| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Tackling "stereotypes" and "misconceptions" at a Philosophy Tea at Buena Vista University in Iowa. "Jihad and human rights," by Jennifer Yeske for The Tack Online of BVU:
Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, Americans have strived to put together some understanding of why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again.While doing this some Americans have developed stereotypes and wrong ways of thinking about Islam.
On Tuesday, Wood's House hosted a Philosophy Tea entitled, "Jihad and Human Rights" held by senior Amy Servantez and junior Courtney McGarry. Their goal was to clarify any misconceptions that people had about the Islam religion.
"What we really wanted people to get out of our Philosophy Tea was that Islam is not a violent religion. There is nothing in the Qur'an that violates human rights. It is the interpretation and the governments that use Islam as a blanket to cover their crimes and violations," Servantez said....
"There is nothing in the Qur'an that violates human rights."
Rather than regarding women as human beings equal to men, the Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).
The Qur'an also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).
It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).
It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).
The Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4).
And of course it counsels Muslims to make war against Jews and Christians until they submit to Islamic authority and pay a special tax: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29).
And it says that those who "make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land" -- an elastic term that could mean almost anything -- should be punished by crucifixion, double amputation, or exile: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land" (5:33).
Now, in light of all that and more, please don't tell us that "there is nothing in the Qur'an that violates human rights." We can read, and at face value passages like these are clearly in violation of numerous human rights norms. Now, it may be that these passages and others like them are interpreted in some benign way in mainstream Islam, although that is often asserted and seldom buttressed with any evidence. In that case, it would be more honest to acknowledge that there are many problematic passages in the Qur'an, but that mainstream Islam has spiritualized them, or rejected their universal validity, or some such.
But if you just deny they're there at all, Ms. Servantez, you give the impression that you are either uninformed or dishonest. And I'm sure you don't want that.
"I chose to add Jihad to the philosophy tea because it is such a controversial topic after 9/11. It's misconceptions that give Muslims around the world bad stereotypes and I wanted to try and fight those stereotypes," McGarry said.[...]
"I thought it was a good chance for people to hear a different perspective about Jihad and human rights. Until I took the Islam class, I thought Jihad meant war; but as outlined so eloquently by Courtney and Amy; it was shown to mean personal struggle. I was happy by the turn out and hope more people take the opportunity to educate themselves about Islamic traditions and rituals," Golonka said.
Unfortunately, the hadith in which Muhammad makes a distinction between “greater jihad” of spiritual struggle and the “lesser jihad” of warfare doesn't appear in any of the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable. Jihad understood as warfare against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law has much greater support in Islamic scripture, tradition, and historical practice -- and leading jihad theorists including Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s friend and intellectual mentor and co-founder with him of Al-Qaeda, challenge the authenticity of the saying in their writings.
Instead of ignoring or denying this, the BVU students would do better to acknowledge it, and then to try to formulate positive ways to deal with it -- including asking their Muslim friends to try to develop some way to respond to and blunt the force of the challenge from Al-Banna, Azzam, and their ilk.
Posted by Robert at May 19, 2007 7:41 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Then there is the "guardian of the two holy places".
Non-Muslims are not allowed to visit Mecca or Medina.
Non-Muslims are denied their freedom even to practice their own religion in the birthplace of Muhammad.
Muslims cannot leave Islam without fear of death. How is that in accord with human rights?
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 19, 2007 8:08 AM
Ok, humour time. UK visitors may remember The Day Today, a satire new program from a few years back. This sketch is like some of the interviews we see with Islamic apologists, which go to the effect of:
Interviewer: So does Islam promote violence?
IA : No it is a peaceful religion.
Interviewer: Well, that's that then. Islam is indeed a religion of peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDKQliH1awY
Posted by: Celsius at May 19, 2007 8:19 AM
Earth calling "University in Iowa" you are being invaded by very ignorant people and who are rather dishonest or just foolish about islam. please reject correrct these individuals with the punishment perscribed by their allah.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 19, 2007 8:32 AM
"Now, it may be that these passages and others like them are interpreted in some benign way in mainstream Islam, although that is often asserted and seldom buttressed with any evidence. In that case, it would be more honest to acknowledge that there are many problematic passages in the Qur'an, but that mainstream Islam has spiritualized them, or rejected their universal validity, or some such."
Mr Spencer: Is that the case? Has mainstream Islam spirtualized these passages? At least some of them? I believe at least the ones regarding women have been indeed entrenched in Islam via Sharia.
at May 19, 2007 8:42 AM
Calatrava,
No, that's not what I meant, although I see how what I wrote here was hasty and imprecise. More clearly: It would be more honest to acknowledge that there are many problematic passages in the Qur'an, and then to try to make a case that they haven't been taken literally in mainstream Islam, although of course they have -- so that the best way forward would be to admit all this and to call upon Muslims to formulate new ways of understanding them now: new ways that do not harm women or non-Muslims.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 19, 2007 8:51 AM
I would like to make two points (or ask two questions):
1.) Who are these U. of Iowa students? Are they reknowned Muslim scholars? Jihad apologists? Or so blinded by their "BSM" that they think the Bush administration has brainwashed us into thinking that Islamofascism is the enemy?
2.) I think the fact that women are, at BEST, second class citizens, while non-Muslims, are at BEST, barely above animals in the Islamic food chain, speaks for itself.
The Left is so deluded with their hatred for anything Bush (war on terror, war in Iraq, Patriot Act), that a significant portion of Democrats actually believe that Bush knew about 9/11 prior to the event or was perpetrated by him.
On my blog, http://toddanthony.squarespace.com, I was mocked by a Minnesota Left-winger for placing too much emphasis on the dangers of Islam; essentially he told me that I was fixated by Islam and that we here in the U.S. have nothing to fear...
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Todd Anthony at May 19, 2007 9:10 AM
I am amazed that college students could make such a claim about Islam and the Quran...
Clearly, none of these budding intellects have taken the time to even browse through it!
These young people really should task themselves to LEARN before OPINING.
Posted by: EyesOnly at May 19, 2007 9:24 AM
Sad little college girls at a podunk u, so ignorant and uninformed.
But then we have Tufts - not a podunk u.
Sad little college students at all American universities these days, so PC ignorant and uninformed.
Posted by: darcy at May 19, 2007 9:25 AM
That's because women are chattel and infidels are not human.
Only Muslims are...
Wake up and smell the coffee...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 19, 2007 9:26 AM
Right -"eyesOnly" it's patently obvious that anyone who could make such outrageously wrong claims about Islam has never even bothered to browse through a Koran. I suppose thye just believe the Muslims' "taqiyya," the imbeciles.
Posted by: darcy at May 19, 2007 9:29 AM
"they," sorry. I hate typos!
(But, I certainly hate Muslim "taqiyya" more!)
Posted by: darcy at May 19, 2007 9:31 AM
"they," sorry. I hate typos!
(But, I certainly hate Muslim "taqiyya" more!)
Posted by: darcy at May 19, 2007 9:31 AM
Houston, we have a problem.
There are no positive ways to deal with it. At least, I cannot think of any. The foundation of jihad and all the other ugly aspects of Islam are too well established and on firm footing.
Here's my Tammany Hall parable again. Islam will never, ever be reformed until it adopts a central authority, just as Tammany Hall was reformed by a central authority - Fiorello LaGuardia. The Islamic Central Authority would be the caliph, and I think he would be an enforcer not a reformer. He might be the Mayor of the Shiites or the Mayor of the Sunnis but not the Caliph for all Mohammedans. Islam cannot be reformed form outside, just like Tammany Hall; a Democratic Political Machine needed a Democrat insider to reform it.
