How Should We Respond To Charges Of Blasphemy Against Islam

Six months after declaring that all churches in the Arabian peninsula should be destroyed, Saudi Arabia’s top cleric called at the weekend for a global ban on insults targeting all religious “prophets and messengers,” a category that, from a Muslim perspective, includes Jesus Christ.

Leading Sunni Clerics Demand Global Ban on Insults to Islam, CNS News, 17 Sep. 2012

“We never insult any prophet — not Moses, not Jesus — so why can’t we demand that Muhammad be respected?” Mr. Ali, a 39-year-old textile worker said, holding up a handwritten sign in English that read “Shut Up America.”

Cultural Clash Fuels Muslims Angry at Online Video, NYT, 16 Sep. 2012

Allow me to respond to your contentions, Grand Mufti and Mr. Ali.

Your religion is unique in many ways - one of which is that adopts a false Christianity as part of its founding narrative. Islam claims that Jesus is a "prophet" of its religion while ignoring his teachings and denying his divinity. In the Dome of the Rock Mosque, built atop the most holy site in the Jewish faith, there is an inscription now 1,300 years old:

The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not Three. It will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from his glory that he should have a son.

Now, that is blasphemy in its purest sense. It irks me, but I ignore it, thinking only that you are misguided. But if you and your fellow Muslims in the Middle East, on the other hand, are prepared to do violence because someone in the U.S. said something not nice about Mohammed - well, you can pack it where the sun doesn't shine. And if you act violently, expect an appropriate response in return, bearing in mind that our tolerance level for your infantile, hypocritical and outrageous acts is not infinite. At some point, your violence will beget a response of overwhelming force.

As to Jesus, while the Koran claims to adopt him as part of Islamic faith, yet the Koran adopts none of his teachings. Perhaps most importantly, Jesus commanded us to follow the Golden Rule. Mohammed acknowledged no Golden Rule. To the contrary:

Islam does not enjoin believers to do unto infidels as you would have infidels do unto you. On the contrary! Islam tells its followers to subdue infidels; to kill them; to, at best, reduce them to dhimmitude.

And as to the Dome of the Rock, let's talk about the detestable Muslim habit of attempting to wipe out symbols and buildings of other faiths - an act directed by the Koran, verse 018:021. The Dome of the Rock was built on the holiest Jewish site, the Temple Mount, 1,300 years ago. It wasn't until 800 years ago that Muslims justified this on the claim, apparently made out of thin air, that this was a site also intrinsically holy to Muslims because of Mohammed's night ride. Everywhere Islam conquered, they built mosques on top of the holy sites of Christianity, with Constantinople and Cordoba being the two most famous of thousands of examples. Unfortunately, this is not merely historical - it continues to this day, from destroying ancient historic Buhddist statues in Afghanistan to the destruction of Churches in Nigeria, Egypt the West Bank - and let's not forget Jordan's industrial scale destruction of Jewish holy sites after they captured the Jewish Quarter in Jerulsalem.

I could raise an entire litany of other examples. There is the Muslim world's glorification of the most animalistic, subhuman acts of terror directed against Jews and Christians. There is the Koran's direction that it is acceptable to rape and enslave non-Muslims. There is the officially sanctioned discrimination against Christians and the few Jews left in every country with an Islamic government. There is the murder of homosexuals and people accused of witchcraft, not to mention the grossly unequal, violent treatment of women.

I consider the vast majority of these things to be a blasphemy against my religion - and indeed, all of these things to be a blasphemy against humanity. Here is reality. Your nations have produced nothing to advance civilization in the past near millenium. Today, the Arab Middle East is a cesspool of poverty, corruption and dysfunction - and that is not the fault of the West, not the fault of the Crusades, not the fault of 'Western imperialism,' and not the fault of America, where if you want to practice your religion in peace, you are perfectly welcome to do so. It is the fault of Islam and an Islamic culture that is, in the words of Churchill, the most "retrograde force" on this earth.

The best thing that I and the world can do for you is to criticize your religion and demand that you reform it to the point that its believers comport with civilized behavior. The best thing that you can do is evolve your culture and religion.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Intolerance & The Modern Left

Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant and then tries to silence good.

That has been the hallmark of our modern left. Do visit Redstate for the full story. I would note that, if you look at the Koran, you will find it divided into two periods that follow the same precise pattern.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Barbary Wars - Decatur, Jihad & The Burning of the U.S.S. Philadelphia, Feb. 16, 1804

Art: Edward Moran, The Burning Of The USS Philadelphia

On the night of February 16, 1804, in one of the most daring attacks of the age, Lt. Stephen Decatur, U.S.N., accompanied by a Sicilian pilot, led a force of 70 volunteers into the heavily defended port of Tripoli to burn the U.S.S. Philadelphia. The raid made an immediate hero of Decatur, it encouraged the Tripolitan regent to sue for peace, and it served notice to the world that the newly formed U.S. Navy was a force to be reckoned with. In a larger sense, Decatur's raid marked or was part of several firsts – the first protracted war against our nation by religiously motivated Muslims, our nation's first foreign war, and our first experience with the failure of appeasement.

Background:

Beginning in the late 15th century, the North African Islamic regencies of Tripoli, Tunis and Algiers began sponsoring piracy against Christian nations as a form of jihad. In 1796, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with an envoy from Tripoli. Jefferson later reounted:

“. . . [we] ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’ The ambassador [from the Barbary States] replied that it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” He claimed every one of their guys who was “slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."

Do note that this doctrine is part of the curriculum being taught in Saudi financed madrassas and schools around the world. As we are all well aware, the Muslim threat to the rest of the world that has existed since 622 A.D. has in no way abated or been blunted with the passing of time, whether it be counted in decades, centuries or millenniums.

For hundreds of years these Muslim Barbary pirates were a scourge on the Christian world. Their main goal was to capture Christians as slaves or to hold for ransom – and this they did on a near industrial scale, not merely attacking passing ships, but also making land raids throughout Europe:

Reports of Barbary raids and kidnappings of those in Italy, Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, Scotland as far north as Iceland exist from between the 16th to the 19th centuries. It is estimated that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves during this time period. Famous accounts of Barbary slave raids include a mention in the Diary of Samuel Pepys and a raid on the coastal village of Baltimore, Ireland, during which pirates left with the entire populace of the settlement.

Prior to and during the American Revolution, ships from the America were under English, then later French protection in the Mediterranean. But almost as soon as the Revolution ended - and our protection ceased - Muslim predation on American shipping began. In 1784, Morocco struck first, capturing the Betty, an American frigate, holding her crew for ransom. Not long thereafter Algiers captured two more ships. Morocco and Algiers both demanded ransom and annual tribute, which, in its powerlessness at the time, the U.S. paid. And still the predation did not stop. At one point in Washington's presidency, the U.S. government paid out 20% of its annual budget in ransom of ships and crew to the Muslim Barbary pirates.

During this period, the U.S. began building a sizable navy. Almost as soon as he was inaugurated, Thomas Jefferson put our nation on a war footing with Tripoli when he refused to pay any further tribute. He sent a fleet of warships to Tripoli to deliver the message. They blockaded ports throughout Tripoli and conducted raids. During one blockade, the USS Philadelphia, a 36 gun frigate ran aground on an uncharted reef just outside Tripoli Harbor. The ship was soon captured by the Muslim pirates and moored in the harbor, where it was occupied by pirates, surrounded by several Tripolitan vessels, and within half the range of the shore batteries.

