Black Man's Wheels

The victim

A senior police officer who headed a force's black-on-black crime division has been disciplined after referring to a BMW toy car as "a black man's wheels". Former Supt Chris Pretty, of West Midlands Police, made the remarks after he was presented with the miniature car at his leaving party last September. Two officers complained that they found the remarks offensive and he was hauled before a disciplinary panel, which last week demoted him to the rank of Chief Inspector.

In the Daily Mail today, Richard Littlejohn nails this absurd story:

Mr Pretty is no racist. He's done much for the region's black community as a former head of the 'black-on-black' crime taskforce and solved several murders.

A police spokesman said: 'He has been dealt with in an appropriate manner.'

Actually, he's been dealt with in an absurd, heavy-handed, vindictive, utterly inappropriate manner.

No wonder so many dedicated police officers are walking away from the job. Mind how you go.

Read it all.

House of Sleep

It's weird how most of the good metal these days seems to come from Finland. Here's another band from the dhimmi state: Amorphis, with House of Sleep.

Does Islam Promote Terrorism?

So, this is my response to the third and final of Laura's videos about Islam and violence. This one is about terrorism.

She begins with, "Regardless of what this or that scholar may say, I think it's more important to look at what the Qur'an and the hadith say." The problem is that the Qur'an, or any other religious text, cannot be understood in isolation from the traditions that build around it. It is no use quoting from the Qur'an if the texts you are quoting are interpreted differently by others from the way you interpret them. It is that interpretation which is resulting in Muslims around the world committing acts of violence and justifying them with reference to these texts. That's why it IS important to study what "this or that scholar" says. I shall be doing this in due course.

Anyway, our hostess next reads us the dictionary definition of "terrorism", and then claims that Islam doesn't support it. What, then, of Qur'an 8:60, which commands: "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."? Even Muhammad himself - who Muslims believe is the Perfect Man; we see several times in these videos how Laura piously utters the Arabic phrase for "peace be upon him" every time she says his name - is recorded as saying, "I have been made victorious with terror (struck in the hearts of the enemy)" (Bukhari v.4, b.56, no.2977). Of course, in this he was not referring to terror in the sense of modern terrorism. Rather, he meant the terror that Allah cast into the hearts of His enemies. But he saw himself and his armies as the instruments of Allah, the means by which Allah's wrath was implemented. So it might be said that his view of himself was not that different from the way modern jihad terrorists see themselves – as a warrior of Allah terrorising the enemies of Islam, in order to demoralise them, thus paving the way for victory. According to the Qur'an, Muhammad sets a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for all Muslims (33:21), who are encouraged to emulate him in any way they can.

A note left for the 9/11 hijackers read: "When the hijacking begins, shout 'Allah is great' because this shout strikes terrors in the hearts of the infidels.” Did they misuse Qur'an verses like 8:60 and Muhammad's own words to draw this conclusion? If so, Laura does not explain how.

Next Laura falls into that comforting trap which all Muslim spokesmen and spokeswomen in the West fall into - she quotes Qur'an 5:32: "whosoever killeth a human being...it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” This is dangerously misleading. These noble-sounding sentiments come in the textual context of a warning to the Jews (the “Children of Israel”) not to oppose the Muslims. Here is the full text of the passage, along with the verse immediately following:

“For that cause 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, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth. The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.” (5:32-33)

Suddenly, this passage takes on an entirely different meaning. As ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq puts it: "The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. ‘Behave, or else’ is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated, and banished!”

She goes on to quote several other Qur'an passages which seem to encourage peace. I won't go through them individually, but the main point here is that none of them change the fact that the Qur'an calls for non-Muslims to be fought until all the world is under Islamic rule, being given the choice of either conversion, subjugation or death (cf. 2:193, 8:39, 9:29, etc). Perhaps Laura could kindly explain why Islamic jurists have for centuries completely ignored the verses she quoted and have instead formulated a detailed system of jihad against unbelievers based on the Qur'an's more violent verses. Honest examination of Islam's role in religious violence must begin with this fact. Indeed, these verses even contradict her own summary of the purpose of jihad, which she outlined in the previous video (see my last response at this site).

She then quotes a couple of traditions forbidding the killing of innocent non-combatants. The problem with this is that "innocent" and "non-combatants" are not defined clearly enough. Some Islamic legal authorities allow for the killing of non-combatants if they are seen as somehow aiding the war effort, even indirectly. For example, Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d.1328) directed: “As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).” Thus, Muslims can justify killing anyone they deem to be somehow aiding the enemies of Islam. Osama bin Laden justified the 9/11 atrocities by saying: “The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.” By such definition, there is no such thing as an innocent American.

Jihadists also commonly assert that there are no innocent civilians in Israel; Tunisian jihadist Rashid al-Ghannushi, for example, has issued a fatwa declaring: “There are no civilians in Israel. The population – males, females and children – are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.”

The point here is that while Laura may think she knows what Muhammad meant by non-combatants, such things are actually hotly disputed among Muslims. All the while there is some theological support for the killing of innocent people, such violence will continue. But instead of directing her efforts at trying to convince her fellow Muslims that killing innocents is wrong on Islamic grounds, she is apparently dedicating her time to telling non-Muslims this. We're not the ones who need convincing, Laura - the jihadists do. What are you doing towards this end?

"You fight a clean and a fair fight, and you leave the civilians out of it."

But you can still fight to impose Islamic law on other peoples, as per Qur'an 9:29 and the teachings of all the schools of jurisprudence, so long as you take care not to kill "civilians"? I feel so much better!

In the final part of the video, Laura admits that although suicide is technically forbidden in Islam, "some scholars do say that because in a certain battle some of the Muslim soldiers declared that they would fight until they died...that shows that you can commit suicide." She seems to dismiss that and quotes from the Qur'an instead, but this is an important point, worth looking at in more detail.