Also, I might add, Tammany Hall was more than just reformed, it eventually vanished as both a club and political force in New York. Will we be forced to make Islam vanish? We cannot reform Islam from the outside, but we sure can destroy it if we have to. We need to silence the apologists(peacefully of course) and make it clear to all Muslims that they must fix their problem or we will fix it for them.
Posted by: Pelayo at May 19, 2007 9:32 AM
EyesOnly, one of my favorite teacher's favorite sayings was this: "It is better to keep silent and appear ignorant than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Posted by: Pelayo at May 19, 2007 9:36 AM
What a jealous god!
Posted by: MZ at May 19, 2007 9:37 AM
8:35 "taste of the doom because you disbelieve" violates human rights.
9:32-33 -Islam will conquer and prvail over all religion, even if the disbelievers hate it. Doesn't sound like freedom of conscience to me.
9:12 -reviling the religion (verbally) is considered one of the grounds for waging violent wafare. (And of course the Quran states that Allah will burn and torture all those who say they do not accept Islam, whether the context is religious warfare or not). Doesn't sound like freedom of expression to me.
Also the Koran states both metaphorically and explicitly that that non-Muslims (disbelievers) are "not equal" to the Muslims:
40:58. And the blind man and the seer are not equal, neither are those who believe and do good works (equal with) the evil-doer. Little do ye reflect!
[Note that disbelief is the worst transgression according to the Koran. Those who do not follow the Quran’s rulings (i.e., non-Muslims) are regarded as “disbelievers,” “wrong-doers,” and “evil-livers” according to 5:44-49].
59:20. Not equal are the owners of the Fire and the owners of the Garden. The owners of the Garden, they are the victorious.
98:6. Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
98:7. (And) lo! those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings.
3:110. Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.
[Muslims are the best people because of their (Islamic) piety and (Islamically-defined) “good” deeds]
at May 19, 2007 9:43 AM
Clowns like these give tea a bad name.
Advice to Philosophy Department:
Read the materials before your bloviate.
(Socrates would need a barf bag after this Symposium.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 19, 2007 9:54 AM
This philosophy tea was based on a class that has spent the year studying the Islam religion, taught by Dr. Swasti Bhattacharyya.
Either this teacher was a practitioner of taqiyya and kitman or these students slept threw the entire class.
What utter nonsence! I could have learned more about Islam, having a "philosophy tea" with my 13 year old grand daughter.
Posted by: Mackie at May 19, 2007 10:08 AM
I was going to say we need to give a A to the Islamic Studies professor who successfully brainwashed these students.
But upon some cursory research I've found that the prof, one Swasti Bhattacharyya, Ph.D., knows very little about Islam herself.
Let's just say this looks like a case of the blind leading the blind and the newly blinded are trying to poke some eyeballs out themselves.
Posted by: William The Crusader at May 19, 2007 10:10 AM
Hugh used the line a bit back:
…those hopeful, smiling, never-had-to-confront-evil-or-endure-real-hardship faces, of young Americans. They are not prepared. Life has not prepared them. Their parents have not prepared them. Their studies have not prepared them.
Look at the photo of this group. If I was a Jihadi, I’d feel emboldened too.
at May 19, 2007 10:15 AM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/quotes
IF YOU HAD WATCHED THIS MOVIE , YOU WOULD KNOW THIS IS COMING.
at May 19, 2007 10:21 AM
...you can fool some of the people all the time..
Posted by: Ruebacca at May 19, 2007 10:49 AM
Although Jennifer Yeske is clearly a naif for writing that, I would like to point out that, strictly speaking, there is nothing illogical or inconsistent about the position of the Islamicists on this human rights issue.
The only human "right" they would concede is the "right" of someone to practice the Muslim religion in accordance with the strictures of the Quran and the Hadith. This is all Man needs, and should want.
By this definition, what seem to us repressive and brutal governments in the Middle East cannot be faulted on "human rights" issues: they do provide and protec the only important human rights. Accusing them of failing to protect "human rights" is a statement that wouldn't make sense to a proponent of Sharia law.
So I guess it's a definitional matter: we are simply asserting, as a self-evident truth, that people should have the right to vote, change their religion, assemble, etc.
To an Islamicist, these truths are not self-evident. By their book, the "human rights" situation in the Middle East is nowhere near as bad as Westerners paint it.
Posted by: Matt A. Moros at May 19, 2007 11:08 AM
"There is nothing in the Qur'an that violates human rights"
Til you open it up.
at May 19, 2007 11:21 AM
This entire story screams out questions:
Why are 2 college kids teaching a course on Islam?
Are these children Muslims and if not what kind of understanding do they have in Islam, since I would doubt they speak Arabic to really "read" the Koran in context?
Who is Jen Yeske in her background?
As Iowa is a hotbed of Islam for a generation are rich Muslims locally sponsoring this type of propaganda?
The photo on the site of the story of the "class" looks more like it was not a classroom, but was a tea as depicted with people who are only in Buena Vista on government grants and they could not get into a real college
In conclusion, Vincete Fox, el presidente of Mexico and advocate of breaking up America will lecture at the college........that sort of says what kind of ilk run this place. In effect, Buena Vista is most likely a west Indies type program of taking government money and turning out worthless degrees for people who are hamburger flippers.
Go Buford T. Beaver!!!! home of the Buena Vista Beaver athletic department.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 19, 2007 11:21 AM
Matt A. Moros-
As Socrates (a philosopher, if I remember correctly) said:
"Define your terms."
Are Muslims "human"? (Yes.)
Are they "right"? (No.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 19, 2007 11:24 AM
33:27 —-Muslims can usurp the land of others
4:20 --Muslim men may exchange wives.
Note: Ishaq, p. 496. [Regarding finding fault with Aisha] “As for Ali, he said: “Women are plentiful and you can easily change one for another. Ask the slave girl, for she will tell you the truth.” So the apostle called Burayra to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying, “Tell the apostle the truth” …”
4:15 --Women guilty of lewdness must be confined to the house until death.
Islam permits and regulates slavery 2:221, 4:3, 4:24, 4:36, 23:5-6, 24:58, 30:28, 33:50-52, 33:55, 70:29-30. See slavery
Although some verses permitted to release of individual slaves, Islam did not abolish the institution of slavery. [Also there was in the Koran and Hadith favouritism toward Muslim over non-Muslim slaves]. Islam permitted the continuation of the practice because slaves were part of the war booty for Muslims. In addition, Muslims traded in slaves. Moroever, it was the will of Allah that some people would be favoured over others:
16:71. “And Allah has preferred some of you above others in wealth and properties. Then, those who are preferred will by no means hand over their wealth and properties to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Do they then deny the Favour of Allah?”
Indeed Muhammad owned slaves (33:50-52).
http://www.answeringislam.info/BehindVeil/btv5.html
Chapter 5 of Behind the Veil. Slavery in Islam. Note: This gives lists of Mohammad's male and female slaves.
Note: This next sahih hadith is considered mutawatir:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 731:
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid: The Prophet said, "If a slave-girl (Ama) commits illegal sexual intercourse, scourge her; if she does it again, scourge her again; if she repeats it, scourge her again." The narrator added that on the third or the fourth offence, the Prophet said, "Sell her even for a hair rope."
The Koran also permits Muslim males to have sex with female captives and slaves 4:24, 23:5-6, 70:29-30. The context provided by the Hadith shows that Muslim males raped non-Muslim female captives and slaves, all under the supervision of Muhammad. See rape
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (3371-3388):
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.
