More Moore fallout, from IslamOnline, with thanks to Nicolei:
CAIRO, December 13 (IslamOnline.net) – A Daily Telegraph’s "repulsive" article on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam gave Muslims in Britain quite a shock, calling it a telling example of ignorance and arrogance borne by “only the most zealous of racists.”The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), one of the leading Muslim organizations in Britain, said the article, written by Charles Moore, was a “clear incitement to religious hatred and division.”...
The MAB said that Moore’s article was “full of falsehoods, lies, skewed interpretations and poisonous remarks.”
He said that during the era of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) “women were treated more as property and less as autonomous beings.”
Moore cited Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to `A’shah (may Allah be pleased with her), claiming that she was only nine-year-old with an offending lead reading “Was the prophet Mohammed (sic) a pedophile?”
Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Director of the Islamic Society of Orange County, Garden Grove, California, told IslamOnline.net that the age of `A’shah, when she got married to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), was far from being confirmed.
“Historically, it is not confirmed that she was nine years old when she came in the household of the Prophet. There are various reports from age nine to age 24. Her maturity, knowledge, intelligence, and contributions during the life of the Prophet and afterwards all indicate that she was either an exceptional nine-year-old or must have been older than that.”
Now wait a minute, Muzammil. The assertion that she was nine is made (more than once) in Bukhari, the hadith collection considered most reliable by Muslims. Here are the passages:
Narrated Hisham's father:Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)
That "consumed" is a typo for "consummated."
Narrated Aisha:The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)
Do you, Professor Siddiqi, reject these statements as unreliable? If so, are you then willing to reject Bukhari as a source of Islamic faith and practice? If so, there are many wide-ranging implications. Also, what would you say to the Muslim apologist AbdurRahman R. Squires, who states: "Needless to say, this evidence is—Islamically speaking—overwhelmingly strong and Muslims who deny it do so only by sacrificing their intellectual honesty, pure faith or both."
Have you, Professor Siddiqi, sacrificed your intellectual honesty, your pure faith, or both?
IslamOnline also says:
Professor Siddiqi further said that the Prophet (PBUH) was not the first suitor.“According to many historians, Jubair ibn Mut`am proposed to her before the Prophet (PBUH). This gives an indication that `Aisha was mature enough for marriage at that age.”
No, it doesn't. All it indicates is that there was more than one man in 7th century Arabia who wanted to marry a child.
“Whatever the case may be about her age, one thing is certain: she was a most compatible spouse of Prophet Muhammad. None of the contemporaries of the Prophet, his friends or foes, are reported to be surprised by this marriage or made objections to it,” Professor Siddiqi added.
No, because it was common practice then. But today it has become the justification for a scandalously high rate of child marriages in the Islamic world, sanctified by the example of Muhammad. Siddiqi doesn't mention that.
IslamOnline also gives us a generous helping of politically motivated historical whitewash about dhimmitude:
The Daily Telegraph writer also wrote that in Muslim countries Christians and Jews were being treated as “second-class citizens who must pay the jiyza, a sort of poll tax, because of their beliefs” and that intolerance was the main hallmark of the Muslim faith.However, one of the cornerstones of Islam is that “there is no compulsion in religion” as enshrined by the Noble Qur’an.
Non-Muslims under a Muslim state enjoy their full rights. A very clear example of how non-Muslim minorities were treated is that Caliph `Umar ibn Al-Khattab on his deathbed dictated a long will consisting of instructions for the next caliph.
Umar said: “I instruct you on behalf of the people who have been given protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet [i.e. the non-Muslim minorities within the Islamic state known as dhimmis]. Our covenant to them must be fulfilled, we must fight to protect them, and they must not be burdened beyond their capabilities.”
History book shows that Islam protected Jews from Christians and Eastern Christians from Roman Catholics.
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Caliphs, Christians and Jews enjoyed a freedom of religion that they did not allow each other or anyone else.
Imposing Jizyah on non-Muslims was not a kind of religious-based discrimination against them and if the word Jizyah is too offensive to non-Muslims, it can always be changed as when Al-Khattab levied the Jizyah upon the Christians of Bani Taghlib and called it sadaqah (alms) out of consideration for their feelings.
All the Jizyah amounts are to be a financial obligation placed upon those who do not have to pay the Zakah.
As the ratio of these two taxes is the same, it is obvious that the jizyah is simply a technique used by Islamic governments to make sure that everyone pays his fair share.
The Jizyah was also imposed on Muslim men who could afford to buy their way out of military service.
Since Christians joined the armies in Muslim countries they had no longer to pay Jizyah.
