The propaganda is so drearily predictable. Would Yahoo News ever run a piece explaining how Sharia taught warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers? Of course not. But there is a steady stream of nonsense like this ridiculous presentation from Mark Fathi Massoud, Director of Legal Studies and Associate Professor of Politics, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Even before reading Messoud’s piece, look at the accompanying map. It’s a bit confusing because the color for Spanish colonies is very similar to the color used for countries that were never colonized at all, and the latter are not marked as such. But it shows that Iran was never colonized. What, then, explains the Islamic Republic, which finances jihad terror groups such as Hizballah and Hamas? Saudi Arabia was never colonized; what explains the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 jihad attackers were Saudis? What explains jihad activity that went on for centuries before colonialism, as shown in The History of Jihad?
Also, is colonialism responsible for the tenets of Sharia mandating warfare against non-Muslims? Here is what the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib) say about that warfare:
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh “˜Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that the Islamic State (ISIS) and other jihad groups are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
But Yahoo News will never tell you any of that.
“Don’t blame Sharia for Islamic extremism — blame colonialism,” by Mark Fathi Massoud, Yahoo News, June 28, 2020:
Warning that Islamic extremists want to impose fundamentalist religious rule in American communities, right-wing lawmakers in dozens of U.S. states have tried banning Sharia, an Arabic term often understood to mean Islamic law.
These political debates – which cite terrorism and political violence in the Middle East to argue that Islam is incompatible with modern society – reinforce stereotypes that the Muslim world is uncivilized.
They also reflect ignorance of Sharia, which is not a strict legal code. Sharia means “path” or “way”: It is a broad set of values and ethical principles drawn from the Quran – Islam’s holy book – and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. As such, different people and governments may interpret Sharia differently.
Still, this is not the first time that the world has tried to figure out where Sharia fits into the global order.
In the 1950s and 1960s, when Great Britain, France and other European powers relinquished their colonies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, leaders of newly sovereign Muslim-majority countries faced a decision of enormous consequence: Should they build their governments on Islamic religious values or embrace the European laws inherited from colonial rule?
The big debate
Invariably, my historical research shows, political leaders of these young countries chose to keep their colonial justice systems rather than impose religious law.
Newly independent Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia, among other places, all confined the application of Sharia to marital and inheritance disputes within Muslim families, just as their colonial administrators had done. The remainder of their legal systems would continue to be based on European law.
To understand why they chose this course, I researched the decision-making process in Sudan, the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence from the British, in 1956.
In the national archives and libraries of the Sudanese capital Khartoum, and in interviews with Sudanese lawyers and officials, I discovered that leading judges, politicians and intellectuals actually pushed for Sudan to become a democratic Islamic state….
OTTER says
Nothing is ever their fault.
You see they commit female genital mutilation because colonial rule traumatized them and they had no alternative but to but to go for their women’s private parts.
Acadian says
Perfect reply. 😀
gravenimage says
+1
Joss says
Of course- understood!
curious george says
SOS. The issue is never the issue. It’s the narrative that matters.
A good trial lawyer deliberately makes a statement that he/she knows will be stricken from the record; he/she also knows that the jury can’t strike it from their memory.
Those who control the narrative, control the people.
Falsafa says
what nonsensical hyperbole from the jihad watch fans! FGM has nothing to do with religion but all to do with local tribal culture in Africa. we in TR have never heard of such a thing – only male circumcision.
colonialism is at the heart of all grievances!
Honestly you anti muslim bigots can do better!
FYI says
It is always so easy to spot the islamic troll…
“colonialism is at the heart of all grievances!”
Of course islam has 1,400 years of failing to understand the concept of a border,1,400 years of iSLAMIC COLONIALISM,of murder,mayhem and enslavement and so many,many cultures have the right to feel aggrieved by islam’s tyranny{especially muslims in fact who have been LIED to by the ‘holy’ men of islam and kept in misery and ignorance for 1,400 years}
But telling muslims about THEIR colonialism is difficult as muslims never get Irony.