The loss of the USS Philadelphia on 31 Oct. 1803 was a major blow to the war effort, not just because it weakened U.S. forces on site, but because it was a state of the art warship that could have been turned against the U.S. The Commander of the American navy in the Mediterranean considered attempting to retake the Philadelphia, but the defenses were deemed too strong. An alternate plan, put forth by Lt. Stephen Decatur, was to enter the heavily defended harbor by ruse, then board and destroy the Philadelphia, denying it to the enemy.

The Raid:

Lt. Decatur along with a Sicilian pilot and 70 officers and men – all volunteers – boarded a ship recently captured from Tripoli, the ketch Intrepid. Leaving the American fleet’s mooring in Syracuse, Sicily on February 3, they arrived off Tripoli on the 16th. Most of the men were sent below decks and the anchor stowed as the ship entered the harbor. The pilot, Mr. Salvadore, gave the story to guard vessels in the harbor that their ship had lost its anchors in a recent storm and needed to tie up to a nearby vessel for safety. They were directed to the Philadelphia’s position; it was about half-past nine o’clock at night.

The rest of the story was told by Lt. Decatur in a letter to his commanding officer, discussing the operation:

Lieut. Commandant Decatur, Intrepid.
____________________

Lieut. Commandant S. Decatur’s Report to Com. Preble.
On Board the Ketch Intrepid, at Sea ,
February 17, 1804.

Sir:

I have the honor to inform you, that in pursuance to your orders of the 31st ultimo, to proceed with this ketch off the harbor of Tripoli, there to endeavor to effect the destruction of the late United States’ frigate Philadelphia, I arrived there in company with the United States’ brig Syren, lieutenant commandant Stewart, on the 7th, but owing to the badness of the weather, was unable to effect any thing until last evening, when we had a light breeze from the N.E. At 7 o’clock I entered the harbor with the Intrepid, the Syren having gained her station without the harbor, in a situation to support us in our retreat. At half past 9 o’clock, laid her alongside of the Philadelphia, boarded, and after a short contest, carried her. I immediately fired her in the store-rooms, gun-room, cock-pit, and birth-deck, and remained on board until the flames had issued from the spar-deck, hatchways, and ports, and before I had got from alongside, the fire had communicated to the rigging and tops. Previous to our boarding, they had got their tompions out, and hailed several times, but not a gun fired.

The noise occasioned by boarding and contending for possession, although no fire-arms were used, gave a general alarm on shore, and on board their cruisers, which lay about a cable and a half’s length from us, and many boats filled with men lay around, but from whom we received no annoyance. They commenced a fire on us from all their batteries on shore, but with no other effect than one shot passing through our top-gallant sail.

The frigate was moored within half-gunshot of the Bashaw’s castle, and of their principal battery-two of their cruisers lay within two cables’ length on the starboard quarter, and their gunboats within half gunshot of the starboard bow. She had all her guns mounted and loaded, which, as they became hot went off. As she lay with her broadside to the town, I have no doubt but some damage has been done by them. Before I got out of the harbor, her cables had burnt off, and she drifted in under the castle, where she was consumed. I can form no judgment as to the number of men on board, but there were twenty killed. A large boat full got off, and many leapt into the sea. We have made one prisoner, and I fear from the number of bad wounds he has received he will not recover, although every assistance and comfort has been given him.

I boarded with sixty men and officers, leaving a guard on board the ketch for her defence, and it is the greatest pleasure I inform you, I had not a man killed in this affair, and but one slightly wounded. Every support that could be given I received from my officers, and as each of their conduct was highly meritorious, I beg leave to enclose you a list of their names. Permit me also, sir, to speak of the brave fellows I have the honor to command, whose coolness and intrepidity was such as I trust will ever characterise the American tars.

It would be injustice in me, were I to pass over the important services rendered by Mr. Salvadore, the pilot, on whose good conduct the success of the enterprise in the greatest degree depended. He gave me entire satisfaction.

I have the honor to be, sir, &c.,

STEPHEN DECATUR.

Decatur became an immediate hero in the U.S., and his notoriety spread world-wide. Perhaps the greatest accolade he received came from one of histories preeminent naval commanders Adm. Horatio Nelson, who is reputed to have called Decatur's raid "the most bold and daring act of the age."

America was under assault by Muslim Barbary pirates for thirty-one years, from 1784 to 1815. Appeasing the religiously motivated pirates who saw non-Muslims as fair game for slavery and aggression, was an utter failure. The First Barbary War, fought from 1801-1805, ended the Tripolitan regent's aggression. But the regents of Algiers and Tunisia soon opted to pick up where the Tripolitans had left off. For a time, the U.S. ignored the renewed piracy as its focus was on the events that led up to and culminated in the War of 1812.

After the War of 1812, the U.S. turned its attention back to the Muslim pirates. The U.S. declared war on Algeria in 1815 and sent a fleet of warships to the Mediterranean under the command of then Commodore Decatur. He was as efficient in command of a fleet as he was in the raid. In a matter of months, he captured Algeria's major warships and forced a treaty and reparations on the Algerian regent. Shortly thereafter, Tunisia likewise capitulated, bringing an end to the war. Decatur would die five years later in a duel.

Read More...

Summary only...

You've Got To Be Kidding Deux

I am searching my mind to think of any aircraft related incident of terrorism not committed by Muslim terrorists over the past two decades. I am not coming up with any, though I am sure there has been the occasional outlier.

At any rate, we have gone from very lax procedures at airports on Sept. 10, 2001, to the point where we now have to use full body scans to detect some of the more egregious attempts by radical Islamists to hide explosives and weapons about their body, including their "private parts." Except . . .

A group of Muslim scholars says it supports airline safety, but it is "deeply concerned" about the use of airport scanners that show nude images of the human body.

“The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) emphasizes that a general and public use of such scanners is against the teachings of Islam, natural law and all religions and cultures that stand for decency and modesty,” the group said in a Feb. 10 statement posted at Islam Online.

"It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," FCNA explained. The group noted that Islam emphasizes modesty, considering it part of the faith. "The Qur'an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts" and to be modest in their dress.

While exceptions can be made in cases of "extreme necessity," FCNA indicated that passenger body scans do not rise to that level . . .

FCNA is asking for changes in scanner software so the machines will produce only body outlines. In the meantime, the group says Muslim travelers should choose pat-down searches over scanner images – in cases where searches are necessary.

Does the Koran say anything about hiding explosives in one's "private parts?" If not, then you my Fiqh Council friend can go fiqh off (hah - hat tip to Dafydd at Big Lizards for that one).

Muslims bear full responsibility for the need to have full body scans that will invade the privacy of each and every one of us. And this Muslim Council has the gall to complain on behalf of Muslims. This is mind numbing - but hardly unexpected. As to pat downs, if the Fiqh Council considers showing "private parts" a violation of privacy, they surely dont expect to have those private parts touched as a part of a pat down. Yet anything less would not find a bomber packing PETN next to their privates. Sorry about that, but for my money, if Muslims refuse to go through a full body scan, nothing less than a strip and cavity search would suffice.

At this point in the game, my concern for Muslim sensibilities on issues relating to security is well into negative numbers. The Koran may command that Muslims be modest, it does not command that they have a right to board an airplane. If you are Muslim and do not want to be scanned, fine, don't fly. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable accommodation to me.

