tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53578583232063474052024-03-06T07:20:31.075+00:00Eye On IslamKnow Your EnemyBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.comBlogger444125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-9022767852733199072016-08-16T23:59:00.000+01:002016-08-16T23:59:37.001+01:00Rape and Sexual Slavery in Islam (Part 4)<b>The Islamic Rape of the West</b><br />
<br />
On New Year’s Eve in 2015, hundreds of women in Cologne, Germany, reported being <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35250903">sexually assaulted</a> all over the city by gangs of men who were “North African or Arab in appearance”. The mainstream media reported these events belatedly and in a limited fashion, but they were the first exposure for many in the West to the dangers of mass immigration from the Muslim world.<br />
<br />
And yet, despite the large-scale nature of the Cologne attacks, they were merely the tip of the iceberg. Left mainly unreported by the English-speaking media was the fact that hundreds of similar sexual assaults occurred in Hamburg and Stuttgart <a href="https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7557/germany-rape-migrants-crisis">on the same night</a>. The wave of migrant rape in Germany has also continued well into 2016, with women, teenage girls and even young children being raped and attacked by Muslim immigrants and asylum seekers in numerous public places, including shopping centres, parks and train stations. There has also been a <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/338411-germany-sex-assault-migrant/">spate</a> of migrant sex attacks on children at <a href="http://tundratabloids.com/2016/04/germany-two-afghan-men-force-14-yo-into-sex-acts-at-swimming-pool/">public swimming pools</a>, leading to some pools <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cologne-sex-attacks-swimming-pool-7188945">banning male refugees</a> or <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3476426/German-swimming-pool-two-migrant-sex-attacks-carried-says-forced-segregate-men-women.html">segregating men and women</a>.<br />
<br />
Sweden has also been heavily hit by the Muslim rape epidemic, being perhaps the second country behind Germany to take in a huge number of “refugees” during the 2015 migration crisis. In May 2016, the Swedish police <a href="https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8375/sweden-rampant-sexual-assaults">released a report</a> noting that Sweden is at the top of the EU's statistics on physical and sexual violence against women, sexual harassment and stalking. The report stated that the vast majority of the crimes are committed by “asylum-seeker boys” and “foreign men”. As in Germany, sexual assaults at public pools are widespread, and in 80% of cases, the perpetrators have been “unaccompanied refugee children”. The rapes are occurring everywhere, including within the asylum centres. In <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/05/underage-migrant-rapes-15-year-old-sweden/">one case</a>, an Afghan asylum seeker raped a 15-year-old girl on only his second day in Sweden.<br />
<br />
These are not just a few isolated cases. This phenomenon is <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390168/Migrant-rape-fears-spread-Europe-Women-told-not-night-assaults-carried-Sweden-Finland-Germany-Austria-Switzerland-amid-warnings-gangs-ordinating-attacks.html">manifesting itself on a daily basis</a> all across Europe, with examples also occurring in other countries including Finland, Austria and Switzerland. In 2011, a <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/all_rapes_in_oslo_by_foreigners_police/P20/">report by Norwegian police</a> revealed that 100% of all violent rapes – literally every single one – that occurred in the city of Oslo during the previous year had been committed by immigrants, with up to two-thirds of overall rapes attributable to non-natives. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo#Demographics">largest</a> first- and second-generation migrant group in Oslo is Pakistanis, with thousands of Somalians, Iraqis, Turks, Moroccans and Iranians also present.<br />
<br />
In the UK, this continuing “rape jihad” has manifested itself in the form of so-called <a href="http://www.englishdefenceleague.org.uk/islam/grooming-gangs/">“grooming gangs”</a>, whereby large gangs of men draw in vulnerable underage girls, often plying them with alcohol, before raping and abusing them repeatedly, sometimes over a period of several years and often accompanied by severe intimidation and threats. There have been dozens of such crimes recorded over the past several years alone, with notable instances occurring in Rochdale, Rotherham, Ipswich, Oldham, Oxford and Halifax, among many others.<br />
<br />
Of course, gang rape is sadly an evil that is found among all religious and ethnic groups. But although the media frequently refer to these gangs as “Asian” (an appellation which has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18092605">angered</a> some Hindu and Sikh groups, who do not want to be accused of an offense they are more often the victims of than the perpetrators), this is in fact an overwhelmingly Muslim problem. As of March 2016, Muslims are <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01BLPTC1U/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1">estimated</a> to make up around 90% of gang grooming convictions in Britain, and statistically speaking, a Muslim is about 170 times more likely to be convicted of this crime than a non-Muslim – an especially disturbing fact given that Muslims are only around 5% of the UK population.<br />
<br />
Up until now, mainstream analysts and political authorities have been woefully unable to explain why all of these phenomena keep occurring. And yet, for those who understand Islam, the explanation is simple, intellectually consistent, and tragically predictable. Consider the following established facts:<br />
<br />
•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/is-quran-hate-speech.html">Islam teaches that non-Muslims are inferior to Muslims</a>.<br />
•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Islam promotes an image of women as sexual playthings for men (see link below).<br />
•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/rape-and-sexual-slavery-in-islam-part-1.html">Islam permits Muslim men to keep sex slaves</a>.<br />
•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/rape-and-sexual-slavery-in-islam-part-3.html">Islam permits Muslim men to have sex with young children</a>.<br />
<br />
All of these facts have contributed towards the Muslim rape crisis in the West today: Hence women are targeted for sexual abuse and rape, who are predominantly non-Muslims, and are often under the legal age of consent.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusions</b><br />
<br />
As this recent set of posts has proven, the practice of sexual slavery by the Islamic State, and the widespread sexual assaults committed by Muslim immigrants to the West, are all justified by orthodox, traditional Islamic teachings that can no longer be denied. Speaking after the mass assaults on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, the local imam, Sami Abu Yusuf, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/19/salafist-cologne-imam-at-terror-mosque-girls-were-raped-because-they-were-half-naked-and-wore-perfume/">said</a> that the victims of the attacks were themselves responsible, by dressing inappropriately and wearing perfume, adding that “[i]t is not surprising the men wanted to attack them.” Events in recent years have proven that these attitudes are also pervasive among a large number of ordinary Muslims.<br />
<br />
The response of European political authorities to this never-ending stream of rape and perversion has been supine at best, and dangerously negligent at worst. Whether it is German authorities <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/germany-to-muslim-refugees-please-dont-poop-in-showers/">putting up posters</a> at swimming pools with pictures telling migrants not to grope women, or British authorities <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089">failing to deal</a> with Muslim rape gangs for fear of being called “racist”, all of them have failed Europe’s female population. The surge of Muslim immigration initiated by Angela Merkel has only added fuel to the fire.<br />
<br />
The only way to combat this problem is by recognition of its root causes. Our leaders and analysts, all across the political spectrum, have consistently failed to do this, and innocent Western women have paid the price for their spinelessness. It is time that defenders of freedom finally held them to account.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-55261269735171468452016-08-12T22:25:00.000+01:002016-08-12T22:25:09.825+01:00Rape and Sexual Slavery in Islam (Part 3)<b>Child Marriage</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia0fMPDxVJzO731xN9hpHW8cmrjiwUyaNljRA0PzMAaL_g2IySuAw2giAKfw1VMcScgtMpb134dQtKKk5RxpvEEXEOLwOA3uJHcxFIyCSE1GhjB7Qux4i-Fory24nRmi0AEKbX6Uxi5ks/s1600/childbride_415.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia0fMPDxVJzO731xN9hpHW8cmrjiwUyaNljRA0PzMAaL_g2IySuAw2giAKfw1VMcScgtMpb134dQtKKk5RxpvEEXEOLwOA3uJHcxFIyCSE1GhjB7Qux4i-Fory24nRmi0AEKbX6Uxi5ks/s400/childbride_415.jpg" width="288" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape-and-other-offences-against-children-under-13/section/5">Under British law</a>, sex with a child under the age of thirteen is automatically classified as rape, regardless of whether or not the child “consented” to the act. What are we to make, then, of Muhammad, who is reported in Islamic tradition to have married and had sex with a nine-year-old girl when he was in his fifties?<br />
<br />
The most authoritative hadith collections record numerous variations of this straightforward statement: “[The Prophet] married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” (Bukhari v.5, b.58, no.234, and many others). Muslims today, understandably embarrassed and ashamed by this fact, attempt to deny that Aisha was nine when Muhammad had sex with her, but the textual evidence in the hadith and other Islamic literature is overwhelming. References to her being nine appear, multiple times, in five of the six hadith collections which are considered most reliable by Muslim theologians, as well as in the writings of numerous renowned scholars and historians, including Ibn Hisham (d.833), Tabari (d.923) and Ibn Kathir (d.1373).<br />
<br />
Any lingering doubts about what Muhammad did with Aisha are quickly erased by other hadith, which recount the following revolting details:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were <i>Junub</i> [ritually impure from recent sexual intercourse]. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. (Bukhari v.1, b.6, no.298) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Narrated Aisha, <i>Ummul Mu'minin</i> [“Mother of the Believers”]: The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to kiss her and suck her tongue when he was fasting. (Sunan Abu Dawud b.13, no.2380)</blockquote>
<br />
Since Aisha was only eighteen when Muhammad died (Muslim b.8, no.3311, and others), we can be sure that at no point was she old enough by the standards of any decent person to be subjected to this sort of contact by an elderly man.<br />
<br />
It is frequently countered that child marriage was common in seventh-century Arabia, and so Muhammad was not doing anything unusual for the time and place in which he lived. But even if this is true (and there is no evidence that it is), the most important point is not the cultural context of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, but its impact on Muslims of all future times and places. Because Muhammad is held up as a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for Muslims to follow (Qur'an 33:21), child marriage became a fixed part of Islamic law, and Muslims ever since have sought to emulate their prophet’s example, even today. For example, <a href="https://www.iranhumanrights.org/2015/09/child-marriage/">Iranian law</a> currently sets the legal marriageable age for girls at thirteen, although it allows parents to marry them off even younger with the permission of a judge. Islamic clerics in the country have <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/child-bride-practice-rising-iran-parliament-seeks-lower-girls-legal-marriage-age-9-760263">made attempts</a> in recent years to reduce the marriage age to nine in imitation of Muhammad. Meanwhile, it is estimated that despite laws against child marriage in Afghanistan, <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/girl-eight-sold-to-afghan-police-officer-as-his-bride-6450999.html">over half of girls</a> there are married before the age of fifteen. In Pakistan, <a href="http://tribune.com.pk/story/434512/underage-victims-to-stop-child-marriages-state-needs-to-step-in/">roughly a third</a> of all registered marriages involve children. Even in Britain, it has been reported that girls as young as nine are being <a href="http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2012/jan/islington-girls-forced-marriage-age-nine">forced into marriage</a> by Islamic clerics in the London Borough of Islington. In 2007, <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3353122,00.html">Dr. Bilal Phillips</a>, the imam of a Birmingham mosque, was recorded saying: “The Prophet Muhammad practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty. With his practice, he clarified what is permissible, and that is why we shouldn't have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman.”<br />
<br />
<b><i>Coming soon: What Islamic attitudes towards rape mean for Western women</i></b>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-35535189328251457722016-08-10T23:28:00.000+01:002016-08-10T23:32:30.246+01:00BBC Covers Up Motive For Islamic Blasphemy Killings<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD4WunQmRNKm4xRIU8n9tVqTgZx8m0lHgMlYbve-RWXpoikcWyOYf5yTlx-nMmX3KR0JQD6okUhkD0OD08YP844p1rFaSxqo78ziMxO93OiXjE4qQ_1Z70_eHLw586DCZb3PCkLYlJEZg/s1600/_88946870_shopkeeper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD4WunQmRNKm4xRIU8n9tVqTgZx8m0lHgMlYbve-RWXpoikcWyOYf5yTlx-nMmX3KR0JQD6okUhkD0OD08YP844p1rFaSxqo78ziMxO93OiXjE4qQ_1Z70_eHLw586DCZb3PCkLYlJEZg/s400/_88946870_shopkeeper.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>Asad Shah, who was murdered by his sharia-compliant co-religionist for blasphemy</i></b></div>
<br />
<br />
Yesterday saw the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37021385">sentencing</a> of Tanveer Ahmed, a British Muslim who murdered another Muslim, Glasgow shopkeeper Asad Shah, for "disrespecting Islam" after he apparently claimed to be a prophet.<br />
<br />
The BBC chose to cover this event, as is its wont, by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37032419">covering up the real motive for the attack</a> and spinning for Islam, revealing in the process the depths of totalitarian depravity nested within Britain's Muslim communities.<br />
<br />
The prime focus of a new article published on the BBC website today is on the inspiration drawn by the killer from another jihadist murderer: <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/pakistani-governer-assassinated-for.html">Mumtaz Qadri</a>, who murdered a Pakistani governor five years ago after he criticised Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws. While this source of inspiration is important, and should be covered, in the hands of the BBC it merely serves as a way of distracting from the key ideological inspiration for both of the killers: sharia blasphemy law, which I have covered at length <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/islam-and-blasphemy.html">here</a>, but is nowhere mentioned in the piece.<br />
<br />
The article then devotes a lengthy section to discussing the views of <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MuhammadMasoodQadiri/">Pirzada Muhammad Masood Qadiri</a>, a Muslim scholar from Bolton who describes himself on his Facebook page as a "Teacher, Lecturer, Public Speaker. Arabic, English, Persian, Punjabi and Urdu Linguist." Qadiri openly supported the Pakistani murderer Mumtaz Qadri, and flew out to Pakistan for his funeral after he was executed by the government. Qadiri describes Qadri as a "martyr" and a "warrior", and says that he should have been freed on grounds of diminished responsibility, since he just "could not control his anger" after hearing his beloved prophet being blasphemed.<br />
<br />
When questioned about whether he also supports the murderer of Asad Shah, Qadiri responds: "You cannot compare this country with Pakistan. Pakistan was created in the name of Islam. [The UK] was not created as a Muslim country and the Quran and Sunnah are not the law here." The interviewer presses him as to whether those like himself - who are supportive of Mumtaz Qadri - are actually also supportive of Tanveer Ahmed too, but just worried about getting in trouble with the authorities. He simply says "no".<br />
<br />
Because not only is the killing of blasphemers part of Islam, but so is <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/taqiyya-islamic-religious-deception.html">taqiyya</a>.<br />
<br />
The article then tries to make a bizarre connection between blasphemy killings and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barelvi">Barelvi</a> form of Islam - a train of the Hanafi school that is predominant in Pakistan and India:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Tanveer Ahmed and Mumtaz Qadri both come from the Barelwi sect of Islam - normally associated with peaceful and spiritual interpretations of Islam - although both claim to have acted as individuals rather than on behalf of any group. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Many of those supportive of Mumtaz Qadri are also Barelwi. Masood Qadiri says the particular emphasis this school of thought places on the Prophet means they react more strongly to any perceived insult. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We preserve all the traditions of the Prophet - how he lived his life - and we try and present the perfect picture of him. Because of that when someone insults him anywhere in the world the emotional feeling it creates in us is more than in any other group."</blockquote>
<br />