There is no doubt that Muhammad preached the honour of martyrdom – that is, dying in battle against the enemies of Islam. In fact, martyrs were guaranteed a place in Paradise for their actions. The Qur'an says: “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth” (9:111). The hadith are also full of praise for martyrs: “Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid [holy warrior] in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.” (Bukhari v.4, b.52, no.46) In fact, not only are jihadists guaranteed a place in Paradise; they are also guaranteed to reach a higher level of Paradise than anyone else:

“It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said (to him): Abu Sa'id, whoever cheerfully accepts Allah as his Lord, Islam as his religion and Mubammad as his Apostle is necessarily entitled to enter Paradise. He (Abu Sa'id) wondered at it and said: Messenger of Allah, repeat it for me. He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!” (Sahih Muslim b.20, no.4645)

When modern jihadists commit suicide bombings, they are, in the words of Qur'an 9:111, slaying and being slain in the same act; therefore they believe they will receive the reward of a martyr in Allah's cause: the luxurious and highly sexualised delights of Paradise.

Technically, then, this is not suicide. Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is one of the most powerful and respected clerics in the Muslim world, has defended suicide bombing on this basis: “Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a grave mistake. The goals of the one who carries out a martyrdom operation and of the one who commits suicide are completely different...The person who commits suicide kills himself for himself, because he failed in business, love, an examination or the like. He was too weak to cope with the situation and chose to flee life for death...In contrast, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation does not think of himself. He sacrifices himself for the sake of a higher goal...He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange.” Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Cairo's Al-Azhar University and the closest Muslim equivalent to a pope, has also endorsed suicide bombing as a legitimate form of jihad.

With such high-profile Islamic authorities endorsing this act of terrorism on the grounds of traditional Islamic belief regarding martyrdom, it will be difficult to convince Muslims otherwise. After all, what pious and dedicated Muslim would not want to guarantee themselves a place in Paradise? Again, those interpretations I just mentioned may be completely wrong and Laura's view that suicide under ANY circumstances is forbidden may be right. But regardless, the more violent interpretation is clearly disturbingly common among Muslims all around the world today. And yet, instead of trying to convince her fellow Muslims of her own view, she is trying to "advocate Islam" to non-Muslims. This is a problem we are seeing with most moderate Muslims today, with the exception of a tiny handful who do attempt to spread peaceful understandings of the Qur'an among their co-religionists.

Overall, these videos are a good example of the current problem with the so-called "moderate Muslim community". Laura's apparent endorsement of offensive warfare to propagate Islamic law is worrying in itself, and makes one wonder just how many other "moderate" Muslims have the same view. But even if her views were totally pacific, this would still not be enough. Muslims all around the world are committing acts of violence and basing them on the teachings of the Qur'an, Sunnah and fiqh, and traditional, orthodox Islamic doctrine. And moderate Muslims have come up with no rigorous counter-tradition to challenge it, nor have they shown any serious interest in implementing transparent schemes in schools and mosques to teach against the jihad ideology. All the while this remains the case, a thousand of Laura's videos posted on Youtube won't prevent people from suffering and dying in the name of Islam every single day.

Was Islam Spread by the Sword? Part 2

The follow-up to yesterday's post in which I debunked this video by "AdvocatingIslam" at Youtube. This part refutes the second video, which can be seen here.

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

WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD? PART 2

AdvocatingIslam - who I will henceforth call Laura, since that's the name in her Youtube profile - begins the second part of her "Did Islam Spread by the Sword?" series with a remarkably accurate and honest description of the jihad conquests under the first four caliphs: "They would contact the governments and call them to embrace Islam. If they accepted Islam, that was it. If they refused to accept Islam, then they would call on them to pay the jizya, a poll tax paid per person, paid to the Muslim government...If they didn't want to do either of those, then they were going to fight." Laura apparently sees absolutely nothing wrong with this, concentrating instead on the fact that Muhammad supposedly forbade wanton destruction and the killing of non-combatants during these battles. I'm sure she would be considerably more outraged if the West invaded Islamic countries and demanded that Muslims either convert to Christianity or pay money to their invaders. Laura says all this as though it's the most acceptable thing in the world. Wars to impose Islamic law on other peoples? It's OK, apparently!

In any case, she is incorrect that this type of thing only happened under the first four caliphs: it happened for many centuries after that, also. Jihad conquests following the same pattern were waged in North Africa and Europe a hundred years after Muhammad's death, with the Muslims being repelled from Europe at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD. These jihad conquests continued until 1683, when the Muslims were defeated in Vienna, after which Islam entered a period of weakness during which it was incapable of continuing the jihad on the same scale. And then, of course, there is the jihad on the Indian subcontinent, which lasted a millennium, where millions of Hindus were slaughtered without even being given the second option of paying the jizya. For them, it was convert or die. Laura doesn't mention any of this.

"The people, they were HAPPY that the Muslims had come, because they were living under some really corrupt governments...They looked at the Muslims as liberators."

What ahistorical drivel! In fact, Islamic jihad conquests such as those in Egypt were achieved only in the face of fierce resistance. Historical accounts such as those by John of Nikiou describe scenes of brutality, pillage and slaughter by Muslim invaders. The ferocity of the Egyptian Christians' defence resulted in the complete destruction of several towns and cities. We see similar stories in other places such as Armenia and Cilicia. Indeed, the writings of caliph Umar show that the countries under Muslim rule were "covered with troops", in his words. There would be no reason for this if the invaded peoples welcomed the Muslims and lived with them in friendship.

"Many of them converted to Islam. But they didn't all convert, and Islam protected them..."

Laura paints a wondrous, harmonious picture of this "protection", but doesn't explain its true nature. Non-Muslims under Islamic rule - dhimmis - were protected, sure...from the Muslims. But this protection involved a number of humiliating rules and regulations which were designed to make sure that non-Muslims always remembered that they were inferior beings, in line with Qur'an 9:29, which calls for non-Muslims to be fought until they "pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." Here is an extract from the Pact of Umar, which he concluded with some Christians he invaded:

"We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night...Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not...prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims...These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion."