By the way, lest there be any doubt about who it is that is complaining in this instance, the Fiqh Council of North America is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is an organization dedicated to the overthrow of our government and the implementation of Sharia law throughout the world. Al Qaeda grew out of the Brotherhood, as have countless other radical offshoots. The only difference between al Qaeda and the Brotherhood is in the means by which the same ends are sought. So, go pound sand indeed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Cairo Address: The Dangerous Whitewashing Of History

I am a student of history . . .

. . . [T]hroughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. I . . . know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." . . . And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library.

President Barack Obama, Address From Cairo, 4 June 2009

Obama is a student of history like Karl Marx was a student of the philosophy of Adam Smith. If in fact he ever studied it, he got it all wrong.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in Obama's twisting of our history with the "Islamic world." Obama attempts to portray our relations as friendly from the start, and suggests that there has never been any reason for a clash between Islam and America. This is not mere whitewashing, it is historical revisionism with potentially real and dangerous ramifications.

Let's start with Morocco, an Islamic nation on the north coast of Africa ruled in 1784 by Sultan Muhammad Ben Abdullah. Morocco was not only a nation that engaged in piracy, but it was directly involved in the first war our country fought after Independence - The Barbary Wars. Morocco, in 1784, was the first of the Barbary nations to capture a U.S. merchant vessel, the Betsey, in the Mediterranean and hold its crew hostage. We were then without a navy to protect our merchant ships. Morocco only recognized the U.S. in 1787 because we paid them a huge sum of money as tribute to leave our ships alone. That is hardly the ringing endorsement of friendship and goodwill that Obama seems to be claiming. Indeed, the 1796 treaty to which Obama also refers was one involving all of the "Barbary" nations and was again a futile attempt to end by tribute the pirate jihad being conducted by those nations. As Gerard W. Gawalt of the Library of Congress wrote:

In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.

And Obama's citation to the words of John Adams is equally disingenuous. True, we had no inherent animus then or now against Islam. But just because we didn't does not mean that the reverse wasn't true. To the contrary, the other half of the story from the 1796 meeting of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams with an envoy from Tripoli was recorded by Jefferson, who wrote:

“. . . [Adams and Jefferson] ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’ The ambassador [from the Barbary States] replied that it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” He claimed every one of their guys who was “slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."

Directly related to that, and another critical point Obama neglected to mention, is that Thomas Jefferson did not own a Koran because he desired to study Islam for its merits. Jefferson bought and read a Koran because our major foreign policy challenge from 1786 to 1812 was our war with Barbary Pirates who used the Koran as justification for attacking American ships and enslaving American citizens. Jefferson's ownership of a Koran comes under the heading of "know thy enemy."

Obama does neither us nor the Islamic world any favors by twisting history and whitewashing Islam. It only strengthens those who seek to prevent Islam from evolving and it gives the West a distinctly unrealistic view of Islam when the reality is that an ever increasing proportion of Muslims are still today being taught that it is "right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave" non-Muslims. It is part of the curriculum being taught in Saudi financed madrassas and schools around the world:

A twelfth-grade Tawhid (monotheism) textbook states that “[m]ajor polytheism makes blood and wealth permissible,” which in Islamic legal terms means that a Muslim can take the life and property of someone believed to be guilty of this alleged transgression with impunity. (Tawhid, Arabic/Sharia, 15) Under the Saudi interpretation of Islam, “major polytheists” include Shi’a and Sufi Muslims, who visit the shrines of their saints to ask for intercession with God on their behalf, as well as Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists.

To put that into context, our first war in America was with Islamic nations because they believe their Koran justified it. That war came to a close only because the U.S. soon became powerful enough as to threaten those nations with destruction if they continued. Between 1776 and today, it would appear that nothing else has changed in dynamic of that relationship. The Salafists are still teaching that it is a precept of their religion that they can kill and enslave us as part of their faith. That is the reality that Obama needed to address. Not the feel good whitewash and historical revisionism he engaged in during his Cairo speech. People all around the world need to understand the reality. Perhaps then the weight of public opinion might begin to force a change.

Summary - Obama's Cairo Address: What We Needed, What We Got
Part 1 - Obama's Cairo Address: Hiding From The Existential Problems Of The Muslim World
Part 2 - Obama's Cairo Address: A Walk Back From Democracy & Iraq
Part 3 - Obama's Cairo Address: Obama Calls For Women's Rights While Glossing Over Discrimination & Violence
Part 4 - Obama's Cairo Address: Nukes, Iran & Weakness Writ Large
Part 5 - Obama's Cairo Address: Israel & Palestine – A Little Good, A Lot Of Outrageousness
Part 6 - Obama's Cairo Address: Islam's Tradition Of Religious Tolerance?
Part 7 - Obama's Cairo Address: The Dangerous Whitewashing Of History

Read More...

Summary only...

In The UK, A True Muslim Reformer

Dr. Taj Hargey is a Muslim Cleric who blames British mosques for the 7/7 bombings, says multiculturalism is a disaster and would throw Islamic fanatics out.
____________________________________________________________

The Daily Mail has posted a great article about Dr Taj Hargey, an outspoken Muslim cleric and history professor who is trying to lead a revolution against the Wabbists in the UK. He is a devout believer in the Koran, but he spouts a unique philosophy when it comes to the Hadiths upon which so much of the radical Islamist philosophy of Wabbism relies. Dr. Hargey teaches his flock not to honor the Hadiths unless they are, one, not in conflict with the Koran and, two, they make logical sense. Well, perhaps it is not too unique, as even Turkey is attempting to provide a modern interpretation of the hadiths that divorces them from their 7th century tribal foundation. But it does make Dr. Hargey stand out as a true Muslim reformer, along the lines of Tawfiq Hamid and our own Zuhdi Jasser.

At any rate, here are some excerpts from Britain's Daily Mail article on Dr. Hargey:

. . . In an age when the highest-profile Muslim preachers are bearded, anti-Western firebrands such as Abu Hamza or Omar Bakri Dr Hargey seems an anomaly.

He does not care much for male facial hair. He believes that women can be both seen and heard, even in a mosque at Friday prayers.

And don't even get him started on the sort of fanatics who blow up London buses, or the poisonous teachings that inspired them.

After three men were cleared this week on charges of assisting the July 7 bombers, there have been calls for an inquiry into blunders made by the security services.

But Dr Hargey has little doubt who, and what, is truly to blame for unleashing such terrorism on our streets.

'It is the extremist ideology present in many UK mosques which is the cement behind nihilistic plots such as this,' he says. 'They are twisting Islam.'

He has little or no time for the Government's 'pussyfooting' policy of encouraging multiculturalism.

'That is the biggest disaster to happen to Britain since World War II,' he says. 'It has given the extremist mullahs the green light for radicalism and segregation. We have to, we must, adjust to British society. And we can do so without losing our faith.'

Hardly surprisingly, such statements have made him wildly unpopular among those who adhere to the brand of ultra-conservative Saudi-funded Wahhabi Islam which currently makes most noise in Britain and around the world.

Certainly, if you Google Dr Hargey's name you will find him vilified as a 'charlatan' on any number of Islamic website forums.

In return, he is quite happy to describe his critics as 'fanatics'. Recently, one hostile publication went too far.

