Ok, we can all agree that Pat Robertson was a dork of stellar magnitude, and the Phelps Family are supernovae in that particular area called theocracy.
That said, before we submerge a crucifix in urine let’s give the Abrahamic tree a second look, and examine the fruit it has borne.
The Jews never had a drive to spread over the Earth. Their scriptures taught them that certain lands were given them by God; so they took them, enough said, this was 6,000 years ago after all. But after that they lost any territorial ambitions. But, the Persians and Romans proceeded to push them this way and that; being rather fanatical, they pushed back. After the destruction of the 2nd Temple and the Judean Diaspora the centuries have seen Judaism become a religion withdrawn into itself. Having lost the arrogance of the Temple but retained the Love of God and intellectual tradition they became a creative yeast in their host cultures.
The Jews never expected to take over the world; at most they expected, and some maybe still expect that the world will join them. Not by the sword, but by the Love of God. One of the best aspects of the Jewish religion is its focus on the Love of God and a Love for God in each moment of a person’s life.
But along came Jayzus!
Things started out ok, Yesuah merely echoed and extended the teachings and philosophy of Hillel. It expanded organically and gently; converting mostly people otherwise considered “unworthy” of membership in one of the more respectable religions, then into the idle upper-class (often by way of religiously adventurous wives discontent with being the ornament on a rich man’s arm.
But then Paul and Constantine came to deal the Judaic Chrestians, and then, later, the mild original “Greek”, a double death-blow of politicization.
St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre
After several centuries of defending themselves from the fanatically imperialistic Islam Christianity began to model all sorts of the worst of the Islamic “innovations” in religion and took on an expansionist, aggressive attitude of its own.
But, it is inherent in a religion mostly based on the teachings of Jesus that every now and then people would remember what their religion was supposed to be about. Christianity may have done much more good during those periods than it did evil during its more cognitively-dissonant times.
Since the Enlightenment the swings of the pendulum between arrogant fanaticism on one hand, and humble servitude to God on the other seem to have gotten gentler. Christianity also seem centered more and more toward the liberal side of the equation; i.e. Fred Phelps, not Qaradawi.
Christianity may one day even manage to have more people who follow it for the right reasons than fools-in-lambs-clothing who use religion in unhealthy ways, or merely for social reasons.
Christianity has a core in its teachings and scripture that is there for all to see; one of Love. It today can be, and always has been, a potentially dangerous religion (I.e. Fred Phelps, Torquemada) but is not inherently so by the structure and teachings of its chief scriptures.
I do think that, despite the quantum jump that The Enlightenment enabled in society’s evolution, Christianity has shown a definite tendency to speed humanity’s growth due to the focus of many of the faithful being on Jesus’ ministry rather than the “died for your sins” part.
Now, about Islam.
Islam teaches much about peace and love. There are verses equal to any in the other Abrahamic writings. I will not comment here about those who feel it was the work of someone passingly familiar with both religions. But Pat Robertson did get one thing right; Islamic theology IS inherently aggressive.
The Islamic scriptures consist of three parts:
The Qur’an, the Sunnah –basically a biography of Mohammed’s life, and the ahadith – stories about Mohammed from people who knew him. If you read it all it is clear that there can only be peace when everyone has submitted to Allah.
Even the most fanatical religion tends to mellow over the years; people are basically families, people who want to live and work and laugh and have the space to find God before they die. Even individuals attracted to a “religious” life for evil reasons can be shocked to learn that Love of God and Love BY God can blossom in their hearts; that is the core of any religion.
Islam unfortunately is working uphill in the all so human battle against hubris while trying to find truth. But, by having such an aggressive set scriptures; by having so much to draw from that feeds the darker hungers of man, Islam will, I believe spend more time orbiting around radical aggression before submitting finally to that peace and love that is God, is Allah.
Islam is inherently dedicated by its self-declared scriptural doctrine to naturally one day rule the world by TAKING control of it and forcing Dar al-Harb(‘House of War’) (Non-Muslim controlled regions) into Dar al-Islam(‘House of Islam); then all people will be free, in the Islamic view, to “choose” the “right” religion.
Sadly, it is not hard to justify all sorts of atrocities on infidels (non-Muslims) with the Qur’an; by contrast there are very few Samaritans or Philistines around for Jews or Christians to use their scripture as an excuse to start a pogrom against.
In Islam it does not matter that reformist Imams do not support something. In fact it is literally forbidden in Islam to use your ‘conscience’ as a guide in a religious dilemma; the only proper way to get an answer is to ask the proper authority, and then submit to the “truth.”
In Christianity, the violent books and verses are all somewhat shielded by being in the OT and considered to be superseded by the Love of Jesus when any conflict occurs. Islam does not have a NT to mellow its hard edges, though it does recognize the concept of abrogation (what a prophet says later is ‘rock’ to the ‘scissors’ of any earlier pronouncements or doctrines).