The religion of ‘peace’?
WHERE?Show us where?where is the peace?
The ‘perfect’ book ,the koran?
A plagiarized,fraudulent Arab fantasy book,a written exercise in cognitive dissonance with scientific,logical and Theological errors[allah gets Christian Theology wrong koran 5:116 for example],missed the Golden Rule and gives freedom to violate the Exodus 20 Decalogue which defeats the purpose of the Torah:and laughably,the ‘scholars’ of islam with their PhDs in islamic studies cannot figure any of that out or WHY there are ‘holes’ in the narrative.Answer:allah MISSED a particular type of wisdom that is found in the Bible but is missing in the koran.That’s why.The ‘advanced’ ‘scholars’ cannot see it apparently.
The ‘perfect’ man muhammed?
A fat,cross-dressing,polygamous pedophile and self-confessed terrorist and false prophet{i’d happily give you the islamic sources only muslims start howling and bawling because they cannot accept this stuff comes from their OWN sources and hate to be reminded of it..}..who liked to fly around up in the clouds on a magical winged flying donkey with a woman’s face.
BTW the origins of Falsafa{philosophy}are GREEK{…infidels…} and you folk have to steal everything…
Try using Logic with the koran’s illogicalities:absolutely hilarious.
According to the koran,Jesus had the Gospel,Mary is in the Trinity,there was a mosque in Jerusalem in mo’s time,Jews believe in someone called Ezra claiming to be the son of allah;ALL DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
The Holey koran.
gravenimage says
The ludicrously self-styled “Falsafa” wrote:
what nonsensical hyperbole from the jihad watch fans! FGM has nothing to do with religion but all to do with local tribal culture in Africa. we in TR have never heard of such a thing – only male circumcision.
colonialism is at the heart of all grievances!
Honestly you anti muslim bigots can do better!
……………………
Well, this makes no sense at all. For one thing, if FGM really *were* just an African tribal issue, how is this “colonial”?
Then, the idea that FGM only takes place among African tribes is claptrap. Over 90% of Egyptian girls are mutilated, and all on Islamic grounds. The same thing is done by Muslims in Indonesia and India and, increasingly, in the West. How is any of this “African tribal”?
Then, attempts to stamp out FGM are so often opposed by Islamic clerics, How does “Falsafa” explain this?
“Muslim cleric urges female genital mutilation”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/05/muslim-cleric-urges-female-genital-mutilation
(this story is from India)
“Somaliland: Muslim clerics issue fatwa making female genital mutilation mandatory”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/02/somaliland-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-making-female-genital-mutilation-mandatory
“Egypt: Muslim cleric says Jews oppose female genital mutilation because they want ‘collapse of morals’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/07/egypt-muslim-cleric-says-jews-oppose-female-genital-mutilation-because-they-want-collapse-of-morals
And this, from Russia:
“Russia: Muslim cleric says ‘all women should be circumcised’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/russia-muslim-cleric-says-all-women-should-be-circumcised
Why should so many Muslims, including Muslim clerics, promote this savagery?
Because the barbaric “Prophet” Muhammed did so:
“Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr ‘clitoris’ [this is called khufaadh ‘female circumcision’]).” — ‘Umdat al-Salik e4.3
Why is it obligatory? Because Muhammad is held to have said so: “Abu al- Malih ibn Usama’s father relates that the Prophet said: ‘Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women.’” — Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75
Falsafa says
so obvious so called gravenimage is living the motto ignorance bliss! for anything to be a mainstream practice in İslam, there has to be a decision from the Ulema! not he said she said nonsense. that is why this fgm is cultural and not religious! hence in Türkiye, Bosnia, Central Asia to name a few places this fgm thing is just not even heard of. Educate yourself you racist narrow minded bigot!
gravenimage says
More from “Falsafa”:
so obvious so called gravenimage is living the motto ignorance bliss! for anything to be a mainstream practice in İslam, there has to be a decision from the Ulema! not he said she said nonsense.