[Note: The men want to practice coitus interruptus to prevent pregnacy because pregnant women cannot be sold]
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.95:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, "I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, 'We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-Mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, 'Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?' We asked him about that and he said, 'You don't have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.' "
Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3432 (also 3433, 3434):
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html
Bernard Lewis. Race and Slavery in the Middle East
Oxford Univ Press 1994.
Chpt. 1 Slavery
Lewis: “A Muslim slaveowner was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. While free women might own male slaves, they had of course no equivalent right.”
This is not merely a problem in the long-distant past but is a major problem today:
http://www.hrtribune.com/report/Thesis_Jenny3.pdf
Rape as Genocide Under International Criminal Law: The Case of Bangladesh.
Thesis by Jenny Lundström. Lund University. Global Human Rights Defence.
Excerpts:
“In Bangladesh, gang rape has become a major tool of political terror, forcing minorities to flee and has proven more effective than murder. The victims have all been belonging to ethnic/religious minorities.* Neither little girls nor pregnant women and the elderly are spared. The perpetrators are men belonging to various branches of Muslim extremist political parties, including direct branches of the ruling BNP (e.g., various student wings of BNP like JCD and Jubo Dal. In many cases the rapists are closely related to BNP leaders.” Page 31.
Bolding added.
BNP. Bangladesh Nationalist Party
*Arch note: Victims referred to here are the Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Ahmadis.
Page 34. “The rapes taking place in Bangladesh are often associated with brutal violence (e.g., beatings, cuttings, and the forceful insertion of objects into the vagina) and a great majority of are gang rapes that takes place in front of the victim’s husband, children, or parents. The investigative material from human rights organizations like GHRD provides countless examples of how victims have suffered physically and mentally as a result of rape. A victim as young as four years old was gang-raped in Jhenida and the rape was initiated by a local leader of Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal, (JCD) a student wing of the BNP. In order for the perpetrators to enable the act they had to first cut her vagina open with a knife.”
Page 38. “…the rapes in Bangladesh are taking place in a generally discriminatory structure and are supplemented by additional systematic attacks (killings, arson, destruction of cultural and religious places and other violence).”
at May 19, 2007 11:30 AM
Oh, Khaybar Oasis, I almost lost it completely, reading that last bit (P.34). Just sickening.
Where is the outcry in the media?
Posted by: Vee at May 19, 2007 11:46 AM
When I was in college, many years ago, I took a comparative religion class. The professor spent not too much time on Judaism and Christianity, because he didn't think it necessary, and the class mostly covered Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Bahai, Confuscious, and maybe some other things I don't remember. But I distinctly remember this, when it came to Islam, he said that there was nothing about it that he cared to talk about. Maybe a cop out, but out least he didn't fill our heads with the kind of lies that college kids are now being fed.
Posted by: usapatriot at May 19, 2007 11:51 AM
profitsbeard:
Yes, it's a semantic issue.
I really don't think they're being dishonest or duplicitous when they say that Islam protects human rights. At least not duplicitous on that head.
The real issue is what everybody means by human rights.
In places like Saudi Arabia, printing or saying something against the true God is a right that the people don't and shouldn't have, in their view.
The problem is our naivety: blithely assuming that they mean the same thing that we do when using the term "human rights."
Posted by: Matt A. Moros at May 19, 2007 12:00 PM
Every time we nail it point on, they change it in a different wording. Meaning the same! They cannot tolerate not being the choosen people of God. So they must destroy the people of Israel! Even 'IF' the Palestinians were the lost tribe, they would still be LOST! They lie like a wet Persian rug! Deception, as if they could deceive Jehweh! They need to start being human beings and love one another.
Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.
Peter 1 4:8
John 1 4:8 He that does not love has not come to know God because God is LOVE!
at May 19, 2007 12:10 PM
I am fed up with these people and their excuse, lies and misinterpretations. If that is what they believe, why don’t they go there and live with them? Because they have an ulterior motive and that motive is to drag down our free society from within. Look at any campus these days and you will find, hate, bigotry and all manner of UN American activities/ ideologies. In addition, they are not stopping there they want to bring their pied piper of the jihad philosophy to our k-12ers. They are below a pedophile or serial murderer in my opinion and should be treated as such. Look people its simple, either they leave our country or we will eventually experience the same garbage we see everyday in the ME. Their hate runs deep, they are willing to risk it all in order to get back at us, for what? For being successful, they know that no matter what they do they probably will be failures in life, that’s how they were brought up by their so called parents and alleged teachers. I don’t have any feelings for this type except revulsion, they deserve no pity from us. We if we are to survive must find a way to remove them from our midst. The whole ideology is built on lies, lies that continue today, that’s why lefties embrace this murdering scum. The lefties are the biggest liars in modern history. Follow the link below to find out more regarding the insidious “road map to hell” that is and has been being shoved down our throats. And make sure to note the dates, it is nothing new, there is no modern thinking involved. That is why they try to distract us with global warming fearmongering while telling us that it’s the rop dontcha know. If the Earth gets hotter I hope they all spontaneously ignite, I hope their homes are flooded out, it would be the best thing that ever happened to freemen. So just like the military, civilians should take the high ground, buy it and live on it, when the water starts rising, shoot any leftard trespassers, drive them back to where they belong, where its really hot, primarily hell.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/05/evolution-of-education-into.html
at May 19, 2007 12:14 PM
Above 5:33 they do this to disgrace people! They disgrace themselfs and no one else! They disgrace their so called "religion".
Posted by: MZ at May 19, 2007 12:22 PM
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).
The Qur'an, unlike other religions' scriptures, is considered direct dictation from God and it's impossible to put a spin on this kind of thing. The Qur'an is either direct dictation from God or it's a big lie from the psychotic mind of Muhammad. Apologists and Muslims have to stop their superstition, their reluctance to critically analyse this.
How can this above quotation not be a violation of human rights? It's supposed to be a direct order from God. Is it really a direct order from God?
Posted by: Frank at May 19, 2007 12:27 PM
The Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).
Here's a video clip from Memri (via LGF) from May 9 of this year showing how a "Saudi expert on family affairs" has "spiritualized" this verse:
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1447wmv&ak=null
But don't worry, he makes it clear that the beating must be very light... not so harsh that it "draws blood or breaks teeth."
Posted by: kamala at May 19, 2007 12:31 PM
Extremely useful list from Robert Spencer. Would be good to have a concise book by him, say 100 pages, on Islam and human rights. I imagine concision would be one way to enhance the popularity of such a book.
Posted by: traeh at May 19, 2007 12:42 PM
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4).
The equivalency peddlers, the frauds, or the ignorant, will point to passages in the Old Testament on this kind of thing and say "See. The same thing." But that's dishonest because The Old Testament is considered "inspired", not direct dictation from God. (So too with the Gospels, written by finite humans.) Hence, from what I know, Jewish tradition has a long history of interpreting and simply rejecting some things in the Old Testament (as Christians call it)that are incompatible with justice, with giving people what they deserve.
Critical analysis of the Qu'ran demands the question: Is it really dictation from God?
Posted by: Frank at May 19, 2007 12:43 PM
Re: Islam and human rights: I'm suprised that these conversations seldom refer to the Cairo Declaration -- a document signed in 1990 by 45 Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, in lieu of supporting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR).
