The reference to Jihadwatch is understandable. But Little Green Footballs? They hardly specialize in examining Islam or jihad.

Posted by: Bigfoot at March 31, 2008 9:11 AM

Yusuf Smith responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."
if it's religion does not allow the freedoms we enjoy in the West and a respected by all Westerners for the most part maybe it is time for the cult of Islam to die there was a time when the Christian Church was as intolerant as Islam is today but until the largest silent majority of Muslims take action against the extremely vocal minority like the wahabist of Saudi Arabia Islam is going to have problems as long as this minority keeps that means wet dreams of global domination by Islam and the Koran being used to justify any of their actions

Posted by: crusader at March 31, 2008 9:39 AM

"So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."

As well as peaceful and tolerant.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 31, 2008 9:49 AM

Why do Muslims who say that verses are "being taken out of context" never explain in what context the content of those verses would be acceptable? If "out of context" were a valid criticism surely that would be a trivial task.

Posted by: aynrandgirl at March 31, 2008 9:59 AM

The reference to Jihadwatch is understandable. But Little Green Footballs? They hardly specialize in examining Islam or jihad.

Posted by: Bigfoot....Oh really...ever bother to read my links there?

Posted by: storagemanager at March 31, 2008 10:35 AM

Bigfoot,

But yet they think Islam has a place in the West even when they do examine Islam and jihad.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 31, 2008 10:45 AM

Yusuf is not the sharpest knive in the drawer.
Neither is this one, have a look and a laugh:

http://planetirf.blogspot.com/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 31, 2008 10:46 AM

Stereotypes exist for a reason - observation.

"Islam" doesn't cause one to immediately think of "aardvarks". It's just not something one observes.

Fix the underlying problems, and the stereotypes will go away all by themselves.

Posted by: Occupant at March 31, 2008 11:08 AM

I question the Little Green Footballs assosciation also - LGF seems very hostile to Europeans.

MEMRI.org is a much better association - in fact, I wouldn't doubt if that were the source of some of Fitna's footage.

Posted by: Ernest T Bass at March 31, 2008 11:20 AM

my post is alittle off topic...

It dwaned on me we are having a fast pace global arrgument. Culture vs Culture. Imagine if this was availble during the French revolution or the rise of Hitler. I don't know how the blogosphere would have changed those events but it's interesting to think about.

For us on JW. Our eyes are open. We have connected the dots and we see each Muslim atrocity within the context of the Muslim Holy books, customs and traditions. We need to keep sticking it to these barbarians. All that Finta does is hold a mirror to Islam and they don't like it.

Posted by: Ruebacca at March 31, 2008 1:47 PM

A "moderate" moslem is one who will sit back and let the violent islamists kill you while he/she quotes "peaceful" verses from the quran.

Posted by: Timur at March 31, 2008 4:54 PM

This is basically Jihad Watch or Little Green Footballs as a film

Of course, there were huge differences there, just like here. Why don't I see at least Hugh, if not all other posters here, on film?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 31, 2008 5:03 PM

"In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. This makes me wonder whether his quibble with Fitna here is with the positions the demonstrators espoused, or simply with the demonstrators themselves."

Or maybe he's just a stupid when it comes to debate...After all what must you be to be a moslem convert?

Posted by: solomonpal at March 31, 2008 8:19 PM

--There is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of Muslims in the world simply do not behave like jihad terrorists. But how many of them actually and actively disapprove of those jihadist deeds? How many are working against the spread of the jihad ideology within Muslim communities?

There was no doubt whatsoever that the majority of Germans under the Reich simply did not behave like the individual monsters responsible for genocide, either. But how many of them actually and actively disapproved? How many were working against the spread of anti semitism and genocide? How many were trying to stop the Reich from obliterating millions?

The Moderate Muslim exists as much as the Good German.

Germany, and all of its citizens that did not try to stop the Reich, deserved its guilt for the Holocaust. Yes, it was risky, terrifying, and life threatening to try and stop the Reich. But it was what should have been done.