When we meet, Dr Hargey, 56, is still basking in the glow of his successful libel action against the English-language Muslim Weekly newspaper, which had accused him of being a heretic.

Earlier this month it agreed to pay him a five-figure sum and issue a grovelling apology, which was a little more esoteric than most heard in the High Court.

It stated: 'Dr Taj Hargey has never subscribed to, belonged to or been affiliated with any sect or minority group, religious or otherwise. On the contrary, Dr Hargey has consistently and openly reiterated his unconditional belief in the absolute finality of prophethood in Islam and Mohammed (peace and blessings upon him) as God's last prophet and final messenger.'

Afterwards, the cleric described the case as a 'watershed moment' in the battle between 'progressives' such as himself and what he called the 'Muslim McCarthyists', after the U.S. senator who accused opponents of being communist and 'un-American' with little or no evidence.

But despite his victory, or perhaps because of it, when his phone rings now it is still almost as likely to be an anonymous death threat as a request for spiritual guidance.

Certainly more people hate him than follow him.

'The masses have been brainwashed by the mullahs,' he says.

Which begs the question: can this intellectual Oxford imam really succeed with his ambition to lead a 'reformation' of British Islam? Or will medieval orthodoxy triumph in the end?

. . . His latest venture is the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford, of which he is founding chairman.

He also leads the city's Summertown Islamic congregation. 'The most progressive pulpit in the land, from which we do everything in English except prayer,' he states.

From a borrowed Masonic hall rather than a dedicated mosque, his enemies sneer.

The ideological core of his opposition towards the fashionable Islamic fundamentalists lies in his rejection of the absolute importance of hadith and Sharia law.

To explain, the Koran is the teaching of Allah, handed down to the Prophet Mohammed.

The hadiths, meanwhile, comprise the sayings and actions of Mohammed, as recorded by others, some time after his death.

For many Muslims, the hadiths are a fundamental guide and part of their faith. For Hargey, they are often unreliable and an obstacle to the integration of Islam into contemporary society. He believes the Koran is all.

'This is a big fight for the hearts and minds of Islam. There is nothing in the Koran which is incompatible with (living in) British society, unlike what I call "Mullah Islam" and their reliance on hadiths.'

And so he explains his position: 'These people say they have a right to stone adulterous women. We say show us where it says that in the Koran.

'The Koran must have precedence. It must be sovereign. Everything else is supplementary or subservient. All that stuff about jihad, women's rights, apostasy, all these issues come from the hadiths.

'We do not say get rid of the hadiths. But we do say that every hadith must pass two litmus tests.

First, it must not conflict with the Koran. Second, it must not conflict with reason or logic.

'One of the hadiths, for example, says the majority of people in Hell will be women. But let's do a forensic examination of this. First, let's look at the fact that 88 per cent of crimes are committed by men rather than women.

'How then, logically, can there be more women in Hell? Theologically, the Koran says that every human irrespective of gender will be rewarded for what they did and punished for what they did not.'

Of Sharia law he is even more dismissive. 'The Koran is clear that blasphemy is dealt with in the next life by God. The Sharia, meanwhile, is a medieval compilation of religious opinion which is not immutable, not eternal.

'How can we be dependant on 10th-11th-century jurists and scholars? It makes no sense.'

He also wants Muslims to integrate more with mainstream Britain.

'The (Muslim) reaction to 9/11 was to withdraw. I think the best way is to go out and belong.

'If you met me walking down the street, for example, would you know I am a Muslim? No.

'I know I am a Muslim in my heart and my actions, not in my beard or the niqab face mask. The niqab only comes from a hadith and even that only refers to the Prophet's wives. This is a big fight for the hearts and minds of Islam. There is nothing in the Koran that is incompatible with (living in) British society.'

Of the cries of 'heretic' to which he is frequently subjected, he argues: 'Faith is between the person and God. No one can pronounce you a heretic (in Islam) and I think that is a wonderful thing.

'But we do need a reformation in Islam. We have to go back to the pristine principles in our faith. We need a British Islam and by that I do not mean a compromise.

'Christianity was once an alien faith. We have to integrate in a matter of decades rather than centuries.'

But what of the accusations that he is simply a State stooge? This angers him.

'I have called for Bush and Blair to be indicted at the international criminal court for their wars. What kind of stooge does that make me? We have a multicultural community of men and women, including converts. We are not fanatics and appeal to a very broad constituency. We do not appeal to those who have been brainwashed by the mullahs.

These people refuse to debate with me and instead send their minions to do their dirty work on the internet or via anonymous phone calls. We get death threats, intimidation and blackmail tactics. But it does not dissuade us.

'Our group is based on the "Three Es": Enlightenment, Egalitarianism and Erudition.

But the Government, with its anti-terrorist strategy, has never contacted us, even though we say violence and suicide bombing are against the faith.

'What a mistake. In this city we have the Wahhabi-backed Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies. It preaches the most repressive and egregious theology.

'We want to establish an Oxford Centre for British Islam. We will have a mosque and the leader could be either male or female.'

So, for example, he has supported a state school which banned the niqab, much to the fury of his Muslim foes.

And last October he hosted the appearance in Oxford of Professor Amina Wadud, a female Islamic academic, who gave a sermon at Friday prayers before a mixed-gender congregation, which was anathema to the extremists.

Dr Hargey says: 'She is the undisputed authority on women in the Koran. We invited this heavyweight intellectual and the people who made the most protest outside our prayer hall were women dressed in niqabs who had been brainwashed by their menfolk.

'It was like the time of Emmeline Pankhurst and the suffragettes agitating for the vote.

'Then, many of the women were conditioned to think their behaviour a scandal. Now look at all those women walking past us who have the vote and think nothing of it.'

He also frowned on the recent extremist demonstration against the troops parading through Luton.

'While we feel it was an illegal war, you cannot punish the average squaddie for what is done in the name of New Labour and that toxic Texan.

'Yes, the war was wrong, but you cannot call soldiers murderers, or cowards. My life's work is to make British Muslims integrated.'

He is also utterly dismissive of the Muslim Council of Britain, which until the Government's recent reversal of policy, was the state's contact point with British Islam.

'They are Indo-Pakistani and sexist,' he says. 'It's a reactionary group, infused with the repressive ideology of the Wahhabis.

'If we go along their path we will have a ghetto mentality, segregated and giving our enemies such as the British National Party the opportunity to target us like the Jews in the 1930s. Isolation is our greatest peril.'

For the record, he supported BNP leader Nick Griffin's recent appearance at an Oxford Union debate, although he certainly did not endorse his views.

'We should not silence him. We should expose him.

'I love this country, I follow Spurs and I go to the pub, if only to drink orange juice. I am also a Muslim. But I am not a threat. If people like me are smothered then we will all sleep less safely in our beds.

'These people are religious fascists. The view that Islam is incompatible with British society is something that the Muslim Council of Britain and their hangers- on have promulgated.'

And with that, he adjusts the knot in his mustard tie, drains the last drop of his (non-alcoholic) drink and leaves the bar.

He may be a deeply controversial imam. But he is undoubtedly a brave one.

Read the entire article. And while I may dispute his political views on the war in Iraq, I think he is precisely on target on all else. Indeed, one of my first posts on this blog was to give a thumbnail history of Islam and make the case that Islam desperately needs to go through its period of Enlightenment and a Reformation - acts being desperately fought by the Wahhabi Islamists that pose such a danger to not only the West, but all of the Islamic World.