Apologists for Islam can always argue that troubling passages in the Qur'an are innocuous when taken in context or properly understood. But how can they defend the Cairo Declaration as supporting human rights, where it directly contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Nor do these conflicts arise simply among a small group of extremists. The signatories of the Cairo Declaration almost by definition represent mainstream Islam.
Compare and Contrast:
Article I: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Cairo Declaration: ARTICLE 1:(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.
UDHR: Article 16 (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
Cairo Declaration:
ARTICLE 5:(a) The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of making a family. Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from exercising this right.
UDHR:
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Cairo Declaration:
ARTICLE 10:Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.
UDHR:
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Cairo declaration:
ARTICLE 22:(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
at May 19, 2007 1:03 PM
The Bible should be alternatively named Everything we ever needed to know about the proper treatment of our fellow man/woman/animals/earth. However, it doesn’t necessarily command you to do this or that, it lays it out for you to make your decision albeit moral or immoral. The Bible gives you a choice, good or evil, Cain or Able? It is your choice, its all up to you. All throughout the Bible, God is concerned about how we treat each other, the proper message is driven home over and over again. Therefore, the conclusion must be, the Bible is the book of humanity as dictated from God. Now contrast that with the islamists and their book, there seems to be two different entities behind each, Cain? Able?
Posted by: tgusa at May 19, 2007 1:11 PM
I wonder how much money the Saudis have contributed to Buena Vista University?
Posted by: Timur at May 19, 2007 1:27 PM
"There is nothing in the Qur'an that violates human rights"
Is this willful a lie, or is it willful ignorance?
Posted by: rational at May 19, 2007 1:43 PM
From an Islamic standpoint, the above assertion is correct. Since 'human rights' in Islam-speak means the right to practice Islam, things like the oppression of women, persecution of non-Muslims, etc don't count as human rights. Once that's recognized, the above assertion is correct - there is nothing in the Quran that violates human rights. If anything, the Quran defines human rights in and of itself.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 19, 2007 1:58 PM
There really is nothing in the Qur'an which violates human rights, that is, as long as what is meant by human rights stays within the boundaries of Sharia. And Jihad is purely a defensive posture, aimed at protecting those who are trying to protect human rights by spreading Sharia everywhere from those who would violate human rights by opposing that endeavor.
at May 19, 2007 2:15 PM
Hardly a day goes by without two things: A Muslim somewhere in the world commits mass murder of innocent men, women and children in the name of Islam -- and someone takes a public stage to tell us that Islam is a peaceful religion.
It seems that the more vigorously Muslims slaughter us, the more vigorously the liberals, the leftists and their allies in the media rush to tell us that Islam is peaceful.
at May 19, 2007 2:25 PM
Of course according to Islam the Quran does not violate human rights. we need to look at it in context,cause we also know what they mean by "Peace" and "love" and "tolerance" too!
When they are cutting of your head it's a compassionate act ya know and when they are raping and stealing that also is just spreading the love around.
These people are living in a world where up is down and Evilis good.
we need to publish a code book so the average uneducated person can decipher Islam.
Page 1.
Love means hate
Posted by: MoBlows at May 19, 2007 2:28 PM
In order to define Human rights in islam you must first define Human, the koran does. Apes and pigs are not Human so there is no need for Human rights for them. Another huge contrast between the Bible and the koran. No where in the Bible are Humans described as not being Human.
Preliminary Overview. - Saudi Arabia's Education System: Curriculum, Spreading Saudi Education to the World and the Official Saudi Position on Education Policy
By Steven Stalinsky
“Jews and Christians – Cursed by Allah and Turned into Apes and Pigs
A textbook for 8th grade students explains why Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs.Quoting Surat Al-Maida, Verse 60, the lesson explains that Jews and Christians have sinned by accepting polytheism and therefore incurred Allah's wrath.To punish them, Allah has turned them into apes and pigs.”
"There is a Jew Behind Me, Come and Kill Him!" A schoolbook for the 9th grade on Hadith introduces a famous narration known by the name, "The Promise of the Stone and the Tree."It tells a story about Abu Hurayra, one of the Prophet's companions who quoted the Prophet as saying: "The hour [the Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.A Jew will [then] hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will call upon the Muslim: 'O Muslim, O slave of Allah! there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!' - except for the gharqad tree, for it is one of the trees of the Jews."
I think I have heard enough but if you want more…
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01202
at May 19, 2007 2:36 PM
Wasn't this just on the news:
Al-Azhar fatwa on adult suckling
(http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016504.php}
From post:
Islam Is SO Devil Religion
Islam is so so so devil and dangerous religion in all world islam
want to destroy jews and christians and destroy all things islam destroy our countries in middle east islam destroyed lebanon and egypt and iraq and all east and will destroy the west if we dont wake up quran said to muslims to kill us in (altawba 9: 29) he said : ( Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (altawba 9: 29) )
and many many verses as this terror verses as :
( O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. (alanfal 8:65)) and :
(The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;(almaida 5:33) )
if you want more about this aweful religion you must visit this sites :
http://quranandbible.com/
http://answering-islam.org
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://geocities.com/a_true_picture_of_islam
http://www.terrorists-suck.org
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
http://apostatesofislam.com/
http://www.islamreview.com
http://www.investigateislam.com
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
http://www.americansagainsthate.org
http://www.september11news.com/
http://www.blessedcause.org/
and in arabic :
http://islameyat.com/
http://info.islamexplained.com
http://alkalema.us
Bible Apologetiecs :
http://www.carm.org/
http://www.biblequery.org/
http://christiananswers.net/
http://answers.org/
http://answersingenesis.org/
http://bible.ca/
http://www.gotquestions.org/index.html
is there any religion teach the follower to hate and kill others?? is there any religion teach the follower to lie ???? to marry with four ???? to beat the wifes ????? to bomb in others??? to stole ????
any one saw 11/9/2001 in USA any one saw how they kill in Iraq and Afghanistan and in all world ????any way to know more about this devil and
dear sisters and brothers American dont say its not facts dont say we mus respect islam dont be indulgent whith islam and muslims really they want to destro as as they destroyed middle east american dont know arabic the languge of Islam so they dont know the facts os islam as us arabian christians american people are so kind and they believe any thing ....you must dont believe propagandas of muslims here really they are liar and bad people ....they want to take america from us and destry it as they destroyed east
you must know that : THE PROBLEM IT IS IN THE TEACHING OF QURAN AND MUHAMMED SPEACH NOT IN OSAMA BEN LADEN AND IN THOSE PEOPLE YOU CAN OPEN THIS SITES TO KNOW THE DEVIL TEACHING OF ISLAM IN QURAN AND IN SPEACH OF MUHAMMWD
wake up dont belive muslims propaganda they are so so liar
God bless and save America in Jesus Christ name
Posted by: adel4jesus [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 18, 2007 11:57 PM
“so they dont know the facts os islam as us arabian christians american people are so kind”
Indeed it is so, and I doubt Westerners understand the extent of the scorn and contempt Muslims have for unbelievers. Once you see the scorn and contempt you will not be able to deny evil exists.
at May 19, 2007 2:39 PM
o/t..treasonous guantanamo naval lawyer gets 6 months(keeps pay and benefits) May 18, 2007 5:15 p.m. PT
"Jury: 6 months in prison for Navy lawyer
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NORFOLK, Va. -- A military jury recommended Friday that a Navy lawyer be discharged and imprisoned for six months for sending a human rights attorney the names of 550 Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz was convicted Thursday of communicating secret information about Guantanamo Bay detainees that could be used to injure the United States and three other charges of leaking information to an unauthorized person.