Not to mention that Islam came to save humanity from ignorance and oppression. Islam is not a threat to any society. Islam calls for harmony and peaceful co-existence with other religions.
It does not permit aggression, violence, injustice, or oppression. At the same time, it calls to morality, justice, tolerance, and peace.
All this is historically ridiculous -- especially the assertion that jizya and zakat were essentially the same. Innumerable respected historians (including A.S. Tritton, Maxime Rodinson, and Bat Ye'or) have noted that it was money from the dhimmis, not from Muslims, that financed the early Islamic empires; indeed, Muslims paid nothing at all into the state treasury in the days when there were large populations (i.e., in Egypt and Syria) of conquered dhimmi Christians. Rodinson even points out in his biography of Muhammad that at certain times conversions to Islam were forbidden, as they were destroying the tax base! If the jizya had really been equivalent to or less than zakat (as other Muslims argue), human nature being what it is, we would have seen large-scale conversions of Muslims to Christianity in the great Islamic empires -- but of course we don't, because who would want to exchange the position of the dominator for that of the dominated?
Nevertheless, today people read propaganda like Edward Said instead of history like Bat Ye'or, Tritton, and Rodinson, so they most likely don't know that for non-Muslims in Muslim societies, there was not just jizya, but kharaj, the land tax. Tritton in The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects equates the two: "Hafs, another governor of Egypt, announced that all dhimmis who abandoned their religion would be free from kharaj, which is jizya" (pp. 35-6). It is important to remember the two names because while the jizya was generally set at a fixed amount by the jurists (although this was highly adjustable), the kharaj was another matter. In the Hedaya, an Islamic legal manual, in a discussion about the purchase of land by a dhimmi, it declares: "it is lawful to require twice as much of a Zimmee [dhimmi] as of a Mussulman [Muslim], whence it is that, if such an one were to come before the collector with merchandise, twice as much would be exacted of him as of a Mussulman" (Hedaya I.vi).
Also, Andrew Bostom has sent me these illuminating extracts:
The voluntary character of the zakat contribution as a religious duty is emphasized by Qudama in the beginning of Chapter Thirteen, where he states that Muslims are trusted with the declaration of what is due from them, in contradistinction to other taxes which are compulsory and pursuable. The Saudi law by charging Muslims with this religious tax is following the old precepts who lay down that the rate of the tax is fixed in accordance with the persons from whom it is collected, i.e., from a Merchant of a foreign country 10 per cent, from a merchant of an allied country 5 per cent, and from a Muslim 2.5 per cent.
That's from A. Ben Shemesh, Taxation in Islam Volume II, Qudama b. Ja’far’s Kitab Al-Kharaj. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1965, p. 14.
And this:
There is a desire to equate Zakat with Jiziyah to emphasize the fairness of the Islamic fiscal system. The Muslims pay Zakat and the non-Muslims Jiziyah. But the analogy is fallacious. The rate of Zakat tax is as low as 2.5 per cent and that on the apparent property only. All kinds of concessions are given in Zakat with regard to nisah or taxable minimum. In its collection no force is applied because force vitiates its character. On the other hand, the rate of Jiziyah is very high for the non-Muslims- 48, 24, and 12 silver tankahs for the rich, the middling and the poor, whatever the currency and whichever the country. Besides, what is central to Jiziyah is the humiliation of infidel always, particularly at the time of collection. What is central in Zakat is that it is voluntary; at least it cannot be collected by force. In India Zakat ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims. Here Zakat was levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity’. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.
From K.S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Delhi, 1999, pp. 139-140.
Note that both have jizya as double the rate of zakat, as per The Hedaya.
And of course the bottom line is that jihadists who are working to impose Sharia on Muslim and non-Muslim states will endeavor also to reimpose the jizya. In the name of the equality of rights of all people, this must be resisted.
Why is there even any argument here? It is all written down for all to see. The same old lies told over and over again. Can people in power be this stupid?
Whenever I read the outright brazen astonishing whitewash that many Muslims offer when discussing the history and nature of Islam, particularly in relation to its spread as an imperium, and questions as to the life of Mohammed and so on, I am reminded of a couple of things.
One, I have an image in my mind of a naughty child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He flatly denies he has his hand in the cookie jar. If he is shown a photograph of him with his hand in the cookie jar, he will scream and stomp his feet until you agree with him that he was not, in fact, stealing cookies, but liberating them from captivity, or he was somewhere else, or he will scream and scream persecution.