No basic fact-checking seems to have been done here. First of all, to "preserve all the traditions of the Prophet - how he lived his life" is how <b><i>all</i></b> Muslims are taught to live Islam - certainly Sunni Muslims in any case. The Qur'an says that Muhammad presents a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for Muslims to follow (33:21), and displays an “exalted standard of character” (68:4). Muslims everywhere are instructed to abide by the <i>sunna</i>, or the traditions and example of Muhammad. So to claim that Barelvis have this special veneration for Muhammad, and then to use that to justify murder, is just wrong on so many levels by the BBC.<br />
<br />
Finally, the article cites an anonymous spokesman for the Council of Mosques in Bradford - where Tanveer Ahmed lived - who says that while he completely condemns all acts of violence, "one solution would be to introduce a blasphemy law in Britain."<br />
<br />
Got that? So we can't have people being killed for blasphemy against Islam in the UK...we ought to just lock them up instead. This argument is presented completely uncritically by the Beeb's Secunder Kermani.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, the biggest flaw of the whole article - emblematic of the mainstream media in general - is that it comes completely without the context required to understand ghastly events like the murder of Asad Shah. No discussion of Muhammad's assassinations of blasphemers, and the sharia blasphemy law that sprang from it. No discussion of the fact that a <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2011/08/09/rising-restrictions-on-religion6/">hugely disproportionate number of Muslim countries</a> in the Middle East and North Africa have - and enforce - sharia-based blasphemy laws (is the BBC going to claim that they are all dominated by Barelvis?). No discussion of the fact that numerous polls have shown that somewhere between <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/we-can-see-what-british-muslims-really.html">one-fifth</a> and <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/islam-and-free-speech-in-uk.html">one-quarter</a> of British Muslims support the murder of those who mock Muhammad and Islam, while a significant majority reject such violence but still support imprisonment and legal sanctions against blasphemers. No questions raised about how many other imams and Islamic authorities around the country might agree with Pirzada Muhammad Masood Qadiri's fascist disdain for freedom of speech and support for a fanatical murderer.<br />
<br />
And yet, none of this surprises me at all. It's par for the course. That alone should tell you how bad things have become in this country today.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-23582106141549329622016-08-07T23:43:00.000+01:002016-08-07T23:43:22.581+01:00Rape and Sexual Slavery In Islam (Part 2)<b>The “Four Witnesses” Clause</b><br />
<br />
As well as directly sanctioning rape, the Qur’an also indirectly enables it, by means of a stipulation that allegations of adultery and fornication must have four witnesses to back them up, or the accuser will be liable to punishment themselves: “And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony – They indeed are evil-doers.” (24:4) This requirement derives from a famous incident in Muhammad’s life, in which his favourite wife, Aisha, was accused of adultery, only to be exonerated by Allah Himself, much to Muhammad’s relief (Bukhari v.5, b.59, no.462). The Qur’an directly addresses the incident, berating Aisha’s accusers with the question: “Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah.” (24:13)<br />
<br />
Importantly, subsequent Islamic legal authorities explained that the four witnesses must all be men. For example, the authoritative legal manual known as the <i><a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pa9CAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR69&lpg=PR69&dq=The+Hidayah+or+Guide:+a+commentary+on+the+Mussulman+Laws,+Volume+2&source=bl&ots=ABgAEALe_X&sig=zjr1AR9a_ukM59bXSIBpRfjAqak&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiurLqurrDOAhVaGsAKHe_aBdUQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=The%20Hidayah%20or%20Guide%3A%20a%20commentary%20on%20the%20Mussulman%20Laws%2C%20Volume%202&f=false">Hedaya</a></i>, which is widely consulted today in Pakistan and elsewhere, elaborates: “The evidence required in a case of whoredom 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...because the testimony of women involves a degree of doubt, as it is merely a substitute for evidence, being accepted only where the testimony of men cannot be had; and therefore it is not permitted in any matter liable to drop from the existence of a doubt...” This likely derives from another verse in the Qur’an, where a woman’s testimony is said to be worth half that of a man: “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 about this, he explained: “This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.” (Bukhari v.3, b.48, no.826)<br />
<br />
Muslim apologists often claim that the “four witnesses” rule is a positive thing, as it makes the standards for proving guilt when it comes to adultery so high that it is much harder to convict, and so the infamous sharia punishment of <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/a-brief-guide-to-sharia-punishments.html">stoning to death for adultery</a> will therefore be applied quite rarely. This may be technically true, but it also has far more disturbing implications. Adultery in Islam falls into the general category of <i>zina</i>, or fornication, which encompasses any illicit sexual intercourse not prescribed by sharia. If a man rapes a woman who is not his wife or his sex slave (both of whom, as we have already seen, can be legally raped under sharia law), then this would be a punishable <i>zina</i> offence, but if the woman cannot provide four male witnesses who say they saw the act, then <b><i>she</i></b> is liable to be punished instead.<br />
<br />
This is not just a hypothetical problem. In Dubai in recent years, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/dubai/6949008/British-woman-arrested-in-Dubai-after-being-raped.html">numerous Western women</a> have <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/13/horrifying-australian-woman-gang-raped-in-dubai-then-jailed-for-8-months-for-sex-outside-marriage/">reported being raped</a>, only to find themselves <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23381448">being arrested</a> and sentenced to lengthy prison terms on charges of extramarital sex. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the Muslim women’s rights organisation Sisters in Islam estimates that <a href="http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/news.php?item.273.121">three-quarters of women</a> in jail in the country are there because they were raped. Furthermore, when the Pakistani government considered reforming these rape laws in 2006, a group of furious Islamic clerics <a href="https://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/12/pakistan-muslim-scholars-say-new-rape-law-will-turn-country-into-free-sex-zone">protested</a>. They demanded that the amendments be withdrawn, since they would turn Pakistan into a “free-sex zone”. They insisted that these modernisation efforts were “against the teachings of Islam”, and that they had only been passed to appease the West.<br />
<br />
Based on all that we have discussed so far, we can see that far from forbidding rape, Islam actually permits the rape of almost every woman on the planet. And yet, what we have covered to this point is not even the worst of it.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Coming soon: Islam's divinely-sanctioned form of statutory rape - child marriage.</i></b>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-23581522351250235782016-08-02T23:45:00.000+01:002016-08-02T23:45:02.831+01:00Rape and Sexual Slavery In Islam (Part 1)<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
In May 2015, U.S. Special Operations Forces captured a number of documents during a raid on a high-ranking Islamic State official in Syria. <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-islamic-state-sexslaves-exclusive-idUSKBN0UC0AO20151230">Among the documents</a> was a <i>fatwa</i>, or Islamic legal ruling, issued by Islamic State theologians, outlining the “rules” regarding who can have sex with women captured in battle by the jihadist organisation, and when the rape of these sex slaves is and is not permissible.<br />
<br />
ISIS has been <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/nyt-confirms-islamic-state-is-islamic.html">open and unashamed</a> about its support for sexual slavery, justifying it in terms of Islamic theology on multiple occasions, and the harrowing testimony of the <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/christian-migrants-kidnapped-by-isis-libya-kept-sex-slaves-after-forced-conversion-islam-1568431">group’s victims</a> – particularly those from the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3152034/Tied-bed-injected-morphine-stay-silent-beaten-badly-couldn-t-walk-two-months-Two-teenage-Yazidi-sex-slaves-relive-unspeakable-cruelty-suffered-hands-ISIS-fighters.html">Yazidi minority</a> in Iraq – serves as heartbreaking confirmation that the practice is taken very seriously.<br />
<br />
But just how Islamic is this behaviour? A <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Manual-Islamic/dp/0915957728">major manual of Islamic law</a> which has been certified by Cairo’s Al-Azhar University makes only two mentions of rape in 1200 pages, and while it is forbidden on both occasions, it is important to note that it is only prohibited against those who are “unlawful” sexual partners for Muslims – suggesting that there are “lawful” women who could conceivably be raped without sanction under sharia.<br />
<br />
This new set of blog posts will examine the phenomenon of Islamic sexual slavery, casting light on the legal authority Islam provides to its male adherents to justify rape, as well as elaborating on the implications of these doctrines regarding the increasingly common sexual abuse of women by Muslim immigrants in the West.<br />
<br />
<b>Sexual Slavery in the Qur’an and Hadith</b><br />
<br />
On several occasions in the hadith, Muhammad is depicted as uncritically allowing his warriors to rape female captives of war:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
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 <i>'azl</i> (<i>coitus interruptus</i>). 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. (Sahih Muslim b.8, no.3371) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise <i>'azl</i>, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her. (Sunan Abu Dawud b.8, no.3383)</blockquote>
<br />
Note that at no point does Muhammad tell his men <b><i>not</i></b> to have sex with their slaves. Instead, he merely tells them that they do not have to practise <i>coitus interruptus</i> (withdrawal of the penis before ejaculation, to avoid pregnancy), because Allah will ultimately decide whether to make the women pregnant or not.<br />
<br />
We can justifiably assume that Muhammad allowed himself to engage in similar “pleasures” with captive non-Muslim women on occasions. Consider, for example, the case of Safiyya bint Huyyay, a Jewish woman from the Khaybar oasis. Khaybar was <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/sword-of-prophet-muhammad-as-prototype_07.html">attacked</a> by Muhammad in 629 AD. After the battle, when the Muslims had taken the Jewish women as spoils of war, they praised Safiyya’s beauty in front of Muhammad, proclaiming that they had “not seen the like of her among the captives of war.” (Muslim b.8, no.3329) Shortly afterward, the Prophet selected her for himself (Sahih Bukhari v.3, b.34, no.437), before having her “beautified” and marrying her. He then “passed the night with her” in his tent, according to his <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Muhammad-I-Ishaq/dp/0196360331/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239900509&sr=8-2">earliest biographer</a>. It is not explicitly stated what happened in the tent, but the implication seems obvious, and it goes without saying that this would qualify as rape, since most of Safiyya’s family, including her father and husband, had just been killed by the Muslims, so it is unlikely that she would have willingly consented to sexual intercourse with their killer.<br />
<br />
Further support for the assumption that Muhammad’s marriage to Safiyya involved forced sexual intercourse comes from another hadith, in which he explains to his followers: “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) Indeed, the Arabic word used multiple times in the Qur’an, and still used today, for an Islamic marriage – <i>nikah</i> – more <a href="https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Nikah">literally means sexual intercourse</a>. The prominent Egyptian Muslim jurist Khalil ibn Ishaq (d.1365), who was a renowned specialist in the Maliki school of Islamic law, wrote: “When a woman marries, she sells a part of her person. In the market one buys merchandise, in marriage the husband buys the genital [region].”<br />
<br />
Moreover, Islamic law allows Muslim men to enforce this “right” to sexual intercourse against their wife’s will. <i>Reliance of the Traveller</i>, an Islamic legal manual certified by numerous international Muslim organisations, explains:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(a) he asks her;<br />(b) at home (home meaning the place in which he is currently staying, even if being lent to him or rented);<br />(c) and she can physically endure it. </blockquote>
<br />
In another section, the manual affirms that “[w]hen a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife”, he is permitted to use physical violence in order to correct her. Crucially, one specific example of “rebelliousness” that it provides is when “he asks her to come to bed and she refuses”. This principle derives directly from the Qur’an: “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 [i.e. beat] them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.” (4:34)<br />
<br />
Disturbingly, this kind of marital rape has been endorsed by <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/dont-call-it-rape.html">Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed</a>, president of the UK’s Islamic Sharia Council, who has stated on multiple occasions that there is no such thing as rape within marriage. The concept of wife-beating for disobedience has also been <a href="http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1091.htm">advocated</a> by numerous high-profile Islamic clerics, including Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential and famous Muslim scholars in the world today.<br />
<br />
Returning to the concept of female sex slaves or concubines, it is perhaps unsurprising to find it endorsed and promoted in numerous verses of the Qur’an (all emphasis mine):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or <b><i>(a captive) that your right hands possess</i></b>. (4:3) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Also (prohibited are) women already married, <b><i>except those whom your right hands possess</i></b>... (4:24) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[Those] Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or <b><i>(the captives) whom their right hands possess</i></b>,- for (in their case) they are free from blame, (23:5-6) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and <b><i>those whom thy right hand possesses</i></b> out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee... (33:50) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who <b><i>restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls</i></b>, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor... (70:22-30)</blockquote>
The phrase “those whom your right hands possess” is <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Early-Maliki-Law-Compendium-Jurisprudence/dp/9004116281">understood by Muslim scholars</a> to refer to slaves, and is often used specifically to mean female concubines.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it is not only the Islamic State that takes verses like these seriously. In 2011, the Egyptian Sheikh <a href="http://www.meforum.org/2920/raped-and-ransacked-in-the-muslim-world">Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini</a> argued that after Muslims invade and conquer a non-Muslim nation by jihad, the properties and persons of those who refuse to convert to Islam or become subjugated dhimmis should be seized as <i>ghanima</i>, or “spoils of war.” Quoting from the Qur'an and the hadith, Huwaini outlined an ideal scenario in which women and girls are taken captive as part of the war spoils and sold to Muslims in slave markets. He referred to these slave girls using the Qur'anic term “those your right hands possess”, and concluded: “In other words, when I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.”<br />
<br />
The very next week, Salwa al-Mutairi – a <b><i>female</i></b> political activist and former Kuwaiti government official – <a href="http://www.meforum.org/2930/muslim-woman-seeks-to-revive-institution-of-sex">also called</a> for a revival of the institution of sex slavery, arguing that it would be an effective way to allow Muslim men to satiate their frustrated sexual desires and prevent them from committing illegal adultery. She also added that when she had previously spent time in Mecca, Islam’s holiest city, she had spoken with various authoritative imams and muftis, and all of them had affirmed to her that sexual slavery was perfectly legal under sharia.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Coming soon: How Islamic law lets rapists get away with it</i></b>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-74588373186406810442016-06-15T00:04:00.001+01:002016-06-15T00:04:26.402+01:00Female Genital Mutilation: An Islamic Or "Cultural" Practice? (Part 3)<b><i>Extent and Persistence</i></b><br />
<br />
According to the <a href="http://www.data.unicef.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-a-statistical-overview-and-exploration-of-the-dynamics-of-change.html">previously cited</a> UNICEF report on the prevalence of FGM in Africa, there are four countries in which over 90% of girls are circumcised, all of which have a Muslim majority: Somalia (98%), Guinea (96%), Djibouti (93%) and Egypt (91%). In terms of raw numbers, Egypt is the worst offender, with over 27 million girls having undergone the procedure. Worldwide, it is estimated that female genital cutting affects up to 200 million girls in varying degrees of severity, with as many as 60 million of these victims <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/health/indonesia-female-genital-cutting-circumcision-unicef.html?_r=0">found in Indonesia alone</a>.<br />