This does not sound to me like an idyllic state of protection which the Christians living under it would welcome. Umar was the second caliph. This pact became the basis for Islamic law's treatment of non-Muslims. These kinds of rulings were institutionalised and taught by all the schools of jurisprudence. Muslim states throughout history enforced the oppressive and discriminatory dhimma, almost exactly like the system mandated by Umar, on their non-Muslim populations.

Payment of the jizya was also accompanied by humiliating ceremonies. The jurist an-Nawawi directed: "The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector; the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks.” This deliberately demeaning ritual was practised widely, and continued to be enforced even as late as 1950 in countries like Afghanistan.

"In fact, Jews and Christians thrived under the Muslim rule, in Spain and places like that..."

Laura is here peddling the ahistorical myth of peaceful, tolerant Muslim Spain, a multiculturalist paradise where Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in perfect harmony, probably singing Kumbaya together, or something. This canard is fiction. Our hostess neglects to mention that if there was peace of a sort between Muslims, Jews and Christians during that epoch, it only existed all the while the People of the Book lived as hated and inferior dhimmis under Islamic hegemony. Persecution of dhimmis was constant in Muslim Spain. Paul Alvarus, a ninth-century Christian in Cordoba, complained of the “unbearable tax” - the jizya - that Spanish Muslims levied on their dhimmi subjects. When the dhimmi laws were relaxed on occasions, this led to riots and murders by angry Muslims who protested about a "breach of sharia". To take just one example: In 1066 in Granada, the appointment of Joseph b. Samuel Naghrela, a Jew, to the position of vizier led to riots by angry Muslims, who complained that this was a breach of the dhimma, which does not allow Jews or Christians to hold positions of authority over Muslims. These riots massacred between three and four thousand Jews and were incited in part by a Muslim poem containing the line, "Many a pious Muslim is in awe of the vilest infidel ape." Muslim Spain was far from the utopian wonderland that modern apologists envision.

"What I find fascinating is that if a Jew or a Christian committed some sort of crime, they weren't tried in Muslims courts, they were tried in their own courts."

This may be true. More worryingly, though, according to the dhimma, the testimony of a dhimmi was deemed inadmissable against that of a Muslim. So if a Muslim and a Christian were in court, only the Muslim had the right to testify. Again, this is discriminatory and explodes the fictional "fairness" of the Islamic system that Laura is trying to peddle here.

"The law of the Muslims wasn't applied to the people...They were allowed to keep their own religious customs."

Not true. From the time of the Pact of Umar onwards, dhimmis were forbidden from ringing church bells, displaying crosses in public places, or publicly celebrating their festivals and feast-days. They were also forbidden from displaying wine or pork, because of Islamic law's prohibitions of these things.

"Today in Egypt there are 14 million Coptic Christians, and there are all these Christians living all over the Middle East, and they will testify that Islam was not spread by the sword, and they were never forced to convert to Islam."

This is a very carefully worded statement that leaves out the persecution Christians have suffered at the hands of Muslims over the years. In Egypt, the Copts have been persecuted by Muslims since the initial invasions of the country. For example, in 704 Abd-al-Aziz, the governor of Egypt and brother of the caliph at the time, fiercely persecuted the Copts by ordering that all crosses should be removed from their churches and that "Muhammad is the Great Apostle of God" be written on all their doors. Mobs attacked and killed many Christians, including monks. Many Christians converted to Islam out of fear or expediency. This persecution of Copts in Egypt continues to this day.

Meanwhile, Christians in the Middle East as a whole are also suffering. 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, as Christians seek to flee from increasing persecution by Muslim radicals. Their suffering is simply a continuation of the suffering of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands for fourteen centuries.

"People converted to Islam because they saw something in it...Maybe they saw the truth..."

There is no evidence that people mostly converted to Islam because they just realised how swell it was, as many Muslims often claim, and Laura doesn't provide any. There is evidence, however, that people converted because they were suffering under the dhimma and sought a way out. For example, it is recorded that in 1651, four hundred Christians in Cyprus became Muslims because they could not afford to pay the jizya. Similar cases have been recorded elsewhere and throughout history. This was at times such a problem that the Muslim leaders actually forbade dhimmis from converting to Islam because it would destroy the tax base!

So that is the real crux of this whole thing, then. Islamic law technically prohibited forced conversion of Jews and Christians (although "idolaters" such as Hindus and Buddhists evidently were fair game). But what was forcefully imposed on them, again and again, was the Islamic legal system. This relegated them to second-class status, where they suffered persecution and discrimination. This was such an awful way to live that many dhimmis eventually chose to convert, because this was the only pathway to a relatively comfortable life. Apparently, Laura thinks this is just fine. She does not agree with forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam. But she DOES agree with attacking their lands and forcing them to live under Islamic law, which eventually would lead to their conversion, to spare themselves from the burden of the dhimma and the jizya.

At least she's honest about where she stands, even if she isn't so honest about all the facts.

Did Islam Spread By The Sword? Part 1

I saw yesterday that among Youtube's "Featured Videos" was a set of monologues by an American Muslim woman (if she has a name that she has shared with the public, then I apologise to her for missing it - I only know her by the name of her account: "AdvocatingIslam"). Among her videos are a few which claim to refute "misconceptions" about Islam's role in inspiring violence against unbelievers. Since they are full of inaccuracies, I thought it would be fun to do a refutation of her refutations - although, regrettably, this will be in written form, not video form (I don't want to show my ugly mug on camera - for my own safety as much as anything).

Most of her videos I have no interest in rebutting, since they are general introductions to Islam. But she has three videos about Islam and violence. This includes a two-part series entitled "Did Islam Spread By The Sword?" I am going to refute the first of these videos today, and will hopefully manage to post a response to the second part tomorrow, or at least by the end of the week.