…………………………..
How is FGM “he said she said”? It is widely documented. Note that “Falsafa” has *no* problem with these Islamic clerics supporting FGM, and doing so on Islamic terms.
The idea that something does not exist in Islam unless it is decided by the Ulema is ridiculous.
More to the point, though, the idea that no Ulema supports FGM is mistaken. The Ulema in Indonesia recommends that FGM be done to girls, and done so on the basis of Islam. The Fatwa states that this is recommended but not mandatory.
And what about the Islamic schools of Jurisprudence? The Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence view it as makruma for women (“noble”). For the Shafi’i school it is obligatory (wājib).
In other words, every Sunni school of Jurisprudence considers it a good thing.
And why not? The “Prophet” Muhammed himself spoke approvingly of FGM. Of course, “Falsafa” will say nothing critical of the “Perfect Man” of Islam.
More:
that is why this fgm is cultural and not religious! hence in Türkiye, Bosnia, Central Asia to name a few places this fgm thing is just not even heard of.
…………………………..
Actually, FGM is quite common in southern Turkey, primarily among the Kurds. I can find no statistics for Bosnia, but another Balkan nation, Montenegro, introduced laws against the practice in 2017.
As for Central Asia, FGM is quite common in Afghanistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, parts of Iran, and parts of Pakistan. The implication that “this fgm thing is just not even heard of” in this places is *quite* false.
More:
Educate yourself you racist narrow minded bigot!
…………………………..
How is it “bigoted” to oppose the mutilation of children?
How is standing against the horrible abuse of girls of *all* ethnicities “racist”? Of course. “Falsafa” will not say.
Charlie in NY says
First of all, Iran was indeed colonized, just not by Europeans. That period lies at the basis for the Persian hatred of the Arabs.
Second, the map would be more revealing if it showed when the colonization began. In the Middle East (other than Egypt), it began with the defeat of the Turks in 1918. In North Africa, far less than 200 years and this must be compared against the millenium of Muslim subjugation.
But since most people are historically illiterate, they will assume that Europe was the only colonial power ever, maybe they just succeeded the Romans or something. The writer is no doubt banking on this ignorance.
gravenimage says
Good post, Charlie. And some of the Western colonialism in North Africa was the result of Muslims refusing to stop pirating ships in the Mediterranean Sea.
As for Persians, they may generally hate Arabs, but they still embrace their conquerors’ vicious creed of Islam.
spesbona cape says
Good point, you beat me to it…! I will add this which I just posted on FB where I saw this article.
“The map is deliberately misleading as it only gives the date of independence, and not the date of their (alleged) colonisation which, in most cases, was only a few decades earlier. With the exception of Algeria (which was colonised) few of these countries ever had more than a tiny number of Europeans living in them, so they were not “colonised” in any meaningful sense at all. Others – especially the Gulf states – were simply “protectorates” – which means they ran their own internal affairs which often included chattel slavery. Sudan was also a form of “protectorate” but of Egypt not Britain.”
Salome says
If colonialism is at fault for Islamic extremism, how do you explain Saudi Arabia?
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
Wahhabism came out of a purely Arabian and purely Islamic matrix.
SAFI says
Great question and for that matter how do you explain the fact that there’s no equivalent extremism in Latin America, India(among non-muslims I mean) and for that matter any other place that the Europeans ‘colonized’ (typically for much longer and much more ruthlessly than the ME) except for the places where there are muslims? Or how do you explain that islamic extremism targets Hindus, Buddhists, Nigerian Christians and even Muslims who subscribe to competing islamic sects far more often than it attacks the supposed western “colonizers”? …and I could go on with the questions but I think anyone reading should be already getting the point…
gravenimage says
Exactly, SAFI. Non-Muslims are not waging violent Jihad due to colonialism.
