Thursday, 31 March 2011

Another Rape Victim Suffers The Ultimate Injustice

This man had to watch his little girl being whipped to death because of Islam

At the same time as Iman al-Obeidi finds herself charged for being raped, this peculiarly Islamic phenomenon is not limited solely to Libya.

This horrifying piece at CNN examines the case of 14 year-old Hena Akhter, who was lashed to death in Bangladesh on charges of adultery. In reality, she was raped. The article provides these details:

Hena was walking from her room to an outdoor toilet when Mahbub Khan gagged her with cloth, forced her behind nearby shrubbery and beat and raped her.

Hena struggled to escape, Alya told CNN. Mahbub Khan's wife heard Hena's muffled screams and when she found Hena with her husband, she dragged the teenage girl back to her hut, beat her and trampled her on the floor.

The next day, the village elders met to discuss the case at Mahbub Khan's house, Alya said. The imam pronounced his fatwa. Khan and Hena were found guilty of an illicit relationship. Her punishment under sharia or Islamic law was 101 lashes; his 201.

Mahbub Khan managed to escape after the first few lashes.

That the rapist/"co-adulterer" was also charged and punished does not diminish the inherent misogyny of this sentence, since such an unjust ruling could only occur as the result of a legal process that deems a woman's testimony to be worthless before a court. The Qur'an says: "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember.” (2:282)

When Muhammad was asked why a woman's testimony was worth half that of a man, he explained: “This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.” (Bukhari v.3, b.48, no.826)

Then, of course there is also the fact that, as I explained in another recent post, Islamic law requires four male witnesses to establish a charge of sexual misconduct - a virtually impossible standard to fulfil.

Further on, the CNN article notes:

Bangladesh is considered a democratic and moderate Muslim country, and national law forbids the practice of sharia. But activist and journalist Shoaib Choudhury, who documents such cases, said sharia is still very much in use in villages and towns aided by the lack of education and strong judicial systems.

The Supreme Court also outlawed fatwas a decade ago, but human rights monitors have documented more than 500 cases of women in those 10 years who were punished through a religious ruling. And few who have issued such rulings have been charged.

And finally:

The United Nations estimates that almost half of Bangladeshi women suffer from domestic violence and many also commonly endure rape, beatings, acid attacks and even death because of the country's entrenched patriarchal system.

This is another one of those facts that utterly invalidates the claims of Islamic apologists that Islam "empowers" women. Not only do the above statistics reinforce the obvious fact that wherever Islam predominates, women suffer; they also shed light on the futility of invoking "happy" Muslim women in the Islamic world as proof that Islam cherishes women's rights. In a society where the consequence of speaking out against abuse is more abuse, praise for the oppressive force is obviously illegitimate.

Unfortunately, it appears that it will take many, many more cases like that of Hena Ahkter before the Western Left - and even, increasingly, the Right - starts to get the picture.

Wednesday, 30 March 2011

Iman al-Obeidi: Victim Or Slanderer?

Libyan officials take Iman al-Obeidi into custody

Further to my posting yesterday, and confirming its factual validity, the Libyan woman who was arrested after telling foreign journalists she had been gang-raped by Colonel Gaddafi's troops has herself now been charged with slander.

Perhaps Bill O'Reilly can travel to Libya immediately and explain to the authorities there that the idea that Muhammad could have taught that Muslim men can rape women and not be held accountable is "hard to believe".

Another notable aspect of this story is the fact that just because the men in question are now suing Iman al-Obeidi does not mean that they are innocent of the crime, since the Islamic definition of slander is different from the Western conception.

According to a canonical hadith (Muslim b.32, no.6265), Muhammad was once asked to define slander, or "backbiting". He answered: "Backbiting implies your talking about your brother in a manner which he does not like" - even if a given accusation is true. Hence the translator of the authoritative Islamic legal manual Reliance of the Traveller asserts the following in a footnote:

Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him...

So in Islam, to slander someone does not necessarily mean you have said something about them that is false; only that you have said something that they would prefer you didn't mention in public.

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

Taking Bill O'Reilly To School (Yet Again)

Despite being regularly pilloried by the Left for being a "right-wing nutjob", Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has pretty consistently shown himself to be willfully clueless about Islam.

