Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Jihad against joy

"The Prophet said that Allah commanded him to destroy all the musical instruments, idols, crosses and all the trappings of ignorance." - Hadith Qudsi 19:5

"There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious." - Ayatollah Khomeini

Farhan Khan, a drummer in a band, is taking a break from performing. This move was prompted by his mother, who worries that her son might become a target for the Islamic extremists gradually asserting their power in this city.

In recent months, as theaters have been bombed, art festivals interrupted, and musicians targeted, Mr. Khan has learned firsthand about the rising level of hostility toward his profession.

"Once, I was walking down a street: I wear my hair long and was wearing tattered jeans," he says. "As I neared a corner, I came across a bearded man who gave me a dirty look and then scowled at me."

The stranger approached Khan and told him, "You should cut off your hair and grow your beard if you know what's good for you."

Those who've been living in Lahore – a city of 10 million – for many years find the idea of extremism arriving on these streets baffling. But its presence is growing, and musicians, artists, and performers are among those most affected.

Event manager Aamir Mazhar laments the rising threat to Punjab Province's cultural capital, a hub of the latest styles, films, and comedy performances.

"This was the best city in the world," says Mr. Mazhar, rushing around a venue to arrange a launch party. "There was an energy, an enthusiasm, and a life here, which no other city could rival."

continue reading here

“With grace from Allah, we were able to assassinate him, kill him, and purify the land of Mauritania from his criminal presence”

The most fundamental double standard in Islamic law -- the one which generates all others with respect to believers and non-believers -- is the rule that Islam has a right to propagate itself and other religions do not. The various forms of subjugation of non-Muslims, the prohibition on Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men all stem from that, and above all, the prohibition on non-Islamic proselytizing, or free public exercise of non-Islamic religions in Islamic states all stem from that. Add in a license to kill (Qur'an 9:5) to achieve and maintain control, and the result is this story from Mauritania.

More on this story. "Al-Qaeda claims killing of American in Mauritania," from Agence France-Presse, June 26:

DUBAI - Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility for this week’s murder of an American teacher in the Mauritanian capital, US-based monitoring group SITE Intelligence said on Friday.
“Knights of the Islamic Maghreb, acting within one of the organisation’s brigades in Mauritania, struck the American infidel, Christopher Langis, known for his missionary activities,” Al-Qaeda said on Islamist websites.
“With grace from Allah, we were able to assassinate him, kill him, and purify the land of Mauritania from his criminal presence,” SITE quoted the statement as saying.
“May Allah bless these knights who are loyal to their Ummah (Islamic nation) and religion, who take vengeance for their innocent brothers, and who stand in the way of the crime of missionary in the land of Muslims.”
Al-Qaeda said Tuesday’s killing in Nouakchott was carried out at a time that “the despicable American bombs harvest our innocent Muslim brothers in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
The man was shot several times in the head from close range after he resisted an apparent kidnap attempt, a witness told AFP, after the shooting outside a private language and computer school run by the American.
“A foreigner has been shot dead, apparently by youths who fled. We are investigating the case,” police said, while the interior ministry identified the man as Christopher Logest and said he also worked for a charity, Noura.
Al-Qaeda militants were blamed for the killing of four French tourists in Mauritania on December 24, 2007 that heightened concerns about extremist attacks.
A gun attack on the Israeli embassy on February 1, 2008 left three people wounded and was claimed by an Al-Qaeda offshoot.
Neighbouring Mali launched a military operation earlier this month to root out Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb fighters in the Sahel region bordering Algeria, Niger and Mauritania.
The North African branch of Al-Qaeda has sought to extend its range into nations on the southern edge of the Sahara and claimed several attacks in the region.
With thanks to Jihad Watch

Islam in action : Somalis watch double amputations on teens...

Hardline Islamists in Somalia have carried out double amputations on four men for stealing phones and guns.

They have each had a hand and foot cut off after being convicted by a Sharia court in the capital earlier this week.

More then 300 people, mainly women and children, watched as masked men cut off their limbs with machetes.

The four men reportedly admitted to the robberies, but were not represented by a lawyer and were not allowed to appeal against their sentence.

The al-Shabab group, which controls much of southern Somalia, has carried out amputations, floggings and an execution in the port of Kismayo but such punishments are rare in the capital.

The amputations were carried out in the open in front of an al-Shabab military camp in the north-east of Mogadishu.

A local resident said the four men cried out during and after the amputations. Each man had his right hand and left foot cut off.

"'Help, help, help!' one of them shouted," Mohamed Abdi told the BBC.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Germany 'Shocked' as 15-Year-Old Girl Stabbed to Death by Dad

A Muslim dad stabbed his own 15-year-old daughter to death in an honour killing which has shocked Germany.

Mehmet Ö. (45) sneaked into Bürsa’s bedroom at 3.30am and repeatedly struck the helpless teen with a knife.

Her grandparents called an ambulance but medics could not do anything for Buersa as she bled to death.

The kebab shop owner fled the crime scene in the town of Schweinfurt but was later arrested by a police patrol in the town centre after a judge issued a warrant.

Police spokeswoman Kathrin Reinhardt said: “He confessed in a hearing to the Criminal Investigation Department.”

As a motive behind the crime, she said: “Both had very dissimilar life outlooks which kept leading to differences between them.”

Bürsa wore a head scarf but she did not want her strict Muslim father to control her life.

Friends described how the western lifestyle of his daughter made Mehmet Ö angry.

Metush H., a friend of the family, said that Bürsa’s sister and mum also had to always wear a headscarf.

Yesterday at her school, the Olympia-Morata-Gymnasium, her classmates gathered in the library to pay tribute to her.

A tearful friend told BILD: “She was a fun-loving girl, loved hip hop music. But that is no reason to kill someone!”

Bürsa, at just 15, joins Gülsüm († 20), Hatun († 23) and Morsal († 16) on the long list of honour killing victims in Germany.

From Bild.com

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Holy Warriors of Allah blow up girls' school...

MILITANTS bombed a girls' primary school on the outskirts of Pakistan's Peshawar city today, the latest in a series of such attacks blighting the northwest of the country, police said.

The school was badly damaged during the attack in Mattni village, local police official Abdul Ghafoor Afridi said.

Explosives were used to raze the building, although some of the structures were left standing, he added.

"Three rooms and the outer wall of the government-run community model girls primary school was totally destroyed while the staff room was damaged,'' the police official said.

There were no casualties as schools are closed for the summer in Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province that borders Afghanistan.

Pakistan has used schools to shelter some of the roughly two million people displaced by a blistering military operation against armed Taliban hardliners since late April.

Fighters in the northwest district of Swat, where the military assault has concentrated, have destroyed scores of schools, mostly for girls, during a two-year campaign to enforce sharia law.

Militants have destroyed at least 191 schools in the valley, including 122 girls' schools, leaving 62,000 pupils without classrooms, local officials said.

There has been no co-education in Swat for several years and schools have created totally separate sections for boys and girls.

Yesterday, militants blew up a girls' school in South Waziristan, a tribal region that falls outside direct government control and where a full-scale army offensive is expected against Pakistan's Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud.

On Monday, rebels bombed a school in Peshawar and another in the Bajaur tribal region, where past military operations have been concentrated.


62-Year-Old Man Buys 16-Year-Old Girl from Uncle...

No surprise here..the sunnah and example of Prophet Mohammed(PBUH) is that a 60 yr old man can "marry' a 6 yr old baby..and fathers can sell their children..

The ‘sale’ was brought to the court’s notice during the hearing of a petition by Kulsoom and her paternal uncle Aslam, seeking the quashing of a theft case. Haji Khalil Ahmad, the 62-year-old man, had lodged the theft case against Kulsoom and Aslam. The judge asked Khalil how he was married to a 16-year-old girl. Khalil disclosed that he had paid Rs 0.4 million to one of her maternal uncles, Waris.


No sane, free person would choose to wear a burka

"The burka's toll on these women was harsh. Many had lost most of their teeth and hair as a result of not having enough vitamin D, which comes from the sun."

A while back I was asked to give a talk at my kids' school about my December 2003 trip to Afghanistan.

