Has there ever been a time when one group of people openly exposes its animosity for another group of people—even as this second group not only ignores the animosity, but speaks well, enables, and legitimizes the first group?
Welcome to the 21st century, where Western politicians empower those Muslims who are otherwise constantly and openly denouncing all non-Muslims as enemies to be fought and subjugated.
Consider this video of Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami, a top-ranked figure in Egypt’s Salafi movement which won some 25% of the votes in recent elections. He makes clear a point that, in a different era, would be thoroughly eye-opening—that all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance: when Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive.
Discussing “the analogy between Egypt’s Christians and the Jews of Medina,” Burhami pointed out that Muslims may make temporary peace with infidels, when circumstance calls for it:
The Jews of Medina represent a paradigm—laid by the prophet [Muhammad]—that shows how Muslims should deal with infidels. The prophet’s methods of dealing with infidels are available for Muslims to replicate depending on their situation and their capabilities. The Prophet in Mecca dealt with the infidels in a certain way, so whenever Muslims are vulnerable they should deal with the infidels in this same manner.
Burhami is referring to the famous Mecca/Medina division: when Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in his early Mecca period, he preached peace and made pacts with infidels; when he became strong in the Medina period, he preached war and went on the offensive. This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been instructive to Muslim leaders for ages.
After quoting Koran 4:77, “Refrain from action, uphold prayers, and pay your zakat,” Burhami continues:
In many infidel countries, such as occupied Palestine, we instruct Muslims to do just that [follow Koran 4:77]. Today in Gaza, we do not tell Muslims to launch rockets everyday and so destroy the country, but we tell them “Refrain from action and respect the truce.” When the Prophet first arrived in Medina, he made conciliation with the Jews, conciliation without jizya [i.e., equal-term conciliation without forcing Jews to pay tribute and live as second-class dhimmis]—this is a pattern that can be followed whenever circumstances dictate. However, when they breached the covenant he fought them and ultimately imposed jizya on the People of the Book [Jews and Christians]. Nor is this Sura [Koran 9:29] abrogated; it is acknowledged and agreed upon.
Burhami exposes much here, beginning with the Koran verse he quotes: when weak, Muslims are to “refrain from action”—but “pay your zakat,” which, among other things, funds the jihad. Also, as Muhammad made peace with the Jews of Medina, without making them submit to jizya (tribute to be paid “while utterly subdued”), so too are Palestinians allowed to make temporary peace with Israel. In both cases, circumstance—namely, Muslim weakness—justify it. But, when capability allows, Koran 9:29—which calls for jizya and subjugation, and which Burhami quotes as having abrogated the other peaceful verses—takes over.
Burhami’s conclusion:
Yes we can deal with those Christians [Egypt’s Copts] as the Jews were dealt with in Medina; it is an option. The Prophet made the Hudaybiya Reconciliation with the infidels and held a truce for ten years, that is also an option…. So, it is legitimate to choose from examples set by the Prophet, depending on what suits the situation of Muslims now.
In short, Muslims may be tolerant of Egypt’s Copts now, and not collect jizya and place them in dhimmitude, until they are more capable—just like Palestinians may make peace with Israel now, till they are more capable of waging an offensive. Indeed, Dr. Mohamed Saad Katatni—the secretary general of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, which won 40% of the votes—reportedly said that Copts would not pay jizya now, implying that the idea of collecting tribute from subdued “dhimmi” Copts is very much alive among the Brotherhood, only dormant till a more opportune moment.
One may argue that Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami—“one man,” a “radical”—is not representative of “true Islam.” The problem, however, is that all his arguments have been made countless times by countless Muslims, including the most authoritative, throughout the ages. For instance, the late Yasser Arafat evoked Hudaybiya as representative of “peace” with Israel.
And yet, despite all this—despite the fact that this video is a drop in the bucket of evidence—here is the West, making the way clear for people like Burhami to power in the name of “democracy,” regardless that pacts, smiles, and handshakes over cups of coffee exist solely when circumstance, in this case, Muslim weakness, dictates.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Muhammad Hassan: Smile to infidels only to deceive them
The totalitarian nature of Sharia law can only be grasped when one appreciates how thoroughly it permeates and dictates everything in a believer’s life—including when and to whom a Muslim may smile.
Popular Islamic TV preacher Sheikh Muhammad Hassan appears in this video clip asserting that, according to Sharia, it is “not at all permissible” for Muslims to smile at non-Muslims, “except in cases of da’wa.”
Often translated as “missionary work,” the word da’wa means to “call” or “summon” non-Muslims to Islam. Because it shares the same goals of jihad—empowering and spreading Islam—da’wa is often seen as jihad’s nonviolent counterpart.
In fact, Sheikh Hassan himself asserts that “da’wa mode differs from jihad mode. Jihad mode requires power, zeal, manliness—basically, a stern face and such. But when in da’wa mode, you must smile, you must be gentle.”
As proof, he pointed out that when Allah ordered Musa and Harun (the biblical “Moses” and “Aaron”) to go and persuade that great infidel, pharaoh, to submit, Allah commanded them “to speak to him gently” (Quran 20:44).
Further demonstrating the stealth nature of da’wa, Hassan made abundantly clear that if a Muslim smiles to a non-Muslim “by way of heartfelt friendship, this is wala’ which Islam has forbidden, and which contradicts faith according to Muslim consensus.”
As proof, he quoted Quran 60:1: “O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy [non-believers] for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth [i.e., while they deny Islam]?”
All of this naturally leads to Islam’s infamous doctrine of wala’ wa bara’, or “Loyalty and Enmity”; the verse quoted by Hassan is but one of many that portray non-believers as enemies to be shunned and subjugated (see also 4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22).
For instance, Quran 3:28 commands “believers not to take infidels for friends and allies instead of believers… unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” According to mainstream exegete Tabari, “taking precautions” means:
If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [but know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.
After interpreting Quran 3:28 as meaning that Muslims may “protect” themselves “through outward show” when under non-Muslim authority, Ibn Kathir, perhaps Islam’s most celebrated exegete, quotes a close companion of Muhammad saying: “Let us smile to the faces of some people while our hearts curse them.”
Such Islamic texts and teachings provide one with new appreciation for smiling, stealth jihadists operating under non-Muslim authority. Soon after watching the video clip of Sheikh Hassan, I came across the following picture of various CAIR characters, some of whom were convicted of terrorism, and wondered:
Is that what a da’wa-smile looks like (minus, of course, Siraj Wahhaj, whose “stern face” suggests he is in “jihad mode”)?
Raymond Ibrahim, a Middle East and Islam specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
And while the Ikhwan railed against corruption in Mubarak's regime, it has not only shown its own propensity for corruption through vote buying and an unwillingness to discuss it, but also in half-truths and outright lies.
Meanwhile, however, in the wake of the Salafists' unexpected romp in the elections, one can say this much: it has made it possible for the Brotherhood to take on the one accurate definition of what are often called "moderates": those who are believed to be somehow, somewhat less hardcore than the next guy, or at least slower moving and friendlier looking.
Of course, power for either group will result in the imposition of Sharia and the curtailment of human rights and civil liberties, no matter what the spokesman says below, because human rights and civil liberties will be defined and limited by Sharia.
In the end, the next legislature will be dominated by a supermajority of Six of One, and Half a Dozen of the Other. "Egypt Brotherhood says won't impose Islamic values," by Aya Batrawy for the Associated Press, December 2:
CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, emerging as the biggest winner in the first round of parliamentary elections, sought Saturday to reassure Egyptians that it would not sacrifice personal freedoms in promoting Islamic law.
The deputy head of the Brotherhood's new political party, Essam el-Erian, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that the group is not interested in imposing Islamic values on Egypt, home to a sizable Christian minority and others who object to being subject to strict Islamic codes.
"We represent a moderate and fair party," el-Erian said of his Freedom and Justice Party. "We want to apply the basics of Shariah law in a fair way that respects human rights and personal rights," he said, referring to Islamic law.
Human and personal rights as defined and limited by Sharia. It is a circular statement, because Sharia "respects" its own rulings.
The comments were the clearest indication that the Brotherhood was distancing itself from the ultraconservative Islamist Nour Party, which appears to have won the second-largest share of votes in the election's first phase.
The Nour Party espouses a strict interpretation of Islam similar to that of Saudi Arabia, where the sexes are segregated and women must be veiled and are barred from driving.
Egypt's election commission has released few official results from the voting on Monday and Tuesday. But preliminary counts have been leaked by judges and individual political groups showing both parties could together control a majority of seats in the lower house of parliament if they did form an alliance.
The Brotherhood recently denied in a statement that it seeks to form an alliance with the Nour Party in parliament, calling it "premature and mere media speculation."
On Saturday, el-Erian made it clear that the Brotherhood does not share Nour's more hard-line aspirations to strictly enforce Islamic codes in Egyptians' daily lives.
"We respect all people in their choice of religion and life," he said.
Apostates from Islam?
Another major check on such an agenda is the council of generals who have run the country since President Hosni Mubarak's ouster in February. The military council, accused by Egypt's protest movement of stalling a transition to civilian and democratic rule, is seeking to limit the powers of the next parliament and maintain close oversight over the drafting of a new constitution.
Egypt already uses Shariah law as the basis for legislation, however Egyptian laws remain largely secular as Shariah does not cover all aspects of modern life.
Ask some Copts how that's working out.
On its English-language Twitter account, the Brotherhood said that its priorities were to fix Egypt's economy and improve the lives of ordinary Egyptians, "not to change (the) face of Egypt into (an) Islamic state."
"Say (O Muhammad): O ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are favoured of Allah apart from (all) mankind, then long for death if ye are truthful." -- Qur'an 62:6
"Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim." -- Ayatollah Khomeini
"Pope Meets With Holy Land Rabbi, Imam, Druse," by Nicole Winfield for the Associated Press, November 10:
A delegation of Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Druse religious leaders in Israel met Thursday with Pope Benedict XVI in a high-profile display of their efforts to promote interfaith peace initiatives in the region....
Sheik Kiwan Mohamad, who heads an association of some 500 imams in Israel, said the fact that the council exists was proof that people of different faiths can live together peacefully, even amid the political unrest in the Middle East.
"Islam is a religion of peace that loves life and condemns any act in the name of religion against the very principles of the religion," he said. "The people who act in this way are selfish; they do so for themselves and out of personal motives and interests."...
Taqiyya alert: As Tunisia's Islamists chalk up the first of likely many electoral victories in the so-called 'Arab Spring' in Tunisia's elections, they are seeking to reassure the nervous, secular (i.e. less than pious) Muslims that they're not going to set up a religious dictatorship. At least not right away. Why would anyone need to be concerned about that? Note the mainstream media article's characterization of the winners as being 'moderate' -- moderate according to whom and by what standards? Following up this earlier Jihad Watch story: "Tunisia's Islamists seek to reassure secularists," MSNBC, 26 October 2011:
TUNIS—Tunisia's moderate Islamist party on Tuesday claimed a thumping victory in the country's first election, sending a message to the region that
once-banned Islamists are challenging for power after the "Arab Spring."
With election officials still counting ballots from Sunday's vote — the first to follow as a result of the uprisings which began in Tunisia and spread through the region — the Ennahda party said its own tally showed it had won. Several of its biggest rivals conceded defeat.
Ennahda was in talks with rivals on Tuesday about forming an interim coalition government to lead the birthplace of the Arab Spring through its transition to democracy.
Tunisia has a strong secular tradition, and Ennahda officials promised a broad-based coalition.
How far should one trust an Islamist? Even if such promises of having a 'broad based coalition' are carried out, it's nothing but window dressing. The Islamists will certain cast aside their coalition partners once they are no longer needed.
Seeking to reassure secularists in Tunisia and elsewhere who see a threat to liberal values in the region, party officials said they would share power and would not try to push through radical measures.
"There will be no rupture. There will be continuity because we came
to power via democracy, not through tanks," campaign manager Abdelhamid
Jlazzi said at party headquarters.
Power sharing! See, that should head off all possible problems. And as for the promised continuity, now that they are in power, there they shall remain. One man, one vote, one time.
"We suffered from dictatorship and repression and now is an historic
opportunity to savor the taste of freedom and democracy," he said.
Freedom and democracy as allowed within the bounds of Sharia, of course.
Shortly before he spoke, an Ennahda female candidate who does not wear the Islamic head scarf, or hijab, sang along to Lebanese and Tunisian
pop songs on a stage. The party says her inclusion is proof of its
moderate outlook.
Apparently music, singing and no hijab equal 'moderation'.
Muslims and their enablers, fans and dedicated propagandists around the world never tire of spreading the same lies, over and over again, about Islam. Sometimes the lies are baldly blatant, and other times the lies are conveyed via convenient and strategic omission of inconvenient facts. Hence we must never tire or flag in our own efforts to shine the harsh light of truth on Islam and the lies ceaselessly circulated by Islam's snake oil salesmen.
Today's bundle of media-vectored taqiyya comes courtesy of the Malaysian daily 'The Sun' and its piece entitled 'Humanistic Islam' (!). The unintentionally ironically-named article features the musings of a Singaporean-based Muslim author named Isa Kamari, who would probably pass for a 'moderate Muslim' in the mainstream media. Much of the aforementioned article centers on Kamari's thoughts on Malay-language literature, but it is Kamari's thoughts on Islam that deserve a thorough 'Islamophobic' debunking here. From 'Humanistic Islam' by Bissme S, The Sun, 7 October 2011:
What is the greatest misconception people have about Islam and Muslims around the world?
Islam is more feared than respected by many. The fear comes from not
understanding that it is a peaceful, tolerant and inclusive religion.
The fear is compounded by terrorism by fundamentalists such as Al Qaeda
and Jemaah Islamiyah. However some of the comments and criticisms
directed at Muslims deserve to be considered squarely and earnestly by
Muslims, in particular the resistance of Muslim communities to change. A
lot of work has to be done within Islam to facilitate the willingness
of Muslims to be adaptable and embrace changes which do not go against
the teachings of Islam.
As always, the infidels are responsible for the current lamentable state of affairs, as they fail to understand that Islam is peaceful. The actions of Muslims any and everywhere (barring a few 'fundamentalists') are naturally in no way responsible for the sad state of relations, and the failings within Islam itself are, as always, completely ignored. The fear that Kamari seems so concerned about would have nothing to do with the fact that Islam's founder in essence declared war on the non Muslim world, would it?
As for changes that 'do not go against the teachings of Islam' that Mr. Kamari mentions, judging from the backward and primitive status of virtually the entire Muslim world, it seems that these changes that go against Islamic teachings would include all of those which have brought about the modern, technological world over the past several centuries. It is these same teachings which keep Planet Islam not only at war with modernity, but in a permanent state of paralysis.
What can be done to change this unflattering image of Islam so it would not be feared and seen as intolerant?