The jury of seven Navy officers recommended that Diaz receive his pay and benefits while incarcerated, but the sentence must be approved by Rear Admiral Rick Ruehe. The dismissal will also be reviewed by a military appellate court, the Navy said."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_navy_lawyer_secrets.html
at May 19, 2007 3:04 PM
There is nothing in the Quran that violates human rights because there is nothing in the Quran about them. The only rights one has in Islam is to submit, stay submitted, pray a lot, wash behind your ears, dont step on any cracks, avoid hogs, or parts there-of, as you would the plague, and
follow all of Allahs other directions exactly as he says in his book. If you do all that, go on a jihad once in a while, and pay the tax, you have taken advantage of all your rights under Islam/Allah.
You would think meeting all these conditions would give one the 'human right' of going to Allahs heaven. But then again...maybe not. Allah decides who he lets in and who he does not. Including muslims. With great wisdom, knowledge and clarity, the Perfect messenger of Allah, Mohammad, said that only one in a thousand muslims would get into heaven. He also said the total in Paradise was 70,000. Uh, Oh...if thats the case, there are million of muslims in peril. Not from non-believers, but from Allah. My advice is this...if Allah wont let you into heaven, apostate yourself, and go to a religion where God 'will' let you in. Christianity would be a good choice for the spiritually aspiring ex-muslim. You have a better chance of getting into heaven with Jesus and his Father, than with Allah.
The heavenly Father of Christianity leaves the door open for everyone.
I am not a Christian, but have no objections to Christ. Everyone is taught, spiritually, on thier own level. A muslim who apostates and converts to Christianity, has taken a step up in his level.
at May 19, 2007 3:22 PM
Question
If sharia law and the Qur'an don't violate modern international human rights norms, why did the OIC find it necessary to pass its own Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam?
All you must read are the last two articles.
Article 24
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
Article 25 The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.Higher education continues its downward spiral to irrelevance in the era of global jihad and Islamic supremacism.
at May 19, 2007 3:33 PM
Well,Tony Blair was complaining he couldn't get
'a decent cup of tea...'Perhaps Ms Yeske's Philosophy Tea is the answer? Of course,Cherie Blair,that [well paid] Human Rights Lawyer
had nary a word to say on this subject whilst sipping Green Tea in Saudi Arabia except to 'praise her hosts'-only she & Tony know how much dosh they have contributed to new Blair Mansion.
Have always wondered myself why there is no concerted Infidel Attack on Lie No 1-'ISLAM MEANS
PEACE.'
Even dumbest & most naive of Infidels might grasp
difference between "Peace" & true Arabic translation of "Submission{to will of Allah}"
Anyone know Ms Yeske's EMail-we could try informing the dear lady of her mistake-you have to wonder what standards of Education there are
at Universities & Colleges today??
at May 19, 2007 3:41 PM
The writer of the article, Jennifer Yeske, can be e-mailed at the link provided. I did so already and gave her a few choice facts about Islam and Mohammed instead of the steaming pile of "taqiyya" she provides. Others here should provide their own facts.
Here's something I said: "What kind of "God" chooses a "Messenger" who is a (historically documented) murderer, rapist, thief, misogynist and pedophile? Think about it."
And, "Jesus, by the way, was NONE of those things." Think about it."
Posted by: darcy at May 19, 2007 3:42 PM
Morgane, you can e-mail the ignorant Miss Yeske at the link in the article provided above.
Posted by: darcy at May 19, 2007 3:43 PM
Redeployment Plan for Iraq! Presidential Candidate Jack Shepard's Redeployment Plan for Iraq is the Best and Only Option. http://www.jackshepardforpresident.com/PlanforIraq.html
“Your Plan for deploying our forces into four staging areas is an interesting one. Once again, thanks for writing and for your support. P.S. -You have an interesting website!" Please know that Secretary Gates greatly values your support and thoughtfulness"
Harold Heilsnis-AFIS-HQ/OPC
Director of Public Communications-
May 10, 2007
read email visit: http://www.jackshepardforpresident.com/images/letter1.jpg
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JACK SHEPARD’S PLAN FOR IRAQ AFTER THE PRESENT SURGE OF AMERICAN SOLDIER IS COMPLETED IS FOR A MAJOR AMERICAN TROOP REDEPLOYMENT INTO 4 SAFE STAGING AREAS IN IRAQ.
After the present surge of American soldiers is completed; I think there is a good chance to have a significant number of troops returning home when I am President.
Then the remaining American Troops should be redeployed to more secure bases to be used as a rapid strike force in support of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police when the Iraqi Government will call for our help in limited joint actions. I have been on record as advising against a 100% return home of all of our soldiers in the after this present surge is completed it would unthinkable if you think about it in detail.
I know as a soldier that for several years we must have a small limited number of American troop remain in Iraq to be concentrated in bases that we already have; and be working only as quick reaction troops that could be called in by the Iraqi Government to aid in specific actions of our choice.
If we lose Iraq to the insurgents the reality of it like it or not, this is not Vietnam, the Vietnamese were never a threat to America or our allies. Iraq controlled by terrorists would be lethal for our allies in the Middle East.
The truth must be understood if these insurgents gain control of the Iraq Government, they will use Iraq as a staging area to attack and maybe gain control of our allies in the Middle East; Israel, Jordan, Egypt and
Afghanistan
Like it or not we have a long term commitment to stay in Iraq. Even if we are seldom called upon to fight the Iraqi insurgents. We must remain in the background as a massive and lethal threat to guarantee 100%
against the formation of a terrorist state out of Iraq if the insurgence wins. This is nothing about a civil war, it is at this point simple about keep the control of Iraq out of the hands of terrorists.
The redeployment of our troops to relatively safe areas is so very important, even if we are very seldom use to fight in support of the Iraqi troops.
Our continued presence in remote staging areas is necessary to guarantee that the insurgence will never win control of Iraq creating a safe haven for terrorism in the heart of the Middle East with the income from billions of dollars of oil to finance their war of terrorism against America.
My planned major redeployment of American troops would get the major part of our troop off the streets. That I think would not only be safer but very much smarter because the less the Iraqi people see of our troops the more the Iraqi government can work to cool tensions between the Sunni’s and the Shiites.
After a careful study of Iraq I am proposing when the present surge of American troops is completed that
remaining America troops must be move and centred in 4 staging areas to be used as rapid responders in
immediate support of the Iraqi Police Force and Iraqi Military who will almost immediately take over all
contact and ground work with the Iraqi population.
No longer will our American troops be the target of Foreign Arab fighters, snipers and suicide bombers who presently are rushing to Iraq to kill an American.
No longer will our American troops be routinely walking the streets of Baghdad or any other city as easy
targets for any sniper driving by or any suicide bomber driving around.
When we are called and decide to be deployed to support the Iraqi troop it will be for a quick hit and run attack with a lightening speed; where the insurgents will no even know what hit them. We will shift to an
overwhelming use of force concentration in a specific small concentrated area to gain the maximum effect.
Never again will our troops be walking around like sitting ducks.
These four major staging areas in Iraq are:
Staging Area #1- Baghdad’s International Airport
Staging Area #2- Tallil AB- near Al-Nasiriyah in the South
Staging Area #3- H-1 an airstrip in the western desert
Staging Area #4- Bashur Airfield is located in Central Iraq approximately 356 kilometers North of Baghdad, & 50 kilometers Northeast of Erbil. Even though it appears as a small civilian airport we have reinforced it’s 6,700 foot long single runway.
