You Don't Mess With (the facts of) The Zohan

I've never read anything quite so hysterical as this Jordanian review of the new Adam Sandler film, "You Don't mess With the Zohan". The reviewer's main gripe is a supposed pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian bias. See how many blatant falsehoods he states about Israel. Apparently it's OK to be virulently anti-Israel, but it's not at all OK when it's the other way round - or when you imagine it's the other way round.

And speaking of antisemitism, here's some more Islamic craziness, this time from Iran, where a deranged film critic claims that Saving Private Ryan is actually subliminally Saving Private Zion, all part of a Jewish conspiracy by Spielberg. I kid you not. Muslims love their Jewish-Zionist conspiracies.

Doggie Dhimmitude

Our government is intent on appeasing Muslim terrorists to within an inch of its life, and we've seen plenty of craven dhimmitude in recent years. But this is one of the worst: Police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at railway stations may not be allowed to go near Muslims - because dogs are seen as unclean in Islam (that most tolerant of faiths). So here we have a situation where we are looking for Islamic terrorists, and the dogs aren't allowed near Muslims.

Insanity is the only way to describe this.

EDIT: I take it back. Looks like the Muslims protested, but the police are not caving in and are going to continue searching them with dogs.

Antisemitism on the Increase Again

Firm action has been called to fight the evil of growing antisemitism on British university campuses. The Community Security Trust recorded 59 anti-Semitic incidents in 2007.

This rise in British antisemitism has already been noted before, of course. And the Press Association won't tell you this, but the problem is largely due to Muslim immigrants. In 2006, a Government inquiry found that antisemitism had soared in Britain following the beginning of the conflict between Israel and Hizballah. The report blamed "a minority of Islamic extremists" for this increase.

But shhhhh; don't tell anyone! Islam is a tolerant religion.

Round-up

1. Positive Discrimination Alert: Companies are to be encouraged to discriminate in favour of women and black job candidates. The move is designed to thrust more female and ethnic minorities into senior posts.

2. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair is due to face an uncomfortable public grilling by his force's governing body over claims of racism. New Scotland Yard has been rocked by claims of discrimination, bullying and victimisation by one of its most senior officers. Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, the UK's most senior Muslim officer, alleged he was sidelined from his role at the head of security preparations for the 2012 Olympics. He also claimed his contract was only renewed for one year, unlike fellow senior top level officers, undermining his Olympic role.

I must remind Mr. Ghaffur and all concerned, of course, that Islam is not a race.

3. Here's a tragic story of Indian racism against blacks, with fatal consequences. This sort of thing is not covered enough in the media. The widespread racism in India and the Orient is well-attested to. I suspect that the only reason ABC covered this story is that it occurred in America and not India itself. And of course, ABC has to start talking about "racial slurs against Sikhs" and "post 9/11 suspicions", just to make it clear that it's Whitey's fault, too.

Racism Persists In EU, Report Warns

The European Union's rights agency says racist violence and discrimination persist across Europe.

The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights also says most members of the 27-nation bloc are not taking advantage of tough legislation to crack down on the scourge.

The report says "racism, discrimination, entrenched disadvantage, racist violence and harassment have remained a fact of life for many individuals."

It calls for sanctions tough enough to be a deterrent.

Britain and France lead a list of 9 countries credited with actively fighting racism and xenophobia. But the rights agency says a dozen EU member states issued no sanctions at all against discrimination, including the Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany.

Evidence of Real Racism At Last!

With all the posts here at Race Relations in which I deny that various acts of "racism" are in fact racist at all, one might be forgiven for thinking that I believe racism doesn't exist. Well, I do, and here is a story of indisputable racism in action.

A neo-Nazi fanatic who stockpiled nail bombs under his son's bed was caught by chance while preparing to wage a race war against Jews, Muslims and other ethnic minorities. Martyn Gilleard, 31, idolised Adolf Hitler and urged sympathisers to act to preserve the "purity of the white race".

In case there's anyone out there (as there surely is) who thinks that I am a racist or that I don't care about racism...I utterly condemn and abhor this man and his ideology, and I am glad that he has been arrested.

Do Whites Play The Race Card?

This is an interesting column. In it, the author covers the story of a white schoolboy who has the habit of claiming that everyone at his school is "racist" against whites - which seems unlikely given that whites make up 85% of the playground.