Michael Copeland says
“….reinforce stereotypes that the Muslim world is uncivilized.”
Tut tut. Now what would give anyone that idea?
Stoning? Slavery? Amputations? Wife-beating? Child marriage? FGM? Daughter-killing? Death for apostasy? No freedom of speech? No freedom of conscience? No equality before the law?
Beverly says
Right on.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Michael.
The appalling Mark Fathi Massoud constantly whitewashes the horrors of Shari’ah.
mortimer says
Yes, he is indeed ‘whitewashing’ the SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION within Muslim-majority countries. The laws may be based on enlightened European models AT FIRST, but once fiddling is applied, they find ways to ignore the law and revert to the DHIMMI CONTRACT in reality. Police and prosecutors do not protect KAFIRS in Muslim-majority countries.
I suggest that Massoud acquaint himself with the DHIMMI CONTRACT and how it is applied as the DEFAULT POSITION in most Muslim-majority countries.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, I see no reason to suppose that Mark Fathi Massoud doesn’t know about dhimmitude.
Here he is, lying about Shari’ah:
“Rethinking Shari’a”
https://boomcalifornia.com/2015/12/08/rethinking-sharia/
Acadian says
Truly pathetic. I’m beyond sick of this shit.
gravenimage says
Yahoo News: “Don’t blame Sharia for Islamic extremism — blame colonialism”
………………………
What a load of crap–Jihad much predates Western colonialism.
And what Muslim nations are under Western colonialism today? Were this true, then the high-water mark of Jihad terror would have been when colonialism was highest–but this is clearly not the case.
Moreover–as noted–Muslim nations that were *never* colonized. like Iran, are “inexplicably” hotbeds of sponsoring Jihad terror–as are places like Saudi Arabia, which the West helped free from colonization by other Muslims–the Ottoman Empire in their case.
Mark Fathi Messoud likely knows this
Here he is, pretending that *Sudan*, of all places, has rejected Shari’ah law:
https://academic.oup.com/ajcl/article-abstract/66/3/579/5098494?redirectedFrom=fulltext
He also constantly sneers at the “War on Terror”.
Falsafa says
typical shallow arguments from the imagegraven. KSA is a tribal dictatorship as are all former colonies of the west, against which their people are revolting in various degrees under banner of struggle against oppression – title of this blog post. bigots please impress me! you can do much better than this!?
gravenimage says
“Falsafa” need not pretend that Saudi Arabia is the only Islamic hell hole that has not been colonized by the West. After all, Turkey, where he hails from, has never been colonized by the West.
Did this stop them from committing genocide against almost all of their surviving Christians not so long ago? It did not.
Then, the claim that all former colonies of the West are dictatorships is quite false. Is Australia a dictatorship? New Zealand? Canada? India is the world’s largest democracy.
It is most Islamic countries that are dictatorships, though. It is Islam which hates democracy, not the world’s democracies.
Tony Naim says
The worst part of Islamic Shari’a is its jurisprudence.
Because the Koran is like a pendulum that swings between 2 positions:a theology copied from that of the Ebionites of Hijaz and a political dogma rooted in the savagery of 7th century nomadic tribal Arabia.
Islamic jurists can legislate from either position.
The political dogma, with all its contradictions to the theology, came to serve the colonial imperialism of Arabs and there is nothing Godly in it.
When the sick souls of jurists legislate from the political position, the worst of mankind is generated.
One such example are the laws of Dhimmitude.
cephashKepha says
Much as I regard the Ebionites as heretical, I don’t think they had much to do with Islamic jurisprudence. They may have influenced Muhammad’s view of the person and work of Jesus Christ (although the denila of the crucifixion and belief that a phantom was put in Jesus’ place smacks more of Docetism), but things like Hudud punishments seem to owe more to Arbain tribal custom than to the Old Testament.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Kepha.