The other thing that comes to my mind is that these people either (a) Really believe this stuff and genuinely reckon that they can pull the wool over other peoples eyes, in which case, they are slightly demented, and, (b) They know damn well they are lying, are encouraged to lie by western dhimmis like William Dalrymple and Mark LeVine, and so lie, lie and lie again in the hope that people will shut up and leave them alone, or be taken in by their shockingly brazen and ridiculous claims of righteousness, whilst thinking they have pulled the wool over *snigger snigger* those silly Kaffir's eyes, hey, we really fooled them!
Which means that they honestly believe this stuff, and hate the non Muslims with a vehemence it is frightening to comprehend.
Perhaps this is why so many people dont want to examine the contradictions, the brazen hypocrisy, the misogyny, the intolerance and bigotry of Islam. Because it really does shake up the belief that the West has cultivated in the last sixty years, that in liberal democracies, men are rational beings who will abide by the laws and morality of liberal democratic society, that people are essentially good, that people can live together as equals and with respect.
Pondering the truth about Islam means you have to ponder the darkness, cruelty, bigotry and intolerance at the heart of the religion. And that takes an effort and is a depressing thing to do.
One last thing. This article comes from a website in Cairo, I believe. Whilst they preach about the beauty and tolerance of Islam, Copts are being subjected to the most horrific persecution. If ever the need to form a broad coalition of those opposed to the Jihadi ideology was made apparent it is through this. Imagine what effect an articulate, calm, level headed Coptic spokesperson living in the West, appearing on European and American news programmes, would have on the movement against Islamism. It would singlehandedly blow the Jihadists and their dhimmi apologists like Dalrymple and LeVine out of the water. These are the facts that the Jihadis must be confronted with twenty four hours a day seven days a week.
Let's stop pussyfooting around here. We know their Prophet was a Paedophile, rapist ,torturer and murderer. Damn the sensibilities of Muslims -
WE'RE THE ONES WHO SHOULD BE OUTRAGED - that they should dare to spread and practise their disgusting habits in our countries.In many Muslim lands little girls are being sold in marriage and raped by their loving spouses - at this moment!! ALL TOGETHER EVERYONE - MUHAMMED WAS
A PAEDOPHILE AND LOTS OF MUSLIM MEN COPY HIM - Gee
what a great religion for Criminals!!!
Excellent article in, of all places, The Obsever:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1371869,00.html
If they're irked, I'm happy.
I urge you to write to write the DT supporting their brave and truthful stance, as I'm sure that their INBOX is being inundated with letters from muslims and their apologists. We really need to support such such articles by the MSM. The DT like any major public organisation, cannot continue in the face of what it believes a hostile public reaction to its view of the situation.
You might consider telling the Editor not to publish your real name, for reasons that are self evident.
-------------------------------
Here are some instructions from the DT
If you have sent it as plain text, we will have received it. If, however, it was sent as an attachment, please send it again in plain text to
dtletter@telegraph.co.uk
This address is for letters submitted for publication only. All other queries, complaints and comments should be emailed to:
readrel@telegraph.co.uk
If you haven't included your address and telephone number your letter will not be considered for publication.
Publication of all letters is subject to our terms for submission of works to us (past and present), namely that, if your letter is used:
1.You will retain your copyright.
2. During the copyright period and afterwards, The Daily Telegraph and those authorised by it have the world-wide assignable right to use your work in any publication or service in whatever media (e.g. CD Rom, newspapers, online etc).
3. The Daily Telegraph may further allow others to authorise
scanning/photocopying of cuttings that include your letter.
4. The Daily Telegraph may shorten or edit your letter for publication.
----------------------------
BTW Letters for publications should be kept short and to the point. Even if you do not intend your letter to be published, do send a letter of support to the Editor. He may well need it in whatever internal struggle that may occur as a consequence of its present editorial policy on islam. Needless to say, there must be one going on right now. He needs all the support we can give.
I take note that Charles Moore's photograph has been published by islamonline.
Given the methods that muslims use in responding to criticism, one needs to ask if the photograph was essential.
"British Muslims Irked by Telegraph’s 'Repulsive' Article"
hmmmm... *yawn*... so what...
"Normal People Irked by Muslims' Repulsive 'Religion'"
Yup, I like that better.
"clear incitement to religious hatred and division.”..."
Well, they do have a point there. If you publish the truth about Islam, it's hard not to hate Islam. How can a normal person possibly like anything about it? It's bizarre, frightening, sick and evil. After finding out what their "prophet" really got up to, you can't possibly not loathe the monster and think that people who want to emulate him are also monsters.