The best way is to lead by example. Muslims have to come out and portray
Islam as a religion of peace, love and understanding. Efforts must be
made by them to bridge the understanding between different faiths.
Muslims must lead dignified, just and compassionate lives so that the
beauty and glory of Islam are manifested in everyday living for others
to appreciate and emulate.
In other words, Mr. Kamari explains that Muslims need to lie, more convincingly, more often, about Islam. And Mr. Kamari doesn't bother explaining how he defines 'dignity', but it's probably a fair bet that he is vastly more concerned with 'Islamophobia' than with rampaging church-destroying Muslim mobs in Indonesia, Pakistan, or Egypt, or in any other Muslim-controlled state. Sites like 'Jihad Watch' and authors like Robert Spencer are constantly attacked by Muslims like Isa Kamari, while Mr. Kamari's rampaging (yet more undoubtedly 'dignified') co-religionists are consistently ignored.
What is your opinion of the Lina Joy case (where a Muslim converted to Christianity)?
I did not follow the case closely, but from the little that I know, I
have this to say. As much as I would wish that she remains a Muslim, I
would respect her choice to embrace any faith she desires. It is
meaningless to enforce a legal ruling to keep her within the Islamic
faith if she is determined to denounce Islam either secretly or openly.
My position is based on surah Al Kafirun (The Disbelievers) in the Quran.
Golly, Mr. Kamari, where were you, or people with your point of view, during Lina Joy's nine year legal struggle to be legally recognized as a Christian here in Malaysia? Why no public show of support? No contributions to her legal expenses?
Please explain surah Al Kafirun? [sic]
Let me quote the verses: “Disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, neither will you worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine.”
Kamari quotes an abrogated part of the Quran to support his views. Does he not know about the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, or is he mouthing smooth lies for the sake of the infidel audience?
Should Muslims be allowed to convert to any religion they want?
Choice of one’s own religion is a fundamental right of every human
being. There is no compulsion in religion. In as much as I would welcome
the conversion of others to Islam, what right do I have to prevent a
Muslim from converting to another faith? Of course as a matter of
concern, I would offer counsel to the person who wants to leave Islam,
but the final decision entirely rests with that person. Every human
being has to answer to God of his or her own accord. I would have done
my part if I’d tried to convince that person to remain within the fold
of Islam.
Assuming Kamari is sincere in his stated views, why don't Muslims like him stand up in a meaningful way for people like Youcef Nadarkhani? Why don't they stand up for the countless numbers of other apostates around the Muslim world who are terrorized, persecuted and face execution by Muslims and Muslim authorities on a daily basis? Why doesn't Kamari and other supposedly like-minded Muslims pressure their fellow Muslims to be more tolerant? Why don't Kamari and company start a campaign to decriminalize apostacy in the Islamic world? Why not a single word from any Muslim organization (CAIR, OIC, etc etc.) in support of brave ex-Muslims like Pastor Youcef? Perhaps it's because, from an Islamic doctrinal point of view, Mr. Kamari doesn't have a leg to stand on?
What is your stand on freedom of expression – about books that mock religion and God?
Everyone has the right to express his thoughts and feelings freely, as
long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedom of others. Books
that mock religion and God would inevitably infringe on the rights and
freedom of the adherents of the religion and should be removed from
circulation for the public good.
'Infringing on the rights of others' is a nifty loophole in Kamari's assertion that 'everyone has the freedom of speech'. Muslims can and do claim the 'right' to not have their belief system criticised (a 'right' which was first violently claimed by Islam's founder himself). Books, websites and of course any other source of criticism would be silenced forever, if Kamari and his fellow Muslims got their way. Islamic totalitarianism is all for the 'public good', naturally; how one defines 'public good' is another issue altogether.
'Humanistic Islam'? The taqiyya masters like Kamari have turned the truth upside down. Honest assessments of Islam all point to the same conclusion: Islam dehumanizes its adherents extraordinarily well.
A former terrorist leader leader named Nasir Abas is now 'reformed' and attempting to talk people out of joining the violent jihad via his own comic book. But rather than coming out with a frank and honest assessment of how violent Islam is, how deeply rooted Islamic supremacism and violence against non Muslims (and less devout Muslims) are in the Quran and other Islamic source documents, what we get with Nasir Abas' book is the usual Islamic whitewash and the usual misleading assertions ('jihad is a peaceful struggle', et al.) that have little to no basis in Islamic scripture. So while the former Malaysian terrorist Nasir Abas may mean well, in the end his whitewash of Islam only serves the interests of Muslim supremacists in Indonesia and elsewhere. "Fighting extremism via comics", by Amy Chew, The Star, 2 October 2011
Nasir Abas, a former Jemaah Islamiah leader, is now waging a private jihad to stop teenagers from being recruited for suicide bombings and other terror activities.
Malaysian-born Nasir Abas is an unlikely comic book hero he is a former al-Qaeda-linked militant, leader of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) and a weapons expert who
fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
His journey from an idealistic student to a militant and later an ally to the police in their counter-terrorism efforts has been turned into a 137-page comic book titled I Found the Meaning of Jihad.
The book comes as Indonesia suffered another bomb blast last Sunday when a suicide bomber detonated explosives in a packed church in Solo, Central Java, killing the bomber and injuring 27 people.
Launched on Sept 8 in Jakarta when the movie Captain America was playing in the local cinemas, it inspired the Associated Press to nickname Nasir “Captain Jihad”.
“Since then, I have received phone calls from people looking for Captain Jihad',” says Nasir in a telephone interview from Jakarta where he resides.
Nasir, 42, is a well-known figure in Indonesia for his regular appearances on TV and seminars where he speaks out against extremism and the twisted intrepretation of “jihad” as espoused by the late Osama bin Laden and slain Malaysian terrorist, Noordin Top.
Bin Laden and his ilk have repeatedly cited numerous verses from the Quran to justify their actions. Exactly how is this a 'twisted interpretation'?
Noordin is blamed for a string of bomb attacks in Indonesia, including the devastating first Bali bombings of 2002 which killed 202 people.
“The ultimate jihad is to struggle for peace for the people and nation, not just for Muslims but non-Muslims as well. It defends human rights,” says Nasir.
“Jihad such as suicide bombing, which kills innocent lives, is not true jihad,” he adds.
How do Muslims define 'peace' and 'human rights'? And exactly who is considered 'innocent' by Islam? Can a non Muslim ever be considered as 'innocent'? Don't look for answers for these pressing questions from 'Captain Jihad' or in his comic book.
Of course they would. As Malaysia's deputy prime minister himself pointed out, it is the duty of all Muslims everywhere to advocate and push for shariah, and by extension hudud laws. Any infidels who are still afraid of said laws are, at the very least, misguided and likely Islamophobic as well. Following up on this story; "PAS to continue to champion hudud law, says president", by Ian McIntyre and S. Arulldas, The Star, 2 October 2011:
KEPALA BATAS: PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang has defended his party’s firm stance on adopting hudud law, saying it is a law that should not be questioned.
He blamed [Malaysia's ruling party] Umno for causing non-Muslims to be confused and afraid of the law.
“To implement hudud law has always been a struggle in PAS. We will continue to campaign for it,” he said when opening the one-day PAS 60th anniversary celebration at the Millennium Hall here yesterday.
Later at a press conference, PAS spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat said he would pray that the hudud and qisas jurisprudence law would be adopted in the country eventually although there was currently strong opposition from [Chinese-Malaysian Democratic Action Party or DAP].
He also claimed DAP had agreed in principle to the hudud legislation, which was passed in Kelantan and Terengganu in 1993 and 2003 respectively, but wanted its adoption to be based on the Federal Constitution.
Nik Abdul Aziz vowed that he would pray for Pakatan Rakyat to take over the Federal Government with two-thirds majority in the next general election so that the constitution could be amended to incorporate hudud and qisas into the Syariah court system.
For hudud and qisas to be adopted at the state level, the Federal Constitution must be amended.
Nik Abdul Aziz, who is Kelantan Mentri Besar, said he was surprised that people could accept the death penalty yet oppose hudud.
“There is no death sentence in hudud. It is just preventative and educational. Our [current] death penalty law [in Malaysia] is cruel, unlike hudud,” he said.
Well, if cutting off hands and murdering apostates is 'preventative and educational', then non-violent websites like Jihad Watch must be also considered by Muslims and their friends to be 'preventative and educational'.
The Malaysian Muslim political party known as PAS is going out of its way to reassure everyone -- nervous non Muslims especially -- that its plans for the eventual implementation of hudud law in Malaysia (or parts thereof) are nothing, absolutely nothing to worry about. In fact, this PAS devotion to Islamic law is causing a major rift in the forced political marriage that is otherwise known as the opposition coalition 'Pakatan Rakyat' (People's Alliance). The unnatural alliance that PAS has arranged with the decidedly unIslamic yet dhimmfied Chinese-Malaysian-leftist Democratic Action Party (DAP) is threatening to come apart at the seams. A follow-up to this story; "Nik Aziz: Non-Muslims should stop making a fuss", The Star, 27 September 2011 (thanks to Fatimah):
KOTA BARU: PAS spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat has hit out at DAP for making a fuss about the hudud issue “when the party has nothing to do with Islam”.
“I really do not know why everyone who has nothing to do with hudud is so scared as if they have seen a ghost.
“DAP has nothing to do with Islam and I want to know its reasons why it wants to leave Pakatan Rakyat,” he told reporters at his residence at Pulau Melaka here yesterday.
He was asked to comment on press reports quoting DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng as threatening the mass resignation of the DAP leadership from the Pakatan council if the Islamic state agenda is included in the group's election manifesto.
Nik Aziz, who is the Kelantan Mentri Besar, reiterated that hudud law had nothing to do with non-Muslims and they should not be unduly worried.
When asked to comment on the move to include hudud in the lists of Syariah punishments, Nik Aziz said this would be at the pleasure of the Sultan of Kelantan.
The Muslims, whether of PAS, UMNO or some other political party, whether Malaysian or otherwise, can be counted to keep reciting from the same script over and over: relax, infidels, do not fear Islam and go back to sleep. But if Islam is so 'noble and pure' and what-have-you, then why would those ungrateful kufr have to be continuously reassured as to Islam's intentions in the first place? Perhaps because Islam is not so benign after all?
Recent events in Malaysia -- i.e. various outrages and provocations committed by Muslims officially or non-officially towards non Muslims -- have, as is often delicately put, 'raised tensions' between Malaysian Muslims and its various non Muslim minorities. More specifically, these recent events have exposed the fiction that Malaysia is one 'harmonious' multi-ethnic and multi-religious society as being more phony than ever.
The Official Malaysian-Muslim Establishment has responded in two ways: first, by promising an 'investigation' into biggest recent outrage, namely the recent inspection of a church by the Islamic religious police (which may or may not involve or talk to the 'infidels' who actually own the church that was raided in the first place), and secondly, a propaganda offensive via the vetted government-approved mainstream media. The best and brightest of the Malays are on the case, and what one of them has to say may surprise you. Or perhaps not. From "Forging unity through religion", by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, The Star, 24 August 2011:
Universal values shared by all religions should be the fount of unity in a multi-religious society.
Is religion in multi-religious Malaysia a force for unity or disunity? This is an important question to ask at this juncture since religion has assumed tremendous significance in the public arena in recent times.
In the first decade and a half of our independence, religion was not perceived as a hindrance to national unity. The Constitution recognised Islam as the religion of the Federation.
It was an affirmation of the identity of the new nation which had evolved from Muslim Sultanates. If this identity was not acknowledged, the Malay-Muslim populace would have felt that the Malaysian state had not taken
cognisance of their identity as a people.
Of course, then as now, violence would have resulted, and does result, whenever the Malay-Muslims feel that their Islamic identity is in any way infringed or 'threatened'. And it doesn't take much for that to happen -- all a Christian has to do is say 'Allah' a few times, and before you know it, churches start going up in flames. But I digress.
However, the relatively tension free coexistence among
the majority and minority religious communities of the first 15 years,
began to witness some strains from the 1980s onwards.
This is about the same time that a certain infamous Malaysian, terrorist apologist and notorious anti Semite named Mahathir Mohamad became Prime Minister. Coincidence?
Often, in situations like this where interaction gives rise to friction, segments within a religious community become more
conscious of religious boundaries. Any breach of what is sometimes an
artificially constructed boundary arouses passions and heightens
tensions.
Yup, that 'friction' just mysteriously arises. Passions get 'aroused'. Never mind which religious group that is always getting riled up and 'aroused' in the first place.
There will be no solution to controversies such as child conversion as long as one accords primacy to religious injunctions that have developed over time rather than the perennial values and principles of the Quran.
Anyway, the good Doctor soon dispenses with his monkeyshine and warms to his main theme -- all these 'religious tensions' that keep arising between Muslims and everyone else in Malaysia are not the fault of Muslims at all.
If a certain mindset within a segment of the Muslim population is a barrier to national unity, so is a certain movement within the growing Christian community. Evangelical Christians determined to spread Christianity are becoming
more zealous.
Non-Muslim communities are their main targets in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak. But there is increasing
evidence to suggest that Malays are also being approached in spite of the constitutional provision that restricts “the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”
Of course! Muslims reserve the right to proselytize to everybody everywhere (which in this country is funded by infidels), but the Evangelical Christians dare to demand the same? Outrageous! Religious freedom for us, for not for unbelievers -- our religion forbids it. To a Muslim, the Golden Rule is apparently for suckers.
The evangelical push in Malaysia and other parts of the world has a lot to do with the rise of what is broadly described as the
Christian Right in the United States.
For the Christian Right exporting their brand of the religion serves to strengthen the global hegemonic power of the US.
When in doubt, blame America, and you're never wrong.
As Iain Buchannan shows in his superb academic study of this movement entitled “The Armies of God”, converting Muslims to Christianity is one of the evangelist's cherished goals.
Since Muslims worldwide have always resisted conversion, the tactics employed are more subtle and sophisticated.
Many Christian groups in Malaysia and other countries are opposed to this sort of evangelism.
Christians dare to convert Muslims using peaceful methods? How culturally insensitive! But let's hope this Buchannan fellow is correct. And speaking of conversion, if Muslims are so resistant to it, as the author claims, then why are Muslims and Muslim governments everywhere so touchy about 'protecting Muslims' from 'corrupt infidel beliefs'? After all, that's why the Malaysian government banned Muslims from practicing yoga a few years ago. As for the local Christians, they apparently meet with the Doctor's approval for being tame and truly dhimmified.
They know that it is not only a betrayal of the essence of Jesus' message of
love, compassion and justice but also inimical to harmonious relations among different religious communities. They emphasise universal values shared by Christianity, Islam and other religions.
It is these shared values that should be the fount of unity in a multi-religious society.