As I waited to be introduced, I hid in an auditorium storage room wearing a burka I bought in that war-ravaged country, thinking I'd be out in a minute, maybe two. But the introduction took a lot longer than I had anticipated and by the time I came out to greet all those shining faces, I was very nearly hyperventilating from the oppression of it. I didn't time my self-imposed confinement to the burka, but I probably wore the suffocating tent-like garment with mesh over my eyes for no more than 10 minutes. I told the kids I felt like I was buried alive.

I also told them that while in Afghanistan, I asked all of the many women I met there whether they liked wearing a burka. Not one said yes. In fact, they all said they hated it almost as much as they hated the Taliban.

It's no wonder. The burka's toll on these women was harsh. Many had lost most of their teeth and hair as a result of not having enough vitamin D, which comes from the sun. During the time of Taliban rule--from September 1996 to November 2001 --no portion of their skin, save their hands, was ever allowed to be exposed to sunlight. Think about the horror of that. The Taliban insisted that homes with women in them had to blacken their windows, lest a man pollute his delicate sensibilities by gazing upon the uncovered face of a woman behind the glass.

On Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated during the first presidential address to a joint session of France's two legislative houses of Parliament in 136 years, that the burka was "not welcome" in France.

"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," said Sarkozy.

He's right. Women in burkas don't seem human. After just a short while in Afghanistan, women in their blue burkas seem like ghostly apparitions devoid of a face, individuality or humanity.

At first, when my translators would tap me on the shoulder and suggest I "take a picture of that burka over there," I would gently correct them by saying, "you mean, that WOMAN in the burka?" In a couple of days, however, I too was referring to them as simply burkas.

In France--where it's already illegal to wear any conspicuous religious symbol in state schools including a head scarf--a parliamentary committee is studying the issue of whether or not to allow women to cover their faces for supposedly religious reasons. As Sarkozy said, the burka is "not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience." The Muslim Canadian Congress agrees and urged Canada's government to ban the burka.

"The decision to wear the burka is by no means a reflection of the genuine choices of Muslim women," said MCC president, Sohail Raza in a news release. "The argument that Muslim women opt to wear the burka does not withstand scrutiny when considering the repressive nature of orthodox Muslim society in general."

Reached at his Calgary home, Mahfooz Kanwar, Mount Royal College professor emeritus of sociology and criminology, says many well-meaning Canadians believe it is "tolerant" to allow Muslim women the "choice" of wearing the burka.

"There is no choice involved in this, and allowing it will lead to intolerance," said Kanwar.

"Some people say banning the burka would be a slippery slope and would lead to the banning of wearing a scarf over your mouth in the winter while outside," said Kanwar. "But the real slippery slope can be seen in some Islamist ghettos in Paris or in Denmark, where non-Muslim women are harassed for not covering their hair to the point where they have been forced to start doing so to prevent verbal and physical attacks by semi-literate Muslim men. That's the real slippery slope."

Kanwar, a Muslim who has written eight books, including one on the sociology of Islam, echoes Sarkozy's comments. "The burka is not mandated by Islam or the Qur'an and is therefore not religious and protected under the Charter. In Canada, gender equality is one of our core values and faces are important identifying tools and should not be covered. Period," added Kanwar, who is also a director with the MCC.

Many French politicians are on the side of a burka ban including some prominent Muslim politicians like Fadela Amara, France's cities minister. Amara has called the burka "a coffin that kills individual liberties," and a sign of the "political exploitation of Islam."

Funny, but "coffin" was a word several women I met in Afghanistan used to describe their burka. Consider the words of Massooda, a 36-year-old widow, who looked more like 60 as a result of her harsh life. "I will never wear a burka again," she said defiantly. "They will have to put me in a coffin before I walk around in one again."

That's choice. No sane, free person would ever "choose" the burka.

lcorbella@theherald. canwest.com

Christian Man Raped, Murdered for Refusing to Convert to Islam..

A young Christian man was raped and brutally murdered in Pakistan for refusing to convert to Islam, and police are doing nothing about it, the victim's brother and minister told FOXNews.com.

Pakistani police reportedly found the body of Tariq "Litto" Mashi Ghauri — a 28-year-old university student in Sargodha, Pakistan — lying dead in a canal outside a rural village in Punjab Province on May 15. He had been raped and stabbed at least five times.

"They have sexually abuse him, torture him with a knife on his testicle and genitals," Ghauri's brother, 24-year-old Salman Nabil Ghauri, said. "They have tortured him very badly, and after that they have stabbed five times with a knife and killed him."

The family believes Litto Ghauri was murdered by the brothers of his Muslim girlfriend, Shazi Cheema, after they found him in a compromising sexual position with their sister.

The Rev. Haroon Bhatti, a Christian clergyman in the village and a friend of the Ghauri family, said Cheema's three brothers came to Litto Ghauri's house on May 11 and gave him an ultimatum: Marry their sister and convert to Islam.

Ghauri agreed to the marriage but refused to accept Islam, and the brothers kidnapped him at gunpoint and drove him to a remote farmhouse, where they tortured and murdered him, the minister said.

Continue reading here

The Sham in Islam

The reaction of the Muslim world to the crisis in Iran (or lack thereof) proves "once again that nobody does hypocrisy better than political Islam."

The Iranian revolution is a self-evident fact. Whether it will succeed or not is open to question but the country certainly will never be the same and if the western world has any decency left it will refuse to treat the Tehran regime as anything other than a rogue cabal worthy of contempt and isolation.

I say the western world because many, if not most of the Middle Eastern and Muslim nations, have demonstrated once again that nobody does hypocrisy better than political Islam.

Some basic facts first. According to Scotland's University of St. Andrews, hardly a centre of conservatism, and the internationally respected Chatham House think-tank in England, the Iranian election results are impossible to believe. After an exhaustive analysis they conclude that for the election to be accurate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have had to have won 100% of the conservative vote, 90% of the new vote and 40% of the reformist vote.

In fact at best he may have won 80% of the conservative vote, perhaps 50% of the new vote and 10% of the reformist vote.

In addition, the ostensible results would mean that he had also won decisively amongst the Turkish and Arab populations and in the Balochistan region. That would be as if Canada's most violent opponent of Quebec nationalism suddenly swept the French Canadian vote. It's not true.

The thug and his gang are a bunch of liars -- surely news to absolutely nobody.

Since the vote, the fraudulent government has used murder, torture and intimidation to try to silence democracy and people. Many have died and many will die in the future. Yet the bulk of the Muslim world says nothing and the Islamic diaspora and the usual suspects and fellow travellers in the media are as quiet as a slaughtered Iranian woman dead on a Persian street. But no. The silent screams of the martyrs are pure and loud and eloquent. The moans of the apologists are stale and dark and grotesque.

First, we hear that the West has no right to comment because more than 50 years ago a democratic Iranian government was brought down by Washington. So what? History is full of wrongs. It's a logically and morally flawed argument. Morally flawed because the point is made not to support Iran but to drown criticism of theocratic fascism.

Second, we are told that the West is interfering and that thousands of cellphones, cameras and computers were smuggled into Iran before the election and that British, American and, of course, Israeli agents have been working for years to destabilize the government. Let us remember that during the last weeks of the Shah's rule the rumour in Tehran was that Israeli soldiers were to be parachuted into the country to put down the revolt!

Islamophobic plot

Third, those murdered have not really been murdered, the election results are genuine, the Twitter campaign is led by non-Iranians and this all part of a massive Islamophobic plot. For those unfamiliar with the term, an Islamophobe is someone who is making a rational, compelling and successful argument against a Muslim or a Muslim's leftist friend.

There is still time for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria and the rest to officially condemn Iran and for the Muslims of Canada, the United States and Europe to march and protest. Lots of time. Yes, lots and lots and lots of time


Saturday, June 27, 2009

Muslim vs Muslim - Senior mufti in Mecca says Shi'ite clerics are infidels

And according to Islam, it is permitted to kill infidels and not have to pay the victim’s family blood money.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Thursday criticised Arab and Muslim countries for their silence on calls by a senior Saudi cleric for Shiite scholars to be killed.

The Iraqi leader made the remarks a day after a massive bomb in the predominantly Shiite neighbourhood of Sadr City in northeastern Baghdad killed 62 people and wounded 150.