This makes “insulting” Islam dangerous at times in the modern world of high tech, and horrific weapons that you can make in your garage.
I mostly find it sad that the bulk of Muslims are not more vocal about denouncing their radical Brethren in both the private and the public arena. It is every person in the world’s duty to restrain the fundies of all aggressive religions until they grow up. Until a religion’s devout – highest clergy to clueless souls just born in it – recognize to their core’s that it is ok to DIE because of your religion but, that it is NEVER anything but evil to use religion as an excuse to KILL, that religion should be watched, and kept on a leash in polite company.
Islam has yet to show that it can stay grown up. They are younger though, lets give them time…but, keep the rolled up newspaper ready to smack their noses if they sh*t on the rug. We have too many permanent stains from Christianity and its messes; AND the Islam’s’ earlier messes. Of course Christianity STILL pees on the floor now and then. We just have to be patient and rub their noses PROMPTLY in their messes; but, we don’t have to worry about them eating the neighbor’s cat anymore.
I am not too PC to call a club a club (well, I can’t say spade anymore can I?); religion can be very wonderful but, people need to get over their BS and realize that the basic code of ethics that most religions have can also be formulated by simple common sense and an understanding of psychology and social dynamics. Go read a little about Neuro-Linguistic Programming and such. Real secular morality is what the world needs, not the Fascist pretend kind, only then can religion truly flourish; when we get over all this bickering on who is actually the only ones in touch with the “ONLY source of Morality™”; which they cannot even prove exists.
Faith is the problem; submission to something you do not feel yourself is the problem. Beliefs have reasons, sometimes bad ones but, reasons that can be ‘reasoned with’; faith has no reason therefore the most reasonable argument does no good, your head still rolls on the floor.
Have faith in Jesus of Mohammed; I will Believe in Bugs Bunny!
Darul Uloom Deoband, the self-appointed guardian for Indian Muslims, in a Talibanesque fatwa that reeked of tribal patriarchy, has decreed that it is "haram" and illegal according to the Sharia for a family to accept a woman’s earnings. Clerics at the largest Sunni Muslim seminary after Cairo’s Al-Azhar said the decree flowed from the fact that the Sharia prohibited proximity of men and women in the workplace.
"It is unlawful (under the Sharia law) for Muslim women to work in the government or private sector where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without a veil," said the fatwa issued by a bench of three clerics. The decree was issued over the weekend, but became public late on Monday, seminary sources said.
At a time when there is a rising clamour for job quotas for Muslims in India and a yearning for progress in the community that sees itself as neglected, the fatwa, although unlikely to be heeded, is clearly detrimental.
Even the most conservative Islamic countries, which restrict activities of women, including preventing them from driving, do not bar women from working. At the peak of its power, the Taliban only barred women in professions like medicine from treating men and vice versa. But there was a never a blanket ban on working, although the mullahs made it amply clear that they would like to see the women confined to homes.
The fatwa, however, drew flak among other clerics.
"Men and women in Sharia are entitled to equal rights. If men follow the Sharia, there is no reason why women can’t work with them," said Rasheed, the Naib Imam of Lucknow’s main Eidgah Mosque in Aishbagh.
Mufti Maulana Khalid Rasheed of Darul Ifta Firangi Meheli — another radical Islamic body which also issues fatwas — criticized the Deoband fatwa as a retrograde restriction on Muslim women.
The fatwa was in response to a question whether Muslim women can take up government or private jobs and whether their salary should be termed as `halal’ (permissible under the Sharia) or `haram’ (forbidden).
Well-known Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad, however, justified the fatwa. "Women in Islam are not supposed to go out and earn a living. It’s the responsibility of the males in the family," he said. "If a woman has to go for a job, she must make sure that the Sharia restrictions are not compromised," he added, citing the example of Iran, where Muslim women work in offices but have separate seating areas, away from their male counterparts.
In Lucknow, a city with strong secular and progressive traditions, where Muslim families train their daughters to be doctors, engineers and executives, there was a sense of shocked disbelief even in conservative quarters that such a decree could come from those who consider themselves to be advocates of the community.
"I am also a working woman and also ensure that my Sharia is not compromised," said Rukhsana, a lecturer at a girl’s college in Lucknow and a member of the executive committee of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). "It’s not necessary that one would have to go against the Sharia when going to work."
"Name one Islamic country which does not have a national airline and does not hire airhostesses? If I know correctly, even the Saudi Airlines has hostesses and they don’t wear a veil," said Shabeena Parveen, a computer professional in the city.
Ever wonder why the UN Human Rights Commission doesn’t do much about violence against women? This video of the commission’s meeting with a concerned NGO will explain it is painful detail: Simple explanation; Islam may not be linked with ANY bad “traditions”, period, end of statement.
.Today Heretics Crusade is going to be continuing to look at the Congressional Muslim Staffer’s Association (CMSA). In a series of changes CMSA made to their website there has been added new links to the Resources Page. Under Major Reports we find this document as the only report linked regarding Muslims in America.