They underscore our common humanity. If religions through the deeds of their
adherents bring forth our common humanity, they will help forge unity
in this land that we call our home.
> Dr Chandra Muzaffar is chairman of the board of trustees, Yayasan 1Malaysia and Professor of Global Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
This Muslim has the unbelievable chutzpah to tell evangelical Christians -- and all Christians, really -- that they misunderstand Jesus' message. Apparently, to this so-called doctor, the only 'real' Christians are the ones that meekly submit to church 'inspections', second class status, and the overriding agenda of Islamic supremacy.
If this taqiyya master 'doctor' Muzaffar wants 'unity', then the only unity he plainly seeks is the kind with a distinctly Islamic hue.
Now why would the 'kuffar', the non Muslims, of Malaysia or anywhere else for that matter, have anything to fear in regards to Islam? Thinking about this question, let alone trying to honestly answer it, has already been either criminalized or heavily discouraged in many places in the world. So should non Muslims fear Islam? Well, anyone still in doubt should perhaps ask the Copts, the Baha'i, the Jews, or other Christians in many other places.
This story comes out of Malaysia, but could apply on a much larger canvas. Muslims here and elsewhere would prefer that infidels remain oblivious and ignorant. You may not care too much about Islam, but Islam in fact very much 'cares' about you. So the Muslims constant exhort us to relax, infidels, and go back to sleep. "Nothing to fear over calls for Muslim unity, says DPM", by Hamdan Raja Abdullah, The Star, 22 August 2011:
MUAR: Non-Muslims in the country have been urged not to feel apprehensive over calls made by leaders for the Muslims to unite.
Deputy Prime Minister [DPM] Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said that as the core community, unity among the Muslims was important for the country’s stability.
This, he said, would also benefit other communities.
Muhyiddin, speaking at the Pagoh Umno division Quran recital session, said it was vital for Muslims to unite under one group to strengthen solidarity.
“I mention this matter because former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had recently said that Muslims in the country have split into three or four groups.
“The splits can be due to political differences or other reasons, and this can weaken the Muslims,” he said.
Muhyiddin, who was accompanied by his wife Puan Sri Norainee Abdul Rahman, said Malaysia had been a model Islamic nation since Independence.
He said that for the past 54 years, the people of various races and religious beliefs had enjoyed peace, prosperity and development, including in education.
Peace in a proclaimed 'Islamic state'? You mean peacefully submitting to Islamic supremacism and foregoing one's freedom forever?
Here is a clearer video of Friday night's debate between the Imam Moustafa Zayed and me on whether on not Islam grants equality to women.
Zayed lost the debate badly, and is in full-on damage control mode; one of his associates has posted his response here, and although I am in a hurry to get to a meeting I couldn't let this go by. Zayed says:
As per not only the horrendous lie, but the most bizarre thing that I ever heard in my life, is when Spencer claimed that women captives would have to walk around naked from the waste up. I would not even dignify that horrendous insanity with an answer.
Actually, if you watch the video, you will see that I was referring to female captives who are used as sex slaves. Horribly Islamophobic of me, eh? Well, not so fast. Here is Kuwaiti Muslim "activist" Salwa al-Mutairi in June 2011, calling for revival of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim female captives:
Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up.
Will Zayed confront Salwa al-Mutairi about her "horrendous insanity," her "horrendous lie"? Don't hold your breath. As always, Muslims can say whatever outrageous things they want, call for blood, call for sex slavery, whatever. It only becomes "Islamophobia" when non-Muslims dare to repeat their statements.
Last night in my debate with the desperately deceitful Imam Moustafa Zayed about women in Islam, I referred to several ahadith that he challenged. About this one he said that I was conflating two ahadith, one in which Muhammad said that the majority of people in hell were women, and another in which he spoke of women being deficient in intelligence and in religion. Zayed claimed that Muhammad did not speak of these two things together -- a minor and diversionary point, to be sure, since he didn't challenge the authenticity of either hadith, but in any case, even in that he was lying, as here is the hadith in which Muhammad speaks both of hell being filled with mostly women and women being deficient in intellect and religion:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301)
Zayed also claimed that Aisha never said that Muhammad had struck her and caused her pain, and that I was misrepresenting the translation. Here it is from Sahih Muslim, translated by the Muslim scholar Abdul Hamid Siddiqui and posted at a Muslim Students Association website:
Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you. (Muslim Book 004, Number 2127)
I will post these again with the video of the debate when it becomes available.
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter..." -- 2:191
"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them..." -- 4:89
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies..." -- 8:60
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." -- 9:5
"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
"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens..." -- 47:4
Qasim Rashid never mentions any of those or others like them, of course.
"Do critics actually read the Koran?," by Qasim Rashid in the Washington Post, August 8:
Ramadan is upon us - a time of fasting, charity, prayer...and fighting off Islamophobia. Norweigian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik killed 76 innocent people in a demented campaign to destroy Islam. Comedian Bill Maher recently called the Koran a “hate-filled holy book.” Evangelical atheist Sam Harris insists, “on almost every page the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers .” And Peter King continues his anti-Muslim campaign to become the 21st century Senator McCarthy.
And in case I missed these public events, my readers remind me with private emails.
“The Koran contains much anti-Jewish language,” explained Leonard. “The true lovers of the Koran show their kindness by butchering non-Muslims,” added Angel. A tenured preacher in Richmond, Virginia (who asked to remain anonymous) wrote to me admitting, “I don’t know much about the Muslim doctrine, but your holy book certainly does not teach peace or pluralism.” For someone who admittedly ‘didn’t know much’ about Islam, he banked pretty confidently in his conclusion.
So here’s the $1 million question: Do critics actually read the Koran?
Well, I couldn’t find any reports indicating Bill Maher has actually ever read the Koran. That’s not to say that he hasn’t. Though, even during his recent interview of Congressman Keith Ellison, Maher largely quoted what Sam Harris told him to believe about the Koran, but never actually mentioned he read it himself. And Sam Harris, well he had to have actually read it. How else could he so effectively pick and choose parts of verses to successfully develop his argument? It’s not like he’s making money off it…oh, right. Does Peter King actually know any Muslims? As for Breivik, he and bin Laden now share two characteristics -- mass murdering and Koranic illiteracy.
But stay with me, I promise to address the criticism and not just criticize the critics. First things first, critics aside, why should non-Muslims in general even care to read the Koran?
Well, consider our American leaders as an example. On the surface, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama might seem vastly different in policy. But, these presidents have each read the Koran. Jefferson, a Founding Father, valued his personal Koran. Bush, a conservative Republican, called the Koran “a very thoughtful gift.” Obama, a Democrat who is not a Muslim, studied the Koran, even as a child. Jefferson, Bush, Obama—why not follow their example?
But the problem runs deeper. Pew reports the American Muslim approval rating is well below 50 percent. Pew also reports that less than half of Americans surveyed even know a Muslim personally. And, at least 17 states have proposed legislation to ban Shariah Law, i.e. the law of the Koran. For as much as we don’t know about the Koran, one-third of our nation’s states are banking it doesn’t promote peace and pluralism…sound familiar?
In a time of soaring unemployment, international strife, and plummeting public education, and a debt-ceiling crisis from...a very hot place, one out of every three states is spending tax dollars on what basically amounts to a Koran ban. I wonder, then, how many have bothered to read the Koran to learn about Islam firsthand? The optimist in me believes this is due to a lack of access, not promotion of malice. But the realist in me asks, ever heard of Google? In fact, here’s a free pdf copy.
And if nothing else, long live the Golden Rule. Muslims read the Bible and the Torah and Islam proudly testifies that previous scriptures contain truth. (I personally own—and study—a copy of each). Let us do unto Muslims…
But unfortunately, all we hear from the critics is that the Koran is a “hate-filled holy book” and that “Muslims are dangerous” are verse excerpts like this: “And kill them wherever you meet them…” (2:192). While critics scoff at the “you’re taking it out of context” argument, any judge in any court in any country in any era will explain the uncompromising importance of context when interpreting laws. And that is one thing the Koran is -- a book of laws.
The verse previous to 2:192 states: “And fight in the cause of God against those who fight against you, but do not transgress,”—specifying that fighting is defensive, not preemptive. The rest of 2:192 adds: “and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing,”—explaining the right to reclaim rightful property. While the aforementioned verses permit Muslims to fight defensively, the subsequent verses (2:193-94) demand Muslims desist fighting immediately when their opponents desist, “But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.”
"Aggression" is often defined by Islamic commentators as a refusal to accept Islam or allow for the establishment of the Islamic state. Hence the renowned and respected Islamic scholar Maulana Maududi, in his commentary on 9:29, says that non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines." If they do, "the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life."
He said it. I didn't.
This principle is re-iterated throughout the Koran. In fact, 22:40 establishes the rules of war, “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged.” Then, 22:41 commands Muslims to protect all houses of worship—cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques—to secure universal religious freedom. Such intolerable hatred, no?...
As long as the People of the Book "pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29). They are, after all, the "most vile of created beings (98:6). Such tolerance! Such love!
So, if any of foregoing were even partially true, why would Islam and Islamic law constantly require an odious, massive, state-operated law-enforcement system? Why are people always eager to escape Islam's clutches, despite the draconian penalties otherwise? "Sarawak mulls heavier penalty for Muslims caught not fasting", The Star, 3 August 2011:
KUCHING: The Sarawak government is considering amending the Syariah Criminal Offences Ordinance 2001 to provide for a heavier penalty for Muslims caught not fasting in the month of Ramadan, in view of the rising number of people arrested for the offence over the years.
Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister's Office Datuk Daud Abdul Rahman who is in charge of Islamic Affairs, said Wednesday the state government could look into also imposing community service as a punishment for the offenders.
"We have just completed the second day of Ramadan but 25 people have been arrested so far by the Sarawak Islamic Religious Department," he told reporters after presenting Sarawak Baitulmal Fund aid of RM51,286 to 35 people, here.
Daud, who is also Sarawak Baitulmal and Endowment Authority chairman, said the state government was also considering revealing the identity of those found guilty of the offence in the mass media to serve as a lesson to the offenders and as a deterrent to others.
Section 14 of the ordinance provides for a fine of up to RM1,000 or a jail term of up to six months for the first offence, or both, and a fine of up to RM2,000 or a jail term of up to a year, or both, for subsequent offences. - Bernama
I'd like to ask my fellow Malaysians -- or anyone with the courage to face the truth -- if court convictions, fines and imprisonment for the 'crime' of eating in public during Ramadan is in any way moderate, fair, beautiful or noble.
Events in far-off Norway, namely the horrific double-attack and massacre of innocents about one week ago, have elicited a response from the Malaysia government in what is officially described as a 'strong condemnation'. And for Malaysia's government, it is largely as advertised, a sternly-worded condemnation, but with a dollop of treacherous taqiyya thrown in for bad measure. From "Malaysia Strongly Condemns Norway Shooting, Bombing", Bernama, 23 July:
KUALA LUMPUR, July 23 (Bernama) -- Malaysia strongly condemned the bombing of the government offices and shootings at a youth camp in Oslo
and Utoeya, Norway yesterday, calling it a heinous crime.
In a statement, the Foreign Ministry expressed shock and sadness at the
incidents and said that Malaysia sent its deepest condolences to the
Norwegian government in its hour of bereavement.
As of now there were no Malaysians involved in the incident. The
Malaysian Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden was monitoring the situation, it
said.
"The government of Malaysia hopes the people responsible for this heinous crime will be brought to justice.
"Both the incidents have highlighted to the international community on
the need to take the path to democracy and moderation, and the
importance of strengthening cooperation in order to face any type of
terrorism and violent extremism," the statement said.
I suppose Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian perpetrator of heinous crimes against civilians, is no less 'moderate' than Hamas, an organization befriended by Malaysia (and quite popular with Malaysians) that, like Breivik, has also deliberately targeted civilians. Although to be truthful, there are differences between the two -- Breivik killed civilians in two instances, whilst Hamas has killed or attempted to kill civilians hundreds if not thousands of times. Of course, Malaysia has yet to condemn Hamas but a single time for any of their heinous crimes. What was that about 'the path to moderation' again?
Breivik is in fact no less 'extremist' or 'violent' than the very immoderate Islamic Republic of Iran, another entity with which Malaysia has enjoyed a long and close relationship with, Iran's notorious and long track record of state-sponsored terrorism having been studiously ignored by Malaysia all the while.
Yes, Malaysia has commendably damned the attacks in Norway and has publicly called for justice. One can only hope that when Hamas or Iran predictably and inevitably commits their next atrocity against civilians, that Malaysia will call for justice as they have loudly done in this case. Perhaps one day, Malaysia's actions will actually reflect its own soaring rhetoric. One can hope, at any rate.
Malaysia's mainstream media, being entirely government owned, often encodes 'sensitive' matters like 'race' and 'racism' (in actuality religious apartheid and Islamic supremacism) in a curious kind of double-talk, language that seeks to obfuscate reality rather than clarify it. Doublespeak usually characterizes governments which actively discourage critical thought and an informed
citizenry. Malaysia and its government are no different.
Today's government broadsheet, as usual, prominently figures Prime Minister Najib's latest broadside. Najib's words is full of typically Malaysian double-talk. In the interests of clarification and the truth, it's time to translate Najib's words and see what he really means. From "PM: Move from 'tolerance to acceptance' of multi-racial M'sia", by Saodah Elias and Embun Majid, The Star, 28 July 2011:
ALOR SETAR: Malaysians must break down all walls that seperate [sic] and differentiate them from each other, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Saying that being tolerant is no longer enough, the Prime Minister invited Malaysians to embrace the spirit of total acceptance.
"If we say we are tolerant of each other, that means there still exists walls that will make us fell a bit uneasy with each other.
"But if we accept each other, then we can celebrate our togetherness and be fully united as Malaysians," he said...
Najib may speak of 'acceptance', but never will he, nor any (Muslim) Prime Minister, state for the record that Muslims are the equal of non Muslims, or vice-versa. That would be extremely un-Islamic, and probably 'disruptive' to harmony as well (i.e. Muslims would riot, or at the very least threaten mayhem in such an event).
As for the 'acceptance' that Najib mentions, it's funny how Muslims keep seeking, or more likely. demanding 'acceptance' from every non Muslim in the vicinity. This can really only mean one thing for Muslims -- the acceptance of Islam. Nothing is more paramount for a Muslim than this. 'Breaking down the walls that 'seperate' Malaysians', as Najib has so implored, means that Islam can better flow, with less hindrance, into every nook and cranny of every Malaysian's public and private life.
And making everyone in Malaysia Muslim would certainly fulfill Najib's fervent wishes to be a less differentiated, more united Malaysia. When Najib and his government harangue the nation with their ceaseless '1Malaysia' mumbo-jumbo, this is the real message behind their motto.