Division? There's bound to be division between people who believe Islam is the way to go and that this Moh person is somebody to admire and emulate, and the rest of us who think it is all repulsive & an anathema to goodness, peace and harmony.
This is the uncomfortable reality with Islam. Muslims claim publishing the truth about Islam is "repulsive" and get all huffy about it. But they have to face reality - the truth is ugly and it hurts. But it's the truth. Not racist. Not arrogant. Not ignorant. The truth.
Interestd:
Just read the article in the Observer / Guardian... Excellent. Does this mean the left is finally waking up or are we being too optimistic. I recommend everyone with connections to the UK sends the link to their friends - especially those who have voted Labour, LibDem or Conservative so far. Time to vote for UKIP, Ladies and Gentlemen!
British Muslims should be repulsed by the original
text, then. It says the same.
Time's and traditions change.
This is their opportunity to accept a flaw in The Perfect Man.
And, with it, a softening of the 'iron mask' of dogma.
If one 'Hadith' text is dubious, maybe all of the non-Koranic material can be revised, to agree with more intelligent views of reality.
Or must we live in the 7th century, internally, while manipulating the 'meaningless' technology of the 21st? Under Sahira' headlock? Restricted to Islamo-think? A million years of primate evolutionary struggle - for what?
Like using a Stradivarius to hammer a nail.
Another cheap attempt by a Muslim weasel to hide the truth about Muhammed,do they really think we're as dumb as them and will fall for this tripe.
Their reaction to the "Submission" short pretty well sums up Islam,there was more outrage over the film showing Quranic verses on a freshly whipped female back than any sympathy or outrage
for the abused wives or female within Islam.
NO ISLAM - KNOW A FREE HOLLAND
Yes I found that rather ironic, ala-sux, re the outrage over the Koranic verses but none over the women. Says a lot about Islam and its attitude towards women. Their book is highly prized. Women are just breeders, lots of them around, so who cares what happens to them? Besides, their highly prized book says to beat them, so what's your problem, infidel?
Below is a poem published on Islamonline at:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2004/11/article_08.shtml
The poem justifies and supports the Jihad against the United States in Iraq (with the same old lies. The US is out to steal oil, etc.) And takes a nostalgic tone toward the 'good ol' days' of Saddam Hussein.
We already know this, but it is important to remind ourselves that the supporters of Islamonline take pleasure in the killing of our soldiers and want nothing more than the chaos of Islamic Jihad to prevail in Iraq. And if this is the way they feel about the Jihad in Iraq, what about elsewhere? The Jihad is global, after all. Only fools and liars would say otherwise. Here it is:
"Creative Writing
Thank You, Mr. America
20/11/2004
You came along and took away our tyrant man
Then took away our oil and wealth – what’s your real plan?
Our children used to laugh and play with vigor, health, and wry
Now in tears and helpless looks they stare at you and cry
Your poison buried in our land brings sickness, pain, and death
While soldiers stalk and stomp our lives and squeeze out all our breath
Now Americans! People of liberty, freedom, and the bomb
Why did you bring your tyrant man – you know you shouldn’t ‘ave come
To bring us into living death push us against the wall
Force us on with no more choice but to fight so we don’t fall
We defend ourselves, our homes, our rights all under freedom’s stand
So why the fuss, the rout, the death that’s spread across our land?
Our tyrant man is now disguised in white man’s mandate
Imposed on us by your free will, a gift to global warfare – spreading fear and hate
Your flag of justice swinging low pendulum blades of imposition
With terrors ranting snapping at the heels of justified resistance
In olden times a war well fought was given rise to hero
Now freedom’s struggle ‘gainst death’s knell points fingers of derision
But you know our fight is one but aims are far apart
The difference you see is not in arms, but the nature of the heart
Our fight is for humanity, your fight is for our wealth
You come by any ways or means directly or by stealth
But doomed to fail you are, you see, as sure as night follows day
And when the Seer of All decides you’ll fall and lose your way
For never will the tyrant stand, as well you know it’s true
History tells, and dead men speak death to you and your motley crew"
By Shadow Dancer
The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), one of the leading Muslim organizations in Britain, said the article, written by Charles Moore, was a “clear incitement to religious hatred and division.”..
And so it begins. Muslims proving the very point Moore, Atkinson, and others have been making: by screaming "religious hatred! religious hatred!", Muslims will use the new thoughtcrime legislation in Britain to censor legitimate criticism of Islam and stifle public debate. Every time an article appears that offers insights into the teachings or history of Islam that does not toe the line established by the MAB, we will see a formal complaint being lodged with the Home Office. These will pile up until David Blunkett (or his replacement, or his replacement's replacement) is forced to take aggressive action to prosecute the "offender". Free speech will be chilled -- for a time -- to be followed by the inevitable rise of more extreme forms of personal and organized protest. And through it all, we will have the siren song of the psychotics on the left:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1371499,00.html
Well, at least we know that Islam isn't the greatest threat to civilization.. the left is.