I am advising that American troops will be not walking the street in any regular pattern. I repeat; First this
will place our troops into a much safer situation, and Second because of my redeployment plan it will create a situation where our American troops will suffer very much fewer causality but they will be available at a
moments notice to support the Iraqi troops.
We are still in Iraq, we prevent a mass civil war in the Middle East Region and we have much less causalities.This is a major shift in present policy, but I am advising that presently this is the only way to proceed in Iraq after the present surge of American Soldiers have completed their mission immediately.
If elected the next President of the United States in 2008 if my planned redeployment of our American troops fighting Iraq has not been implemented I promise to immediately implement it.
My plan will greatly reducing the causalities of our brave American troops still fighting in Iraq but still protect us and our allies in the Middle East from a most lethal Iraq controlled by terrorists.
Dr. Jack Shepard, a Candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
Official Web site: http://www.jackshepardforpresident.com
Contact Jack@jackshepardforpresident.com
at May 19, 2007 3:53 PM
duh_swami posted: There is nothing in the Quran that violates human rights because there is nothing in the Quran about them.
I was going to write the same.
Technically, it is correct, as their is no mention of human rights in the koran or the accompanying texts, though there is plenty of other stuff that is in blatnat violation of human rights. In fact is it is positively macarbe.
Posted by: DP111 at May 19, 2007 4:20 PM
I think the Iraqi/police will be calling on the rapid responder force a lot. The rapid responders will be responding rapidly'. Thanks for sharing that Jack.
Now back to the topic of human rights and the Quran.
A perfect oxymoron. They go together like a fish on a bicycle. Submitters, have submitted. They automatically become Abdallah's. Slaves to Allah.
Slaves have no rights. The slave master Allah, decides who gets what. There are no rights involved in this at all. If a muslim thinks Allah gave him rights, by some verse in the Quran, who does he go to, if he thinks Allah is violating those rights?
Maybe he should start praying six time a day, seven even, maybe Allah will notice and take time out of his busy day to help him out...but I doubt it...
at May 19, 2007 4:40 PM
Related but slightly off topic ...
One of the things that the apologists mistake consistently, is to equate the practices and cultural standards of pre-human-rights western cultures, with those of the mohammedan countries.
They jump up, as though they had discovered something of great note, when they see the similarities.
The dominance by men, authoritariansim and so on.
What they miss consistently is that in no other cultures (certainly none that I have ever heard of) are the social norms of the primitive, early imperial and medieval periods recorded, legislated and regulated in holy writ.
The early Christians (or Buddhists, or Hindus or Zoroastrians or whatever) may have considered their women as inferior, their priests as demi-gods, their unbelievers as criminals and so forth, but in none of these cases did the basic documentation of their faith have much to say about it one way or the other.
Buddha is nowhere quoted as saying "put the bitch in her place" or anything remotely similar. Buddha, on the contrary, was sublimely unconcerned with the details of mundane vulgar life.
"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" seems to be the consensus among most of the religious figures of the popular faiths of the world.
The only significant exception I know of, other than moe-hah-madmanism, is Confusianism. Confucius, reallty was preoccupied with worldly order. But the great predominance of his concerns, which were quite authoritarian in their outlook, was with maintaining the order of the community for the sake of the peoples' welfare.
And Confusianism can be seen in action today in the social standards of Japan (where it is known as Jukyo) which is quite benevolent in its outlook on the citizen in particular and humanity in general.
Mohammedanism's extensive commentary on mundane and vulgar matters places the mohammedan believer in a bind which nearly no other religious practitioners have to deal with.
How to keep faith while rejecting parts of holy writ.
For the rest of the world it has been a matter of how to keep faith while rejecting tradition, or how to keep faith while rejecting the current authority (priest, whatever...). But for the mohammedan is entails actually rejecting holy writ.
Until this question is frankly entered into the public discourse and rationally explored the matter is going nowhere.
And all attempts at solution must entail the use of force.
Posted by: joeblough at May 19, 2007 4:42 PM
Great minds think alike D111. If your mind thinks like mine does, you are in need of immediate psychiatric care. Prozac even...I'm just kidding.
Yes, you are correct, human rights are running wild in the Quran, they are moving so fast, you cant see them...they are just a blur before our eye's. Thats why no one can pin any down. Human rights may be in there somewhere, but muslims dont have to worry, they will never see one...
at May 19, 2007 5:08 PM
Joe blow...You are right about holy writ, but dont hold your breath. Allah speaks through that writ in real time to submitters. You probably know that the Quran is Allah talking. Muslims take the holiness of the Quran seriously. I am still waiting for the 'reformer, or moderate', to stand up, look Allah in the eye, and say, 'I dont like some of the things you said in your book, so I will change them or ignore them'. How brave the first muslim to declare to Allah, 'your word dont mean sht', now that is guaranteed to pzz Allah off. Instant apostacy, what a blessing, another soul saved from the monster of the Qliphoth.
Posted by: duh_swami at May 19, 2007 5:23 PM
As we know, the Koran advocates hate against non believers.
According to this author,The Jewish Talmud is also guilty of a lot of hateful statments.
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
Are the statements from this website true?
Some Teachings of the Jewish Talmud
Where a Jew Should Do Evil
Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis
Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status
Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews
Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews
Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human
Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.
Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.
Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
Insults Against Blessed Mary
Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
Gloats over Christ Dying Young
A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?--He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."
Jesus in the Talmud:
Horrible Blasphemies Against Jesus Christ
While it is the standard disinformation practice of apologists for the Talmud to deny that it contains any scurrilous references to Jesus Christ, certain Orthodox Jewish organizations are more forthcoming and admit that the Talmud not only mentions Jesus but disparages him (as a sorcerer and a demented sex freak). These orthodox Jewish organizations make this admission perhaps out of the belief that Jewish supremacy is so well-established in the modern world that they need not concern themselves with adverse reactions.
For example, on the website of the Orthodox Jewish Hasidic Lubavitch group--one of the largest in the world--we find the following statement, complete with Talmudic citations:
"The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene':
1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).
2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).
3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).
End quote from http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm (Lubavitch website) June 20, 2000.
[Note: we have printed and preserved in our files a hard copy of this statement from the Lubavitch"Noah's Covenant Website," as it appeared on their website at http://www.noahide.com on June 20, 2000, in the event that denials are later issued and the statement itself suppressed].
Let us examine further some of these anti-Christ Talmud passages:
Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement."
Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone."
Kallah 51a."The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah.
"They said, 'What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?' He replied, "I will prove it concerning him." He went to the lad's mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans.
Posted by: aggiegabe at May 19, 2007 6:08 PM
Hmmmm...based on the topic,
and based on their twisted dogma that infidels aren't human anyway, it WOULD make sense their claim that there's nothing in that pus-filled pap that "violates human rights".
That's their world...but here in the woderful world of REALITY, it doesn't apply. The End.
Posted by: jcom972 at May 19, 2007 6:09 PM
Since a Muslim would define "Human Rights" based on what the Quran and Hadiths say, then the statement is correct.
Posted by: PapaBear at May 19, 2007 7:42 PM
Taqiyyah.