This was demonstrated again yesterday during a segment on O'Reilly's show about the alleged rape of a Libyan woman by Muammar Gaddafi's forces. O'Reilly interviews Wafa Sultan, a former Muslim of Syrian origin, and author of A God Who Hates. Sultan appropriately pointed out that under Islamic law, rape is essentially legalised and encouraged due to the fact that four male witnesses are required to testify to a sexual assault on a woman. Failure to present these four witnesses will result in the victim being accused of adultury and quite possibly stoned to death.

O'Reilly responded incredulously, stating: "I find it hard to believe that the Prophet Muhammad would preach a religious doctrine where women can be abused at any time by any Muslim man and the man can be not held accountable in heaven or hell."

Well Bill...believe it.

Start with this hadith, taken from Sahih Bukhari, the collection of Muhammad's traditions considered most sacred and reliable by Muslims. Read it all to get the full story, but here it is in summary: Muhammad's favourite wife Aisha - who also happened to be pre-pubescent, by the way - was accused of adultery, and because Muhammad did not like this, he received a "revelation" from Allah which exonerated her, and scolded her accusers for not producing four witnesses. This admonition remains in the Qur'an to this day: “Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah.” (24:13)

This set the precedent in Islamic law that four male witnesses are required in order to justify an accusation of rape. The Hedaya, an important Islamic legal manual that is used today in Pakistan's sharia courts, says: “The evidence required in a case of whoredom [Arabic: Zina, meaning fornication or adultery] is that of four men, as has been ordained in the Qur'an, and the testimony of a woman in such case is not admitted”.

As many as 75% of women in prison in Pakistan are there because they were victims of rape. When the Musharraf government considered modernising these rape laws in 2006, a group of furious Islamic clerics protested. They demanded that the new law be withdrawn, since it would turn Pakistan into a “free-sex zone”. They insisted that the law was “against the teachings of Islam”, and that it had only been passed to appease the West.

Further evidence that Muhammad condoned and even encouraged rape can also be found in the following hadith, in which Muhammad permits his soldiers to rape female war captives, reassuring them that Allah will not allow the women to become pregnant and that therefore his men don't have to withdraw before ejaculation:

“We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Banu al-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.” (Muslim b.8, no.3371)

Then there is also divine permission given by the "Prophet" Muhammad for marital rape: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” (Bukhari v.4, b.54, no.460).

And all that's just for starters, Bill. You won't like the main course.

Monday, 28 March 2011

A Chronicle Of Christian Persecution

Earthquake? No...Islam

"A Christian [in Bangladesh] has been sentenced to one year in prison for “creating chaos” by selling and distributing Christian books and other literature near a major Muslim gathering north of this capital city." ~ March 23rd

"Thousands of Christians have been forced to flee their homes in Western Ethiopia after Muslim extremists set fire to roughly 50 churches and dozens of Christian homes. At least one Christian has been killed, many more have been injured and anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 have been displaced in the attacks that began March 2 after a Christian in the community of Asendabo was accused of desecrating the Koran." ~ March 24th

"A group of Muslims attacked Ayman Anwar Mitri, a 45 year old Christian Coptic man in the Upper Egyptian town of Qena, cutting off his ear. The Muslims claimed they were applying Sharia law because Mr. Mitri allegedly had an illicit affair with a Muslim woman. The Muslims called the police and told them 'We have applied the law of Allah, now come and apply your law,' according to Mr. Mitri in an interview for the Egyptian Human Rights Organization." ~ March 26th

"A report recently published by Aid to the Church in Need gives a round-up of how Christians are being persecuted in many countries. In particular it looked at the very difficult conditions in the Middle Eastern countries." ~ March 27th

Tell me again how Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

Friday, 25 March 2011

Maths Teachers And "Anti-Muslim Bigotry"

Richard "Ignore All The Evidence" Durbin

Earlier this month, Rep. Peter King began his hearings on the radicalisation of American Muslims, an important investigative process that no more demonises the average Muslim than the trial of the Yorkshire Ripper demonised Michael Parkinson.

Now American Senate Democrats are countering with a hearing of their own, led by Richard J. Durbin, to examine Muslims' civil rights, saying there has been a "spike in anti-Muslim bigotry" in the last year that demands closer attention.