Now what would make the Prime Minister think that Malaysian Christians have nothing but the most heartfelt abiding respect for Islam? Regardless, Islam does not 'ask' for respect. It demands it. More accurately, it demands unconditional acceptance of its cultural, social and political dominance. Furthermore, Islam demands that non Muslims accept humbling, humiliating, second class status (Quran 9:29 et al); in other words, they must accept dhimmitude. Failure to comply usually elicits a violent response from Muslims, officially or unofficially -- either of which of course, would be entirely the fault of the 'infidels'. And Malaysian history is full of such violent responses.
From "Respect Islam and we will respect you, Najib tells Christians" by Yow Hong Chieh, The Malaysian Insider, 22 July 2011:
SEPANG, July 22 — The government will engage with Christians groups here that love peace and respect the country’s Islamic
leadership, the prime minister said today.
Acceptance of Islamic supremacy is, naturally, non negotiable.
Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the Barisan Nasional (BN) government would work with Christians who wished to uphold world peace and harmony as it was committed to the “global movement of moderates”.
“We wish to tell our friends, the Malaysian Christians . . . if they
respect us, we will also respect them,” he told some 200 BN supporters
at Kompleks Bunga Raya here.
“This is our message. Islam is fair to all. Islam is beautiful, Islam is grand, Islam is pure, Islam is noble.”
Never mind the reams of evidence that conclusively show otherwise.
Putrajaya’s relationship with Christians remains strained following
the Home Ministry’s decision to bar the Catholic Church here from using
the word “Allah” in the Malay-language version of its newpaper, The Herald.
The article implies that the 'strained relationship' is a recent development. It isn't. The Muslim oppression has been going on for a very long time indeed. As a matter of fact, churches in Malaysia were being destroyed at about the same time Muslims destroyed another church in Lower Manhattan.
The case is pending a Home Ministry appeal of the 2009 High Court
ruling allowing the church to use the word, which some Muslims argue
should be reserved for Islam.
Several churches across the country were fire-bombed in January last year following the ruling.
Matters were further brought to a head when 35,100 Malay-language
bibles were seized by the Home Ministry, causing outrage among the
Christian community.
Christians have more than ample reason to be outraged at the Malaysian government, but they aren't going to start blowing up anything or anyone as a way to demonstrate their anger. That's generally reserved for followers of a certain other belief system.
The bibles were later released after a flurry of negotiations between church leaders and Putrajaya ahead of the Sarawak state election, on the condition that they be marked with a cross and the words “Christian Publication".
Many Catholics, however, remain unconvinced by Najib’s attempts to pacify the community, as evidenced by a widely circulated letter to the Pope accusing the prime minister of manipulating religious sentiment.
The smart ones are rightly suspicious. The smarter ones have already had enough of the Muslim taqiyya, intolerance, and ultimatums, and have left Muslim Malaysia for good.
One of the centerpieces of Malaysia's 'moderate Muslim' image is the concept of 'Islam Hadhari', which translates to 'Civilizational Islam'. Malaysia's Prime Minister often trots out this idea in speeches to appreciative and uncritical foreign audiences. The sheer contradiction in terms of this name notwithstanding -- there is nothing civilised about Sharia nor Islam,
but never mind that for the moment. Here are Islam Hadhari's main points, as spelled out by the concept's inventor and the the first prime minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, in 1957:
Faith and piety in Allah
Just and trustworthy government
Freedom and independence to the people
Mastery of knowledge
Balanced and comprehensive economic development
Good quality of life for all
Protection of the rights of minority groups and women
Cultural and moral integrity
Protection of the environment
A strong defense policy
OK, let's go down the list, point by point, and see what this all really means:
Point One -- Faith and piety in Allah. This means that continued Malay-Muslim supremacy (i.e. 60% of the population) in the country is paramount, the highest political objective, and will be defended, to the death if need be, from the other 40%.
Point two -- Just and trustworthy government. Now who could disagree with this? But there is Point One, which makes continued Islamic supremacy non negotiable. Is this 'just'? (It is if you're Muslim, and it isn't if you're an infidel). And just how trustworthy can a government be, when it has massive, systemic problems like corruption, a near-total lack of transparency, and rampant cronyism at its highest levels?
Point three -- Freedom and Independence of the people. As this Malaysian High Court case clearly demonstrates, 'freedom' in Malaysia doesn't include the freedom to choose your own religion. Put another way, freedom only works if you want to become a Muslim, and then once you enter the realm of Islam, there is no more freedom for you. The same holds true if you have the misfortune to be 'born' as a Muslim. Other freedoms, such as the freedom to criticize one's own government, freedom of assembly, and freedom of expression, are sharply curtailed under Malaysia's repressive Internal Security Act as well as via number of other statutes like the Societies Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act.
Point four -- Mastery of Knowledge. This lengthy list
of banned books in Malaysia shows that there's plenty of knowledge out
there in the world that Malaysia's Muslim and UMNO overlords would prefer their people to
not know about nor master. And this doesn't take into account the (many) censored and banned movies and TV shows, as well as blocked websites. In Malaysia, bad old-fashioned ignorance, and ignorance of 'infidel' knowledge, is obviously preferred.
Point five -- Balanced and comprehensive economic development. In Malaysia, Muslims and Malays are legally first among equals, and are favored over non-Malays in all sorts of official ways (lower interest rates on housing loans, easier access to student loans, preferential hiring for government jobs, advantages when setting up private companies, advantages when bidding for government contracts, and more government assistance in general). This is all legal and sanctioned under longstanding Malaysian government policy, as well as the infamous Article 153 in the Malaysian Constitution (which guarantees a 'special position' for Malays in society). How is this 'balanced' when Muslims always get an out-sized portion of the pie?
Point six -- Good quality of life for all. See points one and five for the important catch.
Point seven -- Protection of minority groups and women's rights. Protection of minority groups and women from whom, exactly? Is firebombing and bulldozing of churches, temples and other non Muslim houses of worship considered 'protection'? And as for women, the Quran, Mohammed's own examples, and 14 centuries of Islam make it very clear that women are not and can never be the equals of men. No amount of posturing, or spin, and certainly nothing some Malaysian Prime Minister says, is going to change that.
Point eight -- Cultural and moral integrity. This point sounds suspiciously like a justification for maintaining Sharia and the Muslim religious police (aka 'Jakim') around in perpetuity, with the non-Muslim taxpayers footing a healthy chunk of the bill. Malaysia's Religious Police periodically proclaim their intent to continue their mission from God of moral policing, and 'saving' the nation from evils like hand holding, kissing in public, khalwat (close proximity of members of the opposite sex), etc. Monumental injustice and lifestyle police are sure to remain permanent fixtures in Malaysia, no matter how 'moderate' Islam is supposed to be.
Point nine -- Protection of the environment. Looking around Malaysia, I see clear cutting of its jungle at a breakneck pace, atrocious water and air quality, and ineffectual and spotty enforcement of its own environmental laws. When there's money to be made and kickbacks to be received, who cares a wit about the 'environment'? Certainly not some bureaucrat in Putrajaya (the Federal administrative capital).
Point ten -- A strong defense policy. The Malaysian military and its budget will always be looked after...after all, who makes up the vast majority of military personnel? Malays, and hence Muslims, of course. A loyal and Muslim-run military is also the ultimate guarantor of continued Muslim supremacy and the survival of the Muslim-run government.
Fourteen centuries of trying to 'moderate' Islam have been an abject failure, and so Islam Hadhari has plainly failed just like all the rest. Islam is so ingrained with violence, aggression and intolerance, that any attempt to 'moderate' or purge these elements from the ideology will inevitably fail. Islam Hadhari is not only an empty promise in the land of its birth, it is also a cheap fraud perpetrated upon an unsuspecting world.
'Moderate' Malaysia's steadfast refusal to establish diplomatic relations with Israel is fairly well known. What's not nearly as well known is the fact that Malaysia has also refused to establish relations with the Vatican. The Vatican does not control any territory that can be remotely described as 'occupied', nor has the Vatican's Swiss Guard been accused of committing any sort of war crime. So why, after more than 53 years of independence, is Malaysia only now (possibly) getting around to it? "[Malaysian Prime Minister] Najib to meet Pope, eyes ties with Vatican", from Free Malaysia Today, 5 July 2011.
KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is due to meet Pope Benedict XVI mid-July as Malaysia embarks on a plan to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican, a top official said today.
“The meeting with Pope Benedict XVI is set for July 18. The meeting with the pope is to show that Malaysia respects all religions,” the official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
If Malaysia's Muslim government really 'respects all religions', then it has a funny way of showing it. Of course, Malaysia truly respects but one religion only -- no points for guessing which one.
Last month Najib met with Malaysian church leaders in a bid to ease
religious tensions stirred by a report that alleged Christians wanted to
replace Islam as the official religion.
The row is one of a string of religious disputes in recent years that have raised fears among minorities that the country is being
“Islamised” and that their rights are being eroded.
Religion and language are sensitive issues in multi-racial Malaysia...
Religious tensions. Religious disputes. Reports alleging Christians are up to no good. Fears among minorities, meaning non Muslims. This is precisely the sort of typical, disingenuous Malaysian media doublespeak which attempts to conceal if not absolve the guilty parties, who are of course never identified; nor are their motives examined in any meaningful way. 'Religious tensions', or when non Muslims are fearful and afraid they will not be allowed to practice their belief systems, are caused by who exactly? Who is causing these 'religious disputes', like bulldozing and attacking churches? Why is religion such a 'sensitive' topic? Who exactly is forbidding others from talking about religion? If you have the temerity to answer such questions, let alone ask, no doubt this makes you a harmony-destroying racist, or worse, an Islamophobe.
Last year there was a spate of attacks on churches after the High
Court decided to lift a government ban on non-Muslims using “Allah” as a
translation for “God”.
The government has strongly criticised the attacks, but has been
accused of stoking Malay nationalism so as to protect its voter base
after the opposition gains.
At last, here's a hint of who's really responsible for the aforementioned 'religious tensions', even though the article fails yet again to mention who's responsible for all the mayhem. As for the term 'Malay nationalism', it is a codeword for "Islamic supremacy", which is beyond question and must be defended at all costs.
The planned meeting with the pope comes as Najib ponders calling a snap election in the next few months.
The ruling Barisan Nasional coalition is struggling to regain support from ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities who swung towards the
opposition in landmark 2008 general election.
Now we get to Najib's real motivation for making his Roman pilgrimage, so to speak. His government's taqiyya towards the dhimmis is slipping a bit, and he's got to appear to make amends. Rest assured, the second class treatment of Christians et al, the disguised jizya and everything else on the Islamic supremacy agenda is not going to change one iota, but by gosh, Najib will get his photo op with His Holiness. And with a little (bad) luck, this latest tour of taqiyya courtesy of its Muslim practitioners will fool the infidels both here and abroad once again.
Until May of this year, the Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn, better known to some by his initials DSK, was the influential head of the International Monetary Fund. His arrest in New York City in May of this year on sexual assault charges has been one of the most spectacular and possibly over-reported news stories of 2011. DSK's downfall has had all the elements of a long-lived scandal: a powerful personality, accusations of a violent and heinous crime, and all brought about by a mere hotel chambermaid. There was more than a whiff of schadenfreude in the media's accounts that eagerly reported on DSK's initial detention at Riker's Island in New York, right down to his daily routine, meals, and even what sort of clothes he had to wear while incarcerated. DSK's reputation as a womanizer who has had numerous liaisons over the years has done little to help his case.
Of course, it just so happens that DSK's accuser, a housekeeper at the Sofitel New York, is duly described in many media accounts as a "...very pious, devout Muslim woman." And it also so happens that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Coincidence? 'Coincidence' may be what many have thought up to this point, but it may be time to revisit this assumption.
And here's why. Six weeks after DSK's initial arrest, more information is now emerging about DSK's accuser, a woman who migrated from the African nation of Guinea to the US. And these revelations are the reason why the legal case against DSK is unraveling with such amazing speed. Mr. Strauss-Kahn has in fact already been released from house arrest.
The migrant from Guinea, who came into the United States on an asylum claim in 2004, has apparently lied from beginning to end. Her story that her husband was killed opposing the regime in Guinea and she was forced to flee her homeland was all a lie. She lied about her finances in order to secure public housing. She claimed a friend's child as her own in order to increase her Federal tax refund. She has had numerous associations with criminals, including her own boyfriend who is now languishing in an Arizona prison. And her own story of her supposed encounter with DSK has changed over the last six weeks, chock full of inconsistencies. In other words, she's emerged as about the worse sort of witness imaginable for the prosecution.
Probably the most damning evidence to come to light is the fact that, while DSK's accuser spoke to her incarcerated boyfriend by phone, she is reported to have said, in effect, that "...DSK has a lot of money and I know what I'm doing." She attempted to hide these intentions by speaking in an African dialect, but apparently the Feds were listening and eventually had it translated.
This is not the first time a Muslim has tried to run an extortion racket against an 'infidel', with the only difference now being that the target was a very high-profile one. Many Muslims have long been noted for their intimate involvement in the criminal underworld, exploiting Westerners, running welfare scams, and in general 'parasiting' non Muslims and western society at every opportunity. The case against DSK appears to be but a recent and high-profile instance of 'stealth' or 'legal' jihad, when Muslims attempt to exploit the infidels' own laws for maximum advantage.
Why would a Muslim, and a 'pious, devout' one at that, be so adept and experienced at lying? Surely Islam has nothing to do with this woman's pathological lying, and nothing to do with her criminal attempts to extort money from a powerful, rich Jew. Of course.
As jihad-minded and Islamic supremacist Muslims continue to pour into the US and other Western countries, permitted to do so by clueless or complicit authorities, the next attempted shakedown (high profile or otherwise) is but a matter of time. What happened to Dominique Strauss-Kahn will eventually happen again.
Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib has chosen to openly and proudly wear his Muslim heart on his jihadist sleeve. Rather than making a huge public effort -- make that a huge public relations stunt -- to help suffering Muslims in war zones like Libya, Syria, or Yemen, Najib's throwing Malaysia's modest diplomatic weight at the UN behind an effort to send, ahem, 'humanitarian aid' to Hamas -- I mean Gaza. From 'Najib seeks UN support for Gaza freedom flotilla', The Sun, 28 June:
KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister (Najib) has sought the support of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon for the International Freedom Flotilla II to Gaza, saying that the mission scheduled to set sail at the end of this month "only seeks to deliver humanitarian assistance to alleviate the sufferings of the Palestinians in Gaza.
...Najib also urged Ban to call upon the government of Israel not to use any force against the flotilla.
In other words, "Israel should quietly surrender if the Zionists know what's good for them."