“We have observed that many governments have been suspiciously silent on the fatwa provoking the killing” of Shiites, Maliki, who is also Shiite, said in an e-mailed statement.

He was referring to comments made by Mecca Mufti Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani last month to the BBC that “Shiite clerics are infidels.”

“The Shiites have no right to be represented in the (Saudi) senior scholarly committee,” Kalbani said.

“The Shiite public, it’s a matter of discussion (as to whether they are infidels). Shiite clerics are definitely infidels, without question.”

According to Islam, it is permitted to kill infidels and not have to pay the victim’s family blood money.....

continue reading here at Khaleej Times Online

Holy Warriors of Allah Kill Husbands, Demand Widows for 'Marriage'...

....When the militants arrived in their mountainous corner of northwestern Pakistan in February the locals cautiously welcomed them, thinking they were waging jihad against foreign troops in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Some even joined them, attracted by the five or six pounds a day they paid. Over the next three months, however, Upper Dir’s residents were increasingly angered by the Taleban’s criminal activities and disrespect for local customs, according to residents and Pakistani officials.

In early June elders asked them to leave the five villages they had occupied. The Taleban responded on June 5 with a suicide attack on a local mosque that killed 39 people. The next day they told the elders to give them the women who had been widowed in the attack.

Continue reading here at Times Online

Friday, June 26, 2009

Islamic Forum Discusses Eating Flesh of Dead Americans...

A recent thread on the Al-Falluja jihadist forum discussed the case of whether a Muslim who has nothing else to eat may kill an infidel in order to eat him. The discussion was prompted by a recently published book by Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, one of the most influential jihadist sheikhs active today.

The following is a summary of the discussion thread. (JTTM subscribers can read the full report at http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/report.htm?report=3367&param=JT ; to subscribe to the JTTM, visit http://subscriptions.memri.org/content/en/member_registr_jttm.htm ).

"Is It Permitted To Eat The Flesh of American Soldiers?"

On June 13, 2009, a member of the Al-Falluja forum who uses the moniker "Al-Maqdisi's Student" wrote a post based on this passage [in full report] titled "Is it permitted to eat the flesh of American soldiers? A quote from the illustrious Sheikh Al-Maqdisi, may Allah preserve him." He began by recounting an exchange between the early Muslim commander Khalid b. Al-Walid and the Byzantine commander at the battle of Yarmuk (in the year 636 C.E.) The Byzantine commander said to Khalid that the Muslims had only gone out from their land due to hunger, and offered to buy them off. Khalid responded: "It was not hunger that drove us out of our land, as you say; we are a people who drink blood, and we know that there is no blood more delicious than Byzantine blood. That is why we came."

"Al-Maqdisi's Student" then cites the aforementioned passage from Al-Maqdisi's Beginner's Guide [in full report], and follows up with the words: "The mujahideen should inform their belligerent [infidel] and apostate enemies of this exceptional law so that they can bring it up and study it at their conferences on human rights, counterterrorism, and so on! Then they in turn can proclaim that our soldiers lick their lips [at the thought of] eating the flesh of their hamburger- and Pepsi-eating soldiers!"

"If We... Eat Americans, Let's Make Them Into A Gunpowder-Flavored Kabsa With Some Hors D'oeuvres Made Of Apostates"

Most of the numerous responses to the post were off-topic. Some responses, however, did take up the flesh-eating issue. "Abu Hajir Al-Muqrin" wrote: "If we are forced to eat Americans, let's make them into a gunpowder-flavored kabsa with some hors d'oeuvres made of apostates."

"Muhammad Al-Baghdadi" wrote: "But the slaughtering needs to be according to the shari'a. He then wrote "perhaps this is the best way" above stills from the Nick Berg decapitation video.

"Al-Maqdisi's Student" weighed in again towards the end of the thread and wrote: "A true story: a group of mujahideen from one of the brigades was in the mountains during the jihad against the Russians. One of them was sent off on a mission; he went and came back, but he couldn't find any of the brothers. He saw a roasted calf leg that the brothers in the brigade left for him for dinner, and he ate of it until he was full. When he went back to the main camp, the brothers saw him and offered him dinner! He said: praise Allah, I already ate! They said: Where did you find dinner? He said: You left me roasted calf leg! They said: No, no, that wasn't calf, that was the leg of a Russian infidel! He answered: No matter, it's all Islamic slaughter! (smile)"


Cruel and Usual Punishment - what Sharia Law means, and how women are treated in Islam

Nonie Darwish knows a fair amount about Islam. She was an Egyptian Muslim for the first 30 years of her life. Then she fled to America and she is now a Christian. She has told her story earlier, in her 2007 volume, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.

In this book she continues her important story, but she does so by highlighting two crucial themes: what sharia law means, and how women are treated in Islam. In 270 pages she spells out in chilling detail what the implications are of Islamic law, and how the West must be very careful indeed about the spread of sharia.

The first half of this important book looks at how women are treated in the world of sharia. The treatment of women in Islam alone should serve as a warning for anyone who thinks sharia is compatible with Western democracy and freedom.

Consider marriage. Muslim women are prohibited under sharia from marrying non-Muslim men. But Muslim men can marry Christian or Jewish women. And the sharia marriage contract “is essentially a document granting sexual intercourse rights to the male and giving him total control over his four wives”.

There are even temporary marriages purely for the purposes of sexual pleasure for the male, called mutaa, or pleasure marriage. This “marriage” can last as little as an hour. Then there is misyar, or traveller’s marriage, which is “designed to accommodate the male sexual appetite while travelling”.

Divorce is of course also all one way traffic in Islam. Men can divorce their wives instantly, simply by saying “I divorce you” three times. A Muslim woman cannot initiate a divorce. In custody cases, children after the age of seven (or sometimes nine) belong to the father.

And a male can beat his wife and sexually abandon her. Under sharia a husband deserves total submission and gratitude. As one revered Muslim scholar, Imam Ghazali has said, “Marriage is a form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave, and her duty therefore is absolute obedience”.

Polygamy is also the right of Muslim men. But even more abhorrent is the practice of sexual gratification with children. There is no legal age for marriage under sharia. Thus the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, for example, said in an official statement, “A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby.”

Of course Muhammad himself had a six-year-old wife, whom he consummated relations with when she was just nine. And Islamic leaders argue that his life serves as an example and pattern for all Muslims. This is all codified in surah 65:4 in the Koran.

There are plenty of other misogynist elements to sharia law. Women adulterers are to be stoned to death; girls who fornicate are to be flogged; a woman’s testimony in a court of law is only worth half that of a man’s; women cannot be in the company of men who are not her relatives; female genital mutilation is rife; a Muslim wife needs her husband’s permission to travel; and so on.

Then there is the issue of honour killing. While there is no sharia law that expressly gives men the right to kill their women to protect their family honour, there are existing laws which protect men who do commit such killings. Indeed, sharia states that a killer of an apostate, a robber or an adulterer cannot be punished for murder.

In the rest of the book Darwish looks at life “behind the Muslim curtain” – what life is like for non-Muslims under sharia law. Non-Muslims are treated almost as poorly as women in Muslim-majority countries. Jews and Christians are under dhimmitude, or second-class citizenship. Darwish chronicles the many ways in which non-Muslims are oppressed, discriminated against, and denied basic human rights.

And ordinary Muslims who dare to think independently of sharia are also subject to tremendous opposition and oppression. Criticism of Islam is of course punishable by death. Muhammad himself ordered the killing of those who dared to criticise him.

All the various schools of Islam agree that blasphemy or criticism of Islam is a capital offence. And Muslim imams do not expect to be questioned or challenged in any way. In such a world there is “no intellectual honesty, no dialogue, and no respect”.

Muslim preachers regard Westerners and Jews as the embodiment of evil, the personification of Satan. Therefore they can be cursed, deceived and killed. Indeed, according to sharia, lying and deception are obligatory at times when dealing with the enemies of Islam. This is part of the overall jihad being waged against infidels.

After reading so much detail about what sharia teaches and commands, one is left overwhelmed. As Darwish says, “The West should be clear on the nature of Sharia. It is nothing more than legal tyranny, a terminal disease that destroys the healthy functioning of society where everything is sacrificed for the sake of total control”.