<br />
As disturbing as these figures are, they are unfortunately beginning to manifest themselves in the West as well, due to rising immigration from Muslim countries. In the UK, there were over one thousand cases of hospital attendances due to FGM recorded by the National Health Service in just three months <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/23/fgm-incidences-nhs-recording-cases_n_8183392.html">between April and June 2015</a> – roughly eleven instances per day. The <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/central/2016-06-08/fgm-cases-in-birmingham-rocket-by-almost-30-per-cent/">same amount</a> were recorded in the first three months of this year, also. It had previously been estimated that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9219217/100000-British-women-mutilated.html">up to 100,000 girls</a> in the UK had been victims of genital cutting. <br />
<br />
This problem is clearly exacerbated by mainstream clerical support for the practice among Muslim authorities in the West. For example, the imam Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad, a board member of the UK’s Islamic Sharia Council, has <a href="http://leftfootforward.org/2014/04/britains-sharia-councils-and-secular-alternatives/">argued</a> that there is a “proper” way of performing female cutting, stating that “it is consensus of all scholars that female circumcision is sunnah [i.e. in accord with the teachings of Muhammad]”.<br />
<br />
Returning to FGM in the Muslim world, there may be a correlation between its prevalence in certain Islamic countries and adherence to the Shafi’i school of Sunni Islamic law. As we have already seen, <i>Reliance of the Traveller</i> – a sharia manual dealing primarily with the Shafi’i doctrine – says that “circumcision is obligatory for both men and women”, and the school’s eighth-century founder also <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Male-Female-Circumcision-Considerations-Pediatric/dp/0306461315">declared</a> it to be a religious necessity, in contrast to other jurists who saw it as merely recommended. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%27i">Shafi’i school</a> is one of the largest schools of Islamic jurisprudence in terms of global adherents, and is predominant today in many of the world’s major hotspots for FGM, including Egypt, Indonesia, Somalia, and Kurdish regions of Iraq. It is also prevalent among the FGM-practising Muslim minorities in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Thailand, among others. In Africa, four of the five countries with the highest rates of FGM follow Shafi’ite Islam (Somalia, Djibouti, Egypt, and Eritrea - the latter being a significant Muslim minority, maybe as high as 48%, within a non-Muslim country).<br />
<br />
<b><i>Conclusions</i></b><br />
<br />
We can no longer continue to deny the Islamic dimension of FGM, and its prevalence among Muslim communities worldwide. We must begin to have a more open, honest discussion about the nature and scope of the problem, just as we must also pressure Muslim organisations and leadership to forcefully condemn it and work transparently to bring this misogynistic barbarity to an end.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-32490954516187250882016-06-11T23:58:00.000+01:002016-06-12T00:01:06.899+01:00Female Genital Mutilation: An Islamic or "Cultural" Practice? (Part 2)<b><i>Theological Justification</i></b><br />
<br />
Why is FGM so prevalent in Islamic societies? In this case, the answer cannot be found in the Qur’an, as circumcision is not mentioned in the Islamic holy book at all. Even in the hadith, there is very little mention of it, with only two major references that suggest that it was known in seventh-century Arabia, and that it was never condemned by Muhammad:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Messenger of Allah said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory. (Sahih Muslim b.3, no.684)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband. (Sunan Abu Dawud b.41, no.5251)</blockquote>
<br />
In the first hadith, it appears to be taken for granted by Muhammad that both Muslim men and women will have circumcised parts. In the second, Muhammad is aware of a woman performing circumcision on girls and does not condemn it, only warning her not to cut “severely” – an entirely subjective judgement. Islamic law permits Muslims to engage in any behaviour which Muhammad saw but did not forbid, and thereby gave “unspoken approval” to (for example, explained in <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Hadith-2nd-al-Hadi-al-Fadli/dp/1904063470">this book</a>, p.53), and so most Muslim scholars have traditionally either allowed or encouraged FGM. Referring to the second hadith, a note in the English translation of the <i>Sunan Abu Dawud</i> hadith collection summarises the views of the four main Sunni legal schools as follows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The reference is to the circumcision of girls. It was practiced in Arabia when Islam came. It is disputed amongst the jurists. Some Shafi'i scholars hold that circumcision of girls is obligatory, but others think that it is recommended. Ata, Ahmad b. Hanbal, and some Maliki jurists also hold that it is obligatory. Abu Hanifah maintains that it is recommended and not obligatory. Malik also holds that it is recommended. </blockquote>
<br />
FGM is also given explicit religious sanction in the important Islamic legal manual <i><a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Manual-Islamic-Sacred/dp/0915957728">Reliance of the Traveller</a></i>, which has been endorsed by Cairo's Al-Azhar University - Islam's highest centre of religious learning - as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” The manual states: “Circumcision is <i style="font-weight: bold;">obligatory for both men and women </i>[emphasis mine]. For men it consists of removing the prepuce [foreskin] from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (<i>bazr</i>) of the clitoris (not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert).” It is important to note that this English translation of the manual renders this passage in a dishonest way that does not accurately reflect the original Arabic text. In actual fact, the Arabic word <i>Bazr</i> means the entire clitoris, and not just the foreskin as the translation claims. (For example, see Hans Wehr, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dictionary-Modern-Written-Arabic-Arabic-English/dp/0879500034">A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic</a></i>, p.64)<br />
<br />
<b>Coming soon: How widespread is Islamic FGM?</b>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-9313527286063791222016-06-09T23:11:00.000+01:002016-06-09T23:11:14.538+01:00Female Genital Mutilation: An Islamic Or "Cultural" Practice? (Part 1)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiovsEow3KJSbWrFua_pOwVwt_g0RI-oqiy7d4OMLFCqqKdOPZjMtZOGNZ76CXaBhL32LSV2SYuZ0A-SvwWsIXuiYRWb8dTQ2lGEkzt1IHke41IHR2YGhczKobjZOntOZQ_OqoRtcxKNXg/s1600/female-circumcision.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiovsEow3KJSbWrFua_pOwVwt_g0RI-oqiy7d4OMLFCqqKdOPZjMtZOGNZ76CXaBhL32LSV2SYuZ0A-SvwWsIXuiYRWb8dTQ2lGEkzt1IHke41IHR2YGhczKobjZOntOZQ_OqoRtcxKNXg/s400/female-circumcision.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>An African Problem?</i></b><br />
<br />
It is frequently claimed by Islamic apologists that FGM is merely an “African problem” that has its roots in tribal customs that long predate Islam, and is practised by people of all faiths across the continent.<br />
<br />
It is certainly true that Muslims are not the only community to practise FGM, and that it is prevalent among peoples across Africa that are not Muslim. But this does not mean that Islam should not be held at least partially responsible for its continued popularity in many countries. In 2013, UNICEF published a <a href="http://www.childinfo.org/files/FGCM_Lo_res.pdf">statistical analysis</a> of genital cutting focusing predominantly on Africa. Of the thirteen countries in the study in which over 50% of the female population are subjected to FGM (see opening pages at the link above), ten of them have a Muslim majority. Additionally, in the remaining three countries that do not have a Muslim majority – Eritrea, Ethiopia and Liberia – a higher percentage of Muslim women and girls undergo cutting compared to the Christian population. Overall, there is a higher percentage of Muslims than Christians practising FGM in 20 out of 24 countries examined in the survey (see page 73).<br />
<br />
There are other important points to consider, as well. For example, although FGM is practised by many Coptic Christians in Egypt today, the custom was <a href="https://copticliterature.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/circumcision-and-the-copts-a-history-part-1/">entirely borrowed from Islam</a>, and was not an accepted tradition in the country or among any sect of Christianity prior to the Islamic conquests of the seventh century. Female cutting is also increasingly widespread in Islamic countries outside of Africa, for example in <a href="http://www.aina.org/news/20120410195904.htm">Iraq</a>, where a 2012 study found that in one region alone, 40.9% of Sunni Muslim women and 23.4% of Shi’ites suffer it, with no Christian women affected at all. Meanwhile, in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/01/thailand-muslim-south-authorities-blind-eye-fgm-who">Thailand</a>, FGM is commonplace only in the provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani, where Muslims make up a majority.<br />
<br />
But perhaps the most compelling evidence that FGM is not merely an “African problem” comes from the world’s most populous Muslim country, Indonesia. Research conducted by anthropologists throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century <a href="http://www.persee.fr/doc/arch_0044-8613_1998_num_56_1_3495">concluded</a> that female circumcision was not a native custom in the Indonesian archipelago, but was introduced to the region by Islam, and was generally not practised by any non-Islamic peoples there. More recently, a wide-ranging 2003 survey by the <a href="http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACU138.pdf">United States Agency for International Development</a> found an average rate of female circumcision of 97.5% across eight study regions, all of which have Muslim majorities. Furthermore, Indonesia’s largest Muslim advisory organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), has issued a religious ruling <a href="http://www.theasiamag.com/patterns/female-genital-mutilation-%E2%80%93-on-the-rise-in-indonesia">supporting FGM on Islamic grounds</a>.<br />
<br />
All of this demonstrates that although FGM is undeniably a problem among certain non-Muslim communities and is not exclusive to Muslims, it nevertheless remains primarily and overwhelmingly an Islamic problem.<br />
<br />
<b>Coming soon: The Islamic theological basis for FGM.</b>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-65713457453939207782016-06-08T23:43:00.001+01:002016-06-08T23:43:19.514+01:00Female Genital Mutilation: An Islamic Or "Cultural" Practice? (Introduction)It has been <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/central/2016-06-08/fgm-cases-in-birmingham-rocket-by-almost-30-per-cent/">revealed today</a> that new cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Birmingham have increased by nearly a third, according to new figures.<br />
<br />
The number of incidents increased from 52 between October and December 2015 to 67 from January to March this year – a 28 per cent rise. The statistics were released by the Health and Social Care Information Centre.<br />
<br />
In total 1,242 newly recorded cases of FGM were reported across the country in the same time period. Back in February, it was revealed that more than two cases of female genital mutilation were being reported in Birmingham and the West Midlands every day.<br />
<br />
According to the <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rft-table-ks209ew.xls">2011 census</a>, Birmingham is over 20% Muslim. Does this have any bearing on the alarming figures reported today? Aside from a handful of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/535488.stm">blinkered cultural relativists</a>, most people appear to agree that FGM is medically unnecessary, misogynistic, and barbaric. Reacting to today's news, an NSPCC spokesman said:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There are no medical reasons to carry out FGM. It doesn’t enhance fertility and it doesn’t make childbirth safer. It is used to control female sexuality and can cause severe and long-lasting damage to physical and emotional health. FGM or female circumcision is usually carried out for religious, cultural or social reasons. But let’s be clear – it is child abuse and it causes long-lasting physical and emotional damage. The practice must stop.</blockquote>
<br />
And yet despite the prevalence of this practice throughout the Islamic world, there have been persistent attempts to claim that it has nothing to do with Islam at all, and is merely a “cultural” practice that carries no sanction in the Qur’an and hadith.<br />
<br />
A forthcoming series of posts here at <i>Eye On Islam</i> will explore this issue in depth, establishing whether or not Islam encourages FGM, and the extent to which it is practised in Muslim communities around the world. The first part will be published tomorrow, and will examine whether FGM is really just an "African problem", as characterised by the likes of Islamic apologist <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/social-media-lies-after-paris-attacks-1.html">Reza Aslan</a>.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-24636085810811271252016-05-15T13:16:00.002+01:002016-05-15T18:11:26.774+01:00TIME's Anti-Trump Hit Piece Is Just More Terrible Counter-Terror Analysis<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6wXzXqBUnkc4ppTS6TX4rsnqKKnNIKgreN4YE5NiZar_iTwbtuQLNO0jxJi7mdnoiC3BJfSooMF6CoHvwTbg_MiEeKqyg046IyFuBOLuseL5b8WzGw7g67miWgW9pyeXmvfX-Uvgu284/s1600/trump-anti-muslim-protest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6wXzXqBUnkc4ppTS6TX4rsnqKKnNIKgreN4YE5NiZar_iTwbtuQLNO0jxJi7mdnoiC3BJfSooMF6CoHvwTbg_MiEeKqyg046IyFuBOLuseL5b8WzGw7g67miWgW9pyeXmvfX-Uvgu284/s400/trump-anti-muslim-protest.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I am no Donald Trump fan, but I think he deserves credit when it's due. He also deserves defending when people lie about him or make flimsy arguments against him.<br />
<br />
And we get both in a <a href="http://time.com/4329338/donald-trump-radical-islam-commission/">new piece</a> in TIME, authored by Alyssa Sims, a policy analyst in <a href="https://www.newamerica.org/">New America</a>'s International Security Program. It deals with Trump's suggestion to form a <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-islam-panel/index.html">"radical Islam commission"</a>, headed by Rudy Guiliani, to investigate...well, radical Islam.<br />
<br />
Sims first cites Trump's Muslim immigration moratorium as evidence of his "Islamophobia" - although as I have <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/why-trump-is-right-about-banning-muslim.html">argued previously</a>, it is a perfectly sensible suggestion that its opponents have not come up with a remotely viable alternative to. She then claims he "also suggested a mandatory registry of American Muslims". Actually, he did not. Watch the video <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716">here</a>: he was asked by a journalist about creating a database of Muslims in America (the journalist, apparently, came up with the idea), and he responded about the need for a registry of all immigrants entering the US (i.e. not just Muslims) to ensure that people aren't entering the country illegally. Despite the journalist repeatedly mentioning Muslims, Trump is clearly talking about illegal immigrants the entire time - and he even seems to have gone back on that as well, as evidenced by the Tweet he posted just after the controversy:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVIqUiiIQJWMXLMRb6f-uOUkh7rtJhxmWxzewZE1tZ89YNHjhRhscUkgRS4SBX9sFMmYrd0CAcS5TegGVwA7oYyan5ASY0-YKiCgijVkZwcX566PofAmzfvoLpvsVcSHht10g1-jNTro0/s1600/Trump+Database.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVIqUiiIQJWMXLMRb6f-uOUkh7rtJhxmWxzewZE1tZ89YNHjhRhscUkgRS4SBX9sFMmYrd0CAcS5TegGVwA7oYyan5ASY0-YKiCgijVkZwcX566PofAmzfvoLpvsVcSHht10g1-jNTro0/s400/Trump+Database.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Trump does this all the time: he doesn't listen to the questions he's asked, and just answers his own question inside his head. A few weeks ago, during an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Jpoecf0xY">interview on MSNBC</a>, he was asked whether abortion should be made illegal in the US. He replied: “The answer is there has to be some form of punishment." When the interviewer asked, "For the woman?" he responded instantly in the affirmative. It was clear to me upon seeing the interview that he hadn't listened to the question properly, and just butted in with an answer without thinking. That became clear the following day when he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/30/donald-trump-women-abortions-punishment">completely retracted his answer</a> and said: “If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed – like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”<br />
<br />
The message here is that Trump is incoherent and incapable of giving a solid answer or maintaining a strong position on almost anything. He proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, but now seems to be <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban/">softening on it</a>, and even offered to make an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/10/sadiq-khan-i-dont-want-ignorant-donald-trump-to-make-me-an-exception?CMP=share_btn_tw">exemption</a> for the new extremist-linked Muslim Mayor of London, which would completely belie the point of his original proposal. Any "analyst" should be able to see this easily and so shouldn't be peddling the "Muslim registry" lie.<br />
<br />