Evidence of this "anti-Muslim bigotry" is hardly anywhere to be found. After all, as even the Washington Times article linked above notes, "In 2009, the latest FBI statistics available, anti-Islamic hate crimes accounted for 9.3 percent of the 1,376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded. That's far less than the 70.1 percent that were anti-Jewish." There have been no Congressional hearings that I am aware of on the subject of American antisemitism.

Meanwhile, the US government is suing a Chicago school on behalf of a Muslim maths teacher who claimed religious discrimination when the school refused to grant her permission to take three weeks off for her pilgrimage to Mecca. Despite the fact that the school's decision had nothing to do with her religion and everything to do with her unreasonable request, and despite the fact that nothing in Safoorah Khan's religion requires her to go on her hajj this year, Uncle Sam is apparently running interference on her behalf, which they would obviously not have done for a member of any other religious group.

With this sort of "anti-Muslim bigotry" rampant in America, it's no wonder that Muslims are being "driven" to extremism and radicalisation, right?

Thursday, 24 March 2011

Worth Dying For?

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001 by Resolution 1386 as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement.

ISAF's "Counterinsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team" (CAAT) has issued this demented leaflet to our soldiers in Afghanistan, entitled "Cultural Sensitivity: Religious Importance of the Qur'an", which imposes Islamic law on our troops serving in the country. The full text reads as follows:

Best Practice: NATO ISAF personnel should always deal carefully with Islam and its founding text, the Holy Qur’an.


The vast majority of Afghans, 99%, is Muslim and thus practices Islam. The Qur’an (also spelled Koran) is the central religious text of Islam. Muslims believe the Qur’an is the book of divine guidance and direction that all of mankind should follow. They consider the text – in its original Arabic – to be the literal word of God (Allah), revealed to humanity through the Prophet Muhammad (also spelled Mohammad).

Because Muslims believe that the Qur’an records the literal word of God, they treat all copies of the book with extreme veneration. Every complete copy, or even a partial passage, is considered holy. It is considered culturally insensitive for any non-Muslim to touch a copy of the Qur’an. Even Muslims are supposed to perform ablution, a ritualistic hand washing before holding the Qur’an.

Additionally, verbal disrespect for Islam and/or the Qur’an is considered as inappropriate as physical desecration of the Qur’an. Insulting the Qur’an is an act of blasphemy. Muslims believe they have an inherent duty to stand up against injustices committed against Islam and the Qur’an. Therefore, they take any perceived disrespect to Islam and/or the Qur’an extremely seriously. Insurgents will use this to their advantage by planting desecrated Qur’ans and spreading disinformation about NATO ISAF forces.


1. Do NOT handle Qur’ans or other Islamic religious items.
2. Never talk badly about the Qur’an or its contents.
3. If you must search a location or person’s belongings, ask them if they have a Qur’an or religious item present. If so, ask them to remove it or put it in a suitable place before conducting the search.
4. Your level of sensitivity must be even greater when conducting canine searches. Having an animal anywhere near a Qur’an or other religious artifact is considered highly disrespectful.
5. If you have any questions about the Qur’an or Islam, ask respectfully.
6. Be informed and prepared to answer questions about alleged desecration of the Qur’an.

In other words, comply with Islamic rules even though you are not Muslims and do not believe in Islam, because they will kill you if you don't - and if they do, it will be your fault.

It's all part of that wonderful idea originated by George W. Bush, and continued by the witless commanders of the British and American armed forces today, that it is seriously worth going to war and having our best soldiers murdered, having them come home with crippling life-destroying disabilities, having hundreds of British and American children grow up without fathers - all in order to make Muslims happy.

How's that working out, lads?

Friday, 18 March 2011

No "No Fly Zone"

Continuing his outstanding analytical coverage of the situation in Libya, Andrew C. McCarthy dissents from the official editorial line of his editors at National Review in order to oppose the UN-backed "No Fly Zone" over Libya, which will commit Western countries to another aimless war in the Middle East, sacrificing the lives of our best soldiers, for no good reason, and in aid of shadowy "rebels" who include among their number many Islamic jihadists.