Posted by: JWmouse at March 31, 2008 11:18 PM

Yusuf Smith may like to pass himself off as a moderate, but he's no moderate at all. This is the same guy who said, during the Rushdie controversy, that, if he knew where Rushdie was, he'd help arrange for Rushdie's assassination (i.e., carrying out the Ayatollah's fatwa). [This was quoted in the New York Times]. He later tried to claim these statements were taken out of context, deflected attention onto Biblical verses calling for death to blasphemers, and so on, but never really retracted the original statements. In other words, he used the regular taqiyyah and tu-quoque routine. In the above article, Yusuf Islam shows no sign of having adjusted his game: He obviously still has a barely containable hate on for Islam critics (e.g., referring to Scarlet Pimpernel as Wilders' "accomplice" in making the film, i.e., implying that raising concerns or criticisms about Islam is a criminal act).

As terrorism expert Steve Emerson has said, in regards to Islamic propaganda in the broader context of the jihad against non-Muslims, "...The deception is so high, and so successful, that I'm afraid we're losing the battle..." [For the Emerson quote, see the poster suziq's blog
http://islamwatchers.blogspot.com/ scroll down to "Taqqiyah and Jihad"]

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 1, 2008 4:01 AM

Yusuf(YI):"The first part of Fitna consists of a series of recitations of Qur'anic verses, and translations into Dutch or English, which are commonly given violent interpretations,"

“Interpretations”? “Strike terror,” “Fight (q-t-l),” “kill them” “strike them at their necks” must be “given” “interpretations” to make them violent?

YI: “followed by footage of Muslims who interpret them this way, and commit senseless acts of violence. Occasionally, the footage is dragged out in order to tug the heart-strings (extended footage of the man falling out of one of the Twin Towers)”

Yusuf, with his overriding concern about Islam's public image, has to do what he can to try and downplay those deaths by suggesting Wilders is overplaying them. Yet the scene in question only lasts a few seconds.

YI:“The flaws are not hard to spot. [...] For a start, only a small minority interpret the verses Wilders cites to justify the acts depicted;”

As far as I’m aware, there are no statistics to support Yusuf’s claim here. In any case, Yusuf doesn’t provide any evidence, much less the highly specific kind of evidence* required to support his allegation here, that a certain proportion (“small minority”) of Muslims “interpret” the verses Wilders cites as supporting violence against non-Muslims. Yusuf is just pulling this claim out of thin air. Perhaps he’s so confident in his own assertions that he thinks he doesn’t need to support his claims with evidence.

*Imagine what would actually be needed to support his claim: Statistical results from large surveys and/or polls questioning Muslims on specific interpretations of specific verses, i.e., just those verses cited in Wilders’ film.

YI:“the majority of Muslims in the world simply do not behave like this”

Behave like what? The terrorists? The clerics? Those who want sharia? It is reasonable to believe that most Muslims behave in a way simialr to the members of the vast audiences of the incendiary clerics shown in the film. Moreover, we have poll data that shows that approximately 71% of Muslims in some of the largest Muslim countries want a strict application of sharia law in every Muslim country, and approximately 65% want a Caliphate to be set up. Approximately 78% of British Muslims think the Danish Muhammad cartoonists should be criminally prosecuted and punished. Yusuf Islam himself has already said he thinks Islam critics should be punished with death(see his comments on Rushdie). 49% of Arabs polled by Al-Jazeera in 2006 say they “yes” that they “support bin Laden.” At least ¾ of Iranians say they support Hizballah. Many more examples could be cited.

YI: “…and mainstream scholars reject such interpretations.”

There is no evidence of any such rejections, except some vaguely-worded public-relations statements about “terrorism” that look suspect on closer scrutiny. In any case, Yusuf Islam doesn’t cite any such scholars. There are some genuine and active moderates, such as Tarek Fatah (though he is not a scholar), but these are very rare.

