This is the core of Islam (from above):

What is good? whatever Allah says is good
What is bad? whatever Allah says is bad
What is immoral? whatever Allah says is immoral

This kind of 'thinking' is diametrically opposed to the West's views on good, evil and morality.

We must fight this; we must awaken America to the cancer of 'moderate' Muslims in our midst; we must exposed organizations like CAIR for what they are, which are Trojan horses, or we are doomed.

To that end:

1) We at www.NoJihad.com have collected ALL of Hugh's past postings and are putting them up on the
site (with Hugh's blessings) along with a continually refined word index, to create an 'Internet
Book' of the 'Writings Of Hugh'. Go to http://www.nojihad.com/contributors/hugh/highjihadwatch.htm.
Feedback welcome!

2) We are issuing an open invitation to anyone who wants to contribute to our site by writing cogent
essays or doing a bloggish thing (like I do). No need to be a scholar (after all there is only
one Hugh), just well-read. Email me at questioningIslam@yahoo.com.

3) We are trying to put together a letter to be sent ON A SPECIFIC DAY, say, after the election, to the President
and Vice President, along with the appropriate local congress-people stating the facts about Islam,
our concerns about current policy and specific actions that we would like to be taken. IF 10,000
OR 100,000 OR 1,000,000 PEOPLE SENT EMAILS, our concerns cannot be ignored. It is one thing to
preach to the converted, quite another to convert others to action. We should keep doing this until
the government responds. Any suggestions can be sent to the above email address.

Ethelred Smith

Posted by: Ethelred at June 28, 2004 9:39 AM

There is no Muslim Wilberforce, no Muslim anti-slavery society. Where the active slave trade by Muslim slavers, operating out of Zanzibar, where slaves arrived by coffle, caravan, and dhow, began earlier, and ended later, and involved far more human victims, than did the European slave trade confined to the coasts of West Africa -- though the Atlantic Slave Trade, and the Middle Passage, have received all the attention -- was finally suppressed, it was through the guns of the British navy. See chapters X and XIII, or pages 411-451 ("The Arab Slave Trade, 1800-1842") and pages 576-637 ("The Attack on the Slave Trade, 1842-1873) in Britain and the Persian Gulf, 1795-1880, by John Barrett Kelly.

The slave trade in Saudi Arabia officially ended, for purposes of modern image-making, in the early 1960s. Unofficially, it continues to this day, for there is no other way to describe the condition in which many of the domestic female workers -- Thais, Cambodians, Filipinos, Indians, even Pakistanis -- are kept by their Saudi masters. There are even advertisments in Saudi newspapers offering such girls in exchange for downmarket, used American automobiles.

Muslims must be asked pointblank, in the first place by some of those supposedly intrepid reporters who always seem to be so pliable and tongue-tied when confronted with a Muslim leader. What do you think about slavery -- and then quote Qur'anic ayat and sura. What do you think about the position of women -- and then quote Qur'anic ayat and sura. What do you think about the attitude toward Infidels inculcated through a reading of the Muslim texts, Qur'anic ayat and sura, and hadith, and the sirat-e-rasul? Don't let them off the hook. This has to be openly discussed, constantly, openly, truthfully, without accepting diversionary tactics, phony statements of what is sermonized in the mosques, distracting remarks about how "all religions do it" etc. etc. One cannot base these preposterous "dialogues of civilisations" now being promoted by Muslim apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim, one cannot push all the interfaith dialgoue business, if the truths of Muslim teachings, which inspire tens of millions of would-be Jihadis, or dormant Jihadis (and who knows what will set them off, manchurian-candidate style), continue to be suppressed. It just can't go on.

In the meantime, think of the slaves found everywhere that Arabs and black Africans meet -- in Mali, in Mauritania, in the Sudan. Think of the "house slaves" rather than field hands of Saudi Arabia. Think of the Saudi preachers insisting that slavery is sanctioned, approved even, by Islam. And ask yourself why, in all of Muslim history, there was never an attempt from within, as there was in the West, to question the morality of slavery.

There never was a Muslim Wilberforce, or a Muslim Anti-Slavery Society. And there isn't now. And there never will be.

Posted by: Hugh at June 28, 2004 2:03 PM

It's an interesting thread. The biggest fault lines seem to be between American Muslims (especially American black Muslims) and those from the rest of the world. I think this is useful information for the anti-jihad effort. It's interesting that the American posters were aware that they had rights that they feared the Caliphate may take away. I'm sure we could open up fronts in other countries by stressing the traditional rights that the local populace had. (Though I think America, the UK, and Australia would probably be the easiest places to do this. All three countries have a history of freedom built into their cultures.)

~NMJ

Posted by: NoMoreJihad at June 28, 2004 3:58 PM

we must exposed organizations like CAIR for what they are, which are Trojan horses, or we are doomed.