McCarthy concludes:

I appreciate that it is hard to say, “Butt out.” Qaddafi is a monster and his opposition is murky enough (for now) to be portrayed as “rebels” and “freedom fighters.” But I fear we’re being swept away by emotion and by what we should now know is the vain hope that making sacrifices for besieged Muslims is going to make the ummah like us better. It is essential to attack Islamic terrorists who plot against America, but our humanitarian military efforts in the Islamic world have been a disaster — at staggering costs in lives and hundreds of billions of dollars that we don’t have. We should be working on how to get the nation disentangled from Islamic countries, not leading the nation headlong into another conflict that we cannot win.

Read the whole thing. No Western leader has articulated any kind of meaningful or coherent plan of what they want to achieve in Libya, and for this reason they MUST NOT commit to it, lest it become another Afghanistan.

Wednesday, 16 March 2011

Common Causes: Palestinian Terrorists And The Western Left

"Arab terrorists murdered five people in a family in the Jewish community of Itamar, in northeast Samaria, around 9 p.m. Friday night...

"The only survivors were a 12-year-old girl, who returned from a Bnei Akiva youth group event to discover her parents and three of her brothers and sisters,including a three-month old baby girl, dead in pools of blood, and two younger brothers, who were sleeping a separate room...

"[Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad] did not condemn the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which took responsibility for the attack. In a statement to the media, the terrorist cell of the Fatah faction headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas claimed that the attack was a 'heroic operation, part of the natural response to the massacres of the fascist occupation against our people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.'" ~ Israel National News, 12th March 2011


"The despicable murders in Itamar occurred as a natural offshoot of the round of Israel-bashing called by the organizers of month-long “Israel Apartheid 'Week'.”Those doing the bashing are busy turning logic on its head. For them, up is down, day is night, and right is wrong. The collected hatemongers of the radical Left allied with the terminally hate-filled Muslim world, their ranks filled with empty-headed and gullible drones, are combining to shriek misplaced support for an Arab people calling themselves Palestinians, who, they allege, are suffering from apartheid. They make this false charge by slandering the Jewish state, equating it with what was once the South African Apartheid regime." ~ Israel National News, 15th March 2011


And the final insult:

"'Palestinian' kills five Israelis in West Bank

"Israeli troops have launched a manhunt after five members of a Jewish settler family were killed in the West Bank." ~ BBC News, 12th March 2011

So it was actually their fault they got butchered, you see, because they were "settlers".

Sunday, 13 March 2011

Exposing Keith Ellison's Taqiyya (Again)

Keith Ellison: inveterate liar

Fresh from lying in front of the assembled at Peter King's hearings on Islamic terrorism, Muslim Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison was at it again the next day, when he appeared on TV in debate with atheist talk show host Bill Maher.

Maher accurately summarised the reasons why the King hearings are so important, skewering the much-peddled talking point that holding hearings about Islam alone, without focusing on other forms of "extremism", was unfair and would provoke further suspicion of Muslims:

I would say that the threat from radicalised Muslims is a unique and greater threat...It's been going on a thousand years, this problem between Islam and the West. We are dealing with a culture that is in its medieval era. It comes from a hate-filled holy book, the Qur'an, which is taken very literally by its people. They are trying to get nuclear weapons. I don't think Tim McVeigh would have ever tried to get a nuclear weapon because I think right-wing nuts, they think they love this country and they are not trying to destroy this country; they want to get it away from the people they see as hijacking it. That's different from Muslim extremists who want to destroy [America]. And also it's a culture of suicide bombing which is hard to deter [because we are facing] people who want to kill themselves.

Ellison responded with standard Islamic apologetic talking points, which I will discuss below:

1. Claiming that violent and hateful verses from the Qur'an are taken "out of context" to justify violence, which ignores centuries of traditional commentaries on the Qur'an by venerated Muslim scholars, who make clear that, all context considered, these verses mandate violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers. For example, there is verse 9:29, which reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [non-Muslim poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

The Qur'an commentary of Ibn Kathir (d.1373), which can be found in any good Muslim bookshop today, provides both historical and textual context for this verse to assert:

“This honorable Ayah [verse] was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book; after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination...

“Allah said, 'until they pay the Jizya', if they do not choose to embrace Islam, 'with willing submission', in defeat and subservience, 'and feel themselves subdued', disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah [protected religious minorities living under Muslim rule] or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.”