YI: “The context of the verses' revelation is simply not discussed in this film (there are no words, other than those written on the screen or those spoken by people in the footage).”

Yusuf will have to blame “Allah” at least partly for this. The Quran itself contains very little historical or situational context. To get that context, Muslims turn to the Hadith and Sira, and to scholars of tafsir and asbab al nuzul. Needless to say, in a fifteen-minute film designed to highlight some of the problems in Islam, there is no time for extensive support of context. For that, concerned non-Muslims can turn to books such as Spencer’s The Truth About Muhammad. Several sources are cited at the end of Wilders' film. The “out of context” objection implies that Yusuf would like Wilders to actually provide examples of context from the Hadith and Sira. However, I suspect that Yusuf Islam would rather that non-Muslims not look into those sources (why doesn’t Yusuf mention where readers can find such context?), which in many cases show the Quranic verses to be worse than they appear alone. Does Yusuf Islam really want non-Muslims to go and look at the contexts where Muhammad allows the mass raping of captive non-Muslim women (e.g., see the “sahih” Bukhari and Muslim collections)?

YI:“There are shots of demonstrations in London with offensive banners (behead those who insult Islam, etc) and similar shouted slogans, but the fact is that these demonstrations were tiny, organised by a well-known and disliked small group of Muslims, and widely condemned within the community.”

Actually, the demonstrations involving threatening slogans in response to the Muhammad cartoons were carried out on a massive scale, world-wide, involving vast crowds of Muslims. Over 100 people were killed. There were fire-bombings of embassies. Moreover, Muslim national governments, the OIC, the UN, numerous prominent clerics, all called for tight restrictions on criticism of Islam. (Again, 78% of British Muslims thought that the Muhammad cartoonists should be criminally prosecuted and punished. Is this 78% Yusuf’s idea of a “small group”? Also, Yusuf cites no evidence that the threatening demonstrators were “widely condemned” by other Muslims)

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 1, 2008 6:22 AM

YI:“In the "under the spell" section, the future of various groups such as women, children and gays are speculated on,”

…on the basis of current realities—honor killings, etc.

YI:“and in the section on women there are images of girls who have just undergone genital mutilation, which most Muslims do not practise.”

Again, Yusuf does not cite the stats to support his statistical claim. Perhaps it is a minority of Muslims who practice female genital mutilation. That would translate into tens of millions of mutilated girls. What is Yusuf Islam doing to stop that practice? Nothing. He’s too busy buffing and polishing Islam’s public image, setting up his Islamic segregated schools in Britain, and downplaying the sharia practices instead of opposing them.

YI: “In short, it is a montage of the most violent stereotypes of Muslims.”

Note again the focus on Islam’s image. He doesn’t talk about the innocent people slaughtered in the incidents cited in the film; he doesn’t talk about the hardship suffered by the victims of Islamic sharia practices. He talks about “stereotypes”—not people. He’s concerned about image, not reality. Almost every Islamic apologist that I’ve ever come across has this same narcissistic focus on Islam’s image. They want to control public perceptions of Islam without doing anything to change the reality of death, destruction, pain, and suffering caused by adherence to Islamic jihad and sharia policies.

YI: “Given that this came from the Netherlands, it is not surprising that there was a section on Theo van Gogh, which Wilders presumably thought would underline his "free speech martyr" status but actually makes him look even more pathetic than most people outside the Netherlands thought. When he was asked in an interview why he thought he would not be killed, he replied that his confidence was not in the goodness of man, but in his "own arrogance" which he supposed would mean that the bullet would not come for him.”

Note how Yusuf cannot resist the temptation to attack van Gogh. It’s not enough that the man was murdered; Yusuf has to keep attacking him. Van Gogh contributed to a film that highlighted the violence and subjugation of Muslim women under Islam (Submission). Yusuf doesn’t like attention being drawn to that, perhaps because that hurts Islam’s image. Again, Yusuf doesn’t ever say he cares about the victims; it’s all about Islam’s image.