This is beyond pointless. With Egypt preparing to succumb to the gentle rule of the 'moderate' Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptians have already opened their land border with Gaza. So this is certainly not a question of whether or not a bunch of 'suffering' Muslims could get 'humanitarian supplies', not when much less glamorous trucks from Egypt could now bring in all the humanitarian aid one could ever want. The aforementioned 'Freedom Flotilla' is not even necessary from a logistical standpoint, if we were to take Najib at his word.
But it's usually never wise to take a Muslim leader at his word. Like the last Jihadist flotilla to Gaza that had Malaysian involvement, this 'Freedom Flotilla' is all about having the 'freedom' to fight the Zionist entity, the perennial enemy of all Muslims -- even Muslims like Malaysians who live thousands of kilometres away.
And the Malaysian Media is, as usual, totally in the tank for the Jihad. Najib's grand gesture against the evil Zionists got eight paragraphs on page 2 in the The Sun, whilst the 8-year-old girl deliberately detonated by the Taliban earlier this week got a one-paragraph blurb in the same newspaper on page 5.
Muslims here in Malaysia and elsewhere love to prattle on about how warlike the 'infidels' are,
especially America or anyone that can be portrayed as one of America's
friends. When former British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Malaysia in 2010, a op-ed in a Malaysian government-controlled
newspaper, The Star, excoriated him, stating in this piece
that "Malaysia must not allow this mass murderer to be immune from
justice." So said the author of this piece, one "Professor" Shad Saleem
Farudi. OK, I get it -- America is evil and so is anyone that cooperates
with America.
Meanwhile, Muslims who are actually engaged in ongoing mass murder of the worse sort imaginable -- bombings and shootings of Muslims praying
at mosques, bombings of Muslims in hospitals who are being patched back together from said bombings, bombings of Muslims who are attending
funerals of other bombing/shooting victims -- this merits, at most, only a
passing mention in the the Muslim media. Actually, such barbarisms are
usually not mentioned at all, not in what passes as the 'Malaysian
media'. Not even a hint of condemnation is to be heard.
The Taliban monsters, unnoticed and uncondemned by any Muslim or Muslim group, continue to outdo themselves in sheer depravity. Yesterday came the news that the jihadists tricked an 8 year-old girl to be a suicide bomber. Well, 'War is deceit', as Islam's 'prophet' is alleged to have said. And 'War is hell' as one American general once said. But how many Malaysians are going to get themselves worked up over this, like they get worked up over cartoons or Israeli operations against Hamas? What a silly question to ask.
As for Tony Blair, he stands accused by many Muslims and Muslim groups as being a
'war criminal' and for committing 'crimes against humanity', while Saddam Hussein (may he rot in hell) is never similarly accused in the Muslim media, despite the millions of Muslims he killed, tortured, gassed, and murdered. Yes, Saddam is mercifully dead, thanks to the efforts of alleged 'war criminal' Tony Blair and others, but the authors of the real war crimes described above, the Taliban, are quite alive and well.
And still, their enormous crimes are at best ignored, and perhaps tacitly accepted, by Malaysians of all stripes, both inside and outside the government and media.
Malaysia and its people studiously do nothing to fight against those who wantonly murder civilians, including women and children, in schools, mosques, or hospitals. Malaysia cares not a whit if Muslims use 8-year olds for suicide attacks. And why? Because this means Malaysia would be openly seen to be helping Americans fight Muslims, you see. Meanwhile, the aforementioned self-righteous 'Professor' Shad Saleem Farudi of course cannot even be bothered to write a perfunctory letter to the editor to speak ill of his fellow co-religionists, the Taliban,
or of their many real war crimes. Only infidels commit crimes against humanity, never Muslims. Never mind the facts. And when reality gets in the way, well, you just invent your own reality, like Mr. Farudi and his fellow Mohammedans have done.
All of this has made one thing loud and clear to me. To be a Muslim means to be a hypocrite par excellence.
Recently I had the opportunity to be interviewed by FrontPage Magazine's editor Jamie Glazov. In case you haven't yet read it, the main thrust of the interview was regarding the ongoing persecution of minority non Muslims in Malaysia at the hands of the Muslim/Malay majority. The lengthy track record of substandard treatment and discrimination of non Muslims in general and Christians in particular should make it clear to everyone what's going on in Malaysia and why.
Most of the comments that I received at FrontPage were supportive, but a few comments, apparently from Muslims, were not so charitable. One in particular, from someone called 'Ibrahim', stood out. Namely, his comment stood out in its dis-ingenuousness, its contempt of the truth, and flagrant twisting or outright omission of the facts. Given these characteristics (as well as the writer's mangled grammar), this writer is almost certainly not only a Muslim, but a fervent Muslim supporter of Malaysia's Muslim-controlled government. So in that regard, this comment stands as yet another useful peek into the cognitive dissonance that the counterjihad is up against.
So I've taken the liberty of reproducing most of 'Ibrahim's' comment here and showing just how many lies and distortions a taqiyya-spewing Muslim can pack into one (very long) paragraph.
...[The Anti Jihadist] did not not show the numbers of Christians persecuted in Malaysia and the years when they were persecuted.
As if my failing to produce a statistic or specific dates somehow makes Islamic persecution in this country less real. Since Malaysia's pro-Islamic courts, police and government were all set up by Muslims, for Muslims, and to ensure Islam remains dominant culturally, socially, and politically in perpetuity, the number of Christians in Malaysia subjected to Islamic degradation encompasses every Christian now on Malaysian soil. According to the CIA Factbook, Christians make up 9.1% of the population of Malaysia, which translates to approximately 2.5 million people. This number does not even begin to define the problem, as other persecuted non Muslim minorities (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) are left out. And most importantly, we can never know with certainty the number of former Muslims in Malaysia, who are either thrown into religious prisons for their trouble, or stay quiet out of fear.
The tragedy of May 13, 1969 was not between Muslims and non-Muslims and it had nothing to do with any religion and its adherents. The tragedy took place in the big cities like Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh and Penang between the political supporters of Democratic Action Party and those who opposed then when they celebrated their victory of the Malaysian general elections took place in that month and year.
Funny, I don't recall mentioning 'May 13, 1969' in my interview, and yet this Muslim commenter has gone out of his way to disavow Islam and Muslims from this 'tragedy'. So that should tell everybody that something here smells quite fishy indeed.
The May 13th incident was not a "tragedy" at all, like a tornado or a flood are tragedies. And the general election going on at the time was merely a convenient pretext. May 13th was a crime of mass murder, a deliberate attack by Muslims (Malays) against non Muslims (mostly indigenous Chinese) who were a bit too uppity and successful for their own good. We do know that the loudspeakers of mosques were used by the rioters to incite the rioters to carry on during those dark days, which suggests at least some level of 'official' Islamic involvement. No one, in fact, was ever charged or prosecuted. Hundreds or perhaps thousands died, with the vast majority of them being non Muslims. But thanks to the Malaysian government's cover-up and obfuscation of the facts for decades, the exact death toll will probably never be known.
And this jihadist-inspired pogrom of May 13th, 42 years ago, resulted in a handsome payoff the Malays. It was the instigator of the so-called 'New Economic Programme', which amounts to nothing more than a thinly-disguised government-run jizya scheme that has profited Malays handsomely, all at the expense of non Muslims. It continues in Malaysia to this day.
May 13th was not an isolated case. Other countries in southeast Asia have also had 'May 13' style incidents -- including Indonesia in 1965-6 & 1998 and Singapore in 1964 -- all when Muslims attacked non Muslims (usually Chinese) with great ferocity and enormous loss of life. At least 500,000 Chinese died in the 1965-66 Indonesian riots alone.
The judges in Malaysian courts are all Muslims are not the fact of Malaysian judiciary system and practice. There are non-Muslim judges in Malaysian courts too.
The presence of a small number of non Muslim judges in the Malaysian justice system does not in any way negate the fact that the Malaysian justice system has long been co-opted to serve the interests of Islam and Muslims. The Lina Joy case bears this out, as I shall explain in a moment.
The Malaysian Christian convert Lina Joy was not detained or prisoned (sic). She is free to her application to delete the word Islam from her Malaysian identity card, MyKad, was rejected by the courts in Malaysia, lower, high, appealed and federal courts since Malaysian law provided for Muslims to go to the Shariah Court to apply to change her religion from Islam to other religion.
Lina Joy, for those who are unaware of the facts, is a Malay who had the misfortune to be 'born' as a Muslim. Once she was an adult, she freely and of her own accord embraced Christianity. However, she had the further misfortune, as a Malaysian, to be forced to have her religion listed on her identity card that all Malaysians, by law, must carry on their persons at all times. Having one's religion listed on an identity card already constitutes a gross government intrusion into a citizen's privacy, but it gets worse. When Lina Joy went to the highest court in the country to try and remove the word 'Islam' from her ID card, the court ruled against her. The non Muslim judge was the sole dissenting voice on the panel. In the aftermath Lina Joy dropped from public view altogether, apparently not feeling safe from people like 'Ibrahim', and my understanding is that she has since left the country for safer (non Muslim) shores.
Ibrahim also neglected to mention that the Shariah courts in this country have never granted permission for anyone 'born' to Islam to leave it. So even if Lina had gone to the Shariah courts, enduring yet more years of harassment and humiliation, she would have not only been denied her freedom as supposedly guaranteed by Malaysia's constitution, but she also would have been undoubtedly thrown into a government 'religious purification centre' (a prison) for 'treatment'.
Malaysian terrorist Azahari Husin did not kill any Christian in Malaysia since he was active in Indonesia before he was killed by Indonesian policemen.
We are supposed to be comforted by the fact that Azahari killed no one in Malaysia? For some reason I find that hardly comforting. And 'active' is of course a euphemism for actively murdering Australians, hotel guests, tourists, party-goers, and anyone else who was unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of Azahari Husin's explosives. And where did Husin get these unfortunate ideas from? Ibrahim, would you care to explain? Azahari certainly wasn't living in Indonesia when he decided to 'serve a higher cause'.
Regarding the difficulty for the Christians to acquire land lots to build new churches, their difficulty was not due to the protests from the Muslims but they have to fulfill the laws and by-laws in the cities or towns where the churches were intended to be constructed.
Ibrahim won't tell you that these laws and by-laws are designed to discriminate precisely against non Muslim houses of worship. For example of this, consider one Catholic church in Malaysia which took 28 years to construct and was completed in 2005. The Roman Catholic Church of the Divine Mercy in Shah Alam was only allowed to be built in an industrial estate. Other churches are forced to operate in shop lots -- and the unlucky ones get demolished. And don't forget that 79 temples have been destroyed in the last 54 years in this country. That's how 'fair' these Muslim-written laws and by-laws are.
By spreading the false news about Islam's persecution of Christians in Malaysia, it is very serious and bad strategy for Muslims and Christians in Malaysia because if Muslims and Christians happen to believe and react to such false news, the imagined attacks may become real.
So far, the only person spreading 'false news' about Islam's persecution of Christians in Malaysia is you, Ibrahim. And note the naked threat of violence here -- if we infidels don't stop complaining about the persecution which Ibrahim vehemently denies existing, well, then we'll be attacked by, um, someone. Attacked by Buddhists perhaps? Or might those people be your co-religionists, Ibrahim? And would you be among them?
Do not put Malaysia in the same categories with other countries where there wars or killings between Muslims and Christians like happening in Sudan and Nigeria and some other majority Muslim countries.
How dare I put Malaysia in the same category as other Muslim-ruled states! Where would I get the idea that Muslims would carry out large scale killings of Christians? Oh that's right -- it's already happening and been happening in many majority Muslim countries. Sudan and Nigeria are the mere tip of the iceberg.
This is precisely the sort of meaningless, taqiyya-laced press release that Muslim-led governments like Malaysia's are notorious for. "Najib's call to stand united against extremism gains support", from The Star Online, 21 June:
CYBERJAYA: African nations have expressed interest and responded positively to the global movement of moderates.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said he had taken the opportunity to explain the concept to the heads of governments during the Leaders Retreat at the Langkawi International Dialogue.
“The leaders are interested in the idea and there is positive response in support of the [moderation] concept,” he told reporters after chairing the retreat yesterday.
Najib had in his address to the United Nations General Assembly last year called for the global movement of moderates that would see governments, intellectuals, religious scholars and business leaders across the world take a united stand against extremism.
The Prime Minister said that during the discussion, Tanzanian president Jakaya Kikwete had shared his country's experience in which the government was in the midst of identifying moderates to solve the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes in Burundi.
Exactly what this swell 'moderation concept' is supposed to all about is not disclosed in the article. And don't bother looking, either. Remember that articles in the Malaysian media are generally uncritical of and rather faithful to their government masters (and Islam is naturally blameless and beyond reproach). Which means that they're quite good at passing along their government's lies and taqiyya with a more-or-less straight face.
Neither does Najib bother to explain what 'extremism' is either. Naturally, it goes without saying that Islam is never to be considered as 'extremist' or to be associated in any way with 'extremism'. Of course; this would be Islamophobic and probably racist as well.
Prime Minister Najib, would supporting a bunch of homical-minded Jew-hating terrorists in the Middle East be considered 'extreme'? Would throwing Malaysians who stop believing in Islam -- a.k.a. 'apostates' -- into Government built and funded prisons where they are assaulted and tortured by police be 'extreme'? Would those Malaysians who carry out and enforce a legal system -- a.k.a. Shariah -- that denotes women and non Muslims as inferior be deemed 'extremists'?
Malaysia's Najib may be able to fool a bunch of African leaders that he can 'identify moderates and extremists' with his (at best) questionable 'moderation concept'. But if Najib wants to see a real extremist, all he really has to do is look in the mirror.
In Human Events this morning I take apart one of the many whitewashes of Sharia that are being published these days:
Now that 20 states are considering legislation to outlaw Islamic law (Sharia), Islamic supremacist advocacy groups in the U.S—particularly the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—have launched an energetic media campaign to whitewash Sharia and gull Americans into believing that it is as benign as a game of dominoes.
To that end, Nezar Hamze, executive director of the South Florida chapter of CAIR, published a piece in the Miami Herald assuring us that Sharia was as American as baseball and fishing—and conveniently leaving out everything about Sharia that makes people believe it is a threat in the first place.
Hamze attributed concern about Islamic law to those who “claim that 'Moozlims' are trying to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Sharia” and are ready to “run out with pitchforks and protest signs.”
“Moozlims.” “Pitchforks.” Hamze was semaphoring that the only people who could possibly be concerned about Sharia are ignorant racist yahoos. This is just a smear tactic, but it works insofar as it warns unreflective and uninformed leftists (i.e., virtually all leftists) not to dare to oppose Sharia: We wouldn’t want to align with rednecks, now, would we?
Hamze quoted Florida politician Adam Hasner as saying that “today there is an enemy, and that enemy is Sharia-compliant Islam.” Then Hamze commented: “This statement is ridiculous. When I wash before praying, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I offer a greeting to someone, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. What in the world is Hasner talking about?”