Read More...

Summary only...

Geert Wilder's FITNA (Update 2)

Dutch politician Geert Wilders has released FITNA, his long anticipated film on the Koran.

Update: The feed that I had from YouTube has been pulled. I will continue to update this post with new and working feeds for the video. This below is through Google:

Part I





Part II



You can see an interview of Geert Wilders about this film here.

Release of the film has resulted in wholly predictable threats of violence from Islamists and the rogue Islamic state of Iran. The videos above were originally posted on Live Leak, but were later removed by them due to threats to their staff.

The efforts of radical Muslims to limit freedom of speech in the West is intolerable. Under no circumstances can or should we give so much as inch. To the contrary, each push to limit such speech should be met not merely with refusal, but with anger and an ever more determined effort to expose that which the Islamists wish to hide from our populace. And the movement to limit freedom of speech in the West as regards Islam comes not just from extremists making death threats, but also from many "mainstream" organizations, including the UN as detailed in a post below.

Our first and best defence to the insidious metasticization of radical forms of Islam in the West is not simply to zealously guard our rights of freedom of speech, but to fully exercise those rights to educate our friends, neighbors and leaders. The true power of free democracies lies in an educated and energized populace. In that vein, I salute Mr. Wilders for his courage in making this film. He has led us on a major step down a long road we must take, or face falling to the medieval poison that is Wahhabism and Khomeinist Shia'ism.

Read More...

Summary only...

Will Turkey Lead A Revolution In Islam?

Turkey is proposing a far reaching revision and reinterpretation of the Hadith. This could mark a titanic event in the world of Islam which has come under increasing Salafization over the past decades. I have little trust in Turkey's pro-Islamic AKP government, but the scope of the proposed revision portends to far reaching and much needed.

_____________________________________________________

I harbor very significant doubts about Turkey's Islamic movement today. The pro-Islamic AKP party is blurring the line between Church and state secular, it shows the hallmarks of Salifization, and it was only a few weeks ago that AKP PM Erdogan was in Germany, exhorting Turkish expatriates not to integrate into German society. Everything that I see tells me that Turkey is, at the moment, a trojan horse and its entrance into the EU would spell the death knell for Europe.

Almost a year ago, I posted in a lengthy essay that what Islam most needed was to go through its periods of Reformation and Enlightenment. In tracing the problems of modern day Islam, I noted:

Turkey, home of Sufi Islam and the caliphate presiding over the majority of the Islamic world, came into World War I on the side of Germany and was ultimately defeated. Its Middle Eastern empire was divided up among the European counties. Attaturk took power in Turkey and divested Islam from politics, secularizing the country. This was, in essence, the first step towards a revolution in the Islamic world – the divorcing of religion from the nation state and limiting it to the private lives of Turkish citizens. Unfortunately, as time has gone on, Wahhabism has infected Turkey, and today we see the creep of [Salafi] Islamism into the state apparatus. Turkey has withdrawn from the precipice of a revolution to moderate and modernize Islam that its combination of secular government and classical Sufi Islam may have led.

Read the entire post.

Yet today there is a major surprise in the news that Turkey is planning what has the potential to be the first major reinterpretation of Islam since the gates of ijtihad were closed near a millenium ago. This is potentially momentous - and it is a direct challenge to the 7th century Wahhabi / Salafi interpretations of Islam being spread across the world with billions in Saudi petrodollars.

Before becoming too excited, we must of course wait to see the finished product and assess its impact. It is possible that this could be nothing more than a PR movement aimed at gaining entrance into the EU by allaying very real and reasonable fears of EU nations. Possibly, but even with that in mind, the scope of this proposed revision is promising indeed. This from the BBC:

Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion.

The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.

The Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad.

As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia.

But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.

It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.

Commentators say the very theology of Islam is being reinterpreted in order to effect a radical renewal of the religion.

Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion.

Turkish officials have been reticent about the revision of the Hadith until now, aware of the controversy it is likely to cause among traditionalist Muslims, but they have spoken to the BBC about the project, and their ambitious aims for it.

The forensic examination of the Hadiths has taken place in Ankara University's School of Theology.

An adviser to the project, Felix Koerner, says some of the sayings - also known individually as "hadiths" - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.

"Unfortunately you can even justify through alleged hadiths, the Muslim - or pseudo-Muslim - practice of female genital mutilation," he says.

"You can find messages which say 'that is what the Prophet ordered us to do'. But you can show historically how they came into being, as influences from other cultures, that were then projected onto Islamic tradition."

The argument is that Islamic tradition has been gradually hijacked by various - often conservative - cultures, seeking to use the religion for various forms of social control.

Leaders of the Hadith project say successive generations have embellished the text, attributing their political aims to the Prophet Muhammad himself.

Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.

But this is where the revolutionary nature of the work becomes apparent. Even some sayings accepted as being genuinely spoken by Muhammad have been altered and reinterpreted.

Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.

"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."

The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.

Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.

Yet, until now, the ban has remained in the text, and helps to restrict the free movement of some Muslim women to this day.

. . . According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.

He says that to achieve it, the state is fashioning a new Islam.

"This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation," he says.

. . . Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.

They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones.

"You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura.

"You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.

"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran Threatening Reprecussions If Geert Wilder's Film About the Koran Is Shown

It was only a few weeks ago that Iran's Ahmedinejad stated that that Europe would be made an Islamic continent within 12 years. Now, with Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a man living under a death threat in his country, preparing to release a film pointing out aspects of the Koran that are barbaric and wholly in conflict with Western values, we have another Iranian warning the Dutch that if they allow Mr. Wilders his right to free speech, all of Islam will be mobilized against the Netherlands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This today from the Telegraph:

Dutch soldiers serving with Nato in Afghanistan will face new threats if their country allows the broadcast of an anti-Islamic film, Bozorgmehr Ziaran, Iran's ambassador to the Netherlands, has said.

He announced his intention to rally global Muslim opinion against plans by Geert Wilders, the maverick Dutch MP, to show a short movie attacking the Koran.

Mr Ziaran also fuelled fears of a violent backlash by issuing a veiled threat that Dutch troops would be regarded as "representatives of people who besmirch the Koran".

"Afghans will view these troops as there to take our power, to destroy us and to ruin our values," he told De Volkskrant newspaper.

But Mr Wilders, the controversial leader of the anti-immigration Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) has vowed to ignore "daily death threats" and pressure from the authorities by broadcasting his film next month on the Koran, which he compares to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

"The serious threats to my life and the Dutch government's panicked response to my film underline the truth of what I am saying. The Koran is dangerous," he said.

. . . Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, has given warning of a "national crisis" if Mr Wilders broadcasts his attack.

. . . European Union officials have also been consulted over predictions that the film could see a repeat of the global anti-Western backlash that followed the publication of Danish cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed two years ago.

Mr Wilders, who sees himself as the successor to Pim Fortuyn, the murdered anti-immigration Dutch politician, argues that the one million Muslims living in Holland should renounce parts of their religion or leave.

"I believe Christians and Jews have a lot in common, but the Koran is a non-liberal book, preaching totalitarianism and the hatred of women," he said.