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

WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD? PART 1

AdvocatingIslam claims the idea that the Islamic religion spread by the sword, by war and conquest, "is one of the most common misconceptions about Islam today". To begin her refutation of this "misconception", she quotes two verses from the Qur'an.

First, she quotes 18:29 - "Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." Interestingly, she does not quote the entire verse, which goes on to deliver graphic threats of Hell-fire to unbelievers: "Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!" I refuse to call any religion "tolerant" when it contains such teachings.

In any case, this is a Meccan sura. During his Meccan period, Muhammad did not counsel violence against unbelievers. However, many scholars say that such chapters have been abrogated by the Medinan suras, which do call for violence, particularly 9:5, which does indeed command Muslims to fight "idolators" until they either convert or die. As such, passages like the one quoted above can be seen to apply only to that early stage of Muhammad's prophetic career, after which they were superseded by the violent verses, which then apply universally. The great scholar Ibn Kathir quotes Ibn Abbas - Muhammad's cousin, who was known for his great knowledge of Islam - to say of 9:5, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term...No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah [sura 9] was revealed."

AdvocatingIslam also quotes 2:256, the famous and celebrated verse which says that there is "no compulsion in religion". But, at least with regards to Jews and Christians - the People of the Book - this is completely irrelevant. The great Muslim historian and Qur'anic exegete Tabari says that this verse was revealed specifically in relation to the People of the Book: they can't be forced to accept Islam, but if they refuse, they must be given dhimmi status and made to pay the jizya (as per Qur'an 9:29). Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb says:

"As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impede its efforts to liberate mankind from submission to anyone other than God...The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax. When this happens, the process of liberating mankind is completed by giving every individual the freedom of choice based on conviction."

So in other words: no, Jews and Christians shouldn't be forced to convert to Islam - but if they don't convert, they should be forced to live under the Islamic system of governance as inferiors, paying money to the Islamic treasury. Their choice. But note that "living side by side, peacefully, as equals", is not one of the choices.

"This idea of Islam being spread by the sword really came about around the time of the Crusades, when there was a series of holy wars fought by the Christians against the Muslims."

And why were the Crusades fought? AdvocatingIslam makes no mention of the well-documented fact that in the 400 years prior to the Crusades, the Muslims had been invading Christian lands and capturing their cities, including Jerusalem, unprovoked. By 1095, Islam had essentially stolen by force over half of Christendom. That's where the idea of Islamic aggression and imperialism came from. The Crusades were an attempt to take back these lands for the Christians.

"Muhammad preached peacefully in Mecca for thirteen years. Even though his followers were persecuted, and sometimes even murdered, they never raised their hands against the Meccans."

While there was some persecution by the Quraysh, the early Muslim biographies don't record a single murder or act of violence against the Muslims during this period. According to Muhammad's earliest biographer Ibn Ishaq, once a band of Muslims were praying, when they were "rudely interrupted" by some of the Quraysh. They eventually "came to blows", and one of the Muslims hit a Meccan with a camel's jawbone, injuring him. Ishaq concludes, "This was the first blood shed in Islam" - and it was shed by a Muslim!

Ishaq also says, tellingly: "When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy."

It is, however, refreshing and surprising to see that our hostess does admit, without batting an eyelid, that Muhammad commanded his men to attack Quraysh trading caravans, unprovoked, in order to steal their money.

"There was a peace treaty that was made between the Meccans and the Muslims, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. After that peace treaty was broken..."

AdvocatingIslam follows the standard apologetic line that the Quraysh broke the Treaty first, but in fact, before all the incidents Muslims claim are Meccan breaches of the Treaty, Muhammad broke it first.

The Treaty astounded and angered many of Muhammad's followers, for it seemed disadvantageous to the Muslims. It declared that Quraysh who left the tribe to join Muhammad must be returned to the Quraysh, but any Muslim who left to join the Quraysh would not be returned to the Muslims. Despite his followers' surprise and indignation, Muhammad insisted that they had won a great victory. Only a few weeks later, a Quraysh woman joined the Muslims. Her two brothers came to Muhammad and asked that she be returned, in accord with the terms of the Treaty. However, Muhammad had received a revelation from Allah, which told him not to return the woman (this revelation is still preserved in the Qur'an - 60:10). In refusing to send her back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the Treaty.

This became the foundation for Islamic law's attitude towards peace treaties between Muslims and non-Muslims, which is essentially that they should be concluded for a limited time, and only if the truce brings some benefit to the Muslims. Muslim jurists throughout history have seen truces as documents of convenience rather than genuine long-lasting peace as we in the West would understand it.

"The Muslims marched into Medina with an army of 10,000, and they didn't need to fight at all. They just marched in; there was virtually no bloodshed. The people expected that, according to tribal customs of the day, the Muslims would kill them all for the crimes they had committed. But Muhammad granted them all amnesty, and didn't retaliate for any of the terrible things they had done."

Actually, Muhammad had several individuals killed following the conquest of Mecca, including apostates. On one such occasion, the Prophet was enraged by a group of traitorous livestock herders who had embraced Islam and then deserted it again. He ordered them hunted down, and then had their limbs amputated and their eyes put out with iron bars, after which they were left in the desert to die (Sahih Bukhari v.7, b.76, no.5727). He also had the Jewish poetess Asma bint Marwan, a pregnant woman, assassinated for writing "insulting" poems about him. Other poets were killed, as well, including Abu Afak, a man said to be over a hundred years old.

"The people in Mecca, they were not forced to convert to Islam...Those who converted, converted by choice."

Rubbish. Muhammad gave the Meccans four months to either leave Arabia or convert to Islam. The Muslims were to kill the others who remained after this four-month period (Qur'an 9:1-6). The Prophet also sent his warrior Khalid bin al-Walid to the al-Harith tribe, with the orders that if they refused to convert to Islam, they should be fought - so they converted.