Sims then moves on to her criticism of Trump's "radical Islam commission" plan, by asserting that since there have been terror attacks in the US committed by American-born Muslims, such as the San Bernadino shooting and the Fort Hood attack, therefore a "commission on foreign-born Muslims would not have been relevant."<br />
<br />
Which is true, except that Trump wasn't calling for a commission on foreign-born Muslims. Here's the quote from the <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-islam-panel/index.html">CNN article</a> Sims links to:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It's a real problem, so we'll figure it out and we will get it going but we have to be extremely careful," Trump said Wednesday on Fox News, in response to a question about his proposed ban on allowing Muslims to enter the U.S., <b><i>before switching to the subject of "radical Islamic terrorism."</i></b> "In fact, I'm thinking about setting up a commission perhaps headed by Rudy Giuliani to take a very serious look at this problem. But this is a worldwide problem and we have to be smart."</blockquote>
So once again, we can see that Trump was asked a question, and responded by answering a different question - in this case, he was talking about dealing with Islamic jihad terrorism as a "worldwide problem", and not just investigating Muslim immigrants.<br />
<br />
Sims next says that such a commission would be ineffective in dealing with terrorism, because it "dismisses tragedies such as the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting and the Charleston Church shooting, both which took place in 2015 and were carried out by individuals motivated by ideologies that are non-jihadist in character—specifically Christian conservatism and white supremacy." She also claims that "[s]ince 2001, right wing extremists have claimed more victims in terror attacks than jihadists."<br />
<br />
This is a highly misleading and tendentious piece of analysis, based on an equally flawed study. Firstly, it leaves out 9/11 for some reason, which would drastically alter the balance of deaths between Islamic jihadis and "right-wing extremists". Secondly, it also ignores scores of foiled Islamic terror plots that would have killed thousands Americans if they had not been stopped by intelligence and law enforcement. Thirdly, the figures <a href="https://apholt.com/2016/01/11/right-wing-extremism-vs-islamic-extremism-in-the-united-states-a-look-at-the-numbers/">ignore a large number of actual Islamic terror attacks</a> on American soil and do not count them in the analysis. Fourthly, it ignores the implications of the fact that even if the data is accurate, this means that Muslims account for about the same number of terror attacks in America as right-wing extremists, despite the fact that Muslims make up 1% of the US population, and right-wingers considerably more. Finally, the "right-wing extremists" being compared to Islamic jihadis are mostly paranoid loners who are not connected to any larger movement with a clearly articulated goal. In contrast, Islamic jihadists are members of or ideologically aligned with groups that have declared their intention to destroy the U.S. and the free world, and all draw their inspiration from a fourteen-century old belief system that has been the driving force behind over 28,000 terror attacks since 9/11. A scattered handful of individuals with incoherent opinions (note to Alyssa Sims: having opinions on certain issues such as race is not the same thing as an ideology) really cannot be equated to a global movement of loosely aligned groups and individuals acting in accord with a clearly defined established corpus of law and thought (i.e. Islamic law).<br />
<br />
Finally Sims argues that "[c]reating an anti-terrorism program specifically targeting 'radical Islam' perpetuates an on-going narrative that the U.S. is at war with Islam, a religion practiced by more than a billion Muslims around the world," and that since ISIS themselves also perpetuate this myth, such a thing would therefore be counter-productive.<br />
<br />
Firstly, it takes someone clearly interested in bending the truth to fit their argument to assert that setting up a panel on "radical Islam" somehow gives the impression of targeting all of Islam. Would my mission here to discredit Alyssa Sims' poor analysis really give off the impression that I am against all analysis? This line of reasoning is absolute nonsense.<br />
<br />
But there is a deeper issue at play here. Sims' assumption is that any attempts to investigate the serious problem of Islamic terrorism just leads to more terrorism, and that ISIS and their ilk are just waiting around to see what Islamophobes say about Islam before determining their policy. It never occurs to her that the terrorists might have their own source of policy - i.e. the Qur'an - that will guide their behaviour regardless of what we say about them. An <a href="https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/islamic-state-we-will-conquer-your-rome-break-your-crosses-and-enslave-your-women-by-the-permission-of-allah">ISIS statement</a> - loaded with Qur'an quotes - released a couple of years ago said:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And so we promise you by Allah’s permission that this campaign will be your final campaign. It will be broken and defeated, just as all your previous campaigns were broken and defeated, except that this time we will raid you thereafter, and you will never raid us. We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.</blockquote>
<br />
It really does not sound to me from this as if there is anything we could say to them that would cause them to dispel their misconceptions about a war between Islam and the West. It is also worth mentioning that although Sims states that Trump's rhetoric is the reason for Islamic State's increased recruitment, ISIS propaganda videos actually <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/isis-video-clinton-obama/2015/12/20/id/706613/">frequently feature</a> Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama more often than Donald Trump, demonstrating that their attempts at appeasement by calling Islam a Religion of Peace clearly are not working very well.<br />
<br />
All in all, it's another piss-poor piece of analysis designed to weaken our attempts to defend ourselves against Islamic jihad terror. Donald Trump may be all over the place and self-contradictory, but a crude sort of common sense apparently causes him to get the right end of the stick on these issues quite often. But even that seems to be beyond the capabilities of Alyssa Sims.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-49258469827461687982016-05-04T23:51:00.001+01:002016-05-04T23:51:31.413+01:00There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOoqaudvnIeXpqpDAVAnR2ZQV2_IVDExYkPyYzL30NEY-10_SF4DAeiQFjZwgG2o5wEZt9P3CdSZe6SMbMs6kG2Sq9nP8QaVKFgzIYTK0xkdZ8CgoK5Ozx26Ja661JGzaAZVr4iZ5b0pU/s1600/eiffel-tower-france.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOoqaudvnIeXpqpDAVAnR2ZQV2_IVDExYkPyYzL30NEY-10_SF4DAeiQFjZwgG2o5wEZt9P3CdSZe6SMbMs6kG2Sq9nP8QaVKFgzIYTK0xkdZ8CgoK5Ozx26Ja661JGzaAZVr4iZ5b0pU/s400/eiffel-tower-france.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Yesterday, the <i>Independent</i> - a <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/a-response-to-independent.html">hotbed of jihad denial</a> - published an <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/journalist-who-infiltrated-isis-cell-planning-terror-attack-in-france-says-he-never-saw-any-islam-a7010951.html">article</a> about a journalist who infiltrated and secretly filmed an ISIS cell planning a terrorist attack in France.<br />
<br />
The journalist - who uses a pseudonym to protect his identity - contacted the group on Facebook and spent six months with them while they plotted an attack on a nightclub.<br />
<br />
His account of what he experienced contains some important details, reproduced below (emphasis mine):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The man, who is using the pseudonym Said Ramzi to protect his identity, said he “easily” contacted the group who called themselves the <b><i>Soldiers of Allah</i></b> on Facebook. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We must hit a military base,” Ossama says during the meeting at a park in Châteauroux. “When they are eating, they are all lined up...ta-ta-ta-ta-ta...or journalists. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“BFM, iTélé [French broadcasters], <b><i>they are at war against Islam</i></b>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Like they did to Charlie [Hebdo]. You must strike them at the heart. Take them by surprise. They aren't well protected. The French must die by the thousands.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He urges Mr Ramzi to join him on the <b><i>“path to paradise”</i></b> in a suicide attack, adding: <b><i>“Our women are waiting for us there, with angels as servants. You will have a palace, a winged horse of gold and rubies.”</i></b></blockquote>
<b><i><br /></i></b>
Having apparently spent these six months with his eyes closed, this insightful journalist proclaims as his conclusion:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"One of the main lessons was that <b><i>I never saw any Islam in this affair</i></b>. No will to improve the world. Only lost, frustrated, suicidal, easily manipulated youths."</blockquote>
<br />
Indeed, of all the content in the article, the <i>Independent </i>decided to make that bolded passage their headline for the article.<br />
<br />
For those interested, that last part from the jihadi about the luxurious delights of Paradise is a truncated, adapted view of the afterlife as presented in the Qur'an, which says that the inhabitants of Paradise will be adorned “with bracelets of gold and pearls” (22:23) and “dressed in fine silk and in rich brocade” (44:53). They will recline on “green cushions and rich carpets of beauty” (55:76), sit on “thrones encrusted with gold and precious stones” (56:15), and share in “dishes and goblets of gold”, on which will be “all that the souls could desire, all that their eyes could delight in”, including an “abundance of fruit” (43:71, 73), such as “dates and pomegranates” (55:68). For the carnivorous, there will be “the flesh of fowls, any that they may desire” (56:21).<br />
<br />
The "women" granted to Muslim men who reached Paradise are mentioned multiple times in the Qur'an, too: “voluptuous women of equal age” (78:31), “those of modest gaze, with lovely eyes” (37:48), “fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes” (44:54), “like unto rubies and coral” (55:58), to whom men will be “joined” (52:20). These women will be “maidens, chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn [spirit being] before them has touched” (55:56). Allah “made them virgins” (56:36), and according to Islamic tradition, they will remain virgins forever.<br />
<br />
So the ideas this ISIS jihadist had about the reward he would receive for "slaying and being slain for Allah's cause" (Qur'an 9:111) came from the Qur'an. But apparently, the Qur'an is not Islam anymore.<br />
<br />
No one can say modern journalism lacks informational value.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-36848762438599833872016-04-18T23:34:00.001+01:002016-04-18T23:34:26.890+01:00The Middle East Eye: Blind to the Truth About Jihad (Part 2)The <i>Middle East Eye</i>'s disingenuous recent article <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/when-it-permissible-fight-islam-383824313">"When is it permissible to fight in Islam?"</a> continues to conflate jihad as a method of establishing Islamic political rule around the world with the overly simplistic idea of forced conversion.<br />
<br />
As I noted at the end of the last part of this rebuttal, the Qur'an does in fact allow for the forced conversion of pagans and polytheists (basically anyone apart from Jews and Christians, who as "People of the Book" get the special privilege of merely being subjugated instead of killed), in its notorious Verse of the Sword (9:5). It is remarkable, therefore, when the author of the MEE piece cites another Islamic apologist, Fazlur Rahman, who claims: "There is no single parallel in Islamic history to the forcible conversion to Christianity...en masse carried out by Charlemagne...although, of course, isolated cases of such conversions may have taken place."<br />
<br />
What an outrageous falsehood this is! The entire history of Islamic conquest and rule in India is one long chronicle of mass forced conversion, with some <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UEVqNQAACAAJ&dq=ks+lal+%22Growth+of+Muslim+Population+in+Medieval+India%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK5tWWnZnMAhVDVBQKHZrVCFsQ6AEIHzAB">80 million Hindus</a> having fallen victim to the Muslim sword between 1000 and 1525 AD. Constant similar outrages were perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire, as one expert on the region <a href="http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/constantelos_altrouistic_4.html">notes</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The writings of the Turkish poet and prince Danishmend Ahmet Gazi, founder of one of the strongest Turkoman principalities in Eastern Turkey, indicate that conversion of Christians by the sword was common. In many instances prisoners as well as inhabitants of conquered territories were given the choice of either conversion or death. In the course of his campaign against the city of Comana, Malik Danishmend was determined either to convert the inhabitants or to massacre them. After the capture of Comana, the populace opted for conversion rather than extermination. The citizens of Euchaita faced the same dilemma. When Malik conquered the city, he offered its inhabitants the choice of death or Islamization. The same Turkish poet relates that in one city, nearly 5,000 people accepted Islam, while a similar number of its inhabitants were put to the sword.</blockquote>
<br />
The author of the MEE piece clearly doesn't know any of this - or at least doesn't want us to know it - and so he tries to beguile us with the fact that the Qur'an says "There is no compulsion in matters of faith" (2:256). Which is all well and good, but doesn't magically rule out the command to "slay the polytheists wherever you find them" (9:5), and also still allows the forceful spread and implementation of Islam as a POLITICAL SYSTEM as enunciated by the likes of Sayyid Qutb, without forcing anyone to convert.<br />
<br />
We are then treated to a paragraph about the idea of jihad as a kind of "just war" to extirpate injustice and oppression:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />Nevertheless, several modern authors hold that the idea of jihad as <i>bellum justum</i> can clearly be traced in classical Islamic texts. In this respect, those scholars refer to Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), who distinguishes between <i>hurub jihad wa-adl</i> (wars of jihad and justice) and <i>hurub baghy va fitna</i> (wars of sedition and persecution).</blockquote>
<br />
Left untouched in all of this is any discussion of what Ibn Khaldun actually said about jihad as an offensive institution. Here is what the great Muslim historian and social scientist wrote in his <i><a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Muqaddimah-Introduction-History-Bollingen/dp/0691120544?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0">Muqaddimah</a></i>, summarising centuries of pre-existing orthodox Islamic thought:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universality of the [Muslim] mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense...Islam is under obligation to gain power from other nations.</blockquote>
<br />
Kind of confirms everything I've been saying up until now, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
Next the author quotes Qur'an 5:32, "Whoever kills a person [unjustly]...it is as though he has killed all mankind", which is such a tired argument, and was dealt with definitively by me recently enough, that I am not going to waste time debunking it yet again here. Anyone who finds this argument remotely compelling needs to go <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/social-media-lies-after-paris-attacks-2.html">here</a> and get a reality check.<br />
<br />
Next up, this: "In addition, Muslims are also urged to avoid inflicting harm on animals, plants or generally the civilian infrastructure of those they are fighting."<br />
<br />
It is true that many of these inhibitions have been incorporated into Islamic legal theory, but this is hardly universal. For example, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d.1111), a Muslim philosopher and legal theorist, and a renowned spiritual authority, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0046RDPZU/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1">wrote the following</a> about jihad (emphasis mine):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
One must go on jihad (i.e. warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use catapults against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the <i>ahl al-kitab</i> [People of the Book] is enslaved, his marriage is automatically revoked...<b><i>One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books.</i></b> Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...<b><i>they may steal as much food as they need... </i></b></blockquote>
<b><i><br /></i></b>
Similarly, the fourteenth-century Spanish Muslim jurist Ibn Hudayl wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy...as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him...[being] suited to hastening the Islamisation of that enemy or to weakening him. Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate.</blockquote>
<br />
The self-contradiction about wanton destruction among Islamic scholars most likely stems from the example of Muhammad, who was himself inconsistent on this matter. Although apologists frequently cite various hadiths in which Muhammad forbids wanton destruction in war, they rarely mention his own violation of this rule, and Allah's endorsement of this violation. The hadith record that during the Muslim siege of the Jewish Banu Nadir tribe, the Prophet of Islam ordered that the date palms of the Nadir be burned (Muslim b.19, no.4326). The Nadir Jews, surprised, asked him: “Muhammad, you have prohibited wanton destruction and blamed those guilty of it. Why then are you cutting down and burning our palm-trees?” Allah justified Muhammad’s action in a revelation that can be found in the Qur'an: "Whatsoever palm-trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-livers." (59:5). This incident, and accompanying verse, have been used ever after as a justification for similar behaviour by subsequent generations of jihadists.<br />