YI: “Doubtless Wilders will be hailed for his bravery in some quarters after this idiotic film, but really risking one's life is only virtuous if it is for something good.”

Ah, so defending freedom is not good? Protecting freedom of expression is not good? Wilders is risking his life to defend freedom of expression, and so that others will be less likely to lose their lives for criticizing Islam. This benefits some Muslims as well, including those who might have views that are more moderate than those of Yusuf.

YI: “If it is just to bad-mouth an entire religion and its adherents, there is no virtue to it; it is just stupid. (Wilders' accomplice is identified only as "Scarlet Pimpernel".)”

Islamic propagandists such as Yusuf have never given any indication of what they regard to be an acceptable form of criticism of Islam for non-Muslims. To Yusuf and other image managers, anything short of praise of Islam is “bad-mouthing” that is deserving of criminal punishment. To them, there is no acceptable criticism of Islam as a religion. Yet they gladly accept all the insult of other religions mentioned by their Allah in their Quran.

YI: “I must say the title, Fitna, shows an inventiveness I might not have expected of someone capable of producing such a lacklustre film; one would have expected a title culled from an Islamophobic blog like, say, "Religon of Peace".”

10000+ Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, and counting. Again, note the narcissistic focus of Yusuf on Islam’s image and not on all those innocent victims documented so diligently by the folks at Religion of Peace. Also note, with the word “lackluster”, Yusuf implies that he’s bored and uninterested in it all. He sounds like Ali Eteraz here, bored at watching Islamic slaughter of civilians, responding on an emotional level only to perceived slights against Islam.

YI: “However, the real fitna here is on the Muslims,”

Again, note the narcissistic focus. Never mind the non-Muslims slaughtered or the Muslim women killed and subjugated according to sharia, implies Yusuf, instead focus on the poor distraught Muslims who are exposed to this film.

YI: “…as it is a challenge to Muslims not to behave as a senseless mob, as some of us have done in the past in such situations, but to show some dignity.”

Right, suggesting that Yusuf wants them to implement sharia in the proper manner and punish the filmmaker accordingly, within the bounds of Islamic law. (Note: The Islamic penalty for blasphemy is up to and including execution).

YI: “After all, any angry demonstration in which Muslims are shown calling for the head of Geert Wilders or anyone else found to be involved will closely resemble a scene from this film, and be seen to prove his point.”

We’ve already seen examples of it; and past experience has already proven Wilders’ point. Islamic policy for the past approximately 1400 years, beginning with Muhammad’s example, demands a violent response against critics of Islam. Yusuf Islam knows this, accepts it, and is now pretending otherwise.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 1, 2008 6:29 AM

"Kinana of Khaibar" said:

Yusuf Smith may like to pass himself off as a moderate, but he's no moderate at all. This is the same guy who said, during the Rushdie controversy, that, if he knew where Rushdie was, he'd help arrange for Rushdie's assassination (i.e., carrying out the Ayatollah's fatwa). [This was quoted in the New York Times]

I was 12 years old when the Rushdie affair happened; I did not convert to Islam for another nine years afterwards (1998). I have never supported "the Ayatollah", his fatwa, or his London fan club (the so-called Muslim Parliament etc); I believe that his fatwa was an attempt to increase the Iranian regime's influence over the Muslim community in the west, in which it succeeded, for a while.

Posted by: Yusuf Smith at April 1, 2008 7:28 AM

But of course, women do undergo genital mutilation, by the millions, in countries in which the practise is justified by reference to Islam. Is it then simply a "stereotype" to call for an end to this barbarity? Should Yusuf Smith be directing his indignation toward Muslims who justify genital mutilation on Islamic grounds rather than against Geert Wilders, who is simply noting that some Muslims do this?

The point is that Wilders' film suggested that what was depicted (the aftermath of FGM) might be the future of women in the Netherlands if Islam takes hold. The problem with this is that female circumcision, particularly the more severe types, are a predominantly African practice and that where these things go on, they affect Muslims and non-Muslims.