There are many, many other commentators who interpret this verse in the same way, and they are all considered mainstream in the Muslim world. Keith Ellison thinks he understands the Qur'an better than them. Bill Maher doesn't buy it, and neither should you.

2. Quoting the following Qur'anic passage:

“whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” (5:32)

But not providing the "context" for this command by quoting it in full along with the immediately following passage:

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.” (5:32-33)

Thus, in its full context, we can see that this passage is actually a threat to the Jews not to oppose the Muslims or they will face crucifixion, mutilation or banishment.

3. Quoting the passage which says "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) without mentioning that, in he words of the revered Muslim scholar Tabari (d.923): “Arab society was compelled to enter Islam because they were an unlettered community, having no book which they knew. Thus nothing other than Islam was accepted from them. The People of the Book are not to be compelled to enter Islam if they submit to paying the jizya [poll tax] or kharaj [land tax].”

In other words, the purpose of jihad outlined in Qur'anic verses such as 9:29, at least regarding Jews and Christians, is not to force them to accept Islam, but rather to force the Islamic legal system upon them, relegating them to second-class status and payment of the jizya if they refuse to convert. But if they do convert, they do so freely.

4. Maintaining that "If you listen to terrorist rhetoric, Bill, what they do is they cite politics...they cite political grievances. They don't really use too much religion."

I would advise anyone listening to this who finds this to be a compelling argument to immediately purchase a copy of The Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim, which uses never-before-translated writings from Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to demonstrate that al-Qaeda's political propaganda is intended purely for the consumption of the West, while its longer treatises distributed in Arabic in the Muslim world cite extensive quotations from the Qur'an and Islamic tradition to make a transcendental theological argument. For example, in a letter to a group of Saudi theologians that was never intended for Western consumption, bin Laden quotes numerous verses from the Qur'an and hadith to support the assertion that:

“Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission [i.e. conversion to Islam]; or payment of the jizya [non-Muslim poll tax], through physical though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword – for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live.”

Numerous other examples, including the case of the failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad and of the 9/11 orchestrators themselves give the lie to the claim that Muslims don't use religious arguments to justify terrorism.

All of the above is easily verifiable. While Maher's criticism of Islam itself (i.e. not "radical Islam" or "Islamic extremism") is welcome, it is a shame that he was not informed enough to call out Keith Ellison on the deceptions that followed in the rest of the interview.

Mission No. 77

Government documents seized by protestors in Egypt chillingly suggest that the Egyptian State Security was involved in the church bombing on New Year's Day in Alexandria. The bombing killed 21 people and wounded 80, the worst violence against Egypt's Coptic Christian minority in more than a decade.

The legitimacy of the document hasn't been determined, but its distribution touched off protests in Cairo by hundreds of Coptic Christians.

Copts, especially those in Alexandria, had suspected state involvement in the bombing, noting that a stepped-up security force that was supposed to have protected the church had vanished before the bomb exploded.

According to the document, one of eight said to discuss attacks on churches, State Security used a jailed jihadist to help organise the plot, including details on the church's entrances and exits. The document was dated December 2nd, 2010, and was addressed to the interior minister. It referred to the church bombing as "Mission No. 77."

If this information is confirmed to be true, it would be a damning indictment of Mubarak's deposed "secular" government, and would also not be remotely surprising. After all, this wouldn't be the first time in recent history that Egyptian security forces have been complicit in the persecution of the Copts.

It is telling that our witless media only noticed in the last few weeks that Egypt and other Arab countries have oppressive governments. Before the despots began slaughtering their own people who were protesting against their rule, all the mainstream media ever noticed in the Middle East was the imaginary "war crimes" of Israel. Their silence on the persecution of Christians in Egypt in favour of antisemitic slurs against the only pluralistic democracy in the region is truly shameful.

Friday, 11 March 2011

Defending Peter King's Hearings

Rep. Peter King: A politician with balls

At last, after weeks of speculation and controversy, the hearings on radical Islam organised by Peter King of the United States House of Representatives are underway. Typically, the media are cooking up a storm on this subject, and King and his hearings have been criticised from almost every angle.

So far, despite the presence of every kind of Islamic supremacist thug, the hearings have gone well. We have seen King call out the Council on American Islamic Relations for its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and terrorism, which the media have portrayed as unfounded accusations despite the huge body of supporting evidence.