Job Cohen, Amsterdam's mayor, succeeded in keeping the city calm after the murder in 2004 by a Dutch Muslim of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who had also made an anti-Islamic film.

Mr Cohen, who is Jewish, accused Mr Wilders of deliberately stoking tensions and used a speech to mark this week's Holocaust Memorial Day to warn against the "dehumanising" of communities.

Read the entire article. That Mr. Cohen should make such remarks is particularly disgusting. I say that not because he is jewish, but rather because of his role as an apologist for the Salafists destroying his city. And the problem of growing Salifization is a problem in most major cities in the Netherlands, as this story about Antwerp shows.

Read More...

Summary only...

Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders is a politician in the Netherlands who is a staunch opponent of radical Islam. His latest project is the production of a short movie criticizing the Koran - and it promises to cause a firestorm amongst the many jihadis in Europe. Wilders was also recently voted the most popular politician in the Netherlands. Here he is in a recent interview on Fox News:

Part I:



Part II



(H/T: The Transatlantic Conservative)

Read More...

Summary only...

Preparing For All Hell To Break Loose

There is one man in Europe who, like Churchill before him, refuses to feed the alligator in the hopes that he or his country will be eaten last. His name is Gert Wilders, he is a Dutch politician, and he is producing a film highly critical of the Koran. The alligator feeders in the Dutch government are apoplectic. This from Prof. Daniel Pipes:

[O]n January 25 . . . an un-named film by a leading Dutch politician Geert Wilders dealing with the Koran [will be shown]. Wilders in the past has compared [the Koran] to Hitler's Mein Kampf and wants it banned; the film will likely make arguments along these lines: "With this film I'm trying to show not only in words but also images exactly what I mean," he says.

. . . [The] Dutch government has prepared. It has adopted a two-track policy of (1) trying to stop the screening and, should that fail, (2) getting ready for crisis mode. An article in today's Volkskrant, "Vrees voor rellen rond Koran-film van Wilders" (translated as "Fear of riots over Wilders' Koran film") provides some details. First, the government is trying to shut things down:

- The Justice Department is investigating whether anything can be done to prevent the film from airing.

- When it was leaked that Wilders was coming out with an anti-Koran film, three ministers warned him of the possible consequences.

Should this not succeed, preparatory steps are underway:

- Security around Wilders, which was already heavy, is being beefed up.

- The Amsterdam police have had interviews with imams and other influential persons in the Muslim community this month to prepare for their reactions. A scenario is being prepared for major public order problems. Similar measures are being taken in the Hague and Utrecht.

- Investigations are also underway to see whether Wilders will have to acquire a specially secured residence and whether his fellow party members will require security.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since informed all of its diplomatic posts … to explain to other countries that the Cabinet has distanced itself from the film.

Comments:

(1) That a lone individual, a Rushdie or a Wilders, is in the anomalous position of driving a state's policy makes this situation so fascinating and anomalous. I addressed this unprecedented situation in my 1989 book, The Rushdie Affair:

In a strange reversal, governments waited on the statements issued by a private citizen. Never before had this happened. Nor had an individual's choice of words ever borne so directly on the course of international relations. The situation was especially anomalous in Great Britain, where the authorities at one point felt compelled to deny that they had cleared a pronouncement made by Rushdie. As a news item reported it, with reference to his February 19[, 1989] apology,

Whitehall sources said the Foreign Office had not asked to see the statement in advance. It was volunteered by the publishers. The Foreign Office had not taken any initiative or tried to influence the publishers in any way, nor was there any question that the Foreign Office had "cleared" or "approved" the statement, or taken any view about it.

The absurdity of the situation was caught by a cartoon in Le Monde which showed Rushdie at his typewriter, surrounded by fifteen harried bobbies all keeping an eye on him; one of the policemen barks into the walkie-talkie, "Close the airports!! He wants to write volume two!!!"

(2) When a citizen holds his government hostage, the latter is inevitably tempted to shut down his freedom of expression. Indeed, Wilders has complained of "pure political intimidation" by the cabinet and "unacceptable" pressure being placed on him to desist, including sending the public prosecutor after him.

Thus does the Islamist challenge test the principles of Western governments as never before. Put differently, will Westerners resist dhimmitude or succumb to it? The outcome is by no means assured. (December 29, 2007)

Read the entire article. Radical Islam needs to be brought out into the open and challenged. My hats off to this brave politician.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News From Around the Web - Chrismas Eve Edition

From across the pond, see this wonderful post on George Washington, the founding of our nation, and Christmas.

Saudi money is purchasing influence at Fox News. This is very bad news indeed.

And if they can’t buy the coverage they want, the Saudis are using libel tourism to silence free speech here in America. See this sad update to Rachel Ehrenfeld’s lawsuit to protect her free speech against Saudi assault.

President Sarkozy is about to take on France’s socialist labour laws. One can already hear loud pig-like squeals emanating from Paris - literally.

Robert Novak documents "accusations [that the CIA is a] rogue agency," consciously acting to undermine the President.

"I will not accept if nominated, and I will not serve if elected." General W. T. Sherman, 1864; General David Petraeus, 2007 (The Weekly Standard’s Man of the Year).

The odious Paul Krugman and his revisionist history of a racist Democratic Party.

More criticism of the recently passed energy bill. It certainly seems to have its problems.

Defining "jihad" and assessing its importance. A scholarly article by Menahem Milson, the Chairman of MEMRI.

See this post on one of the countless effects of centralizing power and control in the EU, this time in local bus service. It almost seems like a load of manure – oops, that’s a separate problem, courtesy of the EU concern with nitrate leaching. Do see the comments section from Chris Booker on that post. "Bah, humbug" would seem the only appropriate response to this raft of insane overregulation.

Omar Bakri sends his warm "radical Muslim" Christmas message across the pond. He probably need not be concerned. Aheminejad has stated that he intends to establish a global caliphate and that he expects Europe will become a Muslim continent within 12 years. Hey, let’s hold unilateral talks with these guys. I am sure there is something we can give them to fully placate them . . . Let me just get out my Neville Chamberlin "Peace In Our Time" State Department handbook. While we talk, perhaps Iran can start killing women without veils (not suitable for work).

A Clash of Civilization’s books at the Economist. Marketing and distributing the Bible and the Koran.

And finally, the real health benefits of dark chocolate. I solve the bitterness problem by stirring a big teaspoon full of unsweetened dark chocolate into coffee. Its wonderful. And on that note . . . . a Merry Christmas to all.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Life of a Muslim Woman

This post originally appeared on January 1, 2007 in Dinah Lord's blog. I had not seen it before. It is so compelling, however, I think it deserves a second airing. It is an essay written by Parvin Darabi, an Iranian activist, and, as Dinah says in her comments, it is why Sharia law must not be allowed a foothold in the West:

I Am A Moslem Woman:

by Parvin Darabi

“Evil omen is in the women, house and the horse." - Prophet Mohammed

I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity. At age 9, based on lunar year (a lunar year is ten days shorter) I am considered an adult. Being an adult means that I have to adhere with Islamic laws as stated below.

I have to pray five times a day, fast one month out of the year and cover myself from head to toe in yards of black fabric. I am eligible to be married and can be punished for any wrong doing.

I can be incarcerated and, if needed, executed for my crimes, even political ones.
Islam's law - that Allah sent down to his messenger Muhammad - came to announce that women (exactly like men) are full human beings. Women (like men) are therefore required to follow the way appointed by Allah.