<br />
It is clear from all of the above, and from the analysis provided in the previous part of this rebuttal, that the Muslim author of the <i>Middle East Eye</i> piece is either woefully unqualified to speak accurately about the subject on which he writing, or that he is being massively dishonest with the publication's readers about the real issues affecting Islamic jihad terrorism around the world today.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-52160326558529903232016-04-17T23:49:00.000+01:002016-04-18T00:20:53.414+01:00The Middle East Eye: Blind to the Truth About Jihad (Part 1)In his book <i><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B014C57S7Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1">Inside Jihad</a></i>, Muslim reformer Dr. Tawfik Hamid argues that the best way for Muslims to re-interpret the Qur'an's most violent passages, in a way that will militate against their capacity to incite to violence, is to "preach the importance of 'al-' ('the')". Hamid's argument is that the use of the Arabic word "al" in the Qur'an changes the context of verses which appear to sanction violence against unbelievers.<br />
<br />
For example, the Quran never employs the universal article “mn” in its verses about jihad against non-believers, but almost always employs “al", meaning "the". <i>Mn kafar</i> would mean “infidels” in the universal sense, while <i>al-kafireen</i> means “the infidels” – a more specific designation. Thus, there is a big difference between killing <i>mn kafar</i> and killing <i>al-kafireen</i>, in the same way that in English, "kill infidels" and "kill the infidels" can have different meanings: one signifies all infidels, the other - through the presence of the word "the" - signifies that the verse is talking about someone specific, namely the infidels that existed at the time of the verse's revelation, and not all infidels throughout space and time. Therefore, Muslims today should not fight and kill infidels, since only a specific group from the past is being referred to in this verse.<br />
<br />
It's an interesting approach to the text, albeit one that is not shared by the vast majority of Muslims. And regardless of any concerns I may have about it as an argument, the thing that worries me most of all is that the vast majority of Islamic apologetics never even reach this level of sophistication.<br />
<br />
An example of this can be seen in a piece published this weekend at the <i>Middle East Eye</i>, entitled <a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/when-it-permissible-fight-islam-383824313">"When is it permissible to fight in Islam?"</a>, which tries to appear like a balanced examination of a complex issue, but really just provides us with standard counter-factual baloney that anyone with any real acquaintance with the Islamic sources can see through immediately.<br />
<br />
It starts off by pointing out that there are some verses in the Qur'an that appear to sanction offensive warfare against infidels, while others, such as the one below, appear to allow it only in self-defense:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked because they have been oppressed – Allah indeed has power to grant them victory – those who have been unjustly driven from their homes, only because they said: "Our Lord is Allah" (22:39-40)</blockquote>
<br />
This is indeed true, but it then moves straight on to a discussion of offensive jihad, implying that any "extremist" who would argue that jihad should be an offensive struggle to propagate Islam is just disingenuously ignoring passages like the one above.<br />
<br />
What the piece completely ignores is that Islam has always had a built-in mechanism to cope with contradictions like this: abrogation.<br />
<br />
It is a traditional Islamic belief that there are three stages in the Qur’anic revelation concerning jihad: first non-violence, then defensive war, then offensive war to submit the entire world to Islam. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq (d.773), was the first to articulate this. At first, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-Muhammad-I-Ishaq/dp/0196360331/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1460932858&sr=8-1&keywords=ibn+ishaq+life+of+muhammad">he says</a>, the Prophet “had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the innocent.” But when Muhammad's circumstances changed, Allah “gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.” Eventually, “God sent down to him: 'Fight them so that there be no more seduction', i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's,' i.e. until God alone is worshiped.”<br />
<br />
In other words, according to Ibn Ishaq, and many other prominent scholars of Islamic history, the Qur'anic verses which speak of tolerance, or of warfare only in self-defense, were only applicable at the time they were initially revealed, while the final stage, of offensive warfare to submit unbelievers to the authority of Islam, is applicable now and for all time.<br />
<br />
This is where abrogation comes in. This is the idea that some directives in the Qur'an have been cancelled out by others. It is based on the Qur'an itself: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” (2:106)<br />
<br />
The doctrine of abrogation is of particular importance in understanding one of the Qur'an's most violent verses, known in Islamic theology as the Verse of the Sword: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (9:5)<br />
<br />
The prominent Qur'anic commentator <a href="http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64">Ibn Kathir</a> (d.1373) quotes several authorities, including Muhammad's cousin Ibn Abbas, to assert that the Verse of the Sword “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty and every term...No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth chapter of the Qur'an] was revealed.” The Spanish Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi (d.1148) taught that the Verse of the Sword abrogated 124 more peaceful verses of the Qur'an. <br />
<br />
The failure to mention any of this throughout the article allows the author to pretend that those who claim that jihad is something more than just self-defense are simply ignoring inconvenient texts. In actual fact, they are just following the traditional Islamic exegetical method of contextualising the Qur'an's commands.<br />
<br />
The piece then cites the influential Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood thinker Sayyid Qutb (d.1966) as an example of someone who believes the Qur'an sanctions offensive jihad. As it notes, Qutb cited the following Qur'anic verse in support of this idea:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
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. (9:29)</blockquote>
<br />
The author wants us to believe that Qutb just plucked this verse out of context and is therefore understanding it erroneously. But he makes no mention of the fact that Qutb himself invoked abrogation as part of his reasoning. In his book <i>Milestones </i>(the same book this piece is discussing), Qutb approvingly invokes an earlier authority, Ibn Qayyim (d.1350), to make the point that there was a gradual development in the conception of jihad in the Qur'an: “Muslims were first restrained from fighting...then they were commanded to fight against the aggressors; and finally they were commanded to fight against all the polytheists.” He also concludes that “[a]fter the period of the Prophet, only the final stages of the movement of jihad are to be followed; the initial or middle stages are not applicable”.<br />
<br />
Since this article did not mention this, even to argue against it, it is clearly unsatisfactory and incompetent as an attempt to factually examine the evidence.<br />
<br />
It gets worse when it cites Mahmud Shaltut, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar from the late 1950s, writing of this same verse: "If this verse had meant that they [non–believers] must be fought because of their unbelief and that unbelief had been the reason why they should be fought, then it would have been laid down that the aim of fighting consisted in their conversion to Islam. Collecting poll taxes from them would not have been allowed in that case and they would not have been allowed to abide by their own religion."<br />
<br />
Despite Shaltut's prominence in Islamic circles at this time, this statement appears to be woefully ignorant of centuries of Islamic tradition explaining the purpose of jihad in Islam. In fact, we can turn once against to Shaltut's contemporary, Sayyid Qutb, for a clear explanation. The following comes from Qutb's widely-read multi-volume <a href="https://www.kalamullah.com/shade-of-the-quran.html">commentary on the Qur'an</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impede its efforts to liberate mankind from submission to anyone other than God... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax. When this happens, the process of liberating mankind is completed by giving every individual the freedom of choice based on conviction. Anyone who is not convinced may continue to follow his faith. However, he has to pay the submission tax to fulfil a number of objectives... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[B]y paying this tax, known as jizya, he declares that he will not stand in physical opposition to the efforts advocating the true Divine faith.</blockquote>
<br />
So in Qutb's view - which did not originate with him, but which existed for <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/jihad-and-dhimmitude-part-1.html">centuries before him</a> - the purpose of jihad as delineated in Qur'an 9:29, at least regarding Jews and Christians, is not to force them to accept Islam, but rather to force them to accept the Islamic legal system, relegating them to dhimmi status and payment of the jizya if they refuse to convert. But if they do convert, they do so freely. Believe it or not, Qutb actually believed that this set-up was the most wonderfully tolerant way of going about inter-faith relations that anyone could ever dream up, and gushes repeatedly in his commentary that this proves the greatness and beneficence of Allah.<br />
<br />
Lastly, we are told that Mahmud Shaltut asserted that "no single verse in the Qur'an exists that affirms conversion as an aim of fighting non-believers". This is flagrantly false, since we have already discussed one - the Sword Verse, 9:5, which commands Muslims to fight idolaters and pagans until they "establish worship and pay the poor-due" - that is, begin worshipping Allah and pay <i>zakat</i>, a charitable tax that is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. The choice for them is either conversion or the sword. Ibn Kathir says of 9:5 that polytheists “have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” As I will demonstrate later, that is clearly not just his opinion.<br />
<br />
<i>More to follow in response to the <b>Middle East Eye</b> tomorrow...</i>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-23108460883678058402016-04-13T00:10:00.003+01:002016-04-13T23:53:48.987+01:00We Can See What British Muslims Really Think - And It Should Worry The Hell Out of Us<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoatdaCcWBALQznypO4ETseKcLT6RNzoi7vHivNtB4efMjw5Ez-hXUXKPyYctPonevQkS3lSZyBzV_SQj5dL3iP6WthMzuqBqdXHk6n56-qm4ln4UYzJAv9b-dGI4YMrH3fVmNG5rwVCg/s1600/Trevor_Phillips_3237180k.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoatdaCcWBALQznypO4ETseKcLT6RNzoi7vHivNtB4efMjw5Ez-hXUXKPyYctPonevQkS3lSZyBzV_SQj5dL3iP6WthMzuqBqdXHk6n56-qm4ln4UYzJAv9b-dGI4YMrH3fVmNG5rwVCg/s320/Trevor_Phillips_3237180k.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
As we await the airing tomorrow of the Trevor Phillips documentary <a href="http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/c4-survey-and-documentary-reveals-what-british-muslims-really-think">"What British Muslims Really Think"</a>, which has already gained <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law">a lot of publicity</a> in the press, I have been perusing through the full survey produced by ICM, which can be read <a href="http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/Mulims-full-suite-data-plus-topline.pdf">here</a>, and thought I would just briefly share some results that stood out to me. Please note that I have tried to avoid stats that I have already seen discussed online elsewhere, and which I have already <a href="https://twitter.com/eyeonislam_blog">Tweeted</a> about.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Page 91 – 47% of British Muslims disagree with gay teachers being allowed to teach in schools</li>
<li>Page 132 – 39% “don’t feel favourable or warm" towards Jewish people - the most unfavourable rating towards any religious group in the survey</li>
<li>Page 200 – Perversely / extremely tellingly, 44% also think antisemitism is not a problem in the UK!!!</li>
<li>Page 262 – 24% sympathise with those who commit violence to protect their religion / 18% support those who commit violence against people who mock Muhammad</li>
<li>Page 287 – 78% say that no publication should be allowed to publish pictures of Muhammad</li>
<li>Page 351 – Most Muslims get the majority of their news and current affairs information from television, of which 72% rely on the BBC (Page 353 adds the caveat that 53% of such Muslims implicitly trust the Beeb to give them a balanced view)</li>
<li>Page 378 – 53% of adult Muslims in this country do not have a job (granted, some are - or claim to be - disabled or retired)</li>
<li>Page 403 – 13% described themselves as "sympathetic to violence".</li>
</ul>
<div>
Overall, it is quite clear that that many of these statistics paint a very disturbing picture of attitudes in the British Muslim community - and one that is not at all surprising to anyone who actually knows anything about Islam. Trevor Phillips is <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/thought-europes-muslims-gradually-blend-britains-diverse-landscape-known-better/">on record</a> as saying: “For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Indeed he should have, but at least he has the courage to admit that he "got almost everything wrong" about Islam in Britain.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One final thought: If this is what the situation is like in the UK now, do you think that after Britain has taken in thousands more Muslim immigrants over the next ten years, the situation will be better or worse?</div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-3452291543770484592016-04-03T00:58:00.000+01:002016-04-03T00:58:27.619+01:00Islam And Nazism: Brothers In Hate<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4tL6j8WV5bu0YgptAhXiNlLyQ5qky2kbDtZe4CZ8mUM-Jb5_TlIDeoDIEeDXOLewTbV8YjlBIZKiAwmf7-L017oEUz3V6dIpQmhzEpPFJKGPPbrrew4cuoLvBB9kYGPfe-nrxrufigfM/s1600/dc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4tL6j8WV5bu0YgptAhXiNlLyQ5qky2kbDtZe4CZ8mUM-Jb5_TlIDeoDIEeDXOLewTbV8YjlBIZKiAwmf7-L017oEUz3V6dIpQmhzEpPFJKGPPbrrew4cuoLvBB9kYGPfe-nrxrufigfM/s400/dc.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In February of this year, the anti-Islamisation street protest group PEGIDA held their first rally in the UK, which was <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/newsweek-smears-pegida-leadership-as.html">covered by an article in Newsweek</a>. Predictably, the article was mostly dedicated to smearing the group as "far-right", citing its viewpoints on Islam as being self-evidently evil and extreme. And yet paradoxically, given where the piece tried to place PEGIDA on the political spectrum, it clearly expressed some sort of semi-concealed ire at one particular banner which had been displayed at the rally. It read "Islam=Nazism". Apparently such sentiments are beyond the pale and make those who express them akin to Nazis themselves (that's assuming we can even call Nazism "far-right" <a href="http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/">in the first place</a>).<br />
<br />
And yet, it is clear that Islam <b><i>does</i></b> have an ideological kinship with Nazism. Winston Churchill described Adolf Hitler’s book, <i>Mein Kampf</i>, as “<a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/geert-wilders-press-conference.html">the new Qur’an of faith and war</a>, turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that Hitler viewed Islam and Nazism as ideological bedfellows. Evidence for this can be found in the memoirs of <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inside-Third-Reich-Albert-Speer/dp/1842127357">Albert Speer</a>, who was Hitler's Minister of Armaments and War Production:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. </blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