Indeed, say Darwish, Islam is not really a religion as much as it is a system of complete control and social order. It is an intolerant worldview which allows no opposition or questioning. Thus the West should resolutely oppose what she calls “Islamo-Fascism”. We should not tolerate intolerance.


Darwish has nicely laid out the implications of life under sharia. It is up to us how we respond.

With thanks to Culture Watch

The veil is a tool of oppression used to alienate and control women under the guise of religious freedom

Can't say that we agree with everything she says (see Qur'an 24:31, for example), but this British Muslim has our respect for at least trying to coax her religion forward a few centuries.

Shopping in Harrods last week, I came across a group of women wearing black burkhas, browsing the latest designs in the fashion department.

The irony of the situation was almost laughable. Here was a group of affluent women window shopping for designs that they would never once be able to wear in public.

Yet it's a sight that's becoming more and more commonplace. In hardline Muslim communities right across Britain, the burkha and hijab - the Muslim headscarf - are becoming the norm.

In the predominantly Muslim enclaves of Derby near my childhood home, you now see women hidden behind the full-length robe, their faces completely shielded from view. In London, I see an increasing number of young girls, aged four and five, being made to wear the hijab to school.

Shockingly, the Dickensian bone disease rickets has reemerged in the British Muslim community because women are not getting enough vital vitamin D from sunlight because they are being consigned to life under a shroud.

Thanks to fundamentalist Muslims and 'hate' preachers working in Britain, the veiling of women is suddenly all-pervasive and promoted as a basic religious right. We are led to believe that we must live with this in the name of 'tolerance'.

And yet, as a British Muslim woman, I abhor the practice and am calling on the Government to follow the lead of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and ban the burkha in our country.

The veil is simply a tool of oppression which is being used to alienate and control women under the guise of religious freedom.

Continue reading here at Mail Online

Thursday, June 25, 2009

A brief history of the resurrection of Islamic terrorism in the 20th century.

How Hasan al-Banna's movement not only succeeded in inspiring rejection of Western liberalism in Islamic countries, but also revived Islam's age-old ambition for 'global dominance'...

The First World War had finally come to an end. The European victors could now turn their attention to the Middle Eastern vacuum. Muslims from Cairo to Jeddah to Jerusalem to Damascus were facing the harsh reality of the end of a seventh century dream. Their Ottoman Empire had slowly disintegrated from within and was now powerless to hold back the European advance. Islam’s core belief in its manifest destiny to dominate all of human civilization was at an end.

It was supremely naïve of the Europeans to think that the words of the Prophet Muhammad would die so easily. Weren’t they words that had come directly from God Himself? In their momentary hubris, they never imagined that these words would once again take hold and would then spread like a contagion and even begin to eat away at their own European society.

The year 1927 marked the first challenge to this Western naïveté. In Islam’s darkest hour there suddenly rose a voice. It was calling for Muslims to abandon the secular and decadent Western encroachment that was destroying them and return to the purity of Islam. It was the voice of a highly gifted and charismatic individual, an Egyptian orator schoolteacher/clock repairer named Hassan al-Banna. He appeared out of nowhere onto the streets corners of Cairo, as well as other Egyptian cities, dressed in a flaming red robe preaching his message. Like the early American Christian evangelists, he mesmerized his audiences with vivid descriptions of hell for those who had abandoned the purity of Islam. Like the American Christian evangelists he too warned of the Day of Judgment and Hell’s torments.

There was, however, a difference between Hassan al-Banna and these Christian Americans. Islam is a political/military religion. Muslims do not render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars’. Muhammad had joined religion, governance and military conquest and made it one. Al-Banna’s mission was first to take over the Egyptian government and then the world. In 1928 he established the Society of Muslim Brothers. By the late 1940’s the Muslim Brothers had some two thousand branches throughout Egypt and it was threatening the Egyptian government itself.

Its objectives were "'individual moral purification and collective political and social regeneration through the establishment of a truly Islamic government in Egypt, as a springboard for universal expansion'"; and as Banna described it, "'until the entire world will chant the name of the Prophet (Muhammad), Allah’s prayers and blessings be upon him.'" (Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism, A History, Yale University Press, 2006, p. 208-19)

But there was a chilling side to these objectives. As Efraim Karsh further describes it in his book:

"In Banna’s view, the Qur’an commanded its believers to love death as much as others love life. As long as Muslim society failed to abide by this sacred philosophy, they were destined to remain in their current dismal position." 'There is no escape from death and it happens only once', he (Banna) claimed. 'Should death come down the path of Allah, it will be a gain in this world and a reward in the other.'

This reasoning was duly incorporated into the Muslim Brother's Credo: "'Allah is our goal; the Qur’an is our constitution; the Prophet is our leader; Struggle is our way; and death in the path of Allah is our highest aspiration.'"

Continue reading here

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Taliban’s Way of Silencing its Critics is the Sunnah of the Prophet Mohammed(PBUH)

Pakistani Talibans rather effective way of silencing its critics: shooting them at point blank range is in accordance with the Sunnah of Prophet Mohamed (PBUH). They just replaced the knife and the sword with the gun and bomb.

1. March 624: Al-Nadr bin al-Harith

Before Muhammad’s Hijrah (Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622), he used to sit in the assembly and invite the Meccans to Allah, citing the Quran and warning them of God’s punishment for mocking his prophets. Al-Nadr would then follow him and speak about heroes and kings of Persia, saying, "By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I, and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied as I have." Al-Nadr is referring to legends and opaque histories about Arabs of long ago and possibly to Bible stories about such figures as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, which Muhammad told, but according to his own inaccurate versions. On other days al-Nadr would interrupt Muhammad until the prophet silenced him. In reply to al-Nadir’s harassment, it is possible (scholars sometimes have difficulties matching up Quranic verses with historical events) that Allah sent down these verses to Muhammad concerning him or certainly other mockers in Mecca, according to the account of Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin, who is considered a reliable transmitter of traditions:

25:6 Say [Prophet], "It was sent down by Him who knows the secrets of the heavens and earth. He is all forgiving and merciful." (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

83:13 ... [W]hen Our revelations are recited to him, he says, "Ancient fables!" 14 No indeed! Their hearts are encrusted with what they have done. 15 No indeed! On that day they will be screened off from their Lord, 16 they will burn in Hell, 17 and they will be told, "This is what you call a lie." (Haleem)

Muhammad did not take revenge on him—not yet—even though the verses in Sura 83 promise a dismal eternal future for mockers. Muhammad’s revenge was not long coming. It was al-Nadir’s bad fortune to join Mecca’s army, riding north to protect their caravan, which Muhammad attacked at the Battle of Badr in AD 624. The story-telling polytheist was captured, and on Muhammad’s return journey back to Medina, Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, at Muhammad’s order, beheaded him, instead of getting some possible ransom money. He was one of two prisoners who were executed and not allowed to be ransomed by their clans—all because they wrote poems and told stories critiquing Muhammad.

Source: Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, (Oxford UP, 1955, 2004), pp. 136 (Arabic pages 191-92); 163 / 236; 181 / 262; 308 / 458. Reputable historians today consider Ibn Ishaq to be a good source of early Islam, though they may disagree on his chronology and miraculous elements.

2. March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt

A similar story as that of al-Nadir can be told about Uqba. He too harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He too was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Uqba cried with anguish. "Hell," retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.

Source: Bukhari, vol. 4, no. 2934; Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4422, 4424; Ibn Ishaq, p. 308 / 458. Bukhari and Muslim are reliable collectors and editors of the hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). These three passages from the hadith depict Muhammad calling on Allah for revenge on this poet.

3. March 624: Asma bint Marwan

Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.

The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," conjectures Ibn Ishaq.

Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76 / 995-96.

4. April 624: Abu Afak

Abu Afak, an centenarian elder of Medina, belonging to a group of clans who were associated with the god Manat (though another account has him as a Jew), wrote a derogatory poem about Muhammad, extolling the ancestors of his tribe who were strong enough to overthrow mountains and to resist submitting to an outsider (Muhammad) who divides two large Medinan tribes with religious commands like "permitted" and "forbidden." That is, the poet is referring to Muhammad’s legal decrees about things that are forbidden (e.g. pork and alcohol) and permitted (e.g. other meats like beef and camel). Before the Battle of Badr, Muhammad let him live.