So far, I agree with the author's point on this story: that the boy is wrongly playing the race card.

But I'm not sure I agree with his broader thesis: that whites are seeing the benefits of blacks playing the race card, and are deciding to imitate this. I don't see any evidence that whites are playing the race card as much as blacks or anyone else. Although in many cases whites face genuine racism, it seems they are the only ones who don't resort to manipulating it for their own gain. In fact, they're too busy being offended about racism on someone else's behalf to notice racism against themselves.

Round-up

1. One of Boris Johnson's senior advisers has quit after he said Caribbean immigrants should go home "if they don't like it here".

And he's absolutely right (in what he says, that is, not in quitting).

2. Naomi Campbell says a racist slur caused her to lash out while boarding a Los Angeles-bound British Airways flight from London's Heathrow Airport two months ago. The supermodel, who pleaded guilty Friday to kicking, spitting and swearing at two police officers, told Sky News that she regrets her behavior toward the cops, but has no love for the airline after someone on board referred to her as a "Golliwog."

Racial slurs are to be condemned, of course, but I rather suspect that this was simply fabricated.

3. RAW Watch - "Racism Alive and Well in SA varsities"

Essay on Islamic Intolerance

Last week I published an original essay about jihad. Today I present a new essay, on Islamic intolerance. As before, contains links wherever possible.

---------------------------------------

INTOLERANCE

These days, misconceptions about Islam are abound. Not only is it depicted in the media and by Muslim spokesman as a “religion of peace”, they also claim that it is a tolerant religion – indeed, it is far more tolerant, they say, than any other faith.

This irenic picture of Islam is totally false, as any serious examination of its sacred texts reveals. It also has serious implications for Western foreign and domestic policy. Western leaders accept unquestioningly that Muslim immigrants are peaceful and tolerant, and will quite happily assimilate. Any questioning of this dogma has been labelled hate speech. Reality and common sense have given way to polite falsehoods.

This essay will concentrate on two key areas of Islamic intolerance: enmity towards other religious groups; and the violent suppression by Muslims of any criticism of Islam, Muhammad or the Qur'an. It will also explain why it is important that we understand these problems before it is too late.

Enmity towards other religious groups

Muslims are fond of quoting the following verse from the Qur'an, to demonstrate that Islam is tolerant and respectful towards other faiths: “Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (2:62)

It would seem, then, that Allah rewards anyone of good faith, regardless of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. However, Islamic commentators tend not to believe that this verse has universal application. Ibn Kathir (d.1373) quotes Ibn Abbas – Muhammad's cousin, who was known for his great knowledge of Islam – to assert: “Allah does not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad that is, after Allah sent Muhammad. Before that, every person who followed the guidance of his own Prophet was on the correct path, following the correct guidance and was saved.” So in other words, those Jews and Christians who lived before Muhammad brought Islam to the world will be saved, while those who lived during or after Muhammad's time and yet rejected his message will not.

This is confirmed in a hadith:

“By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that with which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire.” (Sahih Muslim b.1, no.284)

Indeed, the majority of the Qur'an's passages about non-Muslims cast them in a less than favourable light. This begins in the Qur'an's opening chapter, the Fatiha, which has a status in Islam similar to that of the Lord's Prayer for Christians, and is recited multiple times every day by the pious Muslim believer: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” (1:6-7) The traditional understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam, while those who have earned Allah's anger and gone astray are the Jews and Christians. Ibn Kathir explains: “These two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews...the Jews abandoned practising the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.”

Although Jews and Christians are never mentioned in the text, almost all Muslim commentators share this view, including Tabari (d.923), Zamakhshari (d.1144) and al-Suyuti (d.1505).

The idea that Jews and Christians have earned Allah's anger and curses is repeated often in the Qur'an, because Muslims believe that Jewish and Christian prophets, such as Moses and Jesus, were in fact Muslims who taught Islam, and that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures; thus Judaism and Christianity are illegitimate:

“We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit...And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. Miserable is the price for which they have sold their souls, in that they deny (the revelation) which Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to any of His servants He pleases: Thus have they drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath. And humiliating is the punishment of those who reject Faith.” (2:87-90)

Elsewhere, the People of the Book are told that Allah has cursed them for their beliefs: “The Jews call 'Uzair [Ezra] a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (9:30)

Not only does the Qur'an deny the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God, it also denies that he was crucified: “That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.” (4:157) Ibn Kathir explains that it was not Jesus on the cross, but someone else who had been made to look like him, “while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and ‘Isa (Jesus) was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep.” This gives the lie to those who claim that Muslims and Christians essentially worship the same God and share the same beliefs.