His admiration for Islam is confirmed by <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Mufti-Jerusalem-el-Husseini-National-Socialism/dp/8675585314">other sources</a>, as well. Dr. Herman Neubacher, the first Nazi Mayor of Vienna, wrote that Hitler had told him Islam was a “male religion”, and reiterated the belief that the Germans would have been far more successful conquerors had they adopted Islam in the Middle Ages. Additionally, General Alexander Loehr, a Luftwaffe commander, maintained that Hitler had told him that Islam was such a desirable creed that he longed for it to become the official religion of the Nazi Secret Service. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Heinrich Himmler also championed the violent nature of Islam. He was of the opinion that religion in general was a negative influence on soldiers – with the exception of Islam. <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books-Heinrich-Himmler-Peter-Longerich/dp/0199651744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459639559&sr=1-1&keywords=peter+longerich+himmler">He wrote</a>: “I must say I have nothing against Islam; for it preaches to its members in this division and promises them paradise if they have fought and died. A practical and agreeable religion for soldiers!” He oversaw the creation of several Muslim-only divisions of the Waffen SS in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and also sought to create a modern equivalent of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries">janissary</a> system employed for centuries in the Ottoman Empire, whereby non-Muslim children were kidnapped or captured in battle and turned into soldiers fighting against their own communities. This prompted SS General Gottlob Berger <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Mufti-Jerusalem-el-Husseini-National-Socialism/dp/8675585314">to remark</a>: “For the first time a connection is being established between Islam and National Socialism on an open, honest base, since it will be ruled from the North where blood and race are concerned, and from the East ideologically and spiritually.” </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This spiritual connection to Islam was also espoused by yet another of the main architects of the Holocaust: Adolf Eichmann. <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eichmann-before-Jerusalem-Unexamined-Murderer-ebook/dp/B00LI5590M/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459639650&sr=1-1&keywords=bettina+stangneth+eichmann">Writing in 1956</a>, while he was still in hiding in Argentina, Eichmann lamented the fact that, in his view, he would never get a fair trial in Europe, because Christianity, “to which a large part of Western thought clings,” had been irrevocably corrupted by the Jews. He therefore turned to those he called his “large circle of friends, many millions of people”, to whom he wrote:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But you, you 360 million Mohammedans, to whom I have had a strong inner connection since the days of my association with your Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, you, who have a greater truth in the suras of your Qur'an, I call upon you to pass judgment on me. You children of Allah have known the Jews longer and better than the West has. Your noble Muftis and scholars of law may sit in judgement upon me and, at least in a symbolic way, give me your verdict. </blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ultimately, Eichmann’s dying wish was that his “Arab friends” could complete the total annihilation of the Jewish people that he had started.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The intimate connection between Islam and the horrors of Nazism is widely known to historians, but apparently not to the public at large. The Nazis collaborated closely with Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem prior to World War II. In 1943 they produced an <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Mufti-Jerusalem-el-Husseini-National-Socialism/dp/8675585314">illustrated biographical booklet</a> which declared al-Husseini to be Muhammad’s direct descendant, an Arab national hero, and the “incarnation of all ideals and hopes of the Arab nation.” </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Husseini played a major role in the horrific events of the Holocaust. He provided active support for the Germans by recruiting (under the supervision of Heinrich Himmler) Bosnian Muslims for dedicated Muslim-only Nazi SS units, which brutally suppressed local resistance movements in Yugoslavia. During a 1944 radio broadcast to the Arab world, he also <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mufti-Fuehrer-rise-fall-el-Husseini/dp/B0000CMKI8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459639908&sr=1-1&keywords=joseph+schechtman+mufti">directly ordered</a> local Muslims: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.” </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In a 1954 essay, the Mufti himself <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Eyes-Mufti-Translated-Annotated/dp/0853039607/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459639999&sr=1-1&keywords=zvi+elpeleg">confirmed</a> the inspiration the Nazis derived from Islamic jihad, noting that during a speech in 1938, “Hitler Noted the Jihad of the Palestinian Arabs as a Worthy Example” for the German-speaking residents of the Sudetenland, urging them to undertake an armed rebellion against Czechoslovakia. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nearly seventy years later, the majority of analysts appear to be ignorant of these facts. While it is commonplace to hear people (falsely) attributing Christian motivations to Hitler's actions, and blaming Christianity for the horrors of the death camps, we almost never hear about the role of Islam and Muslims in the Holocaust, or about Hitler's admiration for the Islamic faith. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not only was there an ideological affinity between Nazism and Islamic ideals, but Muslims themselves played a major role in the Holocaust. This convergence of classical Islamic jihad and antisemitism with Nazi ideals has gone in both directions – for example, <i>Mein Kampf</i> is still a bestseller in some Muslim countries (see <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/718270/posts">here</a>, <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yOr5H9fgozMJ:www.ifacca.org/international_news/2007/02/02/massive-cairo-book-fair-sets-religious/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk">here</a>, <a href="http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Culture/Art/2005/Mar-18/95308-hitlers-mein-kampf-sells-50000-copies-in-turkey-in-three-months.ashx">here</a>, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388161/Mein-Kampf-for-sale-in-Arabic.html">here</a> and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8382132.stm">here</a> for examples), while numerous modern <a href="https://pjmedia.com/blog/german-neo-nazis-view-islamists-as-allies/?singlepage=true">neo-Nazi</a> groups consider Islamic jihadists to be their <a href="http://www.pipelinenews.org/2012/apr/18/the-remarkable-alliance-between-some-german-neo-nazis.html">natural allies</a>. Many Nazis also <a href="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14066#.VwBZFfkrLIU">converted to Islam</a> and continued their hate campaigns against Jews after the war, with help from their fellow Muslims. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With very rare exceptions, almost all Muslims in the Arab world were either indifferent to or actively supportive of the Nazi regime during the Holocaust, and there was no large-scale effort on the part of any Muslim group or individual to save beleaguered Jews in Arab lands, comparable to those of, say, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Wallenberg">Raoul Wallenberg</a>.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
I have not written all of this in order to imply that Hitler was a Muslim. But it remains true that Hitler - despite his racist loathing of Arabs - appears to have believed that Islam was ideologically consistent with his own worldview, and drew inspiration from its perceived successes. Muslims also seem to have been, and continue to be, far more <a href="http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2005.htm">admiring</a> and <a href="http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655">sympathetic</a> towards Nazism than most Christians have ever been. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is not "far-right" or "hateful" to notice any of these facts. Rather, it is a key step in understanding the nature of the threat we face, and how we can defeat it.</div>
Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-24278461527031163612016-03-15T00:11:00.001+00:002016-03-15T00:11:23.666+00:00Yes, I'm Afraid Lots of Muslims Do Hate the USThe circus of ridiculously ignorant commentary surrounding Donald Trump's <a href="http://time.com/4253839/donald-trump-islam-hates-us-interview/?xid=tcoshare">recent statements</a> that "Islam hates us [i.e. America]" continues apace.<br />
<br />
In a piece at <i><a href="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/donald.trumps.islam.hates.america.comment.proved.wrong.by.reasearchers/81843.htm">Christian Today</a></i>, Harry Farley, a "junior staff writer" (obviously not ready for the big time yet), claims that Trump's assertions have been "discredited" by research that was published before the Republican frontrunner even made them.<br />
<br />
Farley claims that the study by the Pew Research Centre shows that "there is little anti-American sentiment in Muslim countries." But actually it does not bear this out at all.<br />
<br />
The piece says:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Countries such as Burkina Faso and Senegal, which have an overwhelming Muslim population, view the USA favourably (80 per cent and 79 per cent respectively), the 2015 research showed. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world, has a broadly positive opinion of America with 62 per cent saying they viewed the country favourably. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Muslim countries in the Middle East tend to have more negative views of the US with 83 per cent of those in Jordan and 70 per cent in Palestine viewing America unfavourably. However there has been a "gradual rise in positive sentiment since President Barack Obama came to power"...</blockquote>
<br />
That's great and all, but the problem with it is that Donald Trump was speaking about this in the context of its implications for Muslim immigration into the US, and the likelihood that Muslim immigrants will bring hatred of America with them. And the majority of America's Muslim immigrants are not coming from Burkina Faso or Senegal. Of the countries contributing the most <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Origin">foreign-born immigrants</a> to the United States, the most common Muslim-majority countries are Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq and Egypt.<br />
<br />
Assuming the research in question refers to <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/">this study</a> from June 2015 (the numbers look similar), four of those five countries were not even part of the research, and hence have no results, while the one that is - Pakistan - has a 62% unfavourability rating towards the US. Almost every Muslim country on the Pew list has a significantly higher unfavourability rating than the median across the board, which was 24%. If we are <b><i>generous</i></b>, and assume that the absent Muslim countries that provide the bulk of Muslim immigration to the US all have ratings in line with the median, instead of much higher, then this means that in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran">Iran</a>, there are almost 18 million Muslims who have an unfavourable view of America, over 33 million in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bangladesh">Bangladesh</a>, over 7.5 million in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq#Religions">Iraq</a>, and almost 18 million in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Egypt#Religions">Egypt</a>.<br />
<br />
Should Americans therefore be concerned about how many of these people might end up coming to the United States? Many would say so, and they wouldn't necessarily have to be Donald Trump supporters to believe that.<br />
<br />
The biggest blunder Farley makes is in the final sentence, when he attempts to soothe us about the huge amount of anti-American hatred in Pakistan by reminding us that "Pew data pointed to anti-American feeling spiking around key political events. In Pakistan it spiked in 2011, the year a US raid killed Osama Bin Laden."<br />
<br />
Aren't you comforted to know that when America killed the evil terrorist mass murderer Osama bin Laden, the first reaction of Pakistani Muslims was to be angry at America?<br />
<br />
Overall, the entire focus of this article is overwhelmingly stupid. Donald Trump's remarks were characteristically crude and non-specific, but he was careful to say that no one really knows the extent of the anti-American sentiment among Muslims entering the United States. He certainly did not say it was a majority, which means that the <i>Christian Today</i> piece is debunking a claim that no one ever made. The article also ignores the massive numbers involved even in minority amounts that might have unfavourable views of the US, and makes no mention of the hatred that is inculcated in <a href="http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2016/03/13/islam-hates-us-more-than-you-know/">the Qur'an itself</a> - something that Donald Trump has at least shown a <a href="http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/04/12/brody-file-exclusive-donald-trump-says-something-in-koran-teaches">dim awareness</a> of.<br />
<br />
In other words, just par for the course in media "analysis" of Islam these days.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-771748568070194152016-03-13T23:14:00.004+00:002016-03-13T23:14:51.963+00:00Why NY Daily News McCan't Explain Islamic JihadIn a <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/mccants-obama-trump-wrong-islam-article-1.2561804">piece today</a> at the <b><i>New York Daily News</i></b>, Will McCants spins the line that "Trump and Obama are both wrong about Islam":<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Donald Trump is certain that “Islam hates us,” as he said in an interview with CNN host Anderson Cooper and repeated in Miami’s debate. “There’s tremendous hatred.” President Obama is certain that “Islam is a religion that preaches peace.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Both men are equally wrong. Islam neither hates nor preaches — its followers do. Islam is what people make of it, and they have made it many different things.</blockquote>
<br />
McCants goes on to provide a number of examples of where the Qur'an says certain things (some violent and intolerant), followed by examples of Muslims both affirming and contradicting those teachings. He concludes from this that if we define Islam nebulously as simply whatever individual Muslims want it to be, then all will be well.<br />
<br />
But his argument is severely flawed. Firstly, it is simply illogical to say that, for example, when Muslims behave tolerantly towards non-Muslims despite the Qur'an's admonition to “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them” (9:5), they are just practicing Islam "in their own way". Rather, the correct way to understand this behaviour is that they are <i style="font-weight: bold;">not practising Islam, and they are ignoring the commandment of the Qur'an. </i>It makes no sense to say that this tolerant behaviour is a form of Islam that politicians should be talking about (which is what McCants suggests in the piece), when actually it is not Islam at all, but simply human beings behaving in a certain way.<br />
<br />
Secondly, and building on the first point, the insistence on defining Islam not by its foundational texts and written teachings, but by how Muslims might behave in any given time and place, means that we cannot realistically work to solve problems that lead to misery and suffering in the world. If, for example, we follow Will McCants' line of thinking and decide that the Qur'an's command to "kill the polytheists wherever you find them" doesn't really matter, because some Muslims might not obey it, then we cannot possibly develop a strategy to change the minds of the Muslims who <b><i>do</i></b> want to obey it.<br />
<br />
The Muslims who commit savage acts of barbarity every single day regularly quote and cite specific verses of the Qur'an, specific behaviours and teachings of Muhammad, and specific tenets of Islamic law to justify their behaviour (see a few examples <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/budding-islamic-state-recruit-was-just.html">here</a>, <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/i-consider-myself-muslim-soldier.html">here</a>, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/gitmo20090310.pdf">here</a>, <a href="https://ia902505.us.archive.org/28/items/poa_25984/EN.pdf">here</a> and <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/full-video-and-transcript-of-uk-jihad-murderer-we-are-forced-by-the-quran">here</a>). On the other hand, Muslims who behave tolerantly or otherwise "normally" rarely invoke specific Islamic teachings to justify their behaviour - they can't, because such teachings don't really exist. Their "niceness" is due to an <b><i>absence of Islam</i></b>, not the presence of a coherent version of it. As a society, we need to understand why the violent and intolerant teachings of Islam continue to have such widespread appeal, and how this can be countered. Will McCants' ideas do not, and cannot, do that.<br />
<br />
He also uses odd logic when he says that Obama's Islam-is-a-Religion-of-Peace schtick is still preferable to Donald Trump's view, because "America stands more to gain by denying the jihadist propaganda of its adversaries than by ratifying it." Really? America stands more to gain by ignoring the ideological basis of its adversaries' hatred than by assessing it honestly, and understanding it to a sufficient level in order to combat it more effectively? That is nonsense.<br />
<br />
There is also this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When we attribute human beliefs and behaviors to ancient, immutable scripture, we can’t explain change over time... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Arabian Peninsula was once home to mystics and music; today it is governed by an austere form of Islam that frowns on religious rapture and playing instruments. Turning to scripture to explain these reversals won’t get you very far.</blockquote>
<br />
Actually scripture is the <b><i>only</i></b> way to explain the reversals. It is not as if the prohibition on music and playing instruments arose only recently. <i><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Manual-Islamic/dp/0915957728/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1239900603&sr=1-2">Reliance of the Traveller</a></i>, a mainstream manual of Islamic law that was written in the fourteenth century, says that there is “explicit and compelling textual evidence that musical instruments of all types are unlawful” in Islam. It quotes hadith with Muhammad saying things like the following:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“'This Community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.' Someone asked, 'When will this be, O messenger of Allah?' and he said, 'When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”</blockquote>
<br />
The manual repeats: “It is unlawful to use musical instruments – such as those which drinkers are known for, like the mandolin, lute, cymbals and flute – or to listen to them.” The only exception is that the tambourine may be played at weddings and circumcisions.<br />
<br />