After the battle, the prophet queried, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" That night, Salim b. Umayr "went forth and killed him." One of the Muslims wrote a poem in reply: "A hanif [monotheist or Muslim] gave you a thrust in the night saying / ‘Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!’" Muhammad eliminated him, which shows religious violence. Islam is not the religion of peace.

Source: Ibn Ishaq p. 675 / 995.

5. September 624: Kab bin al-Ashraf

Kab b. al-Ashraf had a mixed ancestry. His father came from a nomadic Arab, but his mother was a Jewess from the powerful al-Nadr tribe in Medina. He lived as a member of his mother’s tribe. He heard about the Muslim victory at the battle of Badr, and he was disgusted, for he thought Muhammad the newcomer to Medina was a trouble-maker and divisive. Kab had the gift of poetry, and after the Battle of Badr he traveled down to Mecca, apparently stopping by Badr, since it was near a major trade route to Mecca, witnessing the aftermath. Arriving in Mecca, he wrote a widely circulated poem, a hostile lament, over the dead of Mecca. It is important to include most of the political lament to show whether the poem is a serious offence, meriting assassination, as Muslim apologists (defenders of Islam) argue.

... At events like Badr you should weep and cry.
The best of its people were slain round cisterns,
Don’t think it strange that the princes were left lying.
How many noble handsome men,
The refuge of the homeless were slain.


Some people whose anger pleases me say,
"Kab b. al-Ashraf is utterly dejected."
They are right. O that the earth when they were killed
Had split asunder and engulfed its people,
That he who spread the report had been thrust through
Or lived cowering blind and deaf.


I was told that al-Harith ibn Hisham [a Meccan]
Is doing well and gathering troops
To visit Yathrib [pre-Islamic name of Medina] with armies,
For only the noble, handsome man protects the loftiest reputation.
(Translated by Guillaume, p. 365)

To us today this poem does not seem excessive, and other Arab poetry was worse, such as the poem celebrating the assassination of Abu Afak, cited above (no. 4). It seems to be a genuine lament that invokes the Arab concept of revenge. Also, the last four lines is not an explicit plea for the Meccans to exact vengeance because that was a foregone conclusion. Arab custom demanded a riposte against the humiliation of defeat. Rather, the lines seem to reflect reality. A Meccan leader is said to be gathering an army; Kab is not ordering him to do so.

Pro-Muslim poets answered Kab’s poem with ones of their own, and that was enough for his hosts in Mecca to turn him out. He returned to Medina, writing some amatory verses about Muslim women, a mistake compounded on a mistake, given the tense climate in Medina and Muhammad’s victory at Badr. For example, right after the battle Muhammad assembled a Jewish tribe, the Qaynuqa, and warned them as follows: "O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh [large Meccan tribe at Badr], and become Muslims." ... In late spring (April-June) Muhammad then expelled the Jewish tribe.

Angered by the poems and now able to strike back after Badr and the exile, Muhammad had had enough. He asked, "Who would rid me of [Kab]?" Five Muslims volunteered, one of whom was Kab’s foster-brother named Abu Naila. They informed him, "O apostle of God [Muhammad], we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter." They set upon a clever plan.

Abu Naila and another conspirator visited Kab, and they cited poetry together, the three appreciating the art, and chatted leisurely, so the two would not raise suspicions of their conspiracy. Then, after a long time, Abu-Naila lied just as he said he would. He said he was tired of Muhammad because "he was a very great trial for us." Muhammad provoked the hostility of the Arabs, and they were all in league against the Medinans. Abu Naila complained that the roads had become impassable and trade was hampered, so that their families were in want, privation, and great distress. Kab, in effect, said to his foster brother, "I told you so."

Then the foster-brother asked him for a loan of a camel load or two of food. Kab agreed, but only on the collateral of Abu-Naila’s sons. The foster-brother refused, and Kab asked for his women, but he again refused. Finally, Abu Naila offered his and his conspirators’ weapons. That arrangement provided the cover they needed to carry weapons right into Kab’s presence without alarm. Kab agreed, "Weapons are a good pledge."

The two visitors departed, stopped by the other three, and told them of the plan. Not long afterwards, gathering their weapons, they went to Muhammad, who sent them off with this wish: "Go in God’s name; O God, help them." They set out under a moonlit night until they made it to a fortress, one of several that the Jewish tribe had built in the rough environment of Arabia. In fact, the ruin of the fortress where Kab resided can be seen even today near Medina. They called out to him.

Kab had recently married, and his wife, hearing their yells, said, "You are at war, and those who are at war do not go out at this hour ... I hear evil [or blood] in his voice." But the custom of hospitality in the Arab world was strong. Her husband told her that they were only his foster-brother and his foster-brother’s partners, adding that "a generous man should respond to a call at night, even if invited to be killed." Kab came down and greeted them. Abu Naila suggested they go for a walk. The signal to kill was as follows: Abu Naila would run his hand through Kab’s hair, complimenting him on his perfume, three times. This he did, yelling, "Smite the enemy of God!" Kab mounted a strong defense, so their swords were ineffective. Finally, one of the conspirators remembered his dagger, stabbed Kab in the belly, and then bore it down until it reached Kab’s genitals, killing him.

They made it back to Muhammad, but only after difficulty, since in the dark they had wounded one of their own. They saluted the prophet as he stood praying, and he came out to them. They told him that the mission was accomplished. He spat on their comrade’s wound, and they returned to their families. Their attack on Kab sent shock waves into the Jewish community, so that "there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life," reports Ibn Ishaq.

Muslim historian Tabari reports that the five Muslim thugs severed Kab’s head and brought it to Muhammad. How can the terrorists who are also thrilled to sever heads not be inspired by early Islam?

Sources: Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4037; Muslim vol. 3, no. 4436; Ibn Ishaq 364-69 / 548-53; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. VII, trans. W. Montgomery Watt (SUNYP, 1987), pp. 94-98 / 1368-73. Reputable historians today consider Tabari to be a good source of data on early Islam, though they may not agree on his chronology or miraculous elements.

6. September (?) 624: Ibn Sunayna

It is on the heels of this assassination that Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant, was assassinated. With the success of the five conspirators, Muhammad said, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." Shortly afterwards, Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon and killed Ibn Sunayna, with whom Muhayyisa had some social and business relations. However, Muhayyisa’s elder brother, not a Muslim at the time, beat the assassin, the younger brother, saying, "You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?" Muhayyisa retorted that if Muhammad had ordered even the elder brother’s assassination, he would have carried it out. The elder was impressed: "By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!" And he became a Muslim. That is, the elder brother implies that Muhammad must be a great leader and worthy of devotion if he commands such lethal reverence and deadly obedience from his followers.

Then Muhayyisa wrote a poem that celebrates such obedience. "I would smite his [the elder brother’s] neck with a sharp sword, / A blade as white as salt from polishing. / My downward stroke never misses its mark." Advancing religious violence, these lines in the poem show how deadly poetry could be, and they match the Muslim’s poem against Abu Afak (no. 4, above): "a hanif gave you a thrust in the night." Kab’s poem, it should be recalled, was far milder. These poems that a Westerner reads in the early Islamic source are jarring. It seems the early Muslim authors of the documents relish inserting them into their books.

Source: Ibn Ishaq p. 369 / 534.

7. July-August 625: A One-eyed Bedouin

In revenge for an ambush on some Muslim missionaries, Muhammad sent Amr bin Umayya and a companion to assassinate Abu Sufyan, a leader of the Meccans. This shows that the prophet could get caught up in the cycle of violence that went on endlessly in seventh-century Arab culture. Umayyah failed in his attempt, and he had to flee under pursuit, hiding in a cave, murdering a man named Ibn Malik along the way. As the pursuit was dying down, a tall, one-eyed, unnamed Bedouin entered the cave, driving some sheep. Umayyah and the Bedouin introduced each other. After they settled down, the shepherd sang a simple two-line song in defiance of Muslims and Islam:

I will not be a Muslim as long as I live,
And will not believe in the faith of the Muslims. (Watt)

Another translation reads:

I won’t be a Muslim as long as I live,
Nor heed to their religion give. (Guillaume)

Unfortunately for this Bedouin, he was in the cave with a radical Muslim, who said: "You will soon see!" The Bedouin fell asleep, snoring. Umayyah recounts what he did: ... "I went to him and killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever been killed. I leaned over him, stuck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out of the back of his neck." He fled back to Muhammad, who said, "Well done!" The account ends: The prophet "prayed for me [Umayyah] to be blessed."