Adam says
Maybe Yahoo isn’t speaking to older, informed Americans but to younger world citizens. Maybe Yahoo doesn’t like factual history but woke history. Maybe they don’t like you but like them, so what ?
Nothing to stop them. No longer limits, just sides. Choose carefully.
It seems a lot of folks never thought they might actually have to defend freedom and liberty. Most seem to think someone else has there back, somewhere. Men or mice ? Sheep or sheepdog ? Tough choices ahead, good luck.
gravenimage says
True, Adam. We do have to defend freedom.
Along with the famous “Keep Calm and Carry On” poster created by the British during WWII, there was also this one:
Freedom Is In Danger
Defend It With All Your Might
…
As salient today.
tim gallagher says
It is surely complete bullshit from this Messoud character. But, since these apologists for Islam have no morality, in fact all that they are interested in is helping that arch coloniser, Islam, colonise and dominate the whole world, they will tell outrageous lies to help Islam achieve that diabolical aim. The problem is that quite a few people, those people living in our western countries who seem to loathe the western world and always want to blame it for all the world’s problems, will actually believe this crap. Couldn’t they find someone better than this Muslim hater of the western world to fill this job at the university at Santa Cruz? I think our countries are too tolerant and it’s a shame the way we let Muslim apologists like this infiltrate our universities with their garbage views of the world, where they can poison young people’s minds. We get some maggots like this guy in Australia and , no doubt, in academic positions in Europe as well. But I suppose our western societies do believe strongly in free speech, unlike Muslim societies, but I don’t believe in tolerating the Muslim enemies’ poisonous point of view. All people like this guy are going to do is try to undermine our societies with their Muslim propaganda.
Walter Sieruk says
Those words of Yahoo which are “Don’t blame Sharia for Islamic extremism — blame colonialism” is not only shows the ignorance of the politically correct Yahoo staff but this also further proves true the old saying which is that “Evil is always looking for an excuse.”
mortimer says
Yes, agree: DISCRIMINATORY SHARIA is always looking for an excuse in a Muslim country. The laws on the books will be ignored in favor of DISCRIMINATORY SHARIA in practice. SHARIA operates in Muslim countries as the JIM CROW laws operated in the pre-Eisenhower South.
One national law applies to Muslims and another Sharia law applies to the kafirs.
Massoud claimed that ‘leading intellectuals’ wanted EUROPEAN MODELS for their statutes and constitutions. Yes, they wanted a dualistic legal system that hid its systemic discrimination.
But, Massoud did not explain how having enlightened, egalitarian European legal models leads to a strong desire for DISCRIMINATORY SHARIA FANATICISM !
I think that the ISLAMIC fanaticism actually comes from the discriminatory, ISLAMIC, PRIMARY and SECONDARY TEXTS … don’t you? Sharia law discriminates against KAFIRS.
The logic of Muslim fanatics is that ALLAH’S ETERNAL SHARIA LAW … trumps and overcomes mere ‘MAN-MADE’, secular laws.
If there is a conflict between secular, European models and SHARIA … then SHARIA dominates.
In other words, SHARIA is an ever-present HIGHER CONSTITUTION over the secular, national constitution.
SHARIA and the DHIMMI CONTRACT will be evoked whenever it is desirable in a Muslim country to remove the human rights and civil liberties of women and kafirs for any reason.
mortimer says
Mark Massoud is only part right: “Invariably, my historical research shows, political leaders of these young countries chose to keep their colonial justice systems rather than impose religious law.”
No … not exactly. The ‘young countries’ he referred to … like Pakistan … sometimes adopted a ready-made constitution. (Pakistan adopted the Canadian constitution.) But that didn’t stop Pakistan from going to a sharia-compliant system later on. Pakistan went from a system of outward equality (and private discrimination) to a system of open, systemic discrimination.