I have never heard anyone suggest that FGM is spreading in the west, or that it has spread from Somalis (the main group of Muslim immigrants among whom it goes on) or West Africans to other groups of Muslims in the west, let alone to converts (despite the fact that many converts to Islam marry Somalis) or the general native population. I don't have any statistics, but the anecdotal evidence I've heard from within the Somali community is that it is on the decline in the west, that many young women have not had it done and will not continue it with their children.

As for why this is, the fact of settlement in the west where it is illegal is one factor, but also there is the spread of Islamic education from outside the home region (i.e. from places where the more severe forms of female cutting are unheard-of), and exposure to more Muslims (and others) from outside the home region. This is important, because it dispels nonsense ideas such as that a girl's clitoris will grow and swing between her legs if it's not cut off, which is what some of the old ladies who carry out FGM in Africa believe.

Posted by: Yusuf Smith at April 1, 2008 7:55 AM

Yusuf, Yusuf, Yusuf...

I have never heard anyone suggest that FGM is spreading in the west...

Listen harder, mate!

"By conservative estimates, 66,000 women and girls living in Britain have been mutilated. This figure, accepted by the Metropolitan Police, came in a report by a volunteer organisation funded by the Department of Health and carried out with academics from the London School of Tropical Hygiene and the City University."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=505796&in_page_id=1879

That's right in your own back yard, eh wot? I'm just gobsmacked that you haven't heard of it. I would have bet ten quid that you had gotten word of this somewhere.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 1, 2008 8:10 AM

I did indeed read that report, but that statistic is more likely to refer to the number of females living in the UK who have had this done anywhere, not those who have had it done in this country. If it had happened that many times in this country in the time large numbers of Somalis had been living here (i.e. since the early 1990s), there would have been prosecutions and the authorities would be wise to whatever methods families use to conceal it.

The point is that this is an African problem, and it does not go on in most of the other countries which supply migrants to the West (most of the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, north Africa and Turkey). Among religious Muslims - the sort of people Wilders is attacking - from even those countries, it is on the way downhill if it's not dead. It was irrelevant to the film's subject matter.

Posted by: Yusuf Smith at April 1, 2008 5:33 PM

Yusuf Smith,

I am very sorry for confusing you with someone else! It was truly an idiotic error on my part. (And no, I guess you, unlike the other Yusuf I had in mind, are not involved in setting up segregated Islam schools in Britain).

As for the rest of my reactions to your post, I do stand by the claims, but am always open to consider other evidence and counterarguments. I also still am of the impression, based on my reading of the contents of your post, that you are overly concerned about Islam's image and not enough about the reality of the problems. I responded in a manner proportionate to your verbal attacks on Wilders and the late van Gogh.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 2, 2008 12:11 AM

Yusuf Smith,

I am very sorry for confusing you with someone else! It was truly an idiotic error on my part. (And no, I guess you, unlike the other Yusuf I had in mind, are not involved in setting up segregated Islam schools in Britain).

As for the rest of my reactions to your post, I do stand by the claims, but am always open to consider other evidence and counterarguments. I also still am of the impression, based on my reading of the contents of your post, that you are overly concerned about Islam's image and not enough about the reality of the problems.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 2, 2008 12:12 AM

Doubtless Wilders will be hailed for his bravery in some quarters after this idiotic film, but really risking one's life is only virtuous if it is for something good.

Yusuf Smith,

I noticed you did not respond on your blog to WLF. Who asked "Why should Wilders life be on the line".I wondered the same thing, if Islam is a true rather then a false religion why do Muslims threaten violence against anyone who criticizes Islam, the Koran or Muhammed? Muslims in general appear to be very insecure people who can't handle any criticism. Today a film, yesterday cartoons tomorrow who know what.Could it be that Muslims deep down feel inferior to more advanced Western cultures? Thus the need to lash out with threats and violence in attempt to silence any criticism of Islam.