This poor shepherd’s only sin was to compose a little two-line ditty against Islam. Therefore, he was assassinated, with the blessing of Muhammad—the prophet did not arrest the assassin or even scold him for killing a man who had nothing to do with the ambush.

Source: Tabari, vol. 7, pp. 149-50 / 1440-41; A later editor incorporated some of Tabari’s account into Ibn Ishaq’s biography, pp. 674-75.

8. After January 630: close call for Abdullah bin Sad

Before 10,000 Muslim warriors entered Mecca in January 630, Muhammad ordered that they should kill only those who resisted, except a small number who should be hunted down even if they hid under the curtain of the Kabah stone. One of them was Abdullah, an original Emigrant with the prophet in 622. He had the high privilege of writing down some verses of the Quran, after Muhammad received them by revelation. Doubting, Abdullah on occasion would change the words around to see if Muhammad had noticed the changes, but he did not. W. Montgomery Watt provides an example: "When Muhammad dictated a phrase of the Quran such as sami‘ ‘alim, ‘Hearing, Knowing’ (with reference to God), he had written, for example, ‘alim hakim ‘Knowing, Wise,’ and Muhammad had not noticed the change" ... (Muhammad at Medina, Oxford UP, 1956, p. 68). Abdullah therefore disbelieved Muhammad’s inspiration and apostatized (left Islam) and returned to Mecca a polytheist.

However, his foster-brother was Uthman b. Affan, one of Muhammad’s Companions, who hid Abdullah until calm settled on conquered Mecca and who interceded for Abdullah, in the presence of Muhammad. The prophet waited a long time before he granted the repentant apostate immunity. After Uthman left, Muhammad said to those sitting around him: "I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of them asked why Muhammad did not give them a signal. He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing.

Though Abdullah escaped with his life, this story is included because it reveals Muhammad’s attitude toward apostates, because of the doubt of one of Muhammad’s followers—a literate scholar who was involved in writing down the revelations, and because Muhammad’s anger could be assuaged under the right conditions.

Source: Ibn Ishaq, p. 550 / 818.

9. After January 630: One of Abdullah bin Katal’s two singing-girls

On the list of those excluded from amnesty after the conquest of Mecca was not only Abdullah b. Katal, collector of legal alms, who had killed his slave for incompetence, apostatized, and took the money back to Mecca, but also his two singing-girls who sang satirical verses about Muhammad, which Abdullah had composed. He was killed, even though he was clinging to the curtain of the Kabah shrine. And one of the girls was also killed, but the other ran away until she asked for pardon from Muhammad, who forgave her.

Source: Bukhari vol. 4, 3044; Ibn Ishaq, pp. 550-51 / 819.

10. After February 630: close call for Kab bin Zuhayr

Confident with the victory over Mecca, Muhammad returned to Medina a hero and firmly in charge of the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula. In this context we come to another poet who satirized Muhammad and the Muslims, Kab bin Zuhayr (called Zuhayr to distinguish him from Kab bin al-Ashraf, above, no. 5). Zuhayr’s brother wrote him that Muhammad had killed a number of satirical poets during his conquest of Mecca, but that the prophet would forgive a poet who came to him in repentance, which really means becoming a Muslim. His brother told him that the poets who were left had fled in all directions. "If you have any use for your life, then come to the apostle [Muhammad] quickly, for he does not kill anyone who comes to him in repentance," wrote the brother, continuing: "if you do not do that, then get to a safe place."

However, Zuhayr responded with a poem that says their fathers and father had never held Islam dear, so why should he change? His brother replied with a poem of warning of his own; if he would not repent, then Zuhayr will be guilty on Judgment Day. Poetry penetrated deeply in Arab culture, and, receiving the letter, Zuhayr was distressed until finally he gave in. Finding no way out, he wrote a letter extolling Muhammad. Soon afterwards, he traveled up to Medina to ask for security as a Muslim. Muhammad was saying his morning prayers, and a friend took Zuhayr into Muhammad’s presence. "Would you accept him as such if he came to you?" his friend asked. The prophet said he would.

One of the Ansars (or helpers: native Medinans who offered help to Muhammad after his Hijrah) leaped upon Zuhayr and asked the prophet if he could behead the enemy of God, for some of Zuhayr’s verses mocked the Ansars, too. The apostle said to leave him alone, for Zuhayr was breaking free from his past. The implication is clear: if Muhammad had caught Zuhayr before his repentance, Muhammad would have allowed him to be beheaded. Either he converts or he dies—for writing derogatory poetry. What is remarkable about the anecdote is how the morning prayer provides the setting for a Muslim leaping on a poet and threatening to cut his head off, as if this is an ordinary day and act.

Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 597-602 / 887-93.

From Mohammed Dead Poets Society with thanks to Abdullah Waheed for bringing this to our attention.

From Mecca To Jerusalem: Muslims And Their Feelings

Here is a great article by JEW WITH A VIEW . It is our pleasure to reproduce it in full so that you may learn about the "tolerance and respect" of Muslims and Jews.

Next time someone tries to hoodwink you into believing that Islam ‘respects all
faiths’, ask them about Mecca and Medina. Specifically, ask them why the two holiest Muslim cities are off limits to all non Muslims.

Yep, that’s right. Mecca and Medina are no go areas unless you’re a Quran-brandishing member of the ‘religion of peace’. And there are no exceptions, no apologies and certainly no concern over whether this might be a tad hypocritical.

In fact, just to make it clear to any naughty infidels who may try and sneak into Mecca, the Saudi authorities have put up these helpful signs:


Now let’s compare what happens in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. This is the holiest Jewish city. And where the second temple once stood, there now remains a solitary wall; the Kotel, or ‘Wailing Wall’, where Jews come to pray. Non Jews are also welcome there, and perfectly at liberty to visit the Kotel and pray there, should they desire.

And then there is the Al Aqsa Mosque - slapbang where the Jewish temple used to stand.

From what you read in the international media, you’d never know that Israel - being democratic to a fault - has given control of this vital area to the Muslims. Yep, that’s right. Even as Muslims across the globe support, sponsor and carry out terrorism against the Jewish state, it is the Muslim Waqf, part of the Palestinian Authority, which has jurisdiction over the Temple Mount area.

And what happens when any non Muslim dares to go there…?

Ask Israeli cabinet Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch. Today he paid a visit to the Temple Mount. Result? Total hysteria and threats of violence from Palestinian Muslims. Aharonovitch spent a mere ninety minutes in the area, and was there purely to check police deployments in this volatile area of Jerusalem.

“The intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency,” Aharonovitch’s spokesman Tal Harel said. And he added:We went everywhere. We were accompanied by the Waqf, who were fully aware of our presence, and this was planned in coordination with them well ahead of the visit.”

Nine years ago, of course, a similar visit by Ariel Sharon triggered a bloody and protracted ‘intifada’ by the Palestinians. I mean, just think about it: a Jewish Israeli has the sheer chutzpah to visit a holy Jewish area in Israel, the Jewish homeland! Whatever next?!

And these are far from being isolated events. Back in 2005, on Yom Jerushalayim (Jerusalem Day), a small Jewish group ascended the Temple Mount only to be attacked by a mob of Palestinian Muslims, who emerged from the Al Aqsa Mosque. The police had to be called, so intense was the violence directed at the Jews.

But Jerusalem was a holy place for Jews before Islam even existed, I hear the historians among you cry indignantly!

Yet here is the Palestinian-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, insisting that today’s visit by Israeli Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch was not coordinated in advance and, wait for it:

He does not have the right to visit al-Aqsa because it is an Islamic site and not a Jewish site, and it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims. It is an assault on an Islamic place,” Hussein said.