It is difficult to hear AdvocatingIslam speak without thinking of the Muslim doctrines of taqiyya and kitman, which allow Muslims to lie - or partially lie - to unbelievers during times of war. She has clearly studied Islam, and she presents SOME of the facts. But she leaves out important details, and these may be deliberate omissions on her part. Of course, she may also be sincere in everything she says.

In any case, I shall try and get the response to the second part of this series posted tomorrow.

Race Pistol

Sex Pistols singer John Lydon has been accused of involvement in a violent racist attack on a black musician. The 52-year-old, who made his name as Johnny Rotten 30 years ago, is alleged to have abused Bloc Party singer Kele Okereke. It is alleged that one of Lydon's entourage told him "Your problem is your black attitude" before three more set upon him, punching him in the face and head.

Letts: Rejoicing In Death

This is off-topic, but I had to post it. It's a piece by Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail about the disgusting hatred directed by Leftists at Margaret Thatcher. When it was announced recently that Lady Thatcher would be receiving a state funeral when she dies, the Guardian newspaper - in both its physical and online manifestations - published dozens of vile letters from readers in which they actually gloried in the prospect of Mrs. Thatcher's death. As with so many things, we see that the Left, despite their claims of moral purity and the evil of conservatism, are actually the ones who are full of hate and loathing.

This works with racial issues also. I have many times been called a racist or a hatemonger for my beliefs...despite the fact that Leftists are actually far more hateful of me than I am of any race or group of people, including them.

Damned If You Do; Damned If You Don't...

...or, To Hell With the PC Brigade

Disney has been hit with allegations of racism about a new animated film it will be releasing in 2009, which is its first ever to star a lead character who is black. As far as the plotline is known, it is a "slavery-themed proposed storyline: our heroine is an exploited black maid in New Orleans saved by voodoo (i.e. African) magic." How this is racist, I do not know. Were or were not blacks once slaves in most parts of the world? Is this factually accurate or not? And the whingers who are complaining about this film must have missed the fact that the plot revolves around a black slave being freed - with that presumably being the "happy ending" of the tale. Are these cretins going to go so far as to claim that Disney is pro-slavery? Nonsense.

A previous Disney film, Aladdin, received similar complaints from Muslims and Arabs for allegedly being "laden with colonial-era stereotypes of the East as a land of decadence and savagery". Because of course, it would be much more intellectually honest to depict Aladdin driving around in a Ferrari and the Arabian market sellers doing well on the stock market.

What all of this demonstrates is the essentially perverse nature of the PC crowd. If Disney don't include ethnic minority characters, it's racist. If they do include ethnic minority characters, it's also racist. They can't win, because the PC ideologues have already made up their minds.

To hell with them all, I say. The world would be better off without such pretentious, opportunistic pond life.

Black Hole!

A black idiot

The term "black hole" is racist, a black Dallas county commissioner says. The complaint arose after a white official said, "It sounds like Central Collections has become a black hole." The black commissioner, John Wiley Price, demanded an apology and added that "that type of language is unacceptable."

I'd say this one belongs in the "You Couldn't Make It Up" file.

Friday Share

I haven't done a share for a few weeks, so here's one. This a beautiful song called Hiljaisen Talven Lapsi by Finnish singer Timo Rautiainen - a song which was actually written by Tuomas Holopainen, the genius songwriter of Nightwish. Enjoy.

Even More Hideously White Than Before

"Cheers - we're racists!"

Remember when Greg Dyke said the BBC was "hideously white"?

Well, that craze is back, as Britain's most popular television shows, including The Vicar of Dibley and Neighbours (which is not even a British show!), have been branded "too white" by black and Asian viewers. Respondents pointed to the stereotypical portrayal of 'Dev' as a corner shop owner in Coronation Street and the BBC's portrayal of the Indian Ferreira family in EastEnders.

Now, funnily enough, the actors who play all these characters happen to be...Asian! Are they complaining? Or do they accept their roles because, coming as they do from these same cultures, they know that they accurately reflect family life for these people? And I'm not a fan of Eastenders, and don't watch it often, but I do happen to remember that not so long ago we met a relative of the Ferreira family (yes, he was Indian, too...) who was a successful young entrepreneur, or some such thing. BANG goes the stereotyping theory.

As for the Vicar of Dibley, one of the commenters on the Daily Mail website puts it succinctly:

Interesting that "The Vicar of Dibley" should be cited as an example of "hideously white" television. Perhaps, in the interest of balance there ought to be a sitcom called "The Imam of Somewhere-or-other" in which Islam is subjected to the same ridicule which is routinely thrown at Christianity? Don't hold your breath!

EDIT: By the way, the UK is 92.1% white. Remember, we want to accurately represent the diversity of Britain on TV, folks!

The Bleedin' Obvious...

Mass immigration has damaged community relations in (many) parts of England, a report by the Commons communities and local government committee says. In three areas with very high immigration - Peterborough, Burnley, and Barking and Dagenham - community cohesion is among the lowest in the country, the MPs say. The report said there was "significant public anxiety" over issues such as pressure on public services. Ministers said action was being taken to minimise the impact of immigration.

The key conclusion of this report is that we need to spend more public money to "ease the transition"of this immigration. No thought is given to the possibility of, say, controlling our borders or encouraging integration.

Socialism is so wonderful, isn't it?

Infant Mortality

High numbers of deaths among African Americans before they reach the age of one are now being blamed on "stress caused by racism", according to a new study.

I can't believe that this nonsense is being treated as actual science.

A Post From Shelbyville

No, not THAT Shelbyville

Here's a good piece on the blight of political correctness, and its ability to actually prolong racism rather than end it.

Racism, Islamophobia; What's the Difference?

Despite anti-racism legislation, Britain witnessed a 28 per cent increase in racially motivated crime in five years, according to figures by the Ministry of Justice. Between 2006 and 2007, there were 61,000 complaints. The figures are based on cases reported by police in England and Wales. "Islamophobia" –fuelled by the 9/11 attacks and 7/7 train bombings in London – is blamed for many of the incidents.