Despite the fact that 'Palestine' is thousands of kilometres away from Malaysia, Malaysians are quite enamored with the 'Palestinians', as this photograph amply shows, which was recently taken by yours truly somewhere on the streets of Kuala Lumpur. Note the green and yellow 'Hizbollah' sticker in the lower left corner of the windscreen. Who says Shia and Sunni can't set aside their differences long enough to work together and wreck havoc on the infidels? For those who are curious, the Arabic characters on the right side of the 'Hamas' banner refers to 'Allah' and the one on the left refers to Islam's lone messenger Mo. That must make the driver of this car one very radical, I mean very devout Muslim.
This vehicle isn't the first time that I have seen cars in Malaysia displaying such stickers. In Malaysia, it's apparently the epitome of 'Islamic Cool' to publicly support the Jihad. Conversely, calling someone a 'Zionist' is the ultimate insult in the Malaysian political scene.
Malaysians of all backgrounds have made quite of show of admiring Hamas, and their support for Islamic genocidally-minded anti-Semitic thugs goes well beyond plastering windscreen stickers on cars. Billboards around KL brag about sending 'humanitarian aid' to Gaza, Malaysians have been intimately involved in various so-called 'humanitarian' boat lifts that have tried to run the Israeli blockade, and at least one high-ranking official delegation from Hamas has met a Malaysian Prime Minster. The Malaysian government has also sent foreign aid to Hamas and Fatah repeatedly, to the tune of millions of US dollars.
But wait, isn't Malaysia in particular and Islam in general supposed to be all about 'moderation'? The current Malaysian Prime Minister and other taqiyya-spouting Malaysians would certainly like you to think so. But is there anything even remotely moderate about openly supporting Islamic terrorists who are on a Mission from Allah to kill Jews in the Holy Land (and anywhere else they can be found)? Prime Minister Najib, would you care to answer?
If you have the presence of mind to actually pose such questions, well remember, that automatically makes you an Islamophobe, or worse, a harmony-destroying boat-rocking racist bigot.
So in the meantime, the Malaysian affair with the romantic Jihadists of Palestine will no doubt continue. And if that means helping their co-religionists commit murder and sow mayhem, then that's precisely what the 'moderate' Muslims of Malaysia will do.
The myth of 'Liberal' Islam, deconstructed By the Anti Jihadist
In my recent comparison of two Malaysian Muslims, Doctor Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad and Hafidz Baradom, Mr. Baradom himself responded by leaving a comment. In part, his comment reads:
As I've stated in the commentary of my piece, if a non-Muslim (kafir is such a derogatory term) does not take to education, well, fine. Leave him be. ... And the world is not made of merely my co-religionists. It is merely whether they are open minded enough to accept differing points of view...
OK, I can respect views like these, and doubtless so can many others. After all, he sounds reasonable enough, especially for a Muslim. So what's the problem?
The problem is this: by sounding so reasonable, so tolerant, so open-minded, that the kuffar -- yes Mr. Baharom, that is the undisputed Islamic term for unbelievers -- are bound to think that enlightened and commendable traits like tolerance and open-mindedness are what Islam is really all about.
It isn't.
This is a critical mistake many, especially in the West, have already been lured into making. Lured into making by smooth-talking snake oil salesmen like Baharom, by Muslim allies on the left wing of the Western political establishment, by the politically correct mainstream media, by those in academia, and by many others.
For in fact, Islam is not at all what Hafidz Baradom says it is. Rather, Islam is a belief system that has long been codified in Islamic scripture. Islam is what its founder Mohammad is documented as doing in his life--his examples, his actions, and the lessons he promulgated to and left for his followers.
Baradom's arguments are typical of so-called 'liberal' or 'moderate' Muslims, so it's worth analysing Baradom's assertions. By comparing four of Baradom's assertions from his recent column with teachings from authentic Islamic sources, and by critically examining Baradom's assertions themselves, the truth about Islam should readily come to light.
Assertion One:...the first basis of the religion [Islam] itself is to find moderation.
This blithe statement about Islam's alleged moderation blatantly flies in the face of facts. In one well-known, notorious example, all schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the penalty for attempting to leave Islam is death. There are numerous websites (including this one blocked in Malaysia) that are replete with countless horror stories of people whose sole 'crime' was to stop believing in Islam. Few, if any Muslims stand up for the rights of these persecuted people. Baradom's silence on this matter -- and how could he argue to the contrary -- amounts to his tacit agreement on this point. Furthermore, the Quran itself is filled with contempt and hatred for non Muslims and followers of other belief systems, calling them liars who will burn in hell, among many other vile things. And the distilled extremism of pure Islam goes far beyond these examples. Does any of this sound in any way 'moderate' to anyone?
Assertion Two:If a non-Muslim says something wrong, we are told, through Islamic teaching, to educate them and find a peaceful solution...
Note that there is no implicit right of free speech at all for non-Muslims. Hence if an infidel says something 'wrong', which in this context probably means anything critical of Muslims and/or Islam, then the Muslims must directly intervene to 'educate' the person. 'Educate' sounds so rational and soothing, but Mohammad's own life and example strongly argue against this. For instance, when satirical poets repeatedly criticised Mohammad during his prophetic career, Mohammad had them ruthlessly assassinated, including Asma bint Marwan, a mother of five. Well, I'm sure that's one sure way to 'educate' troublesome non-Muslims. In fact, all majority Muslim states have laws on the books that criminalise criticism of Islam, and in some countries, this criticism -- mere words -- is a capital crime. These long-standing laws are challenged by no Muslims, and in fact enjoy widespread support in the Muslim world. Does this sound like a 'peaceful solution' to anyone?
Assertion Three:Islam dictates that we are only to resort to violence when there is clear provocation, not before.
This statement is in fact a startling admission that Islam is a belief system that indeed sanctions violence at some point. As to what constitutes 'clear provocation', this is left undefined by Mr. Baradom, although our liberal Muslim friend goes out of his way in his article to assure us that Mohammed cartoons in a Danish newspaper is not sufficient provocation. Very well, Mr. Baradom, so what would sufficient provocation be? Actually, this is already well defined by Islamic orthodoxy. Quran 9:29 says plainly that Muslims are to, "...fight [non Muslims] until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low." Therefore, in accordance with this verse, as most of the world is still Kuffar -- I mean non-Muslim -- the mere existence of the infidel world amounts to a clear provocation. And the resulting violence, carried out by Muslims, against non Muslims, is what we see happening all around the world on a daily basis.
Assertion Four:Muhammad ... and his followers would never have called for a jihad on the basis of a blog...
Two things in particular strike me about this fourth and final assertion, First, many Muslims and Muslim apologists get quite worked up when anyone has the temerity to suggest that 'jihad' means 'holy war'. No no, we are told that 'jihad' really means 'a peaceful inner spiritual struggle'. Right? Well, Mr. Baradom has just informed us that jihad indeed equates to holy war. Does that make Mr. Baradom some sort of 'Islamophobe'? And secondly, we already well know what Islam's lone prophet did to his critics during his lifetime. So with Mohammad's own example to guide all Muslims for all time, how can anyone assert that Muslims should not violently react to criticism of their belief system, when Mohammad's own actions teach the polar opposite?
Mr. Baradom's fantasy Islam should be exposed once and for all for what it is -- a sham and a fraud. Islam as a belief system can never be open-minded, nor tolerant, no matter how much Hafidz and other 'liberal Muslims' may wish otherwise. Remember that Mohammed is fourteen centuries dead, so we shall not be hearing from him ever again -- even if he's changed his mind in the hereafter -- and Islam's core texts as laid out by by Mohammad are not subject to revision or reform. On penalty of death, I might add.
Mr. Baradom -- assuming you are a man of goodwill -- and others reading this, should never forget this salient fact: while there may indeed be moderate Muslims, Islam itself is decidedly not moderate.
Doctor Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad vs. Hafidz Baharom -- The 'Jekyll & Hyde' of Malaysian Muslims By the Anti Jihadist
Jihad Watch readers should now have a passing familiarity with the Malaysian government Islamic scholar, Jihadist, Shariah agitator, professional victim status claimer and Muslim apologist, one 'Doctor' Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad. In case you're not up to speed, 'Doctor' Azhar is the director of a government-backed Malaysian & Islamic 'think tank' (my apologies for using the term lightly) called the Centre for Syariah [Shariah], Law and Political Science, which is presumably charged with 'purifying the faith' and spreading (dis)information on Islam to whatever suckers are in earshot.
Anyways, the good doctor is on public record as stating that the dilemma with Muslims today is, first they're not Islamic enough, and secondly they're insufficiently united against their 'common enemies', including but not limited to: Jews, Zionist agents, Crusaders, Tea Party activists, insufficiently subdued dhimmis, and whoever stares at Muslims slightly cross-eyed. What exactly should be done to solve these two vexing issues is something our friend the 'Doctor' hasn't ventured to say out loud. However, we can surmise that his preferred solution would probably closely resemble the tyrannical theocracies that run the show in hellholes like Iran and Saudi Arabia. See, there's no such thing as 'too much' Shariah for the likes of this guy. In other words, 'no' to moderation, and 'yes' to full frontal fanaticism. Isn't that right, Doctor Azhar?
Well, apparently the good 'Doctor' is not getting the message out well enough to his own people. In a column at the well-known (at least inside Malaysia) political website Malaysia Today, another Malaysian named Hafidz Baharom has a somewhat different take on the situation:
It’s just people who obviously were not granted the brains, patience or even sensitivity to understand that the first basis of the religion itself [Islam] is to find moderation.
The first basis of Islam is... say what? Islam is all about moderation? Pardon me while I fall out of my chair. I mean, really, moderation? How could I have gotten it all wrong? Of course, with the penalty for apostates being death--doesn't that sound moderate to you?
But wait, we can't let a little thing like facts get in the way. Hafidz is just getting warmed up to his argument.
If a Muslim does wrong, he or she is told to repent. If a non-Muslim says something wrong, we are told, through Islamic teaching, to educate them and find a peaceful solution. ... Islam cherishes harmony.
Uh huh. Either Hafidz is lying through his teeth, or he is a dyed-in-the-wool sincere believer in this fantasy moderate Islam of his, an Islam which is completely unsupported by the facts. Or perhaps he's just using high-falutin' words, like 'educate', 'peaceful solution' and 'harmony', to dazzle his intended audience into submission. So allow me to take a moment to explain what he likely means with these terms. 'Educate' means to 'persuade' anyone who dares to speak out against Islam into silence. 'Peaceful solution' is a situation where the aforementioned person is cowed or intimidated into silence, and failing that...well, a graveyard is also a very peaceful place, too. 'Harmony' is a code word for the political status quo in Malaysia and all other Muslim majority countries, where Muslims stay on top and in charge, and the infidels 'harmoniously' accept their untermenschen status or get out.
In case you're wondering, the smooth-talking Mr. Baharom is a self-proclaimed Malaysian online 'social observer', not even a properly madrassah-trained Islamic scholar. So, to borrow the argument that is consistently used against counterjihadists like Robert Spencer, anyone not trained on Islamic jurisprudence in authentic 7th century Arabic in a Muslim Brotherhood-funded madrassah has no right to opine about Islam. So that means Muslims are going to demand that Baharom be silenced, right? Right? Should we page Doctor Azhar on this?
The unlikely duo of Doctor Azhar and Hafidz Baharom compliment each other like Jekyll and Hyde, like the fist inside the velvet glove. One is the smooth talker, soothing worried infidels with the right words and noises, while the other stridently harangues the troops and tries to keep them from getting out of line. All freedom-loving people must realise that both the Jekylls and Hydes of Planet Islam work, consciously or otherwise, towards the same goal--a world ruled by Islam, the boot of Shariah stomping in the face of humanity forever.
In FrontPage Monday I discuss some soothing deceptions that recently appeared at FoxNews.com:
Saima Sheikh is media communications leader for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The Ahmadiyya, of course, are considered heretics by mainstream Muslims for their belief in “the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani” – the 19th century religious leader whom the Ahmadis consider a prophet, in defiance of the Koran’s claim that Muhammad is the “seal of the prophets” (33:40). Saima Sheikh doesn’t mention this all-important fact in her Thursday op-ed for FoxNews.com, “A Muslim-American Woman Reacts to Obama’s Ground Zero Visit and Bin Laden’s Death.” Instead, she gives the impression to unwary and uninformed non-Muslims that some eminent Muslim authority has declared violent jihad un-Islamic. In reality, it is in part for that declaration that Ahmadis are being ferociously persecuted today in Pakistan and Indonesia, and the governing authorities do not even consider them to be true Muslims.
Sheikh begins: “It has been four days since we learned that the infamous Usama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda and the most wanted man in the world has been killed. I would like to thank the brave United States Navy SEALS. As an American-Muslim woman, I am happy that justice has finally been served.”
So in the headline Saima Sheikh is a “Muslim-American,” and in her first paragraph she is an “American-Muslim.” Have you ever seen anyone refer to a “Christian-American” or a “Jewish-American”? Of course not. There are Americans who are Jews and Americans who are Christians, but neither group uses such terms, because there is nothing about either faith that precludes or qualifies one’s allegiance to the United States. These hyphenated terms, all of which are corrosive to national unity, as Theodore Roosevelt pointed out long ago, are usually combinations of some other nationality with “American,” not a religion with “American.” By using these terms, Saima Sheikh, as well as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, imply that Islam is a kind of nationality, calling for a type of national allegiance, and so one may be a hybrid of Muslim and American, but one cannot be a Muslim and simply an “American.”
“I applauded President Bush’s remarks after 9/11,” Sheikh informs us, “and President Obama’s remarks Sunday night that ‘America will never be at war with Islam. Our war is not with Islam. Osama was never a Muslim leader. He was a mass murderer.’” She goes on to claim that “the word ‘Islam’ means peace and obedience.”
Actually, no. It means “submission.” And that is by no means the end of her deceptions. Sheikh continues:
As Muslims we are taught not to create disorder and to respect each other regardless of our faith. No true Muslim can do what Osama Bin Laden had done. There is no place for extremism of any kind in Islam. The Holy Quran clearly states “Whosoever killed a person…It shall be as if he had killed all mankind.” (5:33) and “when he is in authority, he runs about in the land to create disorder in it and destroy the crops and the progeny of man; and Allah loves not disorder.” (2:206)
Actually, Qur’an 5:32 (not 5:33, at least in most versions) doesn’t say that “whosoever killed a person…It shall be as if he had killed all mankind.” It says: “We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind.” “Corruption in the earth,” or the “disorder” that Saima Sheikh decries by invoking Qur’an 2:206, is punishable, according to the Qur’an, by crucifixion or amputation of the hands and feet on opposite sides (5:33). Osama made his case among Muslims by charging that the United States was spreading corruption in the earth, and thus was fair game. The jihadist movement rejects the charge that it is creating disorder by pointing out that warfare against unbelievers is mandated in the Qur’an (cf. 9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193; etc.), and thus to pursue that war is not to create disorder....