WLF mentioned the Di Vinci code. I watched The Di Vinci code a few months ago and found the film very offensive.After watching the film I decided to throw a copy of the novel I had purchased and not yet read into the trash and resolved to read no more of this authors novels.I have no plans to boycott any of the stars of the film as IMO they were just doing a job. Never once did I think of harming the author or anyone connected to the film for "offending religion".I actually believe in the power of the Christian faith and I'm willing to let God judge the author and his book.Apparently most Christians feel the same way as I've not read anywhere that the author or that anyone connected with the film has "risked their life" or had to go into hiding.

Posted by: Roxane at April 2, 2008 1:10 AM

In reply to Kinana, actually when some of these events took place, I did indeed condemn them. In particular, when the demonstrations in London depicted in the film, which appear to be by former Muhajiroun, took place, I blogged about them and condemned them. (They had a nasty tactic of hijacking other Muslims' demonstrations, something I found out by talking to one of the groups affected.) I will not rise to the challenge of condemning every terrorist act committed in the name of Islam, or by any group of Muslims regardless of whether they are acting in the name of Islam, because I don't regard the challenge as legitimate. Unless one is someone like Gerry Adams, speaking for a party (or other organisation) with a definite connection to the terrorists, who was routinely asked to condemn this IRA bombing or that and his wriggle-outs provided quite a bit of entertainment, one is not guilty until one proves otherwise.

As far as the Da Vinci Code is concerned, one Muslim blogger did make the point that Muslims are eager to protest when our Prophet is insulted, but not when it is other Prophets. (I didn't read the Da Vinci Code so I wouldn't know what Dan Brown wrote.) However, in an age when Christianity held power in Europe, books like that would have been banned and probably its authors would have been less safe than Salman Rushdie was at the height of the Satanic Verses affair.

Whether we like it or not, you cannot get prosecuted in most countries now for offences against Christianity, and I have told Muslims that they cannot expect the state to defend the honour of our religion when they do longer defend their own, so demanding that Rushdie's book, or the film Fitna or the Danish cartoons, be banned is pointless as books do not get banned for this reason anymore.

As for the threats, other than those linked to Iran or to one or other "salafist" extremist group, most of them come from individuals who are answerable to nobody (except the law) and who think they are doing something positive or even doing their duty. I do not condone this and never have done, but they are answerable to nobody and nobody is answerable for them.

Posted by: Yusuf Smith at April 2, 2008 6:20 AM

Yusuf,

You (YS) wrote:

“In reply to Kinana, actually when some of these events took place, I did indeed condemn them. In particular, when the demonstrations in London depicted in the film, which appear to be by former Muhajiroun, took place, I blogged about them and condemned them. (They had a nasty tactic of hijacking other Muslims' demonstrations, something I found out by talking to one of the groups affected.)”

Good; though I didn’t claim that you didn’t condemn those demonstrations. I pointed out that you did not provide evidence that the demonstrations were “widely condemned” (i.e., by other Muslims). I also questioned this next statement from your article, regarding the potential responses from Muslims to Fitna:

YS: “…as it is a challenge to Muslims not to behave as a senseless mob, as some of us have done in the past in such situations, but to show some dignity.”

To which I wrote:

“Right, suggesting that Yusuf wants them to implement sharia in the proper manner and punish the filmmaker accordingly, within the bounds of Islamic law. (Note: The Islamic penalty for blasphemy is up to and including execution).”

That admittedly cynical rejoinder was based partly on my wildly erroneous assumption that you were the other Yusuf. Nevertheless, on your blog, you wrote:

YS: “I'm strictly Sunni, that is to say, pro-madhhab (Maliki in my case) and anti "salafi", although I can get on with "salafis" over a curry in Tooting.”