"A woman (like a man) is therefore obligated with all three degrees of this religion: Islam (outward submission to Allah), iman (inward faith in Allah), and ihsan (perfection of worship of Allah)".

"Women have such honorable rights as obligations, but men have a (single) degree above them". The Koran 2:228

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their Rights". The Koran 4:34

Islam believes and promotes only one relationship between male and female and that is the relation of lust. "If a man and a woman are alone in one place, the third person present is the devil". Prophet Mohammed

I am not allowed to swim, ski, ride a bike, dance, learn to play musical instruments, practice gymnastics, or any other sport. I am not even permitted to watch men play sports, either in the stadium and/or on television. I am not permitted to participate in Olympic games.

From age 7, I am segregated from all males in and out of my extended family. My father, grandfather, uncles, brothers or my male cousins are not allowed to be present at any ceremonies for my accomplishments. They will not be allowed to participate in my birthday parties.

I have to study under female teachers and professors. However, since women of prior generations were not allowed to go to school, there are not that many qualified women teachers and professors. Male professors must teach me from behind a wall.

I am to be treated by female doctors. Go to female dentists. And if there are none, then I have to go without or I must be examined through some sort of divider.

I am not allowed to practice birth control or have abortions, even if carrying or having a child means I have to die.

My worth is based on the Islamic Laws of Retribution, 24th edition, December 1982, as half of a man. It doesn't matter who I am, how educated I am, and what earning potential I may have in my life. My worth is half of a man, any man.

According to clauses 33 and 91 of the law in respect, Qasas (The Islamic Retribution Bill) and its boundaries, the value of woman is considered only half as much as the value of a man.

Article 1: dieh or blood money paid to the victim or next of kin for as compensation for bodily injury or murder of a relative.

The Islamic Law of Retribution: In the old Islamic laws, recently placed into practice by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the worth of a man's life is equal to the market value of 100 camels or 200 cows and that of a woman is equal to half of the man's, 50 camels or 100 cows. The clause number 6 regarding the dieh (cash value of the fine) states that the cash fine for murdering a woman intentionally or unintentionally is half as much as for a man. The same clause adds that if a man intentionally murders a woman and the guardian of the woman himself is not able to pay half of the Dieh (the value of 50 camels or 100 cows, the difference between the value of a man to that of a woman's life) to the murderer, the murderer will be exempted from retribution.

New Legal Standing: Pursuant to article 85 of the constitution, the Islamic penal code article 300, blood money or dieh, a sum paid to the next of kin as compensation for the murder of a relative, is twice as much in the case of a murdered man as in the case of a woman. The number of witnesses required to prove a crime is higher if the witnesses are female. For example, article 237 of the penal code states that first degree murder must be proven by testimony of two just men and evidence for second-degree murder or manslaughter requires the testimony of two just men, or one just man and two just women, or of one just man and the accuser.

My testimony in a court of law is equal to half of that of a man. In most countries I don't vote and I don't get elected to office. And if I do, it does not mean much. I inherit only half as much as my male siblings.

I cannot get custody of my children. Even if their father dies. In the case of divorce or death I have to surrender my children to their father and/or his family.

I cannot travel, work, go to college, join organizations, even visit my friends and relatives without my father or husband's permission.

I must live where my husband desires.

I am banned from studies such as engineering, agriculture, archaeology, restoration
of the historic monuments and handicrafts, and many other fields. I am not allowed to become a judge. Under the terms of Koranic law, any judge fulfilling the seven requirements (that he have reached puberty, be a believer, know the Koranic laws perfectly, be just, and not be affected by amnesia, or be a bastard, or be of the female sex) is qualified to dispense justice in any type of case.

I have no right to choose the clothing I wear in public. This is done by the Office of the Islamic Guidance which sets the color, the style, and the accessories for women and girls as young as 6 years of age.

I will get arrested, beaten, and sometimes even executed if I wear make-up, nylons, bright colors and specifically the color of red.

I cannot choose my mate and am not permitted to divorce him if things did not work out. According to Khomeini, the Iranian Islamic Imam, "The most suitable time for a girl to get married is the time when the girl can have her first menstrual period in her husband's house rather than her father's".

I have to meet all my husband's desires including the sexual ones. And if I refuse he has the right to deny me food, shelter, and all of life's necessities. I have to say yes every time he wants to have sex. According to Hojatoleslam Imani, Religious Leader in Iran. "A woman should endure any violence or torture imposed on her by her husband for she is fully at his disposal. Without his permission she may not leave her house even for a good action (such as charitable work). Otherwise her prayers and devotions will not be accepted by God and curses of heaven and earth will fall upon her".

My husband can divorce me without my knowledge and by the Islamic law he is required to support me for only 100 days. And if he dies, I am entitled to 1/8 of his Estate.

I can only ask for divorce if my husband is impotent, if he does not have sex with me at least one night in every forty nights, and if he refuses to provide me with a minimum standard of living. My husband can have four permanent wives and if he is from Shi'i sect, he can have as many temporary wives as he wants.

Koran says that "Men your wives are your tillage. Go into your tillage anyway you want". This means that a man is allowed to sodomise his wife and she cannot complain. In some countries they even mutilate, cut and sew my female sexual
parts in order to control and regulate my sexual desire.

According to the Islamic Laws, I am supposed to be seen outside of my home three times in my life. When I am born, when I get married and when I die.

I have no explanation on why God denied me everything and made men in charge of me, if there is a God. I don't believe there ever was one.

In Islam, the age of majority for a girl is 9 years and for a boy is 15 years. This means that a 9 year old girl and a 15 year old boy are considered to have the same level of maturity. Now, if girls reach maturity six years earlier than boys, then why did God place men in charge of women? Was there something wrong with God's Judgment?

In some Islamic countries such as Iran, if I am arrested for wearing make-up, the guards will force me to clean my face with cotton balls rubbed in pieces of glass. This cuts my face. The barbaric revolutionary guard, while watching the blood run out of my flesh, will tell me, "next time you think about this and will not wear it".

As a political prisoner I will be used as a concubine for the revolutionary guards. In case I am condemned to death I will not undergo the sentence as long as I am a virgin. Thus I will be systematically raped before the sentence is executed. Mullahs believe that virgin girls who die go to heaven but politically inclined girls are ungodly creatures and they do not deserve to go to heaven, therefore they are raped so that the Mullah's can be sure that they indeed will be sent to hell.

In Islam, if a 6 or 7 year old girl is raped by an adult man, she will be the one that gets punished. It is her fault because she provoked it. The parents then will burn or kill her because she has dishonored the family.

It has been said that the Moslem Prophet got very upset one day noticing his wives flirting with men who visited him and ordered women to stay behind a dividing curtain when speaking with men. The idea of hijab, the covering up of women, became a law in Islamic countries from that day.

In 1991, the Prosecutor-General of Iran, declared that "anyone who rejects the principle of hijab is an apostate and the punishment for an apostate under Islamic law is death."

Polygamy is legal in Islam. A man may marry "four Permanent" and as many "Provisional" or temporary wives as he desires. "Marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial".

The Koran 4:3 "Most Europeans have mistresses. Why should we suppress human instincts? A rooster satisfies several hens, an stallion several mares. A woman is unavailable during certain periods where as a man is always active....", Ayatollah Ghomi, LE MONDE, January 20, 1979.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News From Around The Web

Saudi Arabia says they have captured 200 al Qaeda types who planned attacks on the oil infrastructure.