We have also seen the Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison - whose ritual pilgrimage to Mecca was paid for by the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood's official US branch - deliver a speech that I hear brought him within a hair's breadth of beating Colin Firth to that coveted Best Actor Oscar. Despite Ellison's crocodile tears, however, what he actually said was absolute garbage, as Matthew Shaffer demonstrates here.

Ellison's phony diatribe was consistent with one of many talking points that are currently doing the rounds among Leftists and weasels everywhere: the claim that many Muslim terrorist plots in the United States since 9/11 have been prevented with the help of tip-offs from other Muslims. The source for this is apparently a recent study by the Triangle Centre on Terrorism and Homeland Security at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. This data is, however, highly contentious given that similar "findings" by Muslim organisations have been discredited as biased and unreliable.

But even if the Triangle Centre's data is accurate, what the "expert" witnesses and analysts continue to ignore is the fact that those Muslims - and there have unfortunately been many - who have committed or attempted to commit terrorist attacks on US soil have done so in the name of Islam, and in devotion to Islam, as they have said themselves repeatedly. Those Muslims who have prevented terrorist attacks have largely done so not because of Islam, but simply because they are good people who want to help others. Rep. King's hearings, for all their flaws, are intended to investigate what leads Muslims who take the Qur'an seriously to commit acts of violence in its name. Most "moderate" American Muslim advocates would apparently prefer that this investigation never took place, which makes one wonder what these groups have to say and do before people stop referring to them as moderates.

Another common talking point of King's critics are the claims that these hearings somehow represent the return of McCarthyism and witch-hunts. So the argument goes, there are many different kinds of "extremists", and to focus solely on Islam is counter-productive and risks turning people against Muslims as a whole.

The problem with this is that there is a severe and undeniable correlation that is not being addressed - despite Muslims making up 1% of the American population, they have somehow managed to account for over 80% of all convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism since 9/11. That such a serious problem emanating from one specific demographic group deserves an in-depth investigation of its own is self-evident, and this investigation no more "singles out" or "demonises" all Muslims any more than hearings on the odious Westboro Baptist Church would demonise all American Christians.

Finally, King's oft-quoted statement that around 80% of American mosques are under the control of extremists has once again been presented as a hateful fabrication that he pulled out of nowhere, when it has in fact been derived from hard data pulled from several undercover investigations. In 1999, Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Muslim himself, testified in front of the US State Department:

The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques, that has been sent upon these mosques around the United States – like churches they were established by different organizations and that is ok – but the problem with our communities is the extremist ideology. Because they are very active they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques that have been established in the US. And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US.

In 2008, the initial findings from 100 mosques of the Mapping Sharia Project suggested that around 75% should be on watch-lists due to their radical teachings.

These disturbing figures do, of course, reflect the nature of the leadership of American mosques, and not necessarily the congregants, who often reject the teachings of their imams, but King never claimed that 80% of American Muslims were extremists, only the mosques, and in that he was entirely correct.

These hearings are an absolutely essential part of America's defense strategy. Improved knowledge leads to improved policy. But it is not surprising to see the usual suspects out to implement their own little "witch-hunts" against those who espouse Islamo-Realism in the West. Hopefully, as they grow increasingly desperate, the coming days, weeks and months will see fewer and fewer Americans buying their snake-oil and more of them waking up to the truth about Islam.

Thursday, 10 March 2011

Marital Rape In Pakistan

This horrific article from the Pakistani Tribune exposes the widespread problem of marital rape in the country, with General Hospital in Lahore dealing with five cases of married women sexually assaulted by their husbands every single week.

Be sure to read the whole article, but there are several things that immediately jump out. First:

Nilofer Raja* complained that her husband had several extra marital affairs and that she had contracted an STD after he forced himself on her. “He abuses me but I cannot refuse him. My family told me that it was my religious duty to do as he demanded and that if I refuse the angels will curse me all night,” she told doctors.

Sahih Bukhari, the most authoritative Islamic religious text after the Qur'an, quotes the "Prophet" Muhammad as saying: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” (Bukhari v.4, b.54, no.460).