As the more fanatical Muslim parties join in, they demand more and more discriminatory measures. Over time, a Muslim country either becomes a complete dictatorship or it becomes a Sharia-compliant semi-democracy. If the fanatics don’t get their way, they riot until they do.
gravenimage says
Good points, Mortimer. There are a number of Muslim nations that have quite reasonable, civilized laws in their charters, then actually govern by the most savage Shari’ah.
mortimer says
Massoud inserted a TRICK PHRASE into the above statements: “I discovered that leading judges, politicians and intellectuals actually pushed for Sudan to become a democratic Islamic state….”
First of all, why did they not want a SECULAR DEMOCRACY?
What is a ‘democratic Islamic state’ anyway? What is this ‘ISLAMIC’ part? Islam is based on DUAL ETHICS. How can you have democracy when KAFIRS are not equal to Muslims under the law? You can’t have democracy under Sharia … it’s a watered-down DHIMMI CONTRACT that is applied whimsically and capriciously according to the will of the MOB and the MULLAHS who whip them up.
GOLDMANN says
Yahoo another news outlet NOT TO TRUST.
mortimer says
Blaming Europeans for SHARIA LAW is a snow-job and a whitewash.
What sort of ‘scholar’ fails to take into account the MANY INFLUENTIAL IDEOLOGISTS of political Islam ?? Ideologues like … Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Maududi, Muhammad Faraj, Ayatollah Khomeini, Anwar Awlaki, etc. ?? Many of them rebelled against Muslim rulers whom they considered ‘not Muslim enough’.
wpm says
I would guess that todays, MSM, , NY Slimes ,would blame the Poles and western Europe for Hilter,s invasion of Poland in 1939 if they had that mindset 81 years ago.Nothing like rewriting history to fit your agenda !They would excuse the Nazis because they were “repress by America and the rest of western Europe” to invade.
James Lincoln says
Interesting point, wpm.
If today’s mainstream media were present during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, World War II may have turned out quite differently…
mortimer says
All Muslim countries after WWII sought to modernize and consciously adopted European models. It was a trend to become modern, educated, and efficient. After a decade or two, the Islamists got to work. By the late, 1970s, the Islamists were moving into power and by the 1990s, they had turned most of the new democracies into horrible dictatorships.
Some historians say that the THIRD GREAT JIHAD began in Iran with the return of Ayatollah Khomeini. There is merit to the hypothesis. How can Mark Massoud totally ignore the THIRD GREAT JIHAD and instead blame Europeans again?
The Third Great Jihad is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
Ann Marie says
They are planning to build an ANTI-RACIST VILLAGE here in Mass, the world of crazies. Please expose this and spread the word since I’m sure this is happening in other towns.
https://framinghamsource.com/index.php/2020/06/26/framingham-mayor-hosting-zoom-community-hour-on-building-an-anti-racist-village/
rubiconcrest says
The author ‘s work is propaganda. The Yahoo links at the end are more of the same. Yahoo news is pushing propaganda. Who do they think this serves?
James Lincoln says
Yahoo Finance serves a small purpose – if you gloss over the ads.
The rest of the news is Leftist propaganda…
mortimer says
Agree with Robert Spencer that Arabia (now ‘Saudi’ since 1926) was not entirely colonized by European powers, because it went directly from being an OTTOMAN COLONY to a kingdom under the House of Saud.
The interior was an undesirable no-man’s land.
Aden was a British colony. Eastern Arabia came under the hegemony of the House of Saud in 1744.
Jyoti Prakash Mitra says
Historically, colonialism refers to the consolidation of teachings of a new culture. Islamic extremism refers to fund for slavery & decay of all forms of culture present as laid down in the Sharia.
Kepha says
The writers and editors of Yahoo News were probably miseducated in a system that casually assumes that only the Western world has “history” (and that mostly negative), while the rest of the world is a shapeless mass with nothing worthwhile happenineg until “we’ (short for white Europeans, whether from the old continent or its North American diaspora) gets involved.
gravenimage says
Yes–a bizarre view of history all around.