Geert Wilders, a conservative Dutch politician, is making a film to highlight the "fascist" passages in the Quran. Muslim immigrants now account for 1,000,000 of the 16,000,000 in population of the Netherlands.

Musharaff has stepped down as Pakistan’s military commander and been sworn in as President.

“Iraq? What does that have to do with anything?” According to the Hill, “Congressional Democrats will focus on the economy next week in an effort to win political advantage from public fears about an approaching recession.” Perhaps they can explain how spending our tax dollars to fund billions in pork in the Defense and Water bills is helping our economy while they are at it.

Beware!!! Iraq is more dangerous . . . Things are so bad that the UN has had to step in . . . to help Iraq deal with the large scale return of refugees.

But despite this horrendous security situation, Iraqi’s decide to celebrate Baghdad Day anyway

Bank of America now changes its recommendation on New York Times stock to “sell.” Go Pinch. Maybe Murdoch will do us all a favor and make an offer.

Jules Crittenden covers the “mood swing” as Americans begin to see Iraq as going well. That is very bad news for the Copperheads.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Travesty Continues In Saudi Arabia

This is an update to the case of the young Saudi woman brutally gang-raped who was originally sentenced to 90 lashes by the Saudi Courts but who, on appeal, was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months imprisonment. The Saudi Court also removed her attorney from the case and has begun proceedings to suspend his license.

The woman was originally sentenced to 90 lashes for being outside of her house in the company of a man to whom she was not related. Under Sharia law, that situation creates an irrebuttable presumption that the woman is a prostitute or, if married, has committed adultery. Her attackers were given light sentences of just a few years. On appeal of her punishment and the light punishments given to her attackers, the Court changed her sentence to 200 lashes and six months imprisonment. The Court drastically increased her sentence because of their anger with the international attention her attorney had initiated by publicizing the utter barbarity of sentencing a victim of gang rape to 60 lashes.

Fox News is reporting that the Saudi Justice Ministry has refused to reconsider the sentence and is now contending that the young woman has affirmatively "confessed to cheating on her husband." That marks a major change to the narrative. According to the woman and her attorney, the then recently married woman:

. . . met a high school friend in his car to retrieve a picture of herself from him. While in a car with him, two men got into the vehicle and drove them to a secluded area where others waited, and then she and her companion were both raped.

But the Justice Ministry’s account now being given for the first time and for international consumption, disagrees in all particulars. According to the Justice Ministry,

[the woman planned] to meet her lover for tryst in his car "in a dark place where they stayed for a while. Then they where spotted by the other defendants as the woman was in an indecent condition as she had tossed away her clothes, then the assault occurred on her and the man.

Moreover, the Ministry now claims that the woman and her husband are "convinced on the verdict and agreed to it." Somehow I suspect we will never be hearing the woman's "confession" nor her "agreement" to this sentence from her lips. Regardless, . . .

[t]he Saudi justice minister expressed his regret about the media reports over the role of the women in this case which put out false information and wrongly defend her.

And we are not going to be getting any independant verification of that. Read the story here. The one thing Salafi and Wahhabi Islamists hate above all other is to have a bright light shown on their religion and their actions taken in accordance therewith. It's not in just this incredibly heavy handed and brutal case. Rather, it is a reoccurring theme that you can see repeated all the way up to the UN. The Justice Ministry’s attempt to whitewash this case and deflect attention with highly dubious assertions would be laughable were it not so incredibly barbaric.

If you would like to let the Saudi Arabia and their related organizations in America know what you think of this verdict, you can e-mail the Saudi embassy at info@saudiembassy.net. And you can send an e-mail to CAIR asking them their position on this given that they claim to be the primary Islamic human rights organization in America. They can be reached by contact form here.

Update: CNN's article on this is the most complete I have seen. Find it here.

Read More...

Summary only...

More Gang Rape Fallout In The Medieval Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Saudi lawyer Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, now faces suspension of his license to practice law for his efforts to defend the Saudi gang rape victim now sentenced to a judicial flogging of 200 lashes and 6 months imprisonment. You can read her story here.

Saudi Arabia’s official legal code is Sharia law based on the extremist Wahhabi interpretation of the Koran. Most laws followed by the court are unwritten and invoke extreme punishments for an incredible range of offenses, from possible execution for witchcraft and sorcery to judicial flogging for any female caught outside of her home in the company of a man who is not a close relative. That was the original basis for ordering 60 lashes of the victim of the gang rape. And the Saudi judicial system has numerous other nuances of note, such as the fact that courts only credit the testimony of women as half that of a man. (That certainly solves the problem of determining veracity in “he said – she said” scenarios.)

Al-Lahem is apparently a brave lawyer who has defended numerous cases challenging the medieval orthodoxy of Saudi Arabia and its legal system. He has challenged this orthodoxy, representing, among others, “a school administrator suspended for criticizing the religious establishment, a man convicted of promoting homosexuality for saying it was genetic, three political reformists seeking a constitutional monarchy, and the first Saudis suing the country's powerful religious police."

But by pointing the international spotlight on the outrageous conduct of the Saudi judiciary that originally gave light sentences to men who committed the brutal gang rape while sentencing the 19 year old victim to 60 lashes, both al Lahem and his client have incurred the judiciary's heavy handed wrath. The Washington Post tells us today:

Saudi officials have revoked the license of human rights lawyer Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, who has handled the country's most controversial cases and defended a gang-rape victim sentenced to jail time and lashes.

Lahem, 36, faces a disciplinary hearing Dec. 5 to determine the length of his suspension

Lahem is accused by the prosecutor general of "belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing the judiciary, and hurting the country's image," according to an official letter he received Monday.

. . . Lahem said he was banned from the courtroom for his refusal in September to allow his client to attend a hearing in which she would have come face to face with her rapists. "She tried to take her life several times after the rape, and I did not want her traumatized all over again," he said. The woman's name has not been published.

The Justice Ministry on Tuesday stood by its decision, saying Lahem was banned from the court for insulting the judiciary, opposing instructions and violating provisions of the law. It did not give details.

. . . The order revoking Lahem's license also criticized his statements to reporters during one of his cases, in which the court forced a couple to divorce after the wife's half brothers complained that the husband was of a lower social status.

. . . After Lahem appealed, seeking harsher sentences for the rapists and calling the ruling against his client unjust, a superior court increased the sentences of both victims to six months and 200 lashes. The rapists' sentences were nearly doubled.

According to the English-language daily Arab News, the court told the woman her punishment was increased because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."

Though he was disappointed with the verdict, Lahem said, he realized as he was driving from Qatif back to Riyadh, where he is based, that its excess was actually a sign of hope.

"That verdict signals the death throes of the judiciary's old guard. They can see the end is near," he said. "As black as it looked for me . . . I saw that the overkill in that verdict was a sign of desperation." . . .

Read the story here. I hope that he is correct in his assessment, for his client's sake if none other. If you would like to let the Saudi Arabian embassy know what you think of this, you can e-mail them at info@saudiembassy.net. And while you're at it, why don't you also send an e-mail to CAIR asking them their position on this given that they claim to be the primary Islamic human rights organization in America. They can be reached by contact form here.

Read More...

Summary only...