Posted by: Ethelred at June 28, 2004 09:39 AM

Sounds like a great logo to be put on a T-shirt'

"Smash the Trojan Horse" I think I'll have a couple made, wear one into the stores, and see how many dirty looks I get from the Islamist population on the first Saturday of the month.

Posted by: DCWatson at June 28, 2004 4:36 PM

Slavery is the common theme of Muhammad and his Cult.

Ishaq:510 “We ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.’ He used to say this of every town he raided.”

I wonder what the towns people will be, Mayors, Governors, councellors? Slaves to muhammad and his band of killers? In the traditions, they usually end up dead, and women become sex slaves, their children sold to slavery.

If you don't believe the Slaughter part, here is confirmation:

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land.[which never belong to muslims before] Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world [greedy pig], its goods and the ransom [slaves] captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’[god loves killing, the rock gets a thrill from it]”

This is scripture? Well, maybe from Satan.

Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The captives of Khaybar were divided among the Muslims. Then the Messenger began taking the homes and property that were closest to him.”

Gee, I wonder if they were given equal rights...

Tabari VIII:116/Ishaq:511 “So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered home by home. The Messenger took some of its people captive, including Safiyah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself.”

A sex slave, why not? Muhammad was impotent, so he collected the pretty ones to see if one could help him get it up. I'm sure she was given a choice in the matter...

Ishaq:511 “When Dihyah protested, wanting to keep Safiyah for himself, the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.”

I wonder what jobs those women were given, considering they were captives, and women...

Tabari VIII:117 “The Banu Sahm of Aslam [newly recruited Muslim militants] came to the Messenger and complained, ‘Muhammad, we have been hurt by drought and possess nothing.’ Although they had fought for the Prophet they found he had nothing [he was willing] to give them. The Apostle said, ‘O Allah, You know their condition—I have no strength and nothing [I want] to give them [from the booty I have stolen]. So conquer for them the wealthiest of the Khaybar homes, the ones with the most food and fat meat.’”

In other words, go kill,slaughter and steal your own stuff,(in the name of Allah) I have my sex slaves and enough booty to chew through for now... Allah bless you in your endevor....

Ishaq:522 “Then the Apostle distributed the booty between his relatives, his wives, and to other men and women. He gave his daughter Fatima 200 shares, Ali 100, Usama 250, Aisha 200, Bakr 100…. In the name of Allah—this is a memorandum of what Muhammad the Apostle gave his wives from the dates and wheat: 180 loads.”

It's hard to believe this is "scripture" isn't it...

Tabari VIII:12 “When cities were conquered Muslims used to say, ‘Conquer for yourselves whatever seems good to you because all treasures were given to Muhammad.’”

Picture a gang of Hell's angels riding into your small town, robbing and looting, raping and killing... This is what the "prophet" and his gang of camel jokey's did.

Of course, Muhammads rock god condoned it all...

Qur’an 48:19 “He rewarded them with abundant spoils that they will capture. Allah has promised you much booty that you shall take, and He has made this easy for you.”

How good of you...

Qur’an 9:103 “Take alms out of their property in order to cleanse and purify them, and invoke Allah for them; surely this is a relief for them.”

yes, steal everything a peasant hs worked for all his life, take his wife and children, cleanse him.... then have sport, and cut hs head off....

Ishaq:571 “I went up to a man and struck off his hand. He fell and I killed him while he was down. But I was too occupied with fighting to pay any more attention to him. So one of the Meccan Muslims passed by and stripped him. Then when the fighting was over and we had finished with the enemy, the Apostle said that anyone who had killed a foe could have his spoil. I told the Apostle that I had killed a man who was worth stripping but had been too busy killing others at the time to notice who had spoiled him. Abu Bakr said, “To Allah’s lions who fight for His religion go the spoils that come from their prey. Return the booty to the man who killed him.’ The Apostle confirmed Abu Bakr’s words. So I was given the property of the man whom I had killed. I sold it and bought a small palm grove with the money. It was the first property I ever owned.”

How noble...

Ishaq:592 “The Apostle held a large number of captives. There were 6,000 women and children prisoners. He had captured so many sheep and camels they could not be counted.”

All who were raped, beaten, then sold or starved to death. Muhammad finaced his crusade on slavery.

Ishaq:564 “The Muslims stole our goods and divided them. Their spears pierced us not once but twice. Their squadrons came at us like a swarm of locusts. Were it not for the religion of Muhammad’s people, their cavalry would never have attacked us.”

I don't know why this is in Islamic "scripture" but it says, if it wasn't for the Cult of Muhammad, they wouldn't have killed our people.

Ishaq:309 “‘Bind Abu Aziz tight for his mother is rich and she may ransom him for a great deal of money.’”