Typically, whenever the backwardness of Muslim countries is brought to light, the learned analysts will tell us that this backwardness is merely a "cultural" problem, or is caused by a "lack of education", and anyone who says it has anything to do with Islam is an Islamophobe. But when someone directly quotes a religious tradition word for word in order to justify oppression, that is not "cultural" - it is a direct result of the teachings of that religion, and failing to acknowledge this is what allows it to keep happening time after time.

Shirkat Gah representative Fauzia Vikar said “the concept of marital rape does not exist in our society. She is thought to have signed a contract for sex...

Once again, these attitudes are vindicated by the teachings of Muhammad, who believed that the best and most important thing a woman brings to a marriage is her vagina: “The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women's) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract).” (Bukhari v.7, b.62, no.81)

Most reports from battered women reflect that they do not think their spouses are guilty of a crime.” “Most women I have spoken to on the issue simply think that marital rape is natural. We need to educate and economically empower women so that they realise it is not their duty to tolerate abuse,” she said. According to Vikar, most women consider it shameful and a sin to oppose non-consensual sex.

It is this sort of thing that gives the lie to those who claim that women in Muslim societies aren't really oppressed, for example, by wearing the burqa, and cite as evidence for this the testimony of Muslim women who say that they are treated fairly under Islam. When the consequence of speaking up against abuse is more abuse, possibly leading to violence and death - or at the very least severe social stigmatisation - that is NOT fairness or liberation. It is the oppressed seeking to justify their own oppression out of fear and demoralisation.

According to a gynecologist Dr Asmah Mehmood “Very few women in Pakistan actually have a healthy sexual relationship with their spouses. Abuse is common and so is violence.”

It is important to note that the Qur'an permits men to beat their wives if they are disobedient: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.” (4:34)

Numerous mainstream Islamic authorities, including the authoritative manual of Islamic law Reliance of the Traveller, are very clear that refusal of sexual intercourse is among the acts of "rebellion" and disobedience which justify the beating of women. From Reliance:

When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse...If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her...

Finally, as you contemplate the serious human rights abuses currently ravaging Pakistan, do not ignore the fact that British Muslim leaders support this barbarity as well.

Sleep tight.

Going Backwards

"So long as there is this book [the Qur'an], there will be no peace in the world." ~ William Gladstone, Prime Minister four times between 1868 and 1894

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion par
alyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." ~ Winton Churchill, Prime Minister twice between 1940 and 1955

"[T]he ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not." ~ David Cameron, current Prime Minister

Thursday, 3 March 2011

Same Story, Different Country

In this terrific piece over at National Review, Andrew C McCarthy exposes the shallowness of the mainstream media's continual hysterical delusions about the "pro-democracy" protests now raging in Libya. McCarthy notes:

Yes, yes, I know: We are not supposed to look at Libyans now as they appeared the last time we took notice: a cheering throng greeting Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie terrorist, whom the Obama administration was cajoled into ignoring when the Brits orchestrated his release from jail to appease our spot-shorn leopard. Nor are we supposed to register that Qaddafi’s main opponents in this 97 percent Muslim country are Islamists who have about as much use for us as they do for Colonel Crazy.

Aside from this, however, McCarthy does not mention the crazed antisemitism that has been on display during the unrest. Take for example, this representative example of many banners held up by protestors:

(Click to enlarge)

Note the Star of David on Gaddafi's forehead. And note that we saw the exact same thing on banners of Mubarak during the demonstrations of the "secular pro-democracy reformers" in Egypt. The pattern is clear: in the Muslim world, if you want to demonise someone and portray them as evil incarnate, depict them as a Jew. This is in line with the teachings of the Qur'an: “Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews..." (5:82) Reprehensible, of course. But apparently acceptable to some as long as the people support the institutionalisation of antisemitic values via democratic elections.

Anyway, McCarthy goes on to provide a little history lesson, explaining the Bush administration's hopeless attempts to turn Colonel Gaddafi into a "reformed" character and an ally, which were of course doomed to failure. It seems our leaders noticed too late what anyone with eyes should have been able to see long ago: that Gaddafi is and always will remain a despot who can never be trusted and should in fact have been destroyed long ago.

But whatever happens in the coming days, whether Gaddafi is deposed or not, let's have no more of this "democracy" claptrap. When the values of the people are informed by Islam, there can be no democracy in the fullest sense. End of story.