The Qur'an even admonishes its followers not to befriend Jews or Christians: “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” (5:51)

This intolerance bodes badly for the end-times, which Muhammad envisioned as days of blood and slaughter. Muslims will kill Jews (Muslim b.41, no.6985, and others), while Christians will fare little better. In a bizarre twist, Jesus will return at the end of the world and remove the discriminatory system of the dhimma, which denies equality of rights to non-Muslims, not by promoting a new era of peace and tolerance but by abolishing Christianity and forcefully converting everyone to Islam:

“He [Jesus] will descend to the earth...He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizya. Allah will perish all religions except Islam.” (Sunan Abu Dawud b.37, no.4310)

Obviously, none of this is conducive to happy and peaceful relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. The logical endpoint of this intolerance is twofold: enmity towards unbelievers, and subsequently persecution of them.

Jews and Christians are regularly persecuted in Muslim lands. I have already covered anti-Jewish persecution in another essay, but in many parts of the world, Christians are treated just as badly. Christian populations in the Middle East today are dwindling rapidly as they seek to flee persecution at the hands of Muslim radicals. Half the Christian population of Iraq has fled since the US invasion of the country in 2003, with some comparing the conditions for Christians in Iraq today unfavourably to life under Saddam Hussein, although even then they had a hard time. Overall, the Christian population of the Middle East has dropped from about 20% in 1900 to less than 2% today.

While individual Muslims may be as tolerant as anyone else, there is no denying the fact that the overall belief system of Islam remains profoundly intolerant of other religious groups. It is this fact – not Western foreign policy or capitalism – which is causing continued damage to Judeo-Christian-Islamic relations, and which acts as a constant barrier to Muslim assimilation in the West. If the “three Abrahamic faiths” all want to get along, Islam must make the first move. Jews and Christians have repeatedly expressed their desire to live peacefully as equals with Muslims. All Islam has ever offered in return is jihad.

Suppressing criticism of Islam

Recent years have heralded an increase in violent outbursts of murderous rage from Muslim mobs whenever they deem that Islam, Muhammad or the Qur'an have been “insulted” in some way. We have seen countless examples of this in the last few decades. To name a few examples:

In 1989, Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses led to a death fatwa being placed on Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. The novel contained satirical references to Muhammad, and the title comes from a controversial incident in the Prophet's life which has been a scandal to Muslims for centuries. Following publication of the book, Muslim riots led to some deaths, particularly in India.

In 2004, Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh was killed by a Muslim in response to a film he had made which criticised the Islamic treatment of women. At his trial, the murderer stated: “What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his Prophet.”

In late 2005 and early 2006, there were worldwide Muslim riots after Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a number of satirical cartoons featuring Muhammad. Most of these cartoons were entirely innocuous, while three made a connection between Muhammad and terrorism. While Muslims have never rioted when men like Osama bin Laden make this same connection, in the case of the cartoons they murdered at least 139 people, and the cartoonists themselves now live under death threats. To state the obvious, this seems an odd way to protest the assertion that Islam is connected with violence.

And finally, in 2007 British teacher Gillian Gibbons was arrested in the Sudan for naming a teddy bear Muhammad. She had not even intended to name the toy after the Prophet himself; rather, she chose the name at the suggestion of one of her pupils, who was named Muhammad. But this did not move enraged rioters in the country, who called for her immediate execution. She was eventually released after international pressure.

All of this baffles many Western analysts, some of whom even propose limitations on free speech in the hope of avoiding future similar incidents, which would surely lead to Islam becoming a protected class, immune to criticism or even mockery. It is clear that there is something different about Islam, for no other religious groups react this way to real or imagined insults to their religion. When Andres Serrano unveiled his controversial “artwork” Piss Christ, no Christians rioted or killed anyone. There were no outbreaks of violence in Israel after academic Benny Shanon theorised that Moses and the Israelites were high on drugs. So what is it that makes Islam so different from other religions in the way it responds to criticism and mockery?