And there, in that one line, you have it. The sheer hypocrisy of the demands made by Muslims in non Muslim nations. Let’s read it again, just to marvel at the sheer arrogance involved:

‘…it could ignite violence because the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims…’

Ah yes, Muslim feelings…

The same Muslim feelings that are ‘provoked’ by cartoons and teddy bears and piggy banks and democracy and Geert Wilders and books about Mohammed and freedom for women and alcohol and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Atheists and Gays and every single thing on the planet that does not comply with Islam!

It is these Muslim feelings that Barack Obama, the great Dhimmi in the White House, is busy bending over backwards to appease.

It is these Muslim feelings that got Dutch Politician Geert Wilders banned from Britain and also have him living in fear, under 24/7 police guard.

It is these Muslim feelings that ensure women throughout the Islamic world have about the same rights as a house plant; none, in other words.

It is these Muslim feelings that enable Muslim men in Saudi Arabia to rape women with impunity; women who are then publicly flogged and imprisoned as ‘punishment’.

It is these Muslim feelings that ensured the novel ‘The Jewel Of Medina’ was dropped by two publishers, after angry Muslims threatened the first one, and then firebombed the London home of the second who took it on.

It is Muslim feelings that result in Muslim terrorists stealing the lives of innocent civilians in Israel on a regular basis.

It is Muslim feelings that in 2005 brought horror to the heart of London and left corpses buried underground on burning tube trains.

It is Muslim feelings that brought down the Twin Towers in New York and that have caused another 13,459 deaths since.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn about Muslim sensibilities any more, given that in order to keep Muslims happy, the rest of us have to sacrifice every value we hold dear.

I recommend that next time the followers of Islam start burning flags, rioting, issuing fatwas, and banging on about their feelings, we tell them where to shove’em!

With many thanks to JEW WITH A VIEW

"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"

doing the work that Allah has prescribed for his believers in Iran

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

"Islamic justice" - teenagers' opposite hand and leg amputated

"Today, the Islamic court sentences these four men who carried out robberies to have their opposite hand and leg amputated," said Sheikh Abdul Haq, judge of the sharia court in the al Shabaab-held Suqa Holaha area of the Somali capital.

"They robbed mobile phones and people's belongings."

The judge did not say when the sentence would be carried out at the hearing, attended by hundreds of residents. Shackled and silent, the teenagers were led away into custody.

Read the full story here

Monday, June 22, 2009

Muslim women and choice - Islam as "a major obstacle to the evolution of the position of women."

Under the title of "A Declaration of the Rights of Women in Islamic Societies," a group of born-Muslim intellectuals primarily from Iran and South Asia, put their views on the record. These stand out as remarkable in an era when most of those concerned with the status of Muslim women argue that "gender discrimination began despite Allah's words and Muhammad's intentions."1 The latter reinterpret sacred texts to make Islam compatible with current notions.

In contrast, the statement bellow, which originally appeared in Free Inquiry ("the international secular humanist magazine"), Fall, 1997, pp. 28-29, presents Islam as "a major obstacle to the evolution of the position of women."

We, the undersigned, believe that the oppression of women is a grave offense against all of humanity and that such an offense is an impediment to social and moral progress throughout the world.

We therefore cannot ignore the oppression of women by orthodox and fundamentalist religions. We cannot deny history, which shows that these religions were devised and enforced by men who claimed divine justification for the subordination of women to men. We cannot forget that the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran as their respective holy texts, consider women inferior to men: physically, morally, and intellectually.

We note also that whereas women in the Christian West and Israel have ameliorated their lot considerably through their own heroic efforts, their sisters in the Islamic world, and even within Islamic communities in the West, have been thwarted in their valiant attempts to rise above the inferior position imposed upon them by centuries of Islamic custom and law.

We have watched as official Islamization programs in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, the Sudan, and Afghanistan, among others, have led to serious violations of the human rights of women. Muslim conservatives in all Muslim countries, and even in nominally secular India, have refused to recognize women as full, equal human beings who deserve the same rights and freedoms as men.

Women in many Islamic societies are expected to marry, obey their husbands, bring up children, stay at home, and avoid participation in public life. At every stage of their lives they are denied free choice and the fundamental right of autonomy. They are forbidden to acquire an education, prevented from getting a job, and thwarted from exploring their full potential as members of the human community.

We therefore declare that ...

  • The subordinate place of women in Islamic societies should give way to equality. A woman should have freedom of action, should be able to travel alone, should be permitted to uncover her face, and should be allowed the same inheritance rights as a man.
  • She should not be subject to gruesome ritual mutilations of her person.
  • On reaching the legal age, she should be free to marry a man of her own choice without permission from a putative guardian or parents. She should be free to marry a non-Muslim. She should be free to divorce and be entitled to maintenance in the case of divorce.
  • She should have equal access to education, equal opportunities for higher education, and be free to choose her subject of study. She should be free to choose her own job and be allowed to fully participate in public life — from politics and sports to the arts and sciences.
  • In Islamic societies, she should enjoy the same human rights as those guaranteed under International Human Rights legislation.

Islam may not be the sole factor in the repression of women. Local, social, economic, political, and educational forces as well as the prevalence of pre-Islamic customs must also be taken into consideration. But Islam and the application of the sharia, Islamic law, remain a major obstacle to the evolution of the position of women.

To achieve these basic human rights for women, we advocate that the question of women's status be removed from the religious sphere altogether, that governments institute a separation of religion and state, and that authorities enact a uniform civil code under which all are equal.

In the name of justice, for the sake of human progress, and for the benefit of all the wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers of the world, we call for all societies to respect the human rights of women.

  • Reza Afshari, Iran, Political Scientist
  • Sadik al Azm, Syria, Philosopher
  • Mahshid Amir-Shahy, Iran, Author, Social Critic, and Founder of the Defense League for Rushdie, France
  • Masud Ansari, Iran, Physician, Author, United States
  • Bahram Azad, Iran, Scholar, Physician, United States
  • Parvin Darabi, Scholar, Homa Darabi Foundation, United States
  • Khalid Durán, Professor of Political Science, Editor and Founder of TransState Islam, Founder of the Ibn Khaldun Society, United States
  • Ranjana Hossain, Executive Director of the Assembly of Free Thinkers, Bangladesh
  • Mustafa Hussain, Sudan, Advisory Board, Ibn Khaldun Society, United States.
  • Ramine Kamrane, Iran, Political Scientist, France
  • Ioanna Kuçuradi, Philosopher, Turkish Human Rights Commission and Secretary General, International Federation of Philosophical Societies, Turkey
  • Luma Musa, Palestine, Communications Researcher, United Kingdom
  • Taslima Nasrin, Bangladesh, Author, Physician, Social Critic
  • Hossainur Rahman, India, Social Historian, Columnist, Asiatic Society of Calcutta
  • Siddigur Rahman, Bangladesh, Former Research Fellow, Islamic Research Institute
  • Armen Saginian, Iran, Editor, Publisher, United States
  • Anwar Shaikh, Pakistan, Author, Social Critic, United Kingdom
  • Ibn Warraq, India, Author, Why I am Not a Muslim, United States

Muslim women and choice.....My Slave Is Called A "Wife"

"Why can't I leave my house?"
"Because you are my wife, which means you are my slave for life!"
Slavery requires the total control of the movements of another person. When men control a person's movements and call her a wife or daughter, they may deceive the rest of the world, but the truth is, these women are slaves and men are their masters.

Throughout history, in civilizations where slavery has existed, one of the main cornerstones was that a slave could not leave the master's house or property without the master's permission. Today, in the Islamic world, the slave population includes one-half of their total population: women. The result is at least 200 million Muslim women cannot leave their homes without their husband's, fathers or nearest male relative's permission. Male members of the Islamic world say that a woman should only leave her home three times in her life: when she is born, when she is married, and when she is buried. Any other time a woman is allowed to leave the house, she must wear a veil, hijab, chador or burqa and be accompanied by a male relative, for women cannot be alone outside the house. In many countries, such as Saudi Arabia, a woman cannot travel out of her town or country without the written permission of her nearest male relative, and she must also be accompanied by a male relative when she is permitted to travel.