Wow, that "Islamophobia" took a long time to get going, then: 7/7 was three years ago...

Not one example of an Islamophobic incident is given, and I do not believe there is a rising trend of Islamophobia in Britain - especially when one of the men trumpeting this report is the Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala - who has refused to publicly condemn hate-filled Saudi books, and in fact actually defended Muslim book shop owners' right to sell them.

And besides, if there IS such a thing as Islamophobia, perhaps it has something to do with those events mentioned above - you know, Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" and flying planes into buildings, or blowing people up on the London Underground. Perhaps if moderate Muslims actually did something to stop their co-religionists doing things like this, Islamophobia would end.

Just a thought.

And what race is Islam again?

Round-up

1. Another racism row flared up in Switzerland after the country’s "far-right" party, the Swiss People's Party, managed to trigger a referendum on banning minarets in the country.

The minaret has indeed been seen as a symbol of political power over the years, especially given that it seems unnecessary for its stated function: the adhan, or call to prayer, which could be just as easily made from the mosque roof.

And what race is Islam again?

2. Hong Kong passed a landmark anti-racism bill today, with rights activists welcoming the breakthrough but also criticising the bill for not going far enough to fully enshrine minority rights.

China and Japan are among the most racist nations in the world.

3. The BBC has been accused of racism following a claim on Radio 4's Thought for the Day that Africans suffered from an endemic "moral deficit". Clifford Longley, the author and writer, said on the corporation's early morning religious slot that a Nigerian theologian had suggested African culture had always lacked "a developed sense of common humanity", which explained "Africa's propensity to turn to massacre and genocide". He said in the broadcast that the Nigerian theologian had suggested to him that Africans suffered from the deficit.

His comments, which were made last month, prompted the BBC Black and Asian Forum to complain to the corporation's head of news and to the editor of the Today programme.

Oh, grow up.

"Special Rights"...

Uh oh.

The Nepal Maoists, who played a key role in abolishing the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy and turning the country into a secular state, have vowed to ensure special rights to the minority Muslim community in the Himalayan nation.

Note that: not even "equal" rights - no, "special" rights.

"It is not enough to provide equal rights to the Muslims but they should be given special rights as compensation for having been suppressed," CPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda told a gathering of the Muslim Mukti Morcha (MMM), an organisation affiliated to the party of the former rebels.

This way madness lies.

It Gets Worse And Worse...

"Yuck"

Following the revelation yesterday that children as young as three could be investigated for "racism", this absurd government is at it again. This time, we're told that children who turn their nose up at spicy foreign food are also "racist".

Words fail me, they really do.

Memin Monkey Boy?

This story did little more than make me laugh:

Beloved by Mexicans for his dim wits, street smarts and playful disposition, long-running comic book character Memín Pinguín — a little black boy whose face resembles a monkey — is at it again.

His zany adventures chronicled in a hugely popular book series for decades are up for sale at your neighborhood Wal-Mart store in the Libros en Español section, right next to the store's cadre of African-American books.

The latest issue: Memín para presidente.

By Shawnedria McGinty's American standards, the image was shocking. The African-American woman who was shopping at the store on South Post Oak over the weekend immediately asked a store manager to remove the books from the shelves. A manager told her he would comply.

"I said, wait a minute: Is this a monkey or a little black boy?" said McGinty, 34, of Meyerland. "I was so upset. This is 2008."

Read the whole thing. For me the most perceptive line is this one: "When you read the stories, he's always the hero — he saves the day," said Raul Ramos, professor of Mexican-American history at the University of Houston..."He's kind of the Charlie Chaplin figure, the rascal who is able to overcome the difficult situations. So he's a very populist character in that way."

Round-up

1. Recently retired boxer Floyd Mayweather jnr has accused the American pay-TV channel Home Box Office of bias against him and other black fighters. "Is it racial? Absolutely. They praise white fighters, they praise Hispanic fighters, whatever. But black fighters, they never praise."

Maybe you just suck, Mayweather.

2. Toddlers as young as three should be taught about racism and singled out for criticism if they have "racist" attitudes, a Government-funded advisory group said yesterday.

Don't you just love the Nanny State?

3. This Canadian piece is in full anti-imperialist, "all Americans are racist" mode as it waxes lyrical about oppression of aborigines, and so on. As expected, I have some objections...

"Racism towards Aboriginals exists to justify the theft and genocide inherent in colonization. Historical documents show a reality of culturally rich, egalitarian, democratic and deeply knowledgeable societies before colonization."

Not always, they don't. Political correctness has caused many intellectuals to exaggerate the virtues of non-white aboriginal civilisations, often rather comically. In the 1911 Handbook of North American Indians, it was suggested that there were four Aborigine words for snow. By 1940, the estimate had gone up to seven. From then on, as Westerners tried harder and harder to denigrate their own culture by exaggerating the "rich" culture of the Native, the number went up to almost four hundred. And yet the fact remains that however many Eskimo words for snow there are, there are yet more in English. And the Native was not always possessed of great wisdom denied us greedy colonialist Westerners. In Polynesia, the present population descends from a native population that traveled there by canoe. This Native population brought with them various wildlife that was alien to Polynesian shores - resulting in numerous homegrown forms of life being virtually eradicated. And at one point there were so many people on one Polynesian island that these "enlightened" Natives resorted to methods such as cannibalism, infanticide and ritual sacrifice to control the population. Enough said.

I also wonder whether the author of this letter is aware that prior to the dreadful massacres of the American Indians, there was actually a strong strain of admiration among Englishmen who came into contact with them. For example, a Virginina minister named Alexander Whittaker wrote in 1613 that "the law of Nature dwelleth in them [aborigines]: for they have a rude kind of common wealth and rough government wherein they both honour and obey their kings, parents and governors, both greater and less, they observe the limits of their possessions, murder is scarcely heard of, adultery and other offences severely punished."