Strengthening America: The Civic and Political Integration of Muslim Americans(The Chicago Council). It is this document that I will be analyzing. It is the sole document linked on the CMSA Resource Page regarding relations with American Muslims.
Despite the title there is little in this report designed to strengthen America. “Blaming America: Promoting Islamization Rather Than Integration” would be a better title in my opinion. Every word drips with a victim’s mentality, and the authors find many ways to blame America for every problem, real or imagined, experienced by American Muslims.
Meanwhile the document seems to be defining “real” Muslims as those who haven’t yet broken any laws to promote Islam no matter their ideology.
Hang on to your knickers Virginia, this is going to be a long strange trip.
Muslim Americans were thrust into the spotlight by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, whose perpetrators claimed to be acting in the name of Islam.
From the first sentence the passive aggressiveness is apparent. M.A’s were “thrust” into the spotlight and the perpetrators only “claimed” Islamic imperative.
Many Americans, knowing little about Islam or about Muslims living in the United States, came to identify the terrorist threat with the Muslim community at large and to view Muslim Americans with deep suspicion and doubt.
This had nothing to do with the instances of “mainstream” Imam after Imam excusing attacks on non-Muslim civilians of course. It also had nothing to do with attack after unconstitutional attack in the courts on separation of church and state. It CERTAINLY had nothing to do with the ideology demanded by the Shari’a; banish the thought. It just “sort of happened” seems to be the theory, and a generous helping of Inherent American Racism And Xenophobia™ of course.
Nearly six years later, fears and suspicion remain. Terrorism remains an urgent threat, the terrorists continue to wrap themselves in the mantle of Islam, misunderstandings persist, and the ability of Muslim Americans to counter the rising tide of skepticism has been impeded, damaging the efforts of the many who are ardently trying to carve a constructive place in American society.
Interestingly, here we see a stark admission that “terrorism” and “the terrorists” are intimately linked with the “mantle of Islam.” It is not made clear just WHO is doing the “misunderstanding” however. What we ARE assured of is that the faceless villains of this report are keeping the invisible (to non-Muslim eyes) proponents of “Muslim Americans” from carving out their piece of the American Dream. From my reading of the news though, the biggest threat to moderate Muslim voices in America isn’t non-Muslims, it is the pretend “moderates” shilling for fundamentalist Islamist domination of Western Institutions who conspire to keep American Muslims from assimilating. Groups such as CAIR and the MSA.
Despite these limitations, many Muslim Americans joined with other Americans in responding to the September 11 attacks. They volunteered time and money to relief efforts. Several leading national Muslim organizations came out immediately to condemn the attacks. Others have cooperated with law enforcement agencies to address homeland security challenges.
Forgotten here are the many “moderate” Imams and Islamic scholars who, at best equivocated on just who is “innocent” and just what is meant by “civilians.” We can also see better from two years later that the “cooperation” offered by these organizations has been lukewarm at best.
At the same time, extensive federal and other law enforcement investigations since September 11 have focused on Muslim Americans. These investigations have resulted in arrests and a small number of successful prsecutions on terrorism-related charges.
I think it would be better if the authors of this abortion manual just came out and admitted that they support global Islamization and stop with the transparent B.S. already. Just a few paragraphs ago this very document admitted that “terrorists” used a “mantle of Islam.”. Do the authors’ feel that it would be more productive to focus terrorism investigations on Lithuanian Jews? Perhaps we could focus on Coptic Christians and gain Muslim trust by joining in on the accelerating genocide occurring in Egypt.
The worst bit though, is the downplaying of the charges and convictions resulting from terrorism investigations. I must have missed the huge number of acquittals of accused plotters and abettors. Or did I? It certainly reads a little nonsensically; “a small number of successful prosecutions.” But, the report cannot feel the full number of prosecutions was excessive or surely it would have said so. Would the authors have been happier if there had been a much larger number of charges and convictions?
Though any involvement of Muslim Americans with extremism raises strong concerns, independent studies have underscored that unlike in Europe, there is little, if any, publicly available evidence to date of widespread or entrenched extremist activity with links to al Qaeda or other global terrorist organizations.
More silliness that sounds like counsel from an enemy. Are we to wait to be “concerned” about Muslim American “extremism” until AFTER global terrorists groups have “widespread or entrenched” cells in the U.S.”? Are solo groups or individual extremists to be somehow off limits until that threshold is reached? I think it is reasonable to start wondering by this point “whose side are they on anyway?”
Nevertheless, Muslim American efforts to dissociate themselves from the terrorist threat have not been fully effective for a number of reasons. The perception by many Americans that some Muslim American organizations and leaders have not fully and readily acknowledged the potential for radicalism within the community and the need for vigilance in countering it has been a barrier to understanding and dialogue.
My, isn’t the taqqiya getting thick now. Note that it is the “perception by many Americans” of Muslim leaders not admitting potential radicalism or being vigