychologically and morally.” A notable recent example is given in the case of Zeenahom (Suzan) Nady Adly, 19, a Coptic Christian girl who was drugged and abducted by Muslims to force her conversion to Islam. As the article makes clear, Egyptian State Security was complicit in the toleration of this blatant human rights violation, as were "nearly two hundred Muslims...with weapons intimidating them" into converting. Later, the Muslim community elected to have the girl and her family evicted from the village as punishment for her steadfast and courageous refusal to convert.

Luckily, Zeenahom lived to tell her harrowing tale, but isn't it funny how, despite Islam being a Religion of Peace, Muslims keep doing things like this, even in "moderate" countries like Egypt? And isn't it funny how the international community gives all the impressions of not giving a damn, even though the crimes committed in this case are more serious than anything committed by Israel, which is repeatedly condemned for defending itself?

Forced conversion of Christians is forbidden in Islam, of course (although polytheistic religions of all stripes are fair game, as per Qur'an 9:5). But note what happened here. The Muslim kidnappers did not literally force Zeenahom to convert to Islam at the point of a sword or the muzzle of a gun. They simply sought to convince her, but when she refused, they resolved to make her and her loved ones suffer.

Islam cannot coexist with Western secular, human rights-based traditions - it's as simple as that. And the sooner Western policymakers begin to understand that, the better off all free people will be.

Monday, 21 June 2010

How To Re-Package The "Islam Brand"

I wish I could say I made this image, but alas, it came with the article...

This month's edition of the Muslim lifestyle magazine, Emel, carries an amusing, albeit unwitting, piece of honesty from writer Shelina Zahra Janmohamed.

During her discussion of how to re-package the "Islam brand" to concerned non-Muslims (but apparently not the Muslims who keep misunderstanding Islam so badly), Shelina writes this:

It’s not just a technical tick-box exercise to say “Islam is about equality”. People only believe brands when they have demonstrated the brand values over and over again. For example, it’s no good just saying that Islam believes in the rights of women, if women aren’t given those rights.

What a conundrum!

Shelina seems to be admitting here that if us infidels have an unfairly negative opinion of Islam, it might be largely down to the fact that Muslims themselves keep living and practising an Islam which is violent, hateful, and totalitarian, and not because we are just bigots who intrinsically hate Islam for no reason. In other words, one sure-fire way to improve non-Muslim perceptions of Islam is for Muslims to stop blowing things up, spreading hate and treating women like dirt. Would that more Muslims had her honesty!

Next week, expect her to admit (in a roundabout way) that Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself against Muslim groups that have sworn to annihilate it down to the last Jewish child.

Thursday, 17 June 2010

Guess Who

In the picture below, an Afghan woman is having her picture taken for her voter registration card:

If you laughed at this, you are officially an Islamophobe.

Sunday, 13 June 2010

Erdogan and the IHH

This Jerusalem Post article highlights yet further the extent of the jihadist danger posed by Turkey and its leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who must never be allowed to formally join the European Union.

A report released last week by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) said new details have emerged which show how approximately 40 operatives from the Turkish IHH organization carefully prepared their violent ambush on the Israeli commandos who boarded the Mavi Maramara ship, and acted with the full backing of the Turkish government - who were apparently unmoved and uninterested by IHH's proven links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The IHH operatives were armed with knives, axes and other weapons, communicated with one another using walkie talkies, set up a control room onboard the ship, and maintained close ties with Erdogan, the report said. In addition, the Mavi Maramara ship was purchased by the IHH from a major shipping company owned by the Istanbul Municipality, which is run by the ruling AKP party.

The ITIC said its report was based on an initial analysis of statements taken from passengers onboard Mavi Marmara after it was towed to the port of Ashdod last week, as well as findings from computers seized by the IDF from IHH members.

More details at the link provided.

Wednesday, 9 June 2010

Muslim Leader Fabricates Hate Crime

"War is deceit" (Sahih Bukhari, v.4, b.56, no.3030, and others)

A Muslim community leader falsely claimed he was abducted by members of the British National Party, a court has heard. Noor Ramjanally, 36, of Loughton, Essex, cost the local council £1,300 improving security at his home, only for them to discover that no evidence existed for any such "hate crime".

I wrote here only recently about the way that Muslims instinctively feel they are being victimised by everyone else, but more than that, they need "hate crimes" for a very important reason: the more Muslims make out that they are victims who deserve governmental protection, the more they can convince authorities to make them a privileged class, with the political power that comes along with that designation - just as God's chosen path, sharia law, intends.

So it should not be surprising that Noor Ramjanally would do something like this. After all, it isn't the first time Muslims have invented "hate crimes" against them.

Tuesday, 8 June 2010

Erdogan Unveiled

The Jew-hatin', sharia-supportin' moderate, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

This brief but compelling editorial at the Washington Post raises some excellent observations about Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan - whose Jew-hating, genocide-denying, jihad-inciting craziness has been documented on this blog many times before - in light of the Humanitarian Hate Boats affair. While I take exception to the piece's reference in its opening line to "Israel's poor judgment and botched execution in the raid against the Free Gaza flotilla", it does make some trenchant points about Erdogan, his reaction to the affair, and the way in which his hardcore sharia-supremacist, "soft" jihadist mindset is becoming more apparent to the objective observer by the day:

Yet the IHH [the Turkish "charity" which orchestrated the trouble-making expedition to Gaza] has certainly done its best to promote Mr. Erdogan. "All the peoples of the Islamic world would want a leader like Recep Tayyip Erdogan," IHH chief Bulent Yildirim proclaimed at a Hamas rally in Gaza last year. And Mr. Erdogan seems to share that notion: In the days since an incident that the IHH admits it provoked, the Turkish prime minister has done his best to compete with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah's Hasan Nasrallah in attacking the Jewish state.

"The heart of humanity has taken one of her heaviest wounds in history," Mr. Erdogan claimed this week. He has had next to nothing to say about the slaughter of Iranians protesting last year's fraudulent elections, but he called Israel's actions "state terrorism" and a "bloody massacre" and described Israel itself as an "adolescent, rootless state." His foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said in Washington on Tuesday that "this attack is like 9/11 for Turkey" -- an obscene comparison to events in which more than 2,900 genuinely innocent people were killed.

The piece finishes with an accurate summary of President Obama's weakness and stupidity in dealing with Turkey, which can be generally applied to the rest of his dealings with the Muslim world, as well:

Mr. Erdogan's crude attempt to exploit the incident comes only a couple of weeks after he joined Brazil's president in linking arms with Mr. Ahmadinejad, whom he is assisting in an effort to block new U.N. sanctions. What's remarkable about his turn toward extremism is that it comes after more than a year of assiduous courting by the Obama administration, which, among other things, has overlooked his antidemocratic behavior at home, helped him combat the Kurdish PKK and catered to Turkish sensitivities about the Armenian genocide. Israel is suffering the consequences of its misjudgments and disregard of U.S. interests. Will Mr. Erdogan's behavior be without cost?

I believe that Erdogan represents a more dangerous form of jihadist than that represented by bin Laden or the Taliban - the kind that believes in all the same stuff, but has managed to convince the world that he is a "moderate". But as harmful as his "turn toward extremism" may be for those in his path, in one way I am glad that he is abandoning his "moderate" facade: the more obvious he gets, more likely free people are to oppose him before he gets what he wants.

But I wouldn't count on Obama being one of the resistors.

Saturday, 5 June 2010

On The Question of International Legality

It is extremely distressing that a week on from the Israeli night raid on the "Freedom Flotilla", there should even be any debate at all over the legality and morality of the IDF's actions. But, at least among the Leftist media, there certainly is, and they are even giving valuable airtime on the incident to scum like the rabidly antisemitic, Holocaust-minimising Jew Norman Finkelstein.

I do not intend to deal any further with the question of whether the victims of Israel's attack were genuine "humanitarians", since all the evidence indicates 100% that they were not. But regarding the question of whether Israel's actions were undertaken in line with international law (the mainstream media axiomatically assumes that they were not), I will simply provide some relevant extracts from a couple of different sources, and invite readers to make up their own minds.

First of all, from a brief Q & A published by Reuters (hardly a renowned source of pro-Israeli activism):


Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea". Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose....


Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally [i.e. even in "international waters] so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.


Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

The use of force may also have other repercussions.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

"However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."


No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

And additionally, these relevant articles from the 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, mentioned above:


Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy

Friday, 4 June 2010

Sucked Up

The silliness that naturally arises when a group of religious believers accept without question the moral example of a seventh-century Arabian warlord is highlighted in the recent case of a Saudi Muslim scholar who waded into controversy after he said that women could give their breast milk to men to establish a degree of maternal relations and get around a strict religious ban on mixing between unrelated men and women.

The idea is that unrelated men and women are not allowed to mix under Islamic law, and so a way to get around the impracticalities of this in the modern workplace is for women to breastfeed the men, thus making them symbolically mother and son, and therefore permitted to work together. Sheikh Abdul Mohsin al-Abaican attempts to get around the repugnance of this "ruling" by adding, unlike an Al-Azhar cleric who made a similar ruling three years ago, that the man does not have to directly suck the woman's breast, but can simply drink the milk from a cup - but the damage to Islam's reputation as a serious spiritual faith is already done.

There were of course Muslims who claimed that this ruling and the one that preceded it were "un-Islamic", but it is difficult to see how their views can be grounded in the example of Muhammad, the "Perfect Man" and an "excellent example" of conduct for Muslims to follow (Qur'an 33:21). After all, the Prophet permitted this kind of suckling himself:

' A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be eupon him) and said: Messengerof Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man 'Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn 'Umar (the words are): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed. (Sahih Muslim, b.8, no.3424)

(N.B. This is technically a family-friendly site, so I'm afraid there will be no pictures in this post to demonstrate what breastfeeding looks like.)