Odds are that if you are adhering to the Maliki school, then you believe that people who insult Islam should be punished criminally. The penalties range from jail sentences to execution. I realize that some Muslims living in the West state that these sharia penalties should not be implemented in Western countries. But there is often an unmentioned qualification, i.e., as to whether such a Muslim believes that the penalties should be implemented in an Islamic country, or in a Western jurisdiction that at some point in the future has a Muslim majority population, or otherwise wherever Muslims have managed to set up a system under sharia.

YS: “I will not rise to the challenge of condemning every terrorist act committed in the name of Islam,"

I don't think that's necessary. The Islamic leaders and those who address the public need to be clearer, though, when they do make such condemnations.

"...or by any group of Muslims regardless of whether they are acting in the name of Islam, because I don't regard the challenge as legitimate. Unless one is someone like Gerry Adams, speaking for a party (or other organisation) with a definite connection to the terrorists, who was routinely asked to condemn this IRA bombing or that and his wriggle-outs provided quite a bit of entertainment, one is not guilty until one proves otherwise.”

The IRA wasn’t using the Bible to justify attacks, but Islamic terrorist groups world-wide are able to use the Quran, Hadith, and Sira to justify attacks on non-Muslims. You may disagree with their interpretation, of course, but if you’re going to address the topic of those attacks, why not try to refute the terrorists? And if you can’t refute them with a solid case based on those primary Islamic texts, what then?

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 3, 2008 1:26 AM

Yusuf,

I see you did not respond to my comments speculating about your views on what you believe to be the appropriate sharia penalty for criticism or "insult" of Islam. On your blog, in your article "The Presumption of Melanie Phillips," you wrote:

YS: “...It is indeed possible to implement parts of the Shari'ah and not others; one must implement it all only when one can, which Muslims in this country accept is not the case here.”

It "is not the case here" at the moment, for the time being. You may wish to dodge and dance around instead of stating your views openly and frankly, but I've seen enough to take a provisional answer from your writings, i.e., that you support classical Maliki sharia penalties, which include execution, for those who "insult" Islam or Muhammad.

In any case, someone who says that Muslims should implement sharia is no moderate in my books.

In your article "The Rape-as-Jihad Myth," you wrote:

YS: "The fact is that there is nothing in Islamic literature connecting rape to jihad."

Actually, there is (Quran 4:24, 33:50-52), and there are numerous ahadith and parts of the Sira which document the connection between jihad and rape.

(Sahih Muslim) "Chapter 29: IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CAPTIVE WOMAN AFTER SHE IS PURIFIED (OF MENSES OR DELIVERY) IN CASE SHE HAS A HUSBAND, HER MARRIAGE IS ABROGATED AFTER SHE BECOMES CAPTIVE" [Translator's note]

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).

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.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2153:

Narrated Ruwayfi' ibn Thabit al-Ansari: Should I tell you what I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say on the day of Hunayn: It is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the last day to water what another has sown with his water (meaning intercourse with women who are pregnant); it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to have intercourse with a captive woman till she is free from a menstrual course; and it is not lawful for a man who believes in Allah and the Last Day to sell spoil till it is divided.

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 008, Number 3373:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl with them. We then asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judgment must be born.

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.100:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, "Tell them." She was embarrassed. He said, "It is alright, and I do it myself." Malik said, "A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else's slave-girl as a wife, does not practise coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission."

Malik’s Muwatta, Book 2, Number 2.23.90:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that the slave girls of Abdullah ibn Umar used to wash his feet and bring him a mat of palm leaves while they were menstruating.
Malik was asked whether a man who had women and slave girls could have intercourse with all of them before he did ghusl. He said, "There is no harm in a man having intercourse with two of his slave girls before he does ghusl. It is disapproved of, however, to go to a freewoman on another's day. There is no harm in making love first to one slave girl and then to another when one is junub."
Malik was asked about a man who was junub and water was put down for him to do ghusl with. Then he forgot and put his finger into it to find out whether it was hot or cold. Malik said, "If no filth has soiled his fingers, I do not consider that that makes the water impure."

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 4, 2008 4:32 AM