Much of the blame for this intolerance must be laid at the feet of Muhammad himself, who on a multitude of occasions displayed a startling lack of restraint. This partly manifested itself in his wars of conquest against non-Muslims inside and outside Arabia, but Muhammad did not just deal with his enemies by war and battle – he had them assassinated, too. Early Islamic sources show that on a number of occasions, the Prophet of Islam ordered the killing of those who criticised, mocked, or otherwise annoyed him. Two examples will suffice.

Not long after the Battle of Badr (624 AD), Muhammad became infuriated by a Jewish poet named K'ab bin al-Ashraf, who, according to the Prophet's earliest biographer Ibn Ishaq (d.773), “composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women.” Muhammad asked his followers: “Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” A Muslim volunteered to be the assassin, adding, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad gave him permission to use deceit to achieve the murder, and the assassin duly obliged. (Sahih Bukhari v.5, b.59, no.369)

Towards the end of his life, after he had conquered Mecca, Muhammad also ordered the assassination of another Jewish poet, this time a pregnant woman who had written verses attacking Muslims for obeying “a stranger who is none of yours”. She was swiftly killed, along with her unborn child. However, before long the assassin began to feel guilty about what he had done. Muhammad reassured him by saying, “You have helped God and his Apostle”, and clearly without guilt or remorse, added, “Two goats won't butt their heads about her.”

Since Muhammad is held up in Islamic theology as the Perfect Man (see Qur'an 33:21; 68:4), it is perhaps not surprising that prohibitions against insulting him, or the religion of Islam in general, worked their way into Islamic jurisprudence, where they remain to this day.

The manual of Shafi'i law Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), which in 1991 was certified by Cairo's Al-Azhar University as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community”, states that if a non-Muslim “mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam”, then they may face one of four fates, depending on the will of the imam: “death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.”

According to Ahmad Hasan, the translator of the hadith collection Sunan Abu Dawud, there is a “difference of opinion” among the schools of jurisprudence on the legitimacy of killing a non-Muslim who insults Islam. The Shafi'i school clearly endorses it. But the Hanafi school “is of the opinion that he [a non-Muslim] should not be killed.” The Maliki school, however, “maintains that he should be killed except [if] he embraces Islam.” Meanwhile, “It is unanimously agreed that if a Muslim abuses or insults the Prophet...he should be killed”.

Given all of this, it should not be a great shock to us that many Muslims today believe the proper response to a perceived insult to their religion is to kill the perpetrator, or whoever else happens to be in the way. At least some of the Islamic legal schools endorse this, but perhaps the greatest influence is the behaviour of Muhammad himself, who did not hesitate to have people killed if they insulted him. There is a clear and vast gulf between the West and the Islamic world when it comes to matters of free speech and rational dialogue.

If Islam is made off-limits for mockery or critical evaluation, the values of free speech which are a hallmark of Western civilisation will have been erased and replaced with an Islamic-style theocracy. If we try to stifle speech because it is “offensive” to someone, then the whole notion of free speech has been emptied of its fundamental principles, and has thus become meaningless. Furthermore, it undermines our ability to examine the motivations and goals of Islamic jihadists, thus hampering our ability to combat them effectively.

Conclusion

In more ways than one, Islam is a profoundly intolerant religion. The behaviour of Muhammad and his words and beliefs as preserved in the Qur'an remain normative for all time, as the eternal word of Allah, perfect and unchangeable. As a result, Islam has not modernised since its inception, and so these attitudes of intolerance are being imbibed by Muslims all around the world to this day. And if there is no Islamic reform in the near future, there is no reason to think things will change.

Who Cares?

I read that Blackburn Rovers are making Paul Ince their new manager.

Why am I posting this? Because of the Daily Mail's first line: "Blackburn are ready to make Paul Ince the first black Briton to manage a Premier League club after asking MK Dons to name their price for the highly rated young boss."

Who cares? That part of it is totally irrelevant. Who would even notice such a thing if the papers didn't point it out? Good for Ince, but I am not interested in the slightest what colour he is.

More Of That "Subtle Racism"

"Subliminal racism" is the biggest problem in South Africa, says the principal of a leaning university there.

This is a common phenomenon. If you are black or ethnic, the best way to make sure you don't have to take any responsibility for anything is to play the race card. No evidence? Never fear, just say the racism is "subtle" and you're onto a winner.

Is Racism "Happening"?