Thursday, 3 June 2010

The Qur'an's Victimhood Complex

Many non-Muslims who are unsure what to make of Islam put off reading the Qur'an for themselves because it is often seen as sleep-incucingly dull, repetitive and self-contradictory, as well as providing no real internal context or narrative structure within its pages.

However, reading the Qur'an does have at least one advantage for the curious unbeliever: it provides valuable insight into the way Muslims think.

A concrete example is the victimhood complex that is fomented in the Muslim community. Muslims - even "moderate" ones - often tend to think that everyone in the world is against them, that there is some kind of grand conspiracy against Islam. This has a long pedigree in Islamic history, but it was demonstrated most recently when 800 Muslims tried to storm the BBC Manchester studios to protest what they saw as biased reporting by the Beeb - in favour of Israel. This despite the fact that in the wake of the recent flotilla flare-up, the BBC repeatedly broadcast footage of Israeli commandos being attacked by "humanitarians" with clubs, while continuing to insist that Israel only "claimed" they were attacked.

Muslims' fear of non-Muslim conspiracies against them is great, and this is epitomised in their liberal use of the word "Islamophobia" - an alleged unreasoning hatred of Islam and Muslims that was once described by the influential Organisation of the Islamic Conference as "the worst form of terrorism" - even worse than suicide bombing in crowded marketplaces, apparently. Every time a Muslim commits yet another act of unspeakable religious violence in the heart of the West, Muslims cower in fear of a "backlash" from intolerant Western Islamophobes looking for an excuse to persecute Muslims - but this backlash has still never materialised, except in the form of extremely rare, and often fabricated, cases.

Playing the victim obviously has its strategic advantages from a political point of view: the more Muslims make out that they are victims who deserve governmental protection, the more they can convince authorities that any speech they don't like - even speech which is true - should be criminalised, meaning that reasonable criticism of Islam and its violent, supremacist doctrines gradually becomes taboo even for defense agencies, who need accurate understanding of them more than anyone else.

But it should also not surprise the astute reader of the Qur'an that this outlook on life - "They're all out to get us because they're just full of hate" - is foreshadowed in the Muslim holy book itself. The basic assumption repeated countless times in the Qur'an (and subsequently by Muslim spokesmen today) is that Islam is self-evidently true, and that anyone who rejects it must therefore be motivated by hatred, greed or spite. Here is a small flavour:

2:105 - Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture nor the idolaters love that there should be sent down unto you any good thing from your Lord. But Allah chooseth for His mercy whom He will, and Allah is of Infinite Bounty.

2:109 - Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

3:118, 120 - O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand...If a lucky chance befall you, it is evil unto them, and if disaster strike you they rejoice thereat. But if ye persevere and keep from evil their guile will never harm you. Lo! Allah is Surrounding what they do.

The renowned Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir (d.1373) says that in verses like these, "Allah described the deep enmity that the disbelieving polytheists and People of the Scripture, whom Allah warned against imitating, have against the believers, so that Muslims should sever all friendship with them."

A more modern authority, Muhammad Shafi (d.1976), the former Mufti of Pakistan, wrote of the third passage reproduced above:

[T]he text warns Muslims that they [infidels] are always on the look out for opportunities to hoodwink and hurt them [Muslims] materially and spiritually. They are always plotting to harm them in this worldly life as well as to take them away from the enjoined pursuits of their Faith...the in-depth teaching is that no non-Muslim can ever be the real friend and well-wisher of Muslims.

Islam Q & A, a mainstream Muslim website providing scholarly opinions and legal rulings for lay Muslims, quotes a number of Qur'an verses to make the same points, i.e.:

The enmity of the kuffaar – the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), mushrikeen (polytheists) and hypocrites – towards the believers will last until the [Last] Hour begins....

Because Islam rules the believers with justice, and gives each person his rights, and they do not want this to happen – for this reason they strive to wage war against this religion and to refute the truth with falsehood....

Those who disbelieve spend of their wealth in order to prevent others from following the path of Allaah, at all times and in all places, and (they strive to) spread corruption, provoke wars and kill the believers....

Allaah has told us how strong the enmity of the kuffaar is towards the Muslims....

No matter what the kuffaar do, their enmity will not end. Even though they may speak words of friendship, their hearts are filled with hatred towards Islam and its people....

And so on.

These sentiments obviously foment hostility towards non-Muslims, and foster an "Us Vs. Them" attitude in Muslim societies which does not bode well for "inter-faith dialogue" or any positive interactions between Muslims and non-Muslims. Furthermore, they encourage cultural stagnation in the Muslim world, since Muslims are prevented by their own religion from accepting any responsibility for their own lot - whenever anything bad happens to them, it is always the infidels' fault. Even Muslims who have never read a word of the Qur'an can be imbibed with these attitudes, as they are passed down through the generations and become part of the local and general culture.

It is clear in so many ways that if there is a Clash of Civilisations happening right now, it has been generated not by the West, which has a long and proud tradition of tolerance and universalism, but by attitudes and assumptions derived from the Qur'an. If you ever find yourself wanting to know how Muslims think, and why Muslim groups and societies have such strange priorities, just read their book. It's all in there.