Posted by: Timur at May 19, 2007 7:43 PM
aggiegabe
Whatever you are referring to about Jews or whatever the Talmud says or doesn't say my friend is irrelevent. Jews aren't murdering and torturing their neighbors because of what their religion says or doesn't say. Forget words...throw them out of the equation..words mean nothing compared to deeds. What you are reading is the same old Jew hating lying hateful shit that has been slung against the wall for a thousand years and it doesn't stick. Jews have their faults as do all the humans we live with everywhere but no race has done more for charity and goodness and just plain good by example than Jews. Hell..they are democrats..most of them because they think it represents generosity..OK nobody's perfect as I said. I think you are slurring Jews with words but let me be generous and say to you, forget the words..you document for this site a list of the evil deeds of Jews worldwide against their neighbors..anything even close to the acts of muslims, who are at war worldwide with their neighbors. I am getting my Irish up you clown because I am onto you and your game. Respond with some documented acts committed by Jews that correspond with the slurs you have attributed to Jews found in some slimy anti semetic website that you frequent. Lets hear it clown,I for one am waiting.
Posted by: pismopal at May 19, 2007 8:02 PM
tsuga-
If I were the Jews, I'd be planting a helluva a lot of Gharqad trees.
http://www.mille.org/people/steinbergoliver.html
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 19, 2007 8:16 PM
tsuga-
Or, if they have a sense of humor, they can order their Gharqad saplings here:
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/dajjal.html
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 19, 2007 8:38 PM
I've often wondered, (see Pelayo's comment, way, way up at the top of this thread) if in fact it would be helpful to us if there were, once again, a central Islamic authority whose rulings concerning tafsir and jurisprudence would be final and definitive. Thus, for example, if a caliph, whose appointment would be acceptable to both Shi'a and Sunni (the prospect seems remote, indeed, all other factors notwithstanding), were to provide a clear definition of jihad where its martial aspect is emphasized, it would, presumably, decrease the opportunities for deception and obfuscation by those who insist that the primary meaning of jihad is inner spiritual striving, and allow non-Muslim countries to formulate clear-eyed policies concerning such issues as Muslim immigration, the granting of citizenship to those whose loyalty to their host countries may be temporary and conditional, the consequences of admitting Muslims into the military, the police, etc. Muslims, too, who are in predominantly non-Muslim nations would be faced with a serious challenge; whether to follow rulings made by a caliph which, given what we know of Islam, would inevitably cause these people to be permanently adversarial toward their adopted societies, becoming personae non grata, or to abandon Islam altogether and join the mainstream. I know this is an oversimplification and I do not advocate assisting the creation of a new caliphate, but should one somehow be established with no blood of infidels being shed to bring it about, it might actually be to our advantage.
Posted by: commonsense at May 19, 2007 8:49 PM
Circular reasoning: If the Qur'an is said to define human rights (with limitations specified for all time by Allah), nothing in it can violate human rights, because it's the source of "human rights"...
Posted by: MarisolJW at May 19, 2007 8:56 PM
aggiegabe,
Romans 15:27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.
Romans 9:2-4 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.
And other similar such sentiments are expressed in the Christian New Testament. But all of the citations you quote came after Y'shua, and, rightfully, Christians would not "cite" them as part of what is commonly called the "JudaoChristian" tradition.
Likewise, Christianity has had some pecadillos, such as the treatment of the conversos in Catholic Spain and Luther's embarrassing "On the Jews and Their Lies", and certain recrudescing strains of "replacement theology".
As others have pointed out, where today are the global Jewish and Christian terrorist groups citing their scriptures to support a military supremicist agenda? A better question is why aren't there any?
The answer is that by removing the superstructure of such clearly uninspired layers that have in the past occasionally appeared, the best of that "JudaoChristian" tradition remains to teach us to live well together.
And Islam doesn't.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 19, 2007 9:08 PM
The islamists didn’t form in a vacuum, they got their commandments from their book/s and these commandments have been reinforced by their mullas and their gubments. So the moderate is a misunderstander of islam and by their teachings needs a good lashing to be brought back onto the right path, and believe me they will get back on the right path, leaving you standing there feeling incredibly foolish, (after all their plan was right there written down for all to see) but by then it will be too late.
Just ask Sheik yur fulin al bulkrapp a notorious islamopologist and deceiver of countless unsuspecting infidels.
Profitsbeard,
So, if I purchase one of these trees, does that make me an islamophobic zionist horticulturist?
at May 19, 2007 9:12 PM
tsuga-
An honorary Islamophobic Zionist Arborist, to be exact.
The only tree that will not rat you out to a jihadist.
The Box Thorn, Notraria retusa.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 19, 2007 10:09 PM
Concerned Citizen:
Spain's treatment of the Conversos was merely a pecadillo? I think not, as many were burned at the stake on suspicion (correctly or otherwise - who cares?) of not being true believers in Christianity. Do you think burning people alive by religious authorities is a pecadillo? How about the centuries-long Inquisition, causing countless freethinkers, heretics, Jews, and other nonconformists to be condemned to death, and drastically, for a time, stifling scientific inquiry (remember the Church's declaration of heresy concerning observations that the earth revolved around the sun)? A minor blemish in the Church's history, merely. And Luther's well-known antisemitic tract remains more than an embarassment - it's utterly frightening and repellent. Yes, I know that the modern Lutheran Church has repudiated it, but still, the church's leadership has become increasingly hostile to Israel. How much, I wonder, have Luther's antisemitic views, indirectly or otherwise, recrudesced? I am not trying to provoke an internal war here, but I cannot let stand what is certainly historical inaccuracy.
Posted by: commonsense at May 19, 2007 11:53 PM
I like this bit: “…wrong ways of thinking…” - Amy Servantez
I wonder if Amy has ever read 1984. I would guess not, but she could be using it to write her talking points for all I know.
Unfortunately, all to many of Amy’s fellow students won’t give it a second thought when they read about wrong-think. They’ve already been trained to accept it as an unquestioned truth and feel secure in the knowledge that they are practitioners of the pre-proscribed correct-think, which they've learned from school and TV.
Posted by: FloatingRock at May 20, 2007 12:04 AM
I have said it for years but you don’t have to take my word on it. The good doctor sums it up quite well at the link below and it is relevant as well as extremely important. Yes I know it doesn’t read like a comic book but take 5 minutes and read it anyway. You wont be sorry you did and it might save your life down the road, who knows?
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/05/evolution-of-education-into.html
My favorite…
"Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black.”
Hmmm, sound familiar?
Pass it on, to everyone you know.
at May 20, 2007 12:23 AM
Indoctrination over real education has been going here on for over 40 years now, but with it's own department now (that really doesn't educate anyone) it's a pretty powerful racket to stop, especially with the propaganda ministry (aka, the MSM) running interference for them at even a hint of discontent.
It's also the main source of political correctness indoctrination, also backed up by the same MSM.
Birds of a feather, ya know.
Sad.
Posted by: jcom972 at May 20, 2007 12:33 AM
Islamic indoctrination happens on all campuses including the UA here in beautiful Tucson and even though my major is in Near East Studies my comrades know their boundaries not to try and coerce me into their little moon-god worshipping cult bwahahahaha
Posted by: abad at May 20, 2007 1:19 AM
aggiegabe et al ...
I shall certainly at some point look into the accuracy of those quotes.
But I have a couple of comments to make about the obvious moral-equivalence argument being presented here. (Assuming the quotations are accurate).
-- First these are isolated quotes. There is no general pattern in the scripture to support these ideas from multiple sources -- particularly not from the "age of the prophets" as such -- such as would be found between koran, hadith and sunna.
-- These are quotes from practicioners, mere mortals of no special status other than that of scholars of the doctrine. They are not quotes from sources attributed with supernatural sacred standing, i.e. Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu etc...
-- They are not quotes attributed to the deity. Human sources are clearly not sanctioned as divine in Judaism, however great the prestige of their author. According to the Jews, God is God, and Man is Man, period. Even the prophets are to be regarded as flawed and fallible. For example, Moses himself was not fit for admission to the promised land.