Here is an update on this story. Go to that link for details on what the people are saying in this video: that Rauf (and Reza) have not proven trustworthy, and that their claims of moderation ring hollow. And be sure to watch to the end, to hear the most informed people on the sinister agenda of these two men.
The UCLA event, as might be expected, was tightly controlled and carefully orchestrated, so that freedom fighters didn't get a chance to ask any pointed questions of either one of these stealth Islamic supremacists. Pamela Geller notes the contrast:
This was very unlike the events where I speak (or Spencer), at which anyone can ask a question. On Wednesday night, for example, Robert and I spent an hour answering questions from hostile Muslim students and their left wing idiot enablers at Ohio University. And it bears mentioning that the invitations we get usually come from a student or one lone sane voice amid a collective of statist groupthink. Rauf and his cabal of evil clowns are usually invited by the universities and receive huge honorariums. It is important to understand just how grossly stacked the deck is in this fight. Let that serve to fuel your passion. It does mine.
Saima Sheikh is media communications leader for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The Ahmadiyya, of course, are considered heretics by mainstream Muslims for their belief in "the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani." Saima Sheikh doesn't mention this all-important fact here, but instead gives the impression to unwary and uninformed non-Muslims that some eminent Muslim authority has declared violent jihad un-Islamic. In reality, it is in part for that declaration that Ahmadis are being ferociously persecuted today in Pakistan and Indonesia, and the governing authorities do not even consider them to be true Muslims.
"A Muslim-American Woman Reacts to Obama's Ground Zero Visit and Bin Laden's Death," by Saima Sheikh for FoxNews.com, May 5:
It has been four days since we learned that the infamous Usama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda and the most wanted man in the world has been killed. I would like to thank the brave United States Navy SEALS. As an American-Muslim woman, I am happy that justice has finally been served....
So in the headline Saima Sheikh is a "Muslim-American," and in her first paragraph she is an "American-Muslim." Have you ever seen anyone refer to a "Christian-American" or a "Jewish-American"? Of course not. There are Americans who are Jews and Americans who are Christians, but neither group uses such terms, because there is nothing about either faith that precludes or qualifies one's allegiance to the United States. These hyphenated terms, all of which are corrosive to national unity, as Theodore Roosevelt pointed out long ago, are usually combinations of some other nationality with "American," not a religion with "American." By using these terms, Saima Sheikh, as well as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, imply that Islam is a kind of nationality, calling for a type of national allegiance, and so one may be a hybrid of Muslim and American, but one cannot be a Muslim and simply an "American."
I applauded President Bush’s remarks after 9/11 and President Obama’s remarks Sunday night that “America will never be at war with Islam. Our war is not with Islam. Osama was never a Muslim leader. He was a mass murderer.”
The word "Islam" means peace and obedience.
Actually, no. It means "submission."
As Muslims we are taught not to create disorder and to respect each other regardless of our faith. No true Muslim can do what Osama Bin Laden had done. There is no place for extremism of any kind in Islam. The Holy Quran clearly states “Whosoever killed a person…It shall be as if he had killed all mankind.” (5:33) and “when he is in authority, he runs about in the land to create disorder in it and destroy the crops and the progeny of man; and Allah loves not disorder.” (2:206)
Actually Qur'an 5:32 (not 5:33, at least in most versions) doesn't say that "whosoever killed a person…It shall be as if he had killed all mankind." It says "We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind." "Corruption in the earth," or the "disorder" that Saima Sheikh decries by invoking Qur'an 2:206, is punishable, according to the Qur'an, by crucifixion or amputation of the hands and feet on opposite sides (5:33). Osama made his case among Muslims by charging that the United States was spreading corruption in the earth, and thus was fair game. The jihadist movement rejects the charge that it is creating disorder by pointing out that warfare against unbelievers is mandated in the Qur'an (cf. 9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193; etc.), and thus to pursue that war is not to create disorder.
This is not to say that bin Laden is wrong and Saima Sheikh is right, but it is an indication of why the jihadists have been able to make recruits within the larger Muslim community, in which their position is much better established in Islamic texts and teachings and more mainstream than Saima Sheikh's.
I am an America Muslim woman who believes in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, who declared emphatically over a century ago that an aggressive “Jihad by the Sword” has no place in Islam. In its place, he has taught his followers to wage a bloodless, intellectual “Jihad of the Pen” to defend Islam.
Highly misleading. Even aside from their status as heretics, the Ahmadiyya are a small minority among Muslims. Groups recognized as orthodox have by no means rejected "Jihad by the Sword."
This is what I and others in my community are doing all across the United States. We want to tell our fellow Americans that there are moderate Muslims who are speaking up against extremism. I am a loyal American who is taught by my faith, “O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you…” (4:60) This is further reiterated by Prophet Muhammad, “Love of your homeland, your place of residence, is part of your faith.”
He also said, "I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah" (Sahih Muslim 30). It would have been refreshing for Saima Sheikh to explain why she rejects this mandate, if she does, and on what grounds.
But instead, it's the same old disingenuous presentation of half-truths (at best).
They even get a spokesman for the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations in on this charade. "Muslims in Iowa glad Islam is no longer held hostage," by Reid Forgrave for the Des Moines Register, May 3:
A single thought went through the minds of many Iowa Muslims as they learned that U.S. forces had killed a man they say represented a perversion of their religion: We can finally take our religion back.
Several leading Iowa Muslims said that the four airplanes that flew into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania weren't the only things hijacked on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. So was their religion.
"It was the antithesis of my faith," said Miriam Amer of Cedar Rapids, executive director of the Iowa chapter of the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations. "They never represented Islam or Muslims."
Yet over the past decade, Iowa Muslims watched with sadness as Osama bin Laden and others of his al-Qaida ilk continued to exert an outsized force on the public perception of their religion.
So when news came that bin Laden was dead, several Iowa Muslims expressed unequivocally excited and patriotic thoughts about the American military operation. Some said they hope losing the charismatic leader fatally cripples worldwide terrorist operations, but some also expressed caution that the death of one man won't end terrorism.
"We have given his ideology too much strength," said Mirza Baig, a neurosurgeon at Mercy Medical Center and president of the Islamic Center of Des Moines. "They're on false ground, inhumane, unjustified grounds. To get rid of the person in charge will change that baseless ideology."
"He's been a shadow that's plagued our society and our community," Baig continued. "I think he unfortunately took advantage of people in bad situations with poor education and socioeconomic background. ... Now, there's a closure of some sort. We're at a juncture in history, and we can move beyond him and his ideology."...
Study after study has shown that jihadists are wealthier and better educated than their peers, but apparently Baig would prefer that you didn't know that.
"Now is not the moment of radicalization in the Middle East - it's the moment of democratization," said Mahmoud Hamad, a Drake assistant professor of politics and international relations, who is taking a group of 29 students on a trip to Egypt in a couple of weeks. "Part of the bad feelings toward the U.S. is partly because of U.S. support toward dictators in the Middle East. Now we as Americans are less of a target in the Middle East because we finally decided to be on the right side of history and support freedom and democracy."
And as Sharia states are established in the Middle East, will Reid Forgrave go back to Hamad and ask him what became of his "freedom and democracy"? What do you think?
It is stories like this that make the smooth deceptions of Muslim spokesmen such as Salam al-Marayati, M. Cherif Bassiouni, and Ali Eteraz so dangerous. They assure us that Islam has no death penalty for apostasy, despite Muhammad's words, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." Credulous officials, like these British authorities, believe these deceivers and others like them, and people like Ahmed Faizi end up getting killed for their credulity.
Two Afghan asylum seekers, who say they fear they will be killed for being Christian if they are returned home, are to be deported to Kabulon Wednesday.
Ahmed Faizi, 29, has been on a hunger strike at the Harmondsworth immigration removal centre near Heathrow for six days.
According to friends, Faizi – who has a cross tattooed on his right arm – is convinced that he will be killed if forced to return to Afghanistan. He told a friend: "If the Taliban don't execute me for being a Christian, my family will."
His friend said that Faizi was physically weak and worried that the recent burning of a Koran in the US would make Afghanistan even more hostile to Christian converts.
"He told me that if he goes back, people will kill him and it's much better if he dies here."
His fellow deportee, Ali Hussani, expressed similar fears. "They will kill me for being Christian," he said. "There are only Muslims there."...
It is so inconvenient when news events contradict one's taqiyya. "'Islam seeks maintaining world peace,'" from the AhlulBayt News Agency, April 18:
(AhlulBayt News Agency) - Iran's Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance highlights the Islamic Republic of Iran as a manifest of religious tolerance and fraternity between Shia and Sunni saying Islam is the religion which seeks maintaining peace in the world.
In the presser held on the sideline of the spring meeting of the World Bank Group in Washington, Seyyed Shamseddin Husseini was questioned about the long time opposition between Shia and Sunni and his proposal to alleviate the tension.
Iranian Minister of Economic Affair and Finance said, "Islamic Republic of Iran is a good example of the countries where Shia and Sunni have been living in peace for hundreds of years in peace."
"The commonalities of Shia and Sunni is so much that they have to be highlighted especially when some pour out their problems on Islam by setting Qur'an on fire," said the official, pointing to the Florida church Terry Jones Qur'an burning which angered world muslims. ...
Whoops: "Iranian Sunni protesters killed in clashes with security forces," by Saeed Kamali Dehghan in the Guardian, April 18 (thanks to Twostellas):
At least 12 people who are believed to belong to Iran's Sunni minority have been killed in clashes between security forces and anti-government protesters in the south-western city of Ahwaz since Friday.
On Monday, Shirin Ebadi, Iran's Nobel peace prize laureate, wrote a letter to the UN high commissioner for human rights, in which she said "more than 12" Sunni protesters had been killed in Iran's oil-rich province of Khuzestan, home to many Arabic-speaking Sunni Iranians.
According to Ebadi, hundreds of people in Ahwaz had gathered for a peaceful demonstration against the Islamic regime's discrimination towards its Sunni minority.
"During these clashes, more than 12 people were killed, around 20 injured and tens of protesters have been arrested," Ebadi wrote in her letter.
She criticised Iran's treatment of the Sunnis and said: "In the 32 years' history of the Islamic Revolution, Arabic-speaking Iranians have suffered from inequality and an extensive discrimination."...
But this is the same guy whose father said had called him an "infidel." So take this with a grain of salt or two. "Suspected Bomber 'Not a Devout Muslim,' Wife Says," by Farouk Arnaz for the Jakarta Globe, April 18 (thanks to Twostellas):
For Sri Maliha, the questions surrounding her husband’s alleged transformation into a suicide bomber and the consequences of his deadly actions hang as heavy as the soon-to-be-born child in her belly.
Speaking on Sunday, Maliha said it was difficult to accept that her husband had blown himself up in a packed Cirebon mosque last week.
“I hope it is not him. Somehow I believe that he will come home as he had promised me,” she said while fighting back tears.
Police announced on Sunday that DNA testing had confirmed that her husband, 31-year-old Muchamad Syarif, was the bomber and sole fatality in the suicide blast that injured scores.
Maliha, 26, recounted the last time she saw her husband.
“On that day, April 3, before he left, he only said to me, ‘I will go for a while, but I will be by your side and pick you up when you are giving birth,’” she said....
“He was a good husband who sometimes led the prayer as an imam. But he was not a devout Muslim, I guess. He never conducted sunnah fasting or sunnah prayers,” Maliha said, referring to optional fasting and praying.
“He did not graduate from an Islamic boarding school or have a jihad [holy war] book collection. He was just like an ordinary man that socialized with people.”...
We here know the issues at hand: the growth of stealth jihad at home, the ever-increasing instances of pugnacious Muslim self-assertion (which when confronted instantly shape-shifts, djinn-like, into puling, self-pitying victimhood), the lies that pour from Saudi-funded academics, the fluff and nonsense that dominates most media, the inexorable march of Islamists from the shadows into the halls of power throughout the Muslim world, and the almost monthly cycle of terrorist attacks and sermons on how Islam is a misrepresented religion of piece—the latter of which are an unintentional echo of Stephen Sondheim's lyrics from this scene in West Side Story. As you watch, imagine it's an FBI raid on an urban mosque:
Without Leonard Bernstein's music to watch it down, the whole thing becomes dispiriting. And we are tempted to descend into inside baseball, turning our gaze inward instead of outward. Frustrated by the apparently Sisyphean nature of our struggle against this totalitarian faith and its infidel enablers, we might fall into the same trap Marxists used to in the West: Fighting each other instead of our enemies, striving to prove our “purity” rather than honing our effectiveness or reaching out to others. I hope I haven't inadvertently fed into this tendency with any of my posts, but I bet that at some point I have. Apologies offered.
To break out of this cycle, to become the crab that climbs out of the bucket, we must force ourselves periodically to engage, really step in and tangle with, the mentality of our adversaries. By this I don't now mean supremacist Muslims. It's highly doubtful that any of them will be converted by this site; indeed, if such people were open to outside influence at all, I would think that this site might inadvertently teach them to moderate their rhetoric—perhaps even to suspend all terrorist attacks and wait for their higher birthrate to gain them power in Western countries (especially those with nuclear weapons like France or England). But Arabic pride and Muslim hauteur make such a strategy almost impossible for them, thank God. As a wag once observed of the Arab-Israeli conflict: If the Arabs could only find a Gandhi instead of an Arafat, and adopt non-violent means that seemed to discredit their enemies morally, the Jews might eventually surrender to them out of guilt. Instead, they murder women and children and put themselves hopelessly in the wrong in the eyes of any fair-minded observer (not that such people abound), steeling Israelis in the necessity of striking back against their violence. As I say every time a Muslim blows himself up through his own incompetence without harming anyone else: Thank you, Lord, for the imbecility of mine enemies.
No, our real antagonists are the people who should be on our side but aren't—dhimmi Christians, blinkered conservatives who dream that Muslims will be their allies, and most of all liberal Westerners who view the few remaining elements of tradition in our societies as far more of a threat than the whole, inflexible body of sharia advancing all over the world. It is these people we have some hope of understanding from the inside, successfully analyzing—and if not of converting then at least of discrediting.
With this in mind, I reluctantly turn my gaze to the writing of Rachel Woodlock, an Australian columnist who brings to life so many of the misconceptions and self-willed blindspots we struggle against that I almost sent her a thank you note for her March 23 piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, “Anti-Muslim tub-thumping helps extremists.” I have rarely seen so much arrant nonsense so densely packed into such a tight space; her arguments huddle and sweat against each other like clowns trapped in an elevator.