This piece at the Orlando Sentinel is amusing - apparently, the Guardian review of M. Night Shyamalan's new film The Happening plays the race card. At the end of the review it asks: "Can it be a kind of racism that the Indian-born, Philadelphia-raised auteur is hammered for his apparent character (or funny name) rather more than, say, Quentin Tarantino or Spike Lee?" The very first comment in response to the article says simply: "No."

It seems to me that the reason the film is getting slammed is because it's an awful film. My sister went to see it a few days ago and said it was laughably bad. Shyamalan hasn't made a good film since Signs, which I liked. In fact, apart from that The Sixth Sense was his only other good one. Let's cut the "racism" silliness, please.

Also, it is worth noting that the Guardian columnist who played the racism card is Kim Newman, whose absolutely terrible short stories I have had the unpleasant experience of reading on several occasions. Maybe his opinion doesn't (or shouldn't) count for an awful lot after all.

Are You Ready For Laughter?

In "Muslim Comedy Show Fights Racism With Laughter", we learn that a new Muslim comedy TV show in Australia is going to "give a voice to Muslim moderates". Exactly how, it doesn't say.

The rest of the article is the usual liberal drivel.

"Racism" - Islam is not a race.

"Professor Kevin Dunn, from the University of Western Sydney, says there’s been what he calls an accumulation of islamophobia in Australia, which is not unusual in Western countries, he adds." Islamophobia does not exist. Western countries are generally tolerant societies and Muslims do not face persecution for their beliefs or background.

"Dunn recently conducted a survey to map out Australians attitudes towards Islam. He found about a third of Australians don’t know anything about Islam, and about half know only a little bit. Altogether, that’s 8 out of 10 Australians being in real ignorance about Islam." Sure, blame it on "ignorance". If Australians are suspicious or critical about Islam, it's because they're ignorant. Nothing to do with all those Muslims blowing themselves up and murdering people in the name of Islam. Oh no, it's ignorance.

In support of free speech...

At Jihad Watch today, Robert Spencer has a fantastic rebuttal of the latest loony mainstream media equation of Islamorealistic speech with hate speech, which naturally leads to attempts to BAN free speech. And he also has a request: to send his post far and wide, to reproduce it wherever possible, until people wake up. So that's why I'm linking to it here. And I've reproduced his final sombre paragraph below. Read; take note; act. Before it's too late.

"If we don't wake people up, it could be too late before anyone even realizes. Call me alarmist, call me hysterical, but it only took six months for Adolf Hitler to dismantle the Weimar Republic and impose a dictatorship. Huey Long is said to have remarked, "Fascism will come to America, but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism." Now we are seeing just that: the anti-jihadists are called fascists, and are being silenced in fascist fashion, in the name of anti-fascism. It's time to wake up. Please, try to wake someone up today."

Round-up

1. Tory Councillor Lucy Ivimy of the Hammersmith and Fulham council in west London has sparked a racism row by accusing immigrants, particularly Indians, of showing a “total disregard for cleanliness of a public area.” She said that the council estate was being blighted by rubbish thrown from flats. “I know that in India, throwing rubbish out of a window is normal and I dare say a number of them would change if firmly told that in London this is not acceptable behaviour,” she said, according to a report in the Mail. Ivimy admitted later, “This was a hastily written, ill thought out, stupid, personal mail. I can see how the comments may be offensive. That was never my intention and therefore I apologise.”

2. Ananya Dance Theatre, a community of women artists of color who focus on building community and creating social change "through the dialogue of dance", intends to address local concerns as well as global issues. The issue in question, "environmental racism", includes "uprooting people from their homes", says Ananya, as well as "capricious enforcement of environmental rules and regulations that negatively impact minority communities".

What a load of rubbish. The "dialogue of dance"? "Capricious enforcement" of environmental rules that negatively impact minority communities? All buzzwords and no substance.

An Essay On Jihad

The following is an original essay by me on the Islamic institution of jihad. I have two or three of these essays (on different subjects) in the pipeline, and will post them when I can. And, as I'm trying to be as transparent as possible, I'm going to include direct links to online versions of the sources wherever I can, so people can check them for themselves and decide whether I am using them fairly or not.

Anyway, enjoy (by the way, apologies for the awful formatting, but when you copy and paste from a Word document Blogger does all sorts of stupid things to the text which it then won't let you correct):

------------------------------------------

JIHAD

The conventional wisdom prevailing in university campuses today is that Islam does not have a system of holy war. As a Religion of Peace, Islam champions (now and always) non-violence, with war only ever advocated in self-defence.

This contention cannot be supported on either theological or historical grounds. This essay will examine the theology and application of Islamic holy war (jihad) in order to demonstrate that a unique doctrine of holy war exists within the orthodoxy of Islamic teaching.

“Jihad” in Arabic means something akin to “struggle”. Modern apologetic literature seeks to cast jihad as a sort of inner struggle for spiritual peace, but throughout history the dominant understanding of jihad among Muslims has been one of physical struggle – warfare – against unbelievers. The Arabic root word of jihad, jahada, appears in the Qur'an forty times, and thirty-six of these use derivations of the verb form jahida, which refers to physical fighting. References to a tradition of Muhammad in which he refers to a “greater” and “lesser” jihad are dismissed by many Muslims, including the great jurist Ibn Taymiyya, (see no.71) who wrote that this tradition “has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.” Thus the primary understanding of jihad became one of literal holy war.

The Islamic understanding of this holy war can be best summed up by the orders given by caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634-644 AD, after he invaded Iraq in 636. According to the Muslim historian al-Tabari (838-923), Umar commanded his lieutenant: “Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”

This idea is based on the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, and has been enforced throughout Islamic history. The Qur'an commands: “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 [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

The jizya was a special tax paid by non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state. Such subjects became dhimmis, “protected peoples”, who lived under Islamic rule, although not with equal dignity and rights to their Muslim masters.

Below are two examples demonstrating the consensus understanding of 9:29 among Muslim scholars. The first comes from Ibn Kathir (d.1373), a renowned commentator whose works are still read and respected today:

“This honorable Ayah [verse] was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians...

“Allah said, 'until they pay the Jizyah', if they do not choose to embrace Islam, 'with willing submission', in defeat and subservience, 'and feel themselves subdued', disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.”

This view is reaffirmed in the modern era by Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi (d.1979), one of the most influential Islamic thinkers of the twentieth century:

“The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not as one might think to compel the unbelievers into embracing Islam. Rather their purpose is to put an end to the sovereignty and supremacy of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over men. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the true faith; unbelievers who do not follow this true faith should live in a state of subordination…Jizyah symbolizes the submission of the unbelievers to the suzerainty of Islam. To pay the jizyah of their own hands “humbled” refers to payment in a state of submission. “Humbled” also reinforces the idea that the believers, rather than the unbelievers, should be the rulers in performance of their duty as God’s vicegerents...

“The simple fact is that according to Islam, non-Muslims have been granted the freedom to stay outside the Islamic fold and to cling to their false, man-made ways if they so wish. They have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reigns of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines. For if they are given such an opportunity, corruption and mischief will ensue. In such a situation 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.

“One of the advantages of jizyah is that it reminds the Dhimmis every year that because they do not embrace Islam…they have to pay a price—jizyah—for clinging to their errors.”

The hadith, the written traditions detailing the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad, simply elaborate on and explicate this command to wage war on unbelievers. One tradition, which is repeated several times in the hadith collection Muslims consider to be most sacred and reliable, depicts Muhammad saying: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah” (Sahih Bukhari v.1, b.2, no.24, and others)

The choice of conversion, subjugation as dhimmis or death comes from another canonical hadith tradition:

"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." (Sahih Muslim b.19, no.4294)

In the following centuries, Muslim jurists and theologians used these passages and others like them to construct a developed superstructure of jihad war against unbelievers. The rules of offensive jihad to propagate Islam became a part of Islamic law, the sharia. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree on the necessity and basic principles of this war. The consensus of the four main Sunni schools – Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i – is demonstrated below.

The Maliki jurist Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996) said:

"Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them."

The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) said:

"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...As for the People of the Book and the Zoroastrians, they are to be fought until they become Muslims or pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled. With regard to the others, the jurists differ as to the lawfulness of taking tribute from them. Most of them regard it as unlawful to take it from heathen Arabs."

From the Hidaya of the Hanafi school (1100s):

"It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because 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...If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, 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."

And finally, the Shafi'i scholar Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi (d.1058) said:

"The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the House of War) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them...in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun...Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger...it is forbidden to...begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached."

Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), a renowned Muslim philosopher and sociologist who was also a legal theorist, summed up the consensus of Sunni Muslims regarding jihad: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universality of the [Muslim] mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense...Islam is under obligation to gain power from other nations.”

Indeed, even Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d.1111), a highly revered Sufi mystic, stressed the necessity for jihad against unbelievers:

“One must go on jihad (i.e. warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use catapults against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the ahl al-kitab [People of the Book] is enslaved, his marriage is automatically revoked...One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...”

The Shi'ites also agree with the basic premise of jihad war, as demonstrated by this quote from a popular Persian manual of Islamic law written by the Shi'a theologian Muhammad al-Amili (d. 1621): “Islamic Holy war (jihad) against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax.”

In the centuries following Muhammad's death in 632, the Muslims swept out of Arabia and launched an astonishingly swift and brutal invasion of the surrounding peoples. Within only six years they had captured the holiest city of Christendom, Jerusalem. In the following centuries, they expanded their empire as far West as Spain and as far East as India. Every country they invaded, they Islamised. The society of the invaders became based on the rules of the sharia, and the conquered peoples were offered Muhammad's triple choice of conversion, subjugation or death. Many were converted to Islam (often by force), while others were sold into slavery. Both Muslim and non-Muslim sources testify to the brutality of the jihad conquests and the suffering of the non-Muslims who fell victim to them.

This jihad carried on almost unabated for a thousand years, until the Muslims were beaten back from the gates of Vienna on September 11^th, 1683. After this crushing defeat, Islam fell into a state of weakness in which it was not capable of waging jihads of the scope that had helped it to expand its hold on two thirds of the Christian world and the whole of Persia and the Indian subcontinent. Although jihad continued, it never reached the ferocity of the first waves, and jihad was de-emphasised in Muslim societies in theory and practice while Islam passed through its period of decline.

By the twentieth century, however, jihad was beginning to reassert itself. In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth, millions of Armenian dhimmis were slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire in a genocide which the Turkish government still refuses to recognise to this day. In 1965, Indonesian Muslims waged a jihad against the Communists, exterminating between a hundred thousand and five hundred thousand. In 1968, an assembly of Muslim scholars and jurists convened an Islamic conference at the Al-Azhar Academy of Islamic Research. Here, they called for an annihilationist jihad against Israel. Sheik Abdullah Ghoshah, Chief Judge of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, said: “Jihad is legislated in order to be one of the means of propagating Islam. Consequently non-Muslims ought to embrace Islam either willingly through wisdom and good advice or unwillingly through fight and jihad...War is the basis of the relationship between Muslims and their opponents unless there are justifiable reasons for peace, such as adopting Islam.”

In 1979, the Shi'ite theocracy of Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran. Khomeini saw jihad as a “central pillar of faith and action”, fought as part of a “sacred struggle to cleanse the region and the world of Muslim and non-Muslim infidel blasphemy.” The same year, the Afghan jihad to repel the Soviet invasion began, funded by Saudi Arabia and Iran – as well as aid from the United States. Following the forced withdrawal of the Soviets, jihadists from all over the Islamic world declared their intention of creating a global Islamic army. Fighters were sent regularly from Afghanistan to India, Bosnia, Palestine and Africa to further jihad campaigns in those regions.

On the back of this jihad resurgence, numerous Islamic countries adopted sharia-based legal codes in the 1980s and 1990s. Even long-time secular countries like Algeria and Turkey faced hardline Islamic challenges. By the mid-90s the jihad was in full flow. Muslims began to wage formal jihads in India, Thailand, Kashmir, Senegal and Uganda. In Somalia and Sudan, jihads were declared against the Christian populations. Today, jihads are being waged all over the world, and the jihad network has expanded to consist of hundreds of multi-national jihad groups, boasting hundreds of thousands of members.

The institution of Islamic jihad was formulated centuries ago, based upon the words and deeds of Muhammad and his message, the Qur'an. The historical record shows that this jihad theory was put into practice, continuously, across three continents, for more than a millennium. Today, after a temporary period of weakness, jihad is making a comeback, waged by a global network of Muslims who have openly declared their intention to destroy the West. If this jihad is allowed to continue unchecked, without resistance or even recognition, the large-scale conquest and Islamisation of the Dar al-Harb may once more become a brutal reality. All Westerners must understand the uniquely Islamic and orthodox institution of jihad, or the West will not survive.