-- Talmudic doctrine, of whatever age, is inherently regarded as debatable and open to critique, even reversal. It is openly acknowledged as a human attempt to interpret the divine word and apply it to mundance circumstance. Talmudic doctrine is emphatically not regarded as being of divine origin or incontravertable. The tradition of Jewish Talmudic debate is as old as the history of the Talmud.
I think my point stands. While there may indeed be tribalistic and morally questionable statements in the Talmud that record and refer to the primitive norms of bygone times, the Talmud is strictly a secondary set of literature, emphatically not the original five books, and as such do not enjoy the same prestige.
From a practical standpoint, you would have to turn the world inside out, to find a roomfull of Jews who actually believe any of the doctrines quoted above, much less a rabbi preaching them from the pulpit.
Jewish culture, traditionally, has taken the stance that while there are some direct quotes from the almighty in the first five books, pretty much everything else is a human product and as such open to debate, i.e. not to be regarded as holy writ in the same sense as say, the commandments.
Finally, as important as Judaism is to the culture and history of the west (some of the American founders were scholars of Hebrew), it is a tiny population with relatively little direct impact on the surrounding cultures.
The huge continent spanning religious cultures of Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism have nothing in them (at least that I have ever heard of) regulating mundane vulgarities attributed to prestigious divine sources.
Posted by: joeblough at May 20, 2007 1:30 AM
I chose to do a book report on Fahrenheit 451 when I was in the 9th grade. The class was required to choose a book from a short list. Presumably there was an accompanying teachers aid to help the teacher direct class discussions.
Fahrenheit 451 opened my eyes to fascism but, unfortunately, most students chose The Scarlet Letter or something else instead.
In my lifetime I’ve frequently wished that 1984, Fahrenheit 451 or other such depictions of fascism were required reading for all students, including the girls. Hopefully someday soon they will be because it’s important for us all to be on guard. Especially now.
Posted by: FloatingRock at May 20, 2007 1:38 AM
commonsense,
My use of the vastly understated term "peccadilloes" was an attempt at a pre-emptive response to aggiegabe's moral equivalence argument, which we were intended to infer from the material quoted from the Talmud, etc., and was also meant to stand in contrast to the living, growing, mandated anti-Semitism of Islam.
Despite having studied Luther somewhat, I was unprepared for when I read "On the Jews...". Unprepared for nausea. Unprepared to witness a giant destroy his own legacy. The same with the treatment of the conversos. No, these were no small matters. My intent was to forestall any "internal war", not to provoke such. The quotes from Jewish antiquity are incendiary to the "innocent" Christian ear, that's why I brought up the historical Christian "peccadilloes". To remind us that, yes, we have had our own real, not merely literary, atrocities, and as such should hesitate to judge this Jewish literature out of context.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 20, 2007 2:08 AM
OT but just wondering, has anyone else seen the crescent moon in the sky tonight with the star off the bottom point? I saw it in the night sky on the east coast. Totally creepy, and hopefully not a harbinger of things to come.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at May 20, 2007 3:05 AM
FloatingRock:
A big 10-4 on that.
I've often marvelled that the generation that grew up when such books as 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World and Farenheit 451 were in paperback and readily available, show so little cognizance of implementing the nightmare visions projected in theose novels.
Thanks.
Posted by: joeblough at May 20, 2007 3:49 AM
But Robert, you miss the point. What WE see as human rights are as smoke in the air dissipating in the wind of Allah's words which tell us precisely what our rights are. Since the Qur'an is the source of all everything that includes all humanrights. So how can it say anything against human rights when it defines them?
Of course, kufirs like me are not supposed to notice that man behind the curtain over there pulling Allah's levers in the 7th century. Nor are we supposed to notice the above symantic trickery involved in the original claim that the Qur'an says nothing that violates human rights. It is all in just WHO is allowed to define human rights, right?
{^_-}
Posted by: jdow at May 20, 2007 4:18 AM
"And of course it counsels Muslims to make war against Jews and Christians until they submit to Islamic authority and pay a special tax"
Just the Jews and Christians, Mr. Spencer ?
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 20, 2007 4:19 AM
Good one, a great example of the next generation of dhimmidiots, the dhimmicrats would be proud. Yes, Jihad is a "personal struggle", one to assist in converting the Earth's inhabitants to Islam...
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
women should just make babies
teach hate to small children
raise as suicide bombers
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
beat women who misbehave
they must learn their lessons
they are worth just half a man
.
at May 20, 2007 4:50 AM
Presidential candidates should study history a bit closer before they propose actions that will not work. Jack Shepard's proposal sounds a lot like the "strategic hamlets" in Vietnam and I think is doomed to failure. This concept was a total disater in Vietnam and is of doubtful value in the current conflict.
A better solution would be to remove the shackles from our fighting men and women on the battlefield and allow them to really fight. In the current political environment our armed forces are fighting a politically correct war that will never defeat the enemy. In this context we stand to lose this war. We cannot afford to lose!
It is time for politicians to come up with sound ideas and not sound bites. They need to closely study the entire gamut of options availbale before recommending definitive solutions to Iraq or any other troublesome issue.
RNL http://www.therealinfidels.com
Posted by: RNL at May 20, 2007 11:06 AM
Damn, I keep forgetting that Satan worship is a religion now also. You can start a church in the name of satan and get funded! As long as you call it a church! holi-allah. . . .
Posted by: MZ at May 20, 2007 3:25 PM
There is no compulsion in Satan worship.
:-)
We do like child sacrifice though.
Posted by: joeblough at May 20, 2007 10:15 PM
Of course Islam states that it does not violate human rights , because in it you do not have the right NOT to be Muslim . You do NOT have the right to worship according to your conscience. Women do NOT have the right to be treated as equals. Homosexuals do NOT have the right to live in that lifestyle. You do NOT have the right to drink alcohol , or eat pork. I could go on with an almost infinite list.
I don't know whose quote it was , but I once heard that 'Freedom is the right to be wrong'. You do not have the right to be 'wrong' in Islam , hence there is no freedom. Period.
at May 21, 2007 9:18 AM
commonsense next I suppose you’re going to hail Turkey as a humanitarian of all time, failing to mention that 10 years before the Holocaust the country slaughtered 4 million Christian citizens of its own provinces. Then I’m sure you’ll conveniently leave out that Turkey has only 25,000 Jews (possibly even less) today, despite thousands of years in close proximity to the Holy Land and its much much bigger size. Watch it, your commonsense is showing.
Posted by: ofcourse at May 21, 2007 10:07 PM
That should have been 25 years before the Holocaust
Posted by: ofcourse at May 21, 2007 10:34 PM
Satan worship is bigger than alot of people realize. Starting with Charles Manson, he said, "you have not seen the bloody trail yet!"
I hitched-hiked all across America and I seen devil worship in the middle of the desert and encountered a war-lock in Arizona. This guy was 1/2 comanche and he did some very extraordinary things! He got into black magic to get his brother out! Definitely not something to get into. I went to a Catholic minister and asked him. He just turn and pulled two books off his desk behind him. White magic and Black magic. It was pretty interesting hearing it from him! They have rituals even in Catholic Churches in the basement after Mass! I have seen some weird sht! They do sacrifice people! They eat a child's heart! The younger the more powerful they believe they become! Even virgins hearts! There is a bloody trail! Places like Florida too, they would find dead virgins on the beach no heart! I stay away from that sht though not good!
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)