I'm not begrudging the Muslims the right to speak up for their religion. Nor do I deny them the right to trot out some other version of the Aisha story that makes the youngest Mrs. Muhammad a bit older. I support Charles Moore against Blunkett for the same reason--freedom of speech. Moore's contribution was a small reminder of the other side of the coin that the Da'wa crowd is showing us.
Some time ago, I read Jayasekera's article on Gogh, and while I recognized it was tongue in cheek, I nonetheless felt constrained to say that the article went over the line. I myself figure that Theo van Gogh wasn't someone I would've liked; but being an obnoxious slob isn't a capital crime--while premeditated murder is (at lead in much of the USA).
Khomeini's wife was 9 years old.....the tradition holds.
The "man on the street' American goes purple when I point out that Islam does not share with the rest of Humanity the fundamental concept of Truth.
I'm not talking about Leftists or even liberals with no real opinions of their own about anything at all. The average guy goes livid that I would slander a group of people by saying something so wierd and ridiculous that he thinks I'm making a fool of him by insulting his inteligence. How can I say such a stupid thing with a straight face and expect him to believe it, like the kid with his hand in the cookie jar expecting his mother to believe it's not there at all. Some lies are too insulting, and such is the reaction I get when I say Islam has no concept of Truth.
But I go too far there after-all. In Islam there is Truth, and it is that Allah recited to Mohammed the Koran, and that every word of the Koran is true. The Truth ends there. It means that if a Moslem tels me his hand is not in the cookie jar he's not lying, he's not contradicting the Koran, so what's my problem? Find it in your own experience. Moslems will lie to your face with such obvious lies that you might want to be overly offended. And yet it bothers them not a whit that they know that you know that they are lying. There is no concept of Truth in them. There is only the Koran. Explain that to the man on the street in Kansas and he thinks you're stupid.
Islam is not merely the submission of the true believer to the will of Allah: To submit is to acknowledge that one is a slave. Once one gives up all freedom to act as an independent person, then there's no room left to criticize or to think at all. It's all auto-pilot from then on. So, if the imam says the Americans dropped bombs of poisoned gas in colors red, white, and blue, and that Allah sent a rainstorm to wet paper to give the locals cover for their noses, then it is as true as anything else. And if a Moslem says he sent giant spiders to eat American soldiers, well, that's real too. If you commit to beleiving bullsh*t at one end, it covers the whole scheme to the end; and beyond that, if the Moslem beleives whatever pops into his empty head, why should he think you won't accept it too? The trouble is making Americans understand that Moslems have a totally different view of reality. They are not just like us but different. To make that assumption and to stick to it in spite of all knowledge and experiennce is to be kind of stupid. And yet, people will seldom let go of the idea that everyone shares the same basic beliefs world-wide, that all people are suburban Americans though with less money and smaller cars.
Islam does not have a concept of Truth. They have the Koran (and the sunna in general--mostly.) Nothing else is true to them. Believe me. I would not lie about this.
You hit the nail on the head sonofwalker!
No concept of truth, a completly different concept of reality...
In fact when OBL's letter to Mohammed Atta was published
(remember?)
(Atta's check- in baggage had been misdirected and was later found containing clear and detailled instructions how to cut the throats of the crew and to shave all body hair etc.)
The lefties and all our educated morons in Europe were openly deriding and ridiculing the notion that a guy like Atta (speaking 4 languages, studying technology etc) could possibly believe such crap from his master this day and age. That it had to be nothing other other than a CIA plot to make believe.... and on and on it went with conspiracy theories etc. to this day.
And you still find this attitude in many quarters of the 'enlightend' intelligenzia in Europe who totally deny the power of religious indocrination to a suceptible mind.
The words that keep coming to mind are those uttered by the Dutch politician who said something like this:
"How could we have been so naive?"
and "We thought people could just come together and find each other..." or something to that effect. In other words that people are at base rational beings and no matter what culture they are from, if you put them all together - multi culturalism - they will 'find each other', meaning just 'automatically get along.
Yes, NAIVE indeed! Our leadership here in America still seems to be very naive about who we are dealing with and haven't grasped the mind set of our enemies yet. It will take something even more horrible than 9/11 to blast them out of their wishful thinking.