These practices allow total male dominance and control; these practices allow slavery. Yet we in America are silent. We accept the slave masters' justification of slavery, because it is hidden under the cover of culture and religion. We buy into this deception because it is politically incorrect for us to say anything negative about a culture or religion. All religions and cultures are equal, aren't they? I say they are not - not if they promote the enslavement of women.

What is enslavement, if not the boring, unfulfilling, degrading world these women must endure? They are generally not allowed to be educated, simply because they are women. If they do become educated, a husband can prohibit his wife from working. If she cannot work, she loses all freedom, for she becomes completely dependent on the man for food and shelter. Women are commonly murdered to preserve the "honor" of the husband or his family. Add to these horrors the practices of polygamy, wife beating, wearing of the burqa, genital mutilation and forced sex. A rape victim, not the rapist, is punished. A divorced woman automatically loses her children and the right to see them. The list goes on. No wonder so many Muslim women commit suicide.

In 1985, the president of Pakistan established a commission to investigate the status of women. The commission's report, quoted from the book, Price of Honor by Jan Goodwin, states "the average woman is born into near slavery, leads a life of drudgery, and dies invariably in oblivion. This grim condition is the stark reality of half our population simply because they happen to be female." Not surprisingly, the government suppressed the findings, and conditions have deteriorated since this report.

The moment an Islamic woman is forced to marry (as early as nine years old) and move into a man's family home, she becomes his slave. For her, life becomes a new series of injustices because she had the audacity to born a woman. It begins with the payment of a dowry. This alone shows that she is simply property - much as a TV set is in this country. In the first few months of marriage, her husband's family might decide that the dowry they received was not enough or to their liking. For the crime of an insufficient dowry, the young wife will likely be burned to death by the husband or a male family member, unless the young wife's family is able to increase the dowry. Since law or tradition permits this despicable act, the perpetrators are very seldom arrested or punished. This barbaric practice, called dowry burning, is a common practice in Pakistan and other areas.

As you read this, perhaps you are thinking that you know Muslim women who are not treated this way, and that is true. Approximately 300 million Muslim women are not treated in this manner. But this still leaves at least 200 million Muslim women who are treated as slaves - more women than live in America.

Why are these crimes against Muslim women so prevalent and savage? There is an old saying that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Over the last 200 years, and especially during the last few decades, the Islamic clerics, Wahhabism, organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizballah, and other male-dominated groups have used their power, religion, culture and the lack of education for women to control women and therefore control entire societies. The subjugation of women is about power and control. When you control and dominate the Islamic women who raise the children, you in essence control future generations.

In these modern times of the 21st century, how can there be slavery on such a massive scale? In the United States, if one person was considered a slave, the media would go nuts and the world would be in an uproar, so how can there be at least 200 million women slaves spread throughout an entire religion and culture while the rest of the world simply turns its back and walks away? The simple reason is that we allow and condone slavery as long as slavery is said to be "Islamic tradition." How many articles do you see written in newspapers, how many programs on television, about the slavery of Islamic women? How many demonstrations in the streets do you see again slavery? The answer is almost none. Perhaps the reason Islamic women are slaves (and treated worse than most slaves were treated historically) is that we don't care, or we choose to ignore it, or we consider it politically incorrect to challenge a religion or culture, or we are afraid to say anything because it is hidden under the guise of religion or culture. The Islamic world and Islamic clerics are running a very successful scam, and the rest of the world is buying this scam. It's time we do something about this injustice. The question is what can we do? Here are some ideas.

Write letters to your congressperson, senator, and the president. Write articles such as this for newspapers and magazines expressing your objection to slavery. Organize demonstrations against slavery. Call into radio talk shows and express your views about slavery. Send e-mails to all your friends expressing how you feel about this despicable practice. What is important is we need to stop doing nothing, and start taking action now against the enslavement of 200 million women.


Muslim Man Beheads Daughter to Prevent Her from Marrying...

...a man allegedly beheaded his daughter who was insisting on marrying her lover in Rampur district.

Shaukat Saifi was arrested after he allegedly beheaded his daughter Naseem with a sharp edged weapon yesterday in village Krimcha, about 250 km from here, police said.

While Naseem wanted to marry Yasin, a resident of the same village, her father was opposed to the alliance, they said.


Sunday, June 21, 2009

Defying Islamic terror regime

Fierce Clashes on Tehran streets, Iranians protesters are met with tear gas, batons, water cannons.
For extensive and up-to-the-minute coverage of what is going on in Iran, see here and here at Atlas Shrugs.

Holy Bombers of Allah (Sunni Team) Blow Up 64 Shia Women & Children at Mosque...

....a suicide bomber detonated a truck loaded with explosives as Shiite Muslim worshipers left the mosque after noon prayers in the northern town of Taza, 14 miles south of Kirkuk. The dead included women and children, officials said, and more than 170 people were wounded.

The explosion caused the mosque and at least a dozen mud houses to collapse, security officials said, and many victims were feared trapped under the rubble.

Soon after the blast, police and medics rushed to the scene as bystanders ferried the dead and wounded to Kirkuk's main hospital. Iraqi police and security forces cordoned off the area, as U.S. soldiers collected evidence from what remained of the truck.

Relatives dug graves in the cemetery behind the mosque for their loved ones. By nightfall, Iraqi and American rescue teams had set up lights as they continued to search for people buried under the debris.

Continue reading here at The Washington Post

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Italy: MP in court to defend herself against death 'fatwa'

An Italian MP and Muslim women's rights activist was due to give evidence to a court on Thursday over death threats allegedly made against her in a 'fatwa' or religious edict. Souad Sbai, MP for the ruling conservative People of Freedom party, was due to attend the court in the northern Italian city of Bologna as witness.

"I am today in Bologna to defend myself against a death 'fatwa' issued against me, for which I had to live in fear for quite some time," said Sbai in an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI).

Akrane H., is accused of having issued the death threat in 2007 and accused Sbai of taking advantage of immigrants for personal gain.

"I call on God to act against you, in a way that he will expose you. You are a very bad woman, begin to pray to God, leave work for men.

"I have heard very bad things about you and you have thus been exposed as a 'massihia' (Christian)," Akrane wrote in a letter to Sbai.

The claim by Akrane is an accusation of apostasy, which under Islamic law calls for the death penalty, which can be carried out by any Muslim at any time.

"You are an opportunist. You use immigrants for profit-making. You Souad, are nothing and you have nothing to do with Islam and have no knowledge of fikh (religious jurisprudence)," the letter stated.

"You have your hair uncovered in the sight of God, and a woman who does not cover her head must be hanged by the hair. God will punish you for the evil you do to people," the letter continued.

Sbai, who is also president of the Moroccan Women's Association in Italy, said she hopes the judge will understand the severity of the death threat.

"Today's hearing could be the last hearing of the trial and I hope the judge understands the danger of this 'fatwa' and the seriousness of this issue," she told AKI.

Police Look to Arrest Actor Shahrukh over 'Hurt Muslim Feelings'

The Bandra police has filed a case against Shahrukh Khan yesterday (18th June) for hurting the religious sentiments of the Muslims. The Muslim community is not happy with the actor's remark on their Prophet Mohammed in the July issue of Time N Style magazine, in which he listed the Prophet as one of the most unimpressive personalities in history.
The police has filed an FIR against the actor following a complaint registered Shahrukh, the publisher of the magazine and the writer by the Mumbai Aman Committee, a religious organisation. The case was registered under section 295-a (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religion feelings or any class by insulting its religion beliefs) and 34 (acts done by several persons with common interest) of IPC.

The police revealed that they have registered a case against Shahrukh after receiving an application from an advocate, who alleged that the actor made some remarks against Prophet Mohammed, which has hurt the sentiments of the Muslim community. It added that he would not be arrested immediately but would take action after the probing is done. Shahrukh could be jailed for three years if convicted.

Shahrukh's comment has invited wrath from the Muslim community. Farid Sheikh, President of Mumbai Aman Committee, said that they would not allow Shahrukh's body to be buried anywhere in Maharashtra. Zarar Qureshi, secretary of the committee, also said that the actor has hurt the Muslim community by bracketed the Prophet Mohammed along with Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill.

From One India