These are the actual foundational teachings of the religion of Islam. Simply put, they fell into abeyance in some parts of the world for a time due to <b><i>non-adherence to Islam</i></b>. Now religious purists are calling for Muslims to return to these foundational principles. That call could not and would not happen without the ancient scriptures to point to; therefore it is quite apt to use them to explain the resurgence of an "austere form of Islam" in many parts of the world.<br />
<br />
I can see what Will McCants is trying to do here. He's trying to take the "reasonable" middle ground in a complex debate that is full of heightened emotions and touchy subjects. But his take on all of this has no practical value and just adds confusion to a topic that really doesn't need it. Most importantly, it prevents us from being able to take positive steps to improve the current situation, and consequently plays into the hands of groups like ISIS - who will continue to use the Qur'an to justify their violence, even as Will McCants continues to tell us that it doesn't matter.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-6549321206797969812016-03-07T23:21:00.000+00:002016-03-07T23:21:16.981+00:00Neo-Ottoman Turkey Exposing EU's Suicidal IdiocyEuropean Union leaders are currently holding a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35741494">key summit with Turkey</a> in Brussels on ways of dealing with the migrant crisis.<br />
<br />
The EU is pressing Turkey, through which many migrants transit, to take some back in return for $3.3bn in aid. Turkey is reportedly asking for that sum to be doubled, and is also seeking a faster path towards EU membership and the speeding up of plans to allow Turks visa-free travel in Europe as part of the deal.<br />
<br />
Only a willfully blind moron could fail to be wise to the fact that this is a deal that plays entirely into Turkey's sharia supremacist hands. In demanding extortionate amounts of money in return for stemming the migrant invasion, Turkey is literally <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/jihad-and-dhimmitude-part-2.html">demanding jizya</a> as per its <a href="http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/The-Status-of-Dhimmis-in-the-Ottoman-Empire">Ottoman forebears</a>, whereby the Jews and Christians of Europe were forced to pay for their protection from marauding Muslim armies.<br />
<br />
What's more, adding faster EU membership into the mix and potentially allowing greater Turkish travel inside Europe is a surefire way of replacing one Islamic invasion of the continent with another.<br />
<br />
Turkey's <a href="http://middle-east-online.com/english/?id=52732">slide into sharia</a> has long been a cause of alarm for many secularists. Islamic religious schools are increasingly threatening the secular educational system; a popular musician was arrested and given a suspended jail sentence for blasphemy against Islam; and numerous military generals – who have traditionally been the guardians of secularism in the country – have been imprisoned on trumped up charges of planning alleged coups against the government. The ruling AKP party has also introduced <a href="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2013/09/20/Sobering-times-for-Turkish-winemakers-as-new-law-takes-effect-.html">new laws</a> in recent years designed to restrict the sale and advertising of alcohol in line with sharia provisions. <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/jews-focus-of-most-hate-speech-in-turkey-media-study-finds/">Antisemitism is rife</a> throughout the country, as is the <a href="http://www.clarionproject.org/news/domestic-violence-turkey-40-says-new-gov-report">violent abuse of women</a> (<a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/636944/Cologne-sex-attacks-list-crimes">sound familiar</a>?), and the Turkish government has <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-turkey-collaborating-with-the-islamic-state-isis/5491516">been accused</a> - quite credibly - of collaborating with ISIS in numerous ways.<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that even before the migrant crisis that began last year, Turkey has <a href="http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/detail.php?hnewsid=2755">long been known</a> to be majorly responsible for the mass movement of Muslims from the Islamic world into Europe: regular flights have been organized for years between Rabat in Morocco and Algiers in Algeria to Istanbul so as to bring a sizeable number of nationals from those countries to Turkey and transport them thereafter to Greece-Bulgaria, en route to the EU. Turkey has also lifted travel regulations and visas with those countries, whilst it has no visa with Iran, thus promoting in effect the movement of Afghans and Pakistanis, as well as Iranians, into Europe.<br />
<br />
And all of that time, PM Erdogan has <a href="http://en.europenews.dk/Erdogan-assimilation-is-crime-against-humanity-81359.html">actively encouraged</a> those Muslim migrants NOT to integrate into their new European host countries.<br />
<br />
Allowing freer movement for Turks within Europe, and ultimately the admittance of Turkey into the European Union, would be nothing less than an invitation to almost 75 million Muslims to proceed with a further mass invasion of Europe, driven surely by some secularists and minorities, but undoubtedly by many devoutly religious types holding to values that will culturally impoverish the continent forever.<br />
<br />
In service of the <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eurabia-Euro-Arab-Axis-Bat-Yeor/dp/1611473144">Eurabia project</a>, European leaders - who are certain to agree to some variation of the proposed pact of dhimmitude being reported today - seem willing and eager to sign the suicide note of our continent in exchange for the public appearance of doing something about a problem they caused in the first place.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-48611311829603541922016-02-28T00:41:00.000+00:002016-02-28T00:41:02.722+00:00Eye On Islam Arrives At Twitter!As you might have noticed, posting isn't exactly non-stop around here these days. This stems in large part from my own laziness, as well as lack of time. But it also comes down to the fact that there are so many great anti-jihad websites out there already, that it is difficult to post original material that hasn't been already covered in extensive detail by one or many of the other great commentators on the subject that are out there.<br />
<br />
That said, I really do want to keep sharing content with the anti-jihad movement, even if I can't post detailed articles every day, or even every week. And so, for that reason, <b>Eye On Islam</b> now has a <a href="https://twitter.com/eyeonislam_blog">Twitter account</a>. I am aware there is already an account with a similar name out there, and hopefully it won't cause any confusion.<br />
<br />
Tweeting will allow me to post links to external stories and analysis on a more regular basis (i.e. every day), since it doesn't take long to do, and it will also allow me to interact a bit more with the anti-jihad community, as well as the world's various Islamic apologists, who will be receiving hefty doses of reality from me whenever they post deceptive nonsense for the credulous to swallow.<br />
<br />
I will still post here when I can - and when I feel the subject is worthwhile - and will link any new blog posts to the Twitter feed. So if you are one of the single-digit count of people who read the blog, please feel free to follow me (I already have one follower!) and let's go out and spread the word.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-30972913602177503342016-02-16T23:13:00.002+00:002016-02-16T23:13:24.497+00:00Newsweek Smears PEGIDA Leadership As "Far-Right"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDROXEJ-CiQSTkCa1QhkY1zuZW5sIKjhTsSETWqNKi7ZX74fRf9Mv3UzE0ylYB-2mxHXAjTtzcjZ4dWvy0t5oEs6nBcgKMbNB4T8uLKN_wZpnK0WXZRljRAsBGjmOVXKKtIstHhqFAAyg/s1600/02-26-pegida-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDROXEJ-CiQSTkCa1QhkY1zuZW5sIKjhTsSETWqNKi7ZX74fRf9Mv3UzE0ylYB-2mxHXAjTtzcjZ4dWvy0t5oEs6nBcgKMbNB4T8uLKN_wZpnK0WXZRljRAsBGjmOVXKKtIstHhqFAAyg/s400/02-26-pegida-01.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>Warriors of truth will be needed in the war to come</i></b></div>
<br />
<br />
This <a href="http://europe.newsweek.com/anti-islam-organization-pegida-exporting-hate-across-europe-426805?rm=eu">recent article</a> at <i>Newsweek</i> abut the PEGIDA phenomenon spreading across Europe is just bizarre.<br />
<br />
Its headline is: <b>"ANTI-ISLAM ORGANIZATION PEGIDA IS EXPORTING HATE ACROSS EUROPE".</b><br />
<br />
And yet, despite this inflammatory and misleading headline, the article itself takes nowhere near as hostile a tone throughout (although don't get me wrong, it's still rather hostile), and fails to substantiate the premise it sets out at the beginning.<br />
<br />
The author's attempts to prove that PEGIDA are a far-right hate-filled group fall short every time he tries. Take this paragraph describing the recent PEGIDA rally that took place in the UK:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It’s not often you see the words “Trump is right” on protest banners in Britain, whose Parliament recently debated banning the Republican front-runner from entering the country. But as the freezing rain drives down on an industrial estate on the outskirts of Birmingham, what stands out above a huddled mass of silent marchers are dozens of iterations of Donald Trump’s lurid visage, born aloft and plastered with the slogan. Another popular banner reads, “Protect our children.” A third: “Nazism=Islamism.”</blockquote>
<br />
If we assume that the "Trump is right" banners were referring to his call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the West, then as I have <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/why-trump-is-right-about-banning-muslim.html">written here before</a>, that call had absolutely nothing to do with racism or bigotry against Muslims, and everything to do with national security concerns. Trump was indeed right. And what about "Protect our children"? Even the mainstream media could not sink so low as to declare that sentiment "far right", could they? As for "Nazism=Islamism", the two ideologies do indeed share a close ideological affinity, dating back to Adolf Hitler himself. I plan to write in more detail about this here some time in the not-too-distant future.<br />
<br />
In other words: no, there is nothing "far-right" about any of this. It is all simply the truth.<br />
<br />
The article later quotes Tommy Robinson - who seems to be regaining his anti-jihad credentials after an ill-advised flirtation with the Great Enigma <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=maajid">Maajid Nawaz</a> - thusly: “I’m not far-right. I’m just opposed to Islam. I believe it’s backward and it’s fascist,” Robinson, 33, says. “The current refugee crisis is nothing to do with refugees. It’s a Muslim invasion of Europe.”<br />
<br />
Again: all true (Islam as a totalitarian ideology - see <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/why-islam-is-complete-way-of-life.html">here</a>; the "refugee crisis" as an invasion of Muslim economic migrants - see <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/social-media-lies-after-paris-attacks-3_22.html">here</a>), not hateful, and not far-right.<br />
<br />
Another of PEGIDA’s leaders in Britain, Anne Marie Waters, is also quoted, and <i>Newsweek</i> shamelessly editorializes that she is "keen to present [PEGIDA's] arguments as <b><i>almost moderate</i></b>. [emphasis mine]"<br />
<br />
“It is what we share as Europeans, as Westerners. Democratic civilization, that is what we’re there to defend,” she says.<br />
<br />
"Almost moderate"???? Still <i>Newsweek</i> has not demonstrated that anything about PEGIDA's UK branch is anything <b><i>but</i></b> moderate and democratic. It simply presents the words of the group's leaders as if they are self-evidently extremist - and implies that even when what they say is perfectly reasonable and harmless, well, that's just what they want you to think. Thus it quotes an "expert on the far-right" as saying that “They immediately make themselves look more legitimate.”<br />
<br />
Maybe that's because they <b><i>are</i></b> legitimate, and not "far-right"? <i>Newsweek</i> doesn't want you to consider the possibility.<br />
<br />
Anyway, we also get a summary of some of Robinson's other positions:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Robinson, meanwhile, is keen on segregating Britain’s male prisons into Muslim and non-Muslim inmates; he has alleged that during his own prison stay, Muslim inmates threatened and physically assaulted him. He also wants to close down any Islamic courts operating in Britain. (No legally binding Sharia courts exist in Britain, but an estimate in 2009 by British think tank Civitas said there were at least 85 Sharia bodies offering religious guidance, family mediation and other services.) Rather than try to prevent British jihadis from leaving for Syria and Iraq, Robinson would cheerily wave them off: “Send them all, mate. I'd be chartering jets for ’em.”</blockquote>
<br />
Clearly, the death camps are just around the corner.<br />
<br />
The piece adds near its conclusion: "One quiet protest does not make a revolution, or even a Trump-sized political movement. But PEGIDA hopes that a new wave of anti-Islam dissent will swing the political conversation its way and attract the moderate supporters that a traditional far-right group could never hope to gain."<br />
<br />
Maybe that's because PEGIDA is not a traditional far-right group, or in fact a far-right group at all. But <i>Newsweek</i> doesn't want you to consider that.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-78660376728263410852016-02-02T20:41:00.000+00:002016-02-02T20:41:09.994+00:00Don't Believe Your Lying EyesFirst, read this insubstantial, evidence-free piece of puffery published today at the <i>Independent</i>:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/you-dont-need-to-look-much-further-than-the-quran-for-proof-that-islam-is-a-peaceful-religion-a6847031.html">"You don't need to look much further than the Quran for proof that Islam is a peaceful religion"</a><br />
<br />
Then read the following extracts from the Qur'an itself:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>2:191-193</b> – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers...And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>4:95</b> – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>8:38-39</b> – “Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning). And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>9:5</b> – “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>9:29</b> – “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.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>9:111</b> – “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...”</blockquote>
<br />
Game over.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-66159351192338441872016-01-31T23:35:00.001+00:002016-01-31T23:35:10.593+00:00No, Maajid Nawaz: Islam Is Not "Native" To The West<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOWadqLjOhJ119JiRovvA-pGbgg9jLBJ11vaVnxt-s3bY9jQM1SvdDSvSf3xcVxzKa9G8_shv1rvWdnSrNlV6dGU46alneWhkAuRtTpkZF6GfnCFhF6IFhTvBG38ABMRHG8G9x0zzzJ3Q/s1600/20160129001223555509-original.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOWadqLjOhJ119JiRovvA-pGbgg9jLBJ11vaVnxt-s3bY9jQM1SvdDSvSf3xcVxzKa9G8_shv1rvWdnSrNlV6dGU46alneWhkAuRtTpkZF6GfnCFhF6IFhTvBG38ABMRHG8G9x0zzzJ3Q/s400/20160129001223555509-original.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I have written of my skepticism about the "Muslim reformer" <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-curious-case-of-maajid-nawaz.html">Maajid Nawaz</a> before. On top of that, it is also worth reading <a href="http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/12/maajid-nawaz-stealth-jihadist-exposed/">this piece</a> over at <b>Gates of Vienna</b>, dissecting some of the claims made about Islam by Nawaz in his much-publicized book <i>Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue</i>, which he co-authored with atheist Sam Harris. Please note that I do not personally agree with all of the author's conclusions about Nawaz and his motivations, but I do think it is a useful overview of how deceptive - willfully or otherwise - he can be when he discusses specific elements of Islamic theology and law.<br />
<br />
All of that can then serve as illuminating background for Nawaz's <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/01/31/islam-native-west-nawaz">latest musings</a> about Islamic reform, from a talk he gave in Sydney this weekend.<br />
<br />
After answering a range of questions at an event at Sydney University, including on his former membership to extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and how to prevent radicalisation in young people, Nawaz told the largely Caucasian crowd to "own" the problem of Islamic extremism.<br />
<br />
"When we finally realise that Muslims are here to stay, that they are native to the west, their version of Islam is native to the west, we will own that conversation on equal terms," he said. "When we look at it like that, we stop 'other-ising' and we will feel like we own the problem and therefore own the conversation, as we do with Christianity. No one sees Christianity as alien to the west. They feel like they own the debate because Christianity is viewed as native to the west."<br />
<br />
What on earth is Nawaz talking about? Islam is not "native to the West". Muslims are not "native to the West". Islam only has a significant presence in the West at all because of immigration, and because marauding Muslim armies <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024">brutally invaded Spain</a> and the south of France in the eighth century, subjugating and persecuting the indigenous peoples.<br />
<br />
Ultimately it is ridiculous to say that any religion is "native" to anywhere, since no religion has existed forever, but if anyone has the impression that Christianity is native to the West, that would be because it has been present here for all of modern history, and because it has <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization-ebook/dp/B00C0JE80W/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454282989&sr=1-1&keywords=how+the+catholic+church+built+western+civilization">shaped and cultivated</a> so much of our culture and traditions. In a very real sense, it <b><i>created</i></b> the West. It did not spread throughout the Western world by violent conquest, as Islam did, and Western culture has not been directly shaped by Islam at all, despite <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/how-akbar-ahmed-rewrites-european.html">propaganda</a> aimed at convincing us to the contrary.<br />