But the author does not mention any of this. Instead, all the evils of the world are placed on the shoulders of the White Man. Never mind the fact that every evil of the West, from racism to colonialism, has been studied copiously here. We are the masters of self-criticism, which, if anything, this author embodies. It remains to be seen how long some other cultures will take to catch up with us in that respect.

Jewish Racism

A High Court judge is to rule whether a Jewish school racially discriminated against an 11-year-old boy.

The boy, identified in court only as "M", applied to attend the Jewish Free School but was declared "not an 'approved' Jew".

Quote of the Day

"I'm full up from all the food I bought with those welfare benefits - halal, of course."

"I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Qur'an that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Qur'an?"

~ Abu Qatada

(Islamophobe!)

An Essay on Women In Islam

This will be the last of these long, link-filled essays that I post. I've written many more, but I don't think I'm going to share them all with you.

In any case, here's one about Islamic mistreatment of women. There are loads of links in this one. Enjoy:

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

WOMEN IN ISLAM

It is common today to hear Muslim spokesmen and apologists claim that while women are far more oppressed in Islamic countries than in the West, this oppression has little to nothing to do with Islam or the example of the Prophet Muhammad. The oppression, they claim, is cultural, not religious. Others even go as far as to claim that Muhammad was a historical pioneer in women's rights. This is based on a handful of passages from the Qur'an which seem to suggest that Allah treats men and women equally (e.g. 4:1; 3:195; 16:97, etc).

However, the overall Islamic attitude towards women is one of seventh-century misogyny that remains forever a part of the fixed word of God. Here are some examples of sexism in the Qur'an and hadith:

- Women are a field - “tilth” - that a man can use however he wants: “Your women are a tilth for you to cultivate so go to your tilth as ye will.” (2:223)
- A woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: “And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember.” (2:282)
- A son's inheritance is twice the size of a daughter's: “Allah thus directs you as regards your children's inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females.” (4:11)
- “The Prophet said: 'I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful'” to their husbands. (Sahih Bukhari v.1, b.2, no.28)
- Muhammad's favourite wife Aisha said: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women”. (Bukhari, v.7, b.72, no. 715) She doesn't seem to have had the impression that Muhammad treated women better than did other societies.

The rest of this essay will cover other important oppressions of women and the denial of their basic human rights in Islam.

Polygamy

The Qur'an is very clear in giving Muslim men the right to marry up to four women at one time, and also to have sex with slave girls: “Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.” (4:3) The Muslim historian and Qur'anic exegete Tabari (d.923) explained this verse thusly: “Do not marry off but from one to four, and add no more. If you are afraid you will not deal fairly, if you marry more than one, then marry one only or those your hand controls so that you will not act unjustly.”

Meanwhile, if a man is unsatisfied with his wife or wives, Islamic law says that he can divorce them simply by saying “I divorce you”. Yet sometimes a man may divorce from his wife in a fit of rage and then want to take her back. This is permissible, but only a maximum of three times. Once the heartbroken woman has been divorced three times, the man cannot take her back a fourth time until she has married and slept at least once with another man. This has led to the phenomenon of “temporary husbands”, where some randy Muslim male will “marry” the woman for the night so she can go back to her old husband.

All this is not some ancient custom or confined only to the Middle East. Muslim immigrants are bringing these practices to the West with them today. It has been estimated that there are as many as four thousand polygamous families in Britain. In 2007 it was revealed that Muslim immigrants who engaged in polygamy in Britain would be allowed to claim extra benefits – even though polygamy is illegal in this country.

Polygamy and instantaneous divorces reduce women to little more than commodities, and reinforce the idea that men and women are not equal partners, but rather women are something a man may accumulate as he wishes.

Child marriage

The Qur'an takes child marriage for granted as part of seventh-century Arabian culture. Take, for example, this passage, which explains the waiting period required to determine if a woman is pregnant before divorcing her: “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same)” (65:4, emphasis added). Note that last part: here Allah is taking for granted a situation whereby a prepubescent girl is not only married, but is being divorced by her husband.

This may be because, infamously, Muhammad himself was no stranger to child marriage; he married Aisha before she hit puberty: “[The Prophet] married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” (Bukhari v.5, b.58, no. 234, and others). Although embarrassed Muslims today try to deny that Aisha was nine when Muhammad had sex with her, there is overwhelming evidence in the hadith and other Islamic literature that this is exactly what happened.

Because Muhammad is seen in Islam as the ultimate model of human behaviour (Qur'an 33:21), his example on this matter is still imitated by Muslims today. Iranian law allows girls to be married at the age of nine. The Ayatollah Khomeini married a girl of ten when he was twenty-eight. UNICEF reports that more than half the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. Researchers in refugee camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well other countries, have found over half the girls married by age thirteen. Even in Britain, imams have been caught praising the virtues of imitating the Prophet in this matter, as shown in a recent Dispatches documentary broadcast on Channel 4. Dr. Bilal Phillips, the imam of a Birmingham mosque, was recorded saying: “The Prophet Muhammad practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty. With his practice, he clarified what is permissible, and that is why we shouldn't have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman.”

Wife-beating

The Qur'an explicitly sanctions the beating of one's wife if she is disobedient, after first warning her and then sending her to a separate bed: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.” (Qur'an 4:34) Note also at the beginning of the passage the suggestion that women are inferior to men and must be ruled by them.

As with so many things, this is not solely an extremist view. In 1984 Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is highly respected and influential in the Muslim world, used this verse to justify wife-beating, saying that “It is permissible for [the husband] to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.” In Pakistan, over 90% of women have been beaten or otherwise physically abused by their husbands – often for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal or giving birth to a female child. While domestic abuse occurs in all countries and cultures, the levels are alarmingly high and more likely to occur in Islamic countries.