But it is Muslims themselves who have the most power to resist the jihad. The many millions of peaceful Muslims in the West and in the Islamic world must engage in some self-reflection and take responsibility to end the violence. All civilisations and religions have had to engage in this kind of self-criticism at one time or another; it is not unreasonable or unfair that Islam should do the same. Muslims must work for a reform of Islam, so that the power of the jihad ideology will be blunted and the ever-expanding jihad network will be stopped in its tracks.

On this, everything depends.

Round-up

1. Questions about whether racism played a part in the fatal police shooting of a Winnipeg teen continue to be raised as an inquest began yesterday into the death. Matthew Dumas, 18, was a suspect in a robbery in January 2005. When approached by police, Dumas reportedly continued to walk towards an officer after being ordered to drop a weapon — which later turned out to be a screwdriver. The shooting immediately prompted cries of racism from some aboriginal leaders in Manitoba - because Dumas happened to be one of theirs.

You know what? I'm beginning to like these North American "aboriginals" less and less. And it's not because of their skin colour - it's because of their constant whining and peddling of victim status over non-issues like this.

2. Almost 500 workers in Pixley ka Seme, South Africa, will down tools in protest against racism. They claim they do not receive equal pay, benefits and opportunities to the white employees and white boss.

If it's true, good luck to them. But I cannot help feeling suspicious these days. If so many people weren't intent on playing the race card at every opportunity, it would be a lot easier to tell whether there really was racism going on or not.

Antisemitism...

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs today posts a link to a post at Digg.com with the title "LGF: Not a blind supporter of Israel? You're an anti-semite."

Now, I agree with Charles on most things, but on this I happen to agree with his detractors. Charles has a habit of seeing ANY and ALL criticism of Israel as evidence of "anti-semitism". But that's simply wrong and hysterical. If you hate Israel, I think you are a fool. I think you are a dangerous fool. I do not, however, think you are antisemitic. I think you hate Israel because it is so closely allied with America, and you hate America. I think Charles needs to learn this basic difference. Liberals don't hate Israel because it's full of Jews - they hate it because they're self-loathing and despise America, simultaneously loving our enemies, and since Israel represents opposition to our enemies equivalent to that of the States, they despise Israel, too. Simple.

Round-up

1. Grrrrrrrr! For God's sake, quit it! Obama's Victory Doesn't Mean Racism Is Dead

2. Political correctness and fears of being branded racist are hindering efforts to protect Asian [aka, I suspect, Muslim] children from domestic violence, says a children's charity. A report for the NSPCC cites cases of social services, police, teachers and health workers feeling "unqualified" to deal with victims. Sometimes they took the wrong - or even no - action on the grounds of respecting other cultures, it found.

Obama Again...

As it seems clear that Barack Obama is going to clinch the Democratic nomination, we're having to put up with more drivel about "racism" than ever before.

However, the antidote is out there. Sometimes, people write sensible things about this issue.

The Delicious Irony of Intervention

Australian Aboriginal people are suffering hardship and racism because of federal intervention in the Northern Territory, a senate committee has been told. And yet I'm sure that had there been no "intervention", the aborigines would have claimed they were being neglected.

You've also gotta love this line: "Indigenous communities were also reluctant to speak about the impact of the intervention for fear that it could jeopardise funds for infrastructure, housing and health, according to the Darwin Aboriginal Rights Coalition (DARC)." Rich.

Bardot In The Dock

I see that the ever-vociferous Brigitte Bardot has been fined 15,000 Euros by a French court for "inciting racial hatred" after she said that Muslims are "destroying our country by imposing their ways". It is the fifth time Ms Bardot has been convicted over her controversial remarks about Islam and its followers.

Leaving aside the actual truth or untruth of this statement, there's one question that must be asked: What race is Islam again?

Eurovision Racism

Terry Wogan has claimed that British Eurovision contestant Andy Abraham came joint last because of racism in Eastern Europe. Wogan said that east of the Danube "they won't be voting for a black singer any day soon".

I'm not sure I accept this. Certainly the political voting made it nigh-on impossible for the UK to win or come anywhere near the top. But its poor showing was, to me, simply down to the fact that it was a bad, forgettable song. It was the best one we've put in for years, though, which is saying something. And granted, it didn't deserve to come below this piece of rubbish from Spain.

Abraham, meanwhile, does not believe the result was down to racism.