I'm sure this is spiritual scripture somehow.

Tabari VII:71 “Among the captives was Abu Wada. Muhammad said, ‘He has a son who is a shrewd merchant with much money.” [The son] “slipped away at night, went to Medina, ransomed his father for 4,000 dirhams.”

Ishaq:327 “Allah made booty lawful and good. He used it to incite the Muslims to unity of purpose. So enjoy what you have captured.”

I don't need to go further, although I can. this stuff is sickening. Anyone calling this a "religion" is demented.

Posted by: Imam_Nathan at June 28, 2004 8:28 PM

First of all we really need to define "slavery".
Is it the Roman, American south , nubian or the eunuchs of ancient civilizations?
where does the border lie between a slave and a low paid worker for example?
is it just a matter of human equality under the law?
And what if that law is the law of "allah"?

Slavery has two main components.
the mindset of the oppressor and the mindset of the victim.
The mindset of the VICTIM is what really defines slavery.
However oppressed, persecuted, stripped of equal rights a victim is , he is not a slave unless he accepts the position imposed by his "masters" .
once a person accepts this status he is digging hiw own grave even if it is the mild slavery of a servant in an aristocratic household.
hence the mindset of the Christian dhimmies existing under Islamic law for centuries. A person who accepts his fate without question and knows he must keep silence when abused and even thank his oppressors for the abuse.
Is that the mindset of a slave?

HOw many workers in England were told in the 18th century "not to rise above their station".
Was not the serfdom-slavery of the russians, the primary cause of the rise of communism.
The arousing of a dhimmy population by activists who opened their eyes to their condition.

in this respect one could conduct a survey of expats working in the Arabian peninsula and ask them the question "do you consider yourself to be a slave of islam?"
how can a person who drives a tax free merc, earns tax free dollars and resides in a luxury residence perceive themselves as a slave even if certain basic rights are denied ?
it is a form of slavery which is barely recognisable by its recipient.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at June 28, 2004 11:13 PM

Slavery is an ancient and widespread practice throughout human history, and even has been used in modern societies after Lincoln. In the OT it seems largely a means of dealing with debtors (also, it was a temporary state not to be extended past the sixth year). Among the Romans, slaves included people doing what we might call professional work today (can you imagine owning your physician?). Karl Marx's housekeeper was not paid, and lived essentially as a gift from Friederich Engels to Marx (she was the one unpaid worker Marx encountered during his stay in Britain).

Yet it is chilling that Islam reveals its origins as a warlord's vision in how much it speaks of seizing slaves as if non-Muslim human lives were merely another form of booty. It also appears that to the Islamic sources, female captives are simply playthings of their Muslim captors.

Posted by: Kepha1 at June 29, 2004 12:14 AM

Kepha
thank you for that gem about karl Marx'S MAID !
how ironic !
Obviously the inspiration for das capital !
Of course your comments about "physicians" having slave status in rome was echoed in al andalus with the jews

Posted by: chevalier de st george at June 29, 2004 1:36 AM

Chevalier de St. Georges: I believe I got the bit about Marx's domestic worker from Paul Johnson's _Intellectuals_.

By the way, I once was talking with a State Department guy who'd served in Yemen, and he spoke of the smooth-running system the remaining Jews there have vis-a-vis the Muslim chiefs to whom they are client. I sincerely beg forgiveness of any old stock African-Americans listening in, but I couldn't resist the temptation to wax sarcastic and say, "Ah, for the days when minorities knew their place!" My interlocutor blanched. I think it was the first time he'd ever thought that being "understanding" and "sophisticated" about other cultures was condoning things he viewed as odious in his own country's history.

Posted by: Kepha1 at June 29, 2004 6:55 AM

Hugh,
You're absolutely right that these muslim leaders should be forced to discuss their religion and it's culture openly and truthfully.The main problem being that the wrong journalists are doing the questioning and when they start dropping all of the usual excuses no-one ever seems to challenge them on what are very often little more than religious rantings. Whenever these interviews take place the interviewer should have a profound knowledge of islam and be able to at least appear neutral and argue both sides so no-one can say they are bias, but by the same token as you say not give them an easy ride, ask the right questions, questions that will make our society think with a bit more of an open mind and realise that is not an issue of racism to raise these questions. If the said muslim leader being interviewed is then at a loss for words, repeating the same lame, irrelevant answers and excuses, people may at last begin to see islam for what it really is. But are there any journalists out there who aren't pro-islam, the current wave of western journalist just seem focused on making sure the muslims come out smelling of roses. Also the ones who become tongue-tied when confronted with a muslim leader don't seem half as afraid to speak when interviewing a member of the US or the Isreali (as I have witnessed recently) government. It really makes you wonder why.

Posted by: Rikki at July 1, 2004 9:33 AM