The veil

For some reason, many people in the West seem to have assumed that the burqa was invented by the Taliban or some other such radical Muslim group. But in fact, it was also mandated by Muhammad: “Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) turned his attention from her. He said: 'O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this,' and he pointed to her face and hands.” (Sunan Abu Dawud b.32, no.4092)

Many Muslim scholars also claim that the veil is mandated in the Qur'an: “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty” (24:31). The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that this verse means women in public should “cover up their heads, necks and chests with veils, and not reveal their hidden adornment, namely, all that is other than the face and the hands”.

While this symbol of Islamic oppression is not strictly followed in all parts of the world, in some areas women have been brutalised and even killed for not adhering to it. One infamous example took place in Mecca in 2002. Fifteen girls died in a fire at their school when the Saudi religious police refused to let them out of the building, because in the female-only environment of the school they had shed their concealing outer garments. The muttawa preferred that the girls die rather than show themselves to men in public, and even battled with emergency services who were trying to open the doors.

Rape laws

One of the most appalling Islamic abuses of women concerns rape, and is a direct result of Muhammad's own behaviour.

Islamic tradition tells how Aisha was once accused of adultery. Muhammad was outraged by the accusations and refused to believe that they could be true (which they probably weren't, in any case). Eventually he received a new (and rather convenient) revelation from Allah which absolved Aisha of all guilt and scolded the accusers for failing to bring forward four witnesses to testify to the crime: “Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah.” (24:13)

Indeed, we have already seen that Islam discriminates against women by decreeing that their testimony is worth half that of a man's. Muhammad explained that this is because of “the deficiency of a woman's mind.” (Bukhari v.3, b.48, no. 826) The jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d.1328) confirms that “The Prophet... made it clear that dividing their testimony after such a manner is due to the deficiency of their intelligence, not of their religion.”

The consequence of this is that it is virtually impossible to prove rape in Islamic countries, where, following Muhammad's example, four male witnesses are required for a woman's case to even be heard. Even worse, if a woman makes an accusation of rape but cannot prove it with appropriate testimony, she may be incriminated on charges of adultery. This accounts for the fact that up to 75% of women in jail in Pakistan are there because they were the victims of rape. In Nigeria women have also been sentenced to death for being raped.

Genital mutilation

Female genital mutilation, or circumcision, is designed to reduce a woman's sexual drive so that she will be less likely to commit adultery. It is often carried out with scissors and no anesthetic. There is little to nothing in Islamic tradition to justify this horrific and painful act, and it is also practised outside of Islam: it is common among non-Muslims in Africa and South Asia. But in any case it is still disturbingly common in an Islamic context, and is supported by some Islamic authorities. Umdat al-Salik says that circumcision is required “for both men and women”. Ahmad ibn Hanbal (founder of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence; d.855) quotes a saying of Muhammad to justify circumcision: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women.” Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, says that female circumcision is “a laudable practice that [does] honour to women”. As the closest Muslim equivalent to the pope, Tantawi is the most respected cleric for at least a billion Muslims around the world.

Honour killing

Honour killings are extremely common in the Islamic world. Women are killed by their own families for being raped or for being seen in public with a man who was not related to them, because they are viewed as having brought shame to the family or having compromised its honour. Justification for this in Islamic texts is scant, and once again it is not solely an Islamic custom; yet it could be said that these actions are influenced by a culture that concentrates far more on shame and honour than on individual responsibility – and Islam has in many ways fostered this culture in many of its followers.

In 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down, on Islamic grounds, a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honour killings, claiming that the laws “violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values”. In a sad but inevitable consequence of this, a man who in 2007 murdered his sister because he thought she had a lover was given only three months in jail, which was suspended for time served, allowing him to walk free.

Conclusion

The Sufi mystic Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d.1111), a highly revered figure among Muslims today, had very little positive to say about women. Here is an excerpt from one of his works, where he outlines a woman's role:

“She should stay at home and get on with her spinning, she should not go out often, she must not be well-informed...she must not leave her house without his [her husband's] permission and if given his permission she must leave surreptitiously...She should be clean and ready to satisfy her husband's sexual needs at any moment.”

Al-Ghazali also warns men that the guile of women “is immense and their mischief is noxious; they are immoral and mean-spirited.”

These attitudes are hardly uncommon in the Islamic world today. The simple fact is that they are borne out of Qur'anic literalism. Adhering strictly to the dictates of the Qur'an – in line with traditional Islamic teaching – will inevitably result in more and more women suffering. Whether it be by physical abuses or the heartbreak of multiple instantaneous divorces, they will suffer. As long as Muslim men continue to read the Qur'an and do what it says, women will be at risk. And given that many Muslims today do indeed take the Qur'an very seriously, we should all be forthright in our resistance to the jihadist mission to impose this system on us. In the mean time, we should give sober consideration to the suffering women are already going through in lands where such laws and behaviour hold sway.

Fitna To Get A Sequel!

No capitulation

Geert Wilders is planning a sequel to Fitna. Notice how the Yahoo article calls it an "anti-Muslim film" - a simple but no doubt very effective smear. And then there is this:

Wilders also was investigated for remarks published in the newspaper De Volkskrant calling the Koran fascist and calling for it to be banned.

Very well: then let those who have called Wilders "fascist" be investigated also.

Round-up

1. 'Racism' Blamed For Controversial Grand Jury Ruling. It always is - except when OJ Simpson benefits from it.

"Where were the African Americans on that jury? Where were the Hispanics on that jury? Grand juries are not reflective of the racial makeup of Harris County. There is no way under the sun in Harris County that a black man could have done the same thing that Joe Horn did under the exact same set of circumstances and not be placed in the jail."

Conjecture. Hysteria. Delusion.

2. An absolutely brilliant letter about Racism Hysteria at The Citizen. Honestly, just read it; it's brilliant.

Monthly Stats

Am I getting boring?

I only ask because my traffic this month is almost half of what I was getting last month. What did I do wrong? :(

Anyway, I always like when I start randomly getting lots of hits from obscure countries other than the UK and US. This month it's been Norway, for some reason. Funnily enough, I get a lot of traffic these days from Muslim countries - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. Wonder why that is...?