Woodlock leads with a question that genuinely seems to puzzle her—despite the fact that she is a doctoral candidate at Monash University's Centre for Islam and the Modern World:
Why would anyone join an extremist Muslim fringe group that hates democracy and wants to impose a myopic interpretation of Islamic law on everyone? What could possibly attract an educated young man living in a free society to join a movement that glorifies suicide bombers?
It's easy to answer that Woodlock should spend a few weeks reading this site, or the works of Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or. But this budding Ph.D. has already insulated her mind against what she might learn there. She speaks with scorn of the “industry of Islamophobia,” in which she includes
US blogger Daniel Pipes musing that President Barack Obama might be murdered by Islamists for being an apostate, Infidel author Ayaan Hirsi Ali describing Muslim women's clothing as gradations of "mental slavery", or outspoken Christian spokesman Patrick Sookhdeo questioning moderate Muslim leaders' calls for peace and co-existence as Islamically-prescribed deception...
She concludes that “the Islamophobia industry makes its coin generating fear of Islam and Muslims,” and cites as a prime example “Sookhdeo's Christian charity, the Barnabas Fund, that is spear-heading a new campaign to boycott halal meat in Australia.” What offends her about Sookhdeo is that he argues that
the problem is with Islam itself.
In his 2007 book Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam, Sookhdeo warns that ''non-violent Islam is like a cone balanced on its point; it cannot exist in that state indefinitely but is bound to fall, i.e. to give rise to violent elements.''
For Sookhdeo and his alarmist confederates, original Islam is inherently violent and any alternative reading by peaceable Muslims is either ignorance or dissimulation. His call for Islamic reform as a way to rehabilitate Muslims is disingenuous, for how can any such reformer escape the sinister accusation they are merely engaged in what Sookhdeo describes as taqiyya - a last-resort permission to hide one's religious identity in the face of persecution.
There is no escape from this circular reasoning in which Muslims are urged to prove their loyalty to the nation-state, and upon presenting themselves as loyal are then accused of hiding their disloyalty.
A clever little logical trap Woodlock has set, but we already know the escape route. The test for Muslims who proclaim their tolerant, peaceful intentions—the way to know if they are interested in reform or in taqiyya—is this:
Do these Muslims acknowledge that there are problematic texts in the Qur'an and relevant hadiths, which indeed give cause for worry to non-Muslims, and insist that these texts must be confronted and reinterpreted to make Islam compatible with a free society? Or do they, as almost always happens, pretend to the unwary that such texts do not exist? When you present them with these texts, do they falsely insist that they don't mean what they say, that the violent and supremacist reading of the Qur'an is confined to a tiny minority of extremists? That's the litmus test that distinguishes a truly peaceful, reformist (and, we must sadly say, heretical) Muslim from a dissembler.
Instead of using her academic knowledge of Muslim history to acquaint herself with centuries of religious violence and intolerance, Woodlock serves up that stale plate of hummus: the argument that Islamophobia is the source of Islamic violence.
It is precisely the futility some Muslims experience when faced with such fearmongering that contributes to what social psychologists tell us is a sense of ''blocked progress''. That is, while most Muslims can buttress themselves against prejudice, seeking support through various sources of well-being, a minority will seek maladapted solutions. Some turn to gangs and criminality; a small number will join militant religious groups that provide them with a sense of connection and identity.
As researchers in Britain, France and Australia have noted, "home-grown" members of militant groups do not generally possess a high degree of religiosity and knowledge of Islam before their radicalisation. Put another way, it is not religious Muslims we have to worry about, it is when ordinary Muslims feel trapped in limbo: they belong neither to their parents' devout traditional cultures, nor to their Western host nations, which sends the message: Muslims don't belong.
This explains, in part, why such groups have been able to recruit Western-born and educated young men to their ranks. It is not poverty that spurs their attraction to fanatical counterculture groups, but their sense (rightly or wrongly) that the broader society specifically targets and blocks them from achieving normal goals.
Since the only reason Muslims ever turn to violence is when Westerners exclude them from their societies—which fails to explain such historic events as their genocidal conquest of India, but never mind—Woodlock offers an innovative strategy for recruiting Muslims to the cause of peace:
The good news is that we can cut the oxygen that fuels the flames of their fanaticism by actively countering anti-Muslim paranoia. It has been argued that fundamentalist religious groups lose their ability to competitively peddle their wares in societies in which there is religious freedom and the state ensures social services are provided to all - this means facilitating the settlement and integration of Islam and Muslims in Australian society.
Ah, now it all becomes crystal clear. All that Muslims need to be peaceful is multicultural laws and a generous welfare state. If only someone had tried that strategy before! Woodlock should make sure her column is widely disseminated in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Great Britain—where fascist-era ethnocentrism and Dickensian working conditions, with no social safety net, have heretofore doomed those countries to Hobbesean ethnic conflict.
The problem with Islam in the West is that we don't yet have enough Muslims in our midst, we don't bend over backwards to accommodate their preferences, and we don't cut them enough government checks to make sure that they really feel welcome. Because of this, many Muslims have grown understandably sulky, and ignored the dictates of their own peaceful religion to become suicide bombers, honor killers, and preachers of totalitarian sharia. Isn't that what every group would do in that situation? Remember how the Southeast Asian “boat people” in the 1970s formed terror cells throughout the West? How the Haitians who fled that country's political chaos in the 80s took to blowing up New York skycrapers? If only Woodlock's thesis could find a hearing among European elites, the truly peaceful, tolerant face of Islam could at last emerge.
MPAC's al-Marayati concludes this piece by saying that "we must earn our respect as Muslims by working for the prosperity of our societies. We must seek essential reforms that, along with our own honorable actions, will protect and exalt the name of Islam. The Quran provides a response to defamation in general: 'Good and evil are not equal; so repel evil with something good and better so that the one with whom there is enmity will become a close friend.'"
That's Qur'an 41:34, but al-Marayati himself has not been consistent in following this principle; I've "debated" him on several shows and found him to be a remarkably unpleasant man, an energetic practitioner of the usual Islamic supremacist "debating" tactic of sidestepping all substantive issues and instead engaging in venomous personal attacks against his opponent. Even in a field dominated by arrogant, contemptuous deceivers given to vile ad hominem assaults, al-Marayati stands out. I am sure, of course, that he is nonetheless trying valiantly but failing to live up to the Qur'an's sterling admonition to work to make friends with "one with whom there is enmity" -- and I certainly hope he is likewise failing to live up to other Qur'anic admonitions such as the one to "slay the pagans wherever you find them" (9:5) and suchlike.
But in this article, he sounds all the right notes: he condemns Pakistan's blasphemy law, he notes how susceptible it is to abuse, he speaks out against the murders of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti, and he calls for "essential reforms." He even denounces the OIC's campaign against the freedom of speech. What could be wrong with this? The main thing is that he misrepresents Muhammad's words and actions regarding people who insulted him, and Islamic law regarding insults to Muhammad or Islam. And so once again: is al-Marayati a reformer or a deceiver? Wouldn't a genuine reformer be honest about the elements of Islam that he considers in need of reforming, rather than claiming that those elements don't even exist? Is that really too much to ask?
"Blasphemy Laws Are Against Islam," by Salam Al Marayati in the Huffington Post, March 16:
Blasphemy laws or laws prohibiting defamation of a religion are incompatible with Islamic thought and philosophy. The concept of Defamation of Religions denies a person their free will to choose -- one of God's greatest gifts to humanity -- and deprives individuals of their right to free speech and expression. It also creates a climate of intolerance that can breed discrimination and violence.
This was the message I delivered last week during a Human Rights First panel discussion in Geneva, where the United Nations Human Rights Council is expected to discuss a resolution seeking this week to criminalize "defamation of religions," as it has done several years for the past decade. However, this year's debate comes at a unique and particularly tumultuous time.
Earlier this month, Pakistan's Minister for Minority Affairs, Shabbaz Bhatti, was murdered for speaking out in favor of amending the nation's blasphemy laws. His assassination came less than two months after the murder of Governor Salmaan Taseer, who was assassinated by one of his own body guards. Taseer's killer tried to justify his act by citing Islamic law. Taseer was an outspoken defender of a Christian woman who sentenced to death in Pakistan after being accused of blasphemy. The assassin, now in custody and facing murder charges, has been called a "hero" by a vocal and influential minority of Pakistanis who echo his misguided reasoning and support brutal blasphemy laws.
Blasphemy laws were first introduced to Muslim countries during the days of colonialism and are now a major obstacle to Islamic reform.
Al-Marayati implies here that the colonialist powers introduced blasphemy laws from Christian Europe into an Islamic world that had hitherto been peaceful and tolerant. He makes no mention of the fact that the death penalty for blasphemy is universal in Islamic law, and has existed as long as Islamic law has existed.
Often used to restrict freedom of expression and to settle personal scores, these laws have led to devastating consequences for religious minorities and others whose views differ from the majority. It has become all too common and acceptable to file an accusation of blasphemy, claims that can include insulting the Quran or Prophet Muhammad, and to condemn those who speak out against such abuses.
Those who support the "Defamation of Religions" resolution first introduced at the United Nations over a decade ago by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), argue that it serves to combat the rise of hatred and discrimination against Muslims in the world. They are wrong. In fact, this resolution does the opposite. Its implementation would illustrate Muslim suppression of Western standards of freedom of speech[.]
The Quran mandates "there shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (2:256). This Quranic injunction is meant to protect freedom of religious belief and expression for all people; it is also meant to prohibit any government or group of people from intruding on the private lives of its people. Islam calls for the freedom, not for the suppression, of free speech and it condemns violations of fundamental human rights.
Actually Islam mandates death for non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state who mention "something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam" ('Umdat al-Salik, o11.10).
In fact, the Quran documents the criticism of Islam by poets and political leaders at the time of its revelation. Though the Prophet was accused of sorcery and mania, in each and every case, God did not order him to punish the blasphemers. Instead, His order to the Prophet was to respond to their hate speech with good speech and good work. In other words, Islam calls for freedom of speech and for competing freely in the marketplace of ideas. No one has the right to play the role of God on this earth.
This is where al-Marayati must know that what he is writing is not true. There are several celebrated incidents in which Muhammad lashed out violently against his opponents, ordering the murder of several poets, including Abu ‘Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess ‘Asma bint Marwan. Abu ‘Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad's question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop ‘Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, ‘Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676)
Then there was Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf. Muhammad asked: "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama answered, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab)." Muhammad responded: "You may say it." Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka'b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Sahih Bukhari, volume 5, book 59, number 369)
If al-Marayati had mentioned these incidents, even to explain them away in some way, he would have a much greater case to be trusted.
In the Quran, there is no provision for the absolute protection of (any) religion nor any punishment mandated for those who defame religion. Just like current standards of international law, the Quran calls for the protection of individuals and their rights. It is this protection that should be at the heart of any resolution proposed to combat religious intolerance and discrimination....
The proposed U.N. resolution on "Defamation of Religions" will certainly not prevent discrimination against Muslims, nor will it fight religious intolerance. Its passage would only further fuel anti-Muslim stereotyping and hatred.
We must earn our respect as Muslims by working for the prosperity of our societies. We must seek essential reforms that, along with our own honorable actions, will protect and exalt the name of Islam. The Quran provides a response to defamation in general: "Good and evil are not equal; so repel evil with something good and better so that the one with whom there is enmity will become a close friend."
Ellison trots out Qur'an 5:32, about how killing one innocent person is like killing the whole world. He doesn't mention that it was addressed as a warning to the "Children of Israel," or that many Muslims do not consider any non-Muslim to be innocent. Nor does he mention 5:33, which mandates crucifixion or amputation of the hands and feet on opposite sides for those who make war against Allah and his messenger, or spread discord in the land.
Ellison also mentions Qur'an 2:256, "There is no compulsion in religion," without, of course, mentioning Qur'an 9:29, which stipulated that the People of the Book (primarily Jews and Christians) must be fought against until they "pay the jizya [poll-tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." That is, they're not compelled to become Muslims, but they're denied equality of rights in the Islamic state.
Maher calls Ellison on the tired "out of context" excuse, but he isn't ready with any illustrative passages from the Qur'an that would have proved his point, and he lets Ellison get away with the boldfaced lie that Islamic terrorists explain their motivation in political, not religious terms. See here and here for two recent proofs of the contrary, and there are many, many more where those came from.
This television appearance (thanks to Awake) is not the first time Rauf has turned the prospect of Muslim rage into a veiled threat against those who speak critically of Islam or behavior by Muslims, and implied that Muslims cannot control themselves in response.
Note how, in his remarks below, "radicalized" Muslims are only reactors to provocations. It is automatic, and it is always the West's fault. Essentially, his argument depends on the idea of a one-way, almost gravitational pull by which all supposed "extremism" swirls -- "spirals," he says -- into what he ultimately portrays as an insensible hive of easily enraged drones who have no free will, and no self-restraint to keep from escalating the situation from words to physical violence.
It's not Islam... it's The Spiral.
In his attempts to defend Islam, he finds it necessary to insult the intelligence of his co-religionists. Where's the outrage about that? A transcription of his comments on radicalization follows below.
(1:16) "It's a cycle. The radicals fuel each other and feed on each other. So when something happens like this, it arouses hostility among the other, the non-Muslim community. You have a Christ[ian]- evangelical leader, for example who says Islam is an evil religion. That becomes the banner headline in the Muslim world, both domestically, and more important, overseas. It arouses hostility there. The Danish cartoon -- the Danish paper commissions cartoons. It creates hostility in the Muslim world. People in the West begin to say, oh, look, there's no freedom of speech, and you create this cycle, this spiral. It is this spiral that we have to stop.
A call to curtail free speech:
"If you really want to understand how, what creates radicalization, is the radical extremist discourse that comes from all sides. And this is what we have to stop."
(2:30) "Terrorism in all its stripes, and what fuels Islamic terrorism is extremism and terrorism and radical ideologies from all sides."
"Extremism and terrorism and radical ideologies," oh my!
Martin Bashir, to his credit, appears to be having none of it.
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.” — Oriana Fallaci
“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or
“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq
“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.” — Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute
“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.” — Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs
“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.” — Former Congressman Tom Tancredo
“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.” — Raymond Ibrahim
“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.” — Brad Thor, novelist
“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.” — Daniel Pipes
“A brilliant scholar and writer.” — Douglas Murray
“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.” — Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury
“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’” — Neal Boortz
“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.” — Michelle Malkin
“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.” — New York Times
“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.” — Washington Post
“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House in 2012.” — New York Magazine
“A hero of the American right.” — Karen Armstrong
"The go-to Islam expert for the right wing." — Salon Magazine
“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.” — Stephen Suleyman Schwartz
“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.” — Hamas-linked CAIR
“Satanic ignoramus.” — Khaleel Mohammed
“The Likud anti-Christ.” — Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)
“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.” — Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”