<br />
So Nawaz's formulation here is based on an utterly absurd supremacist lie, that Islam is "native" to Western civilisation. But more than that, his suggestion just makes absolutely no sense as any part of a solution. How will Westerners accepting that Islam is native to the West facilitate Islamic reform? If we stop "otherising" Muslims and Islam, will the likes of ISIS respond by beating their guns into plowshares and reinterpreting the verses of the Qur'an that they use to justify their atrocities? Once we "own" the debate on extremism, will Muslim clerics be convinced that the Qur'an should not be taken literally and that Muhammad's example is not an acceptable model to follow in the modern world?<br />
<br />
Maajid Nawaz's "wisdom" here is just pure pretentious nonsense. He has been around for years now, and despite all his talk of deradicalisation, and his otherwise sensible suggestion that Muslims should desist from taking the Qur'an completely literally, I have still never seen any evidence that he actually has any kind of cohesive plan for Islamic reform, or understands the steps that would be required in moving Muslims away from Qur'anic literalism. I cannot possibly claim to know his true thoughts or motivations, but it seems to me that he is simply a terrible reformer, at best.<br />
<br />
And at the same time, while I don't personally subscribe to this view, Nawaz's tendency to serenade us with ridiculous nonsense like this - and his failure to answer important questions about his methods - gives me some sympathy with those who see him as something in fact much worse than an incompetent reformer: as a stealth jihadist, waging an incredibly sophisticated campaign of deception in service of insidious ends.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-17074809825874664432016-01-31T00:03:00.001+00:002016-01-31T00:46:26.273+00:00Churchill Was The Prototypical Anti-Dhimmi<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjirLhwcKmVnIiGwv6nA8I5XtSmD6mJ-34Kp2GiBQcXIaEpnzejg-JlLJ1w6iJNQSco2WjMTcdREQzn-8q-J3U6qaCWlmHAvqEXbLcAS0vPPw3aJ3BR5UeLfnNje-MRTBhTu6ta5VyJLpM/s1600/winston-churchill-07.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjirLhwcKmVnIiGwv6nA8I5XtSmD6mJ-34Kp2GiBQcXIaEpnzejg-JlLJ1w6iJNQSco2WjMTcdREQzn-8q-J3U6qaCWlmHAvqEXbLcAS0vPPw3aJ3BR5UeLfnNje-MRTBhTu6ta5VyJLpM/s400/winston-churchill-07.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
It was reported recently that Italian authorities <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/italy-covers-naked-statues-bans-wine-visit-iranian-president-hassan-rouhani-1540144">covered up naked statues</a> exhibited at a world-famous museum in Rome for an official visit of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The vast censorship effort was reportedly implemented as a show of "respect" to Rouhani (because he <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/world/middleeast/iran-israel.html?ref=middleeast&_r=2&">really deserves it</a>), out of fears that the exposed private parts of ancient Roman gods could offend Iranian (i.e. Shi'ite Islamic) sensitivity. Wine was also banned from official receptions.<br />
<br />
Starting in the latter half of the twentieth century, the Western world has lost appreciation for its values, heritage and culture, and seems to express a deep shame - and even hatred - for it on a regular basis. Consequently, we seem to have adopted a general rule of thumb that goes something like this: "When in Islamic countries, observe Islamic values; when in our own countries, observe Islamic values". Hence, the kind of fawning, self-abasing dhimmitude we have just seen in Italy.<br />
<br />
Winston Churchill, on the other hand, was a man who loved Western civilisation, and knew that Islam was a threat to it, and that kowtowing before Muslim demands and "sensitivities" was a disastrous thing to do. He wrote eloquently of the <a href="http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Winston_Churchill">weaknesses of the Islamic outlook</a>, and clear-sightedly <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/geert-wilders-press-conference.html">compared</a> the Qur'an to <i>Mein Kampf</i>.<br />
<br />
He also had a marvelous response when confronted with supremacist Muslim demands to "respect" their values even when they were the ones who were visiting him, and should have been respecting <b><i>his</i></b> values.<br />
<br />
Prior to a meeting in Egypt in 1945, the Saudi King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud sent word to Churchill that “the King could not allow drinking or smoking in his presence”. <a href="http://www.israellycool.com/2016/01/30/hey-italians-and-french-this-is-how-to-resist-dhimmitude/">Churchill replied</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I was the host and I said that if it was his religion that made him say such things, my religion prescribed as an absolute sacred ritual smoking cigars and drinking alcohol before, after and if need be during, all meals and the intervals between them. Complete surrender.</blockquote>
<br />
Such bold defiance in the face of religiously-inspired intolerance stands in stark contrast to the Western leaders of today - who allow Islam <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3354827/More-MILLION-asylum-seekers-arrived-Europe-year-number-reaching-Britain-nearly-early-2000s-peak.html">unlimited access</a> into the West before inviting it to <a href="http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7151/britain-islamization">trample</a> on our customs and heritage.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-91251154473513629472016-01-27T22:56:00.000+00:002016-01-27T22:56:10.816+00:00The Other Choice<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicrzagEBgbk3pwGikW2OG0SNh-CKAcjlOjiuDQwC8UeyG1rs31aHZCUMaZXmI9ejtm_WR2iGkk_ZHpNzqNz0Pk3Vc6_xGGqCvs8O8e4DifnTZ2Y60RToB1-buaIw7Uai-MM5KR38e6DkE/s1600/carsonben_100915getty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicrzagEBgbk3pwGikW2OG0SNh-CKAcjlOjiuDQwC8UeyG1rs31aHZCUMaZXmI9ejtm_WR2iGkk_ZHpNzqNz0Pk3Vc6_xGGqCvs8O8e4DifnTZ2Y60RToB1-buaIw7Uai-MM5KR38e6DkE/s400/carsonben_100915getty.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
With all the mania surrounding Donald Trump, it can be easy to forget that there are, in fact, other candidates in the US Presidential race, and that some of them have useful, rational things to say.<br />
<br />
Today, Republican candidate Ben Carson <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267162-carson-ending-isis-will-not-kill-the-beast-of-radical">pointed out</a> that eradicating Islamic State will not stop jihad terrorism. “The Islamist threat is now <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/you-cant-defeat-hydra-with-club.html">like a hydra</a>, and cutting off the head that is ISIL will not kill the beast,” he said. “The defeat of the Islamic State and elimination of its caliphate is necessary but insufficient to ending our broader conflict against radical Islam, A Carson administration will wage war against radical Islamic terrorism as a global movement, not just as discrete entities.”<br />
<br />
Today it is very rare to hear anyone talk about this being a global jihadist movement driven by common motives and goals (which is what it is), so Carson's understanding is very welcome. He also added: “In short, our enemies are transnational jihadist organizations. Based on their understanding of the tenets of Islam, these enemies are intent on imposing a supremacist and totalitarian form of government on others."<br />
<br />
Exactly right. Carson has already shown in <a href="http://eye-on-islam.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/ben-cars-on-money-re-muslim-president.html">previous comments</a> that he has a deeper understanding of Islam than any of the other candidates. While Trump steamrolls everyone and everything in his path with fire and bluster, Carson seems to be the calmer, more rational option. I don't know too much about him or his views, if I'm honest, but I've seen enough of Trump (because how can anyone avoid him at the moment?) to know that while he is coming up on the right side of many issues that ordinary Americans feel strongly about, his overall comprehension of the world around him seems to be only held in place at the moment by his sheer charisma and fire-breathing self-confidence. Give him any <b><i>real</i></b> political power, and his lack of intelligence would show through all the more.<br />
<br />
I'm not one of those folks who is going to sit here and demonise Donald Trump until you never want to hear his name ever again - I don't like him, but I don't think he's a Nazi either - and it seems inconceivable that he now won't win the Republican nomination for the presidency, but if you're a conservative American voter, and have deep concerns about the future of Islam in your country, there is no better alternative in the running than Ben Carson.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357858323206347405.post-71345357557368290952016-01-14T23:58:00.000+00:002016-01-15T00:05:18.325+00:00Is This How You De-Radicalise A Muslim?In a piece published recently at the <i><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/asma-afsaruddin/islam-not-monolithic_b_8955168.html">Huffington Post</a></i>, Asma Afsaruddin - a Professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilisations at Indiana University - claims to have "deradicalised" (she doesn't use that word, but it's essentially what she means) one of her students by telling him how his "monolithic" view of Islam was all wrong. Some of the points she makes are worth further examination.<br />
<br />
The professor says her student - who she calls Fulan - was indoctrinated in Wahabbism while being educated in Saudi Arabia, and came back with a huge amount of respect for Ibn Kathir, a 14th-century Muslim scholar whose work is readily available in most Muslim bookshops and mosques even in the UK. She says that Fulan was preoccupied with Ibn Kathir's discussion of the so-called "Verse of the Sword" from the Qur'an: "When the sacred months have passed, then slay the polytheists wherever you may encounter them." (9:5)<br />
<br />
Having already told us that we should never get the impression that Islam and the Qur'an are monolithic and only subject to a single valid interpretation, Asma immediately tells us, in black and white terms, that the correct interpretation is that this verse "was directed specifically at the Meccan polytheists who had attacked the Prophet Muhammad and his small community of Muslims in the seventh century." End of story, apparently. She also adds towards the end of the piece: "One could conclude that Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiyyah's [another famous Muslim scholar who mentored Ibn Kathir] views were as strident as they were because of the dangerous times they lived in. The Islamic world was under siege during their period by foreign aggressors who could only be effectively repelled by a military counterattack. These two scholars were not speaking for all Muslims everywhere for all time."<br />
<br />
The claim that the Verse of the Sword was only ever intended to apply to the Muslims Muhammad was fighting in the seventh century is entirely the professor's interpretation, and is not backed up by centuries of exegetical and juristic tradition. But more than that, she is also not even telling the truth when she says that these renowned Islamic scholars only ever meant to apply the verse's strictures to their own military situations.<br />
<br />
Here is part of what Ibn Kathir <a href="http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2581&Itemid=64">says about the verse</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
These Ayat [verses] allowed fighting people <i><span style="color: #274e13;">[not just Mongols or any specific group, just 'people' ~ Ed]</span></i> unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations...This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called <i><span style="color: #274e13;">[i.e. BEFORE Ibn Kathir! ~ Ed]</span></i> the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since <i>Surah Bara'ah</i> [chapter 9 of the Qur'an] was revealed <span style="color: #274e13;"><i>[i.e. in perpetuity ~ Ed].</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #274e13;"><i><br /></i></span>
Clearly, then Ibn Kathir was not just talking about fighting any specific enemies the Muslims might have had in his day, but about all infidels who do not yet "embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations" - especially since he also says in his commentary on this verse that idolaters should be killed "on the earth in general", indicating that he envisioned jihads being waged against people who had never even made contact with Muslims, let alone threatened them.<br />
<br />
The same thing is evident in the writings of Ibn Taymiyya. <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islam-Dhimmitude-Where-Civilizations-Collide/dp/0838639429/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1452815509&sr=8-3&keywords=bat+ye%27or+islam+and+dhimmitude">For example</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Since jihad is divinely instituted, and its goal is that religion reverts entirely to Allah and to make Allah's word triumph, whoever opposes the realisation of this goal will be fought, according to the unanimous opinion of Muslims. Jews and Christians, as well as Zoroastrians (Magians), must be fought until they embrace Islam or pay the jizya without recriminations. Jurisconsults do not agree on the question of knowing if the jizya should be imposed on other categories of infidels; on the other hand, all consider that it should not be required of Arabs [hence they should convert to Islam or be killed or expelled].</blockquote>
<br />
Note that he doesn't say that only Mongols should be fought, but that "whoever" stands in the way of the total domination of Islam should be fought, including Jews and Christians.<br />
<br />
Asma says that she managed to convince Fulan not to listen to Ibn Kathir or Ibn Taymiyyah by reading the writings of "many different scholars" who apparently disagreed with their interpretation of the Qur'an, but she does not mention who they are or what kind of influence they had, or continue to have.<br />
<br />
Next, she goes on to lament the fact that Fulan was ignoring "other scholars who emphasized spiritual and intellectual striving as important components of jihad. After all, jihad in its basic meaning signifies 'struggle' or 'striving,' which can be carried out in different ways." That is true, of course, when it comes to jihad as a <b><i>mere Arabic word</i></b>, but it remains the case that jihad of the sword was always the predominant meaning of the term <b><i>within Islamic theology</i></b>. The nineteenth-century British Orientalist E.W. Lane, whose work is admired by both native Arab and non-Arab speakers, carefully studied the etymology of the word jihad, and <a href="http://www.studyquran.co.uk/LLhome.htm">concluded</a> that it “came to be used by the Muslims to signify generally he fought, warred, or waged war, against unbelievers and the like.” Even Al-Azhar University, the highest educational and spiritual authority in Sunni Islam, has <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arab-Theologians-Jews-Israel-Archival/dp/1461106672">emphasised the same thing</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The word 'Jihad' means exerting all efforts. It means also struggling hard until you feel exhausted. To strive against the enemy is to fight him. Jihad – from the viewpoint of religion – means exerting all efforts in repelling the enemies and in fighting them. Jihad is an Islamic word which other Nations use in the meaning of 'war'.</blockquote>
<br />
Interestingly, the professor cites another contemporary of Ibn Kathir - Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, who she says "wrote a beautiful moving treatise describing the inner spiritual struggle as a continuous feature of jihad. Needless to say, this particular work is ignored by militants and apparently was not part of the texts that my student had been exposed to in Saudi Arabia."<br />
<br />
The problem with this is that whatever Ibn Qayyim wrote about spiritual jihad, he still <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Decline-Eastern-Christianity-Under-Islam/dp/0838636888/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452815767&sr=1-1&keywords=bat+ye%27or+decline+of+eastern">also wrote</a> that "jihad is obligatory until the word of Allah reigns supreme, and until all are of the religion of Allah, until the religion of Allah triumphs over all religions and until they [infidels] pay the poll tax while in a state of inferiority.” It is entirely possible for Muslims to believe passionately in the importance of both spiritual and violent jihad without contradiction. Needless to say, Asma Afsaruddin ignores this fact, and this text of Ibn Qayyim's.<br />
<br />
Next she observes that "Interpretations of law, whether religious or secular, are always influenced by specific historical and cultural contexts." That might be true, but it also ignores the fact that the jurists of Islamic law long ago declared its interpretation to be fixed and unalterable, in line with the idea that the "gates of <i>ijtihad</i>" - independent reasoning and reform of sharia - are closed and will remain forever thus. The professor might disagree with that, and that's fine, but it will do no good to just pretend that "mainstream Muslims" all believe that we can reinterpret Islamic law however we want as the cultural and social winds change, because that's just not the case.<br />
<br />
At the end of the day, if the professor truly did manage to convince her young Muslim student to look at Islam in a less radical way by using these arguments, that's all to the good. However, I can't help thinking that her dishonest presentation of the facts wouldn't stack up well against someone better informed, and that if I can pick holes in her argument, then a slick, sophisticated jihadi recruiter would probably be able to pick ten more.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11533347085091152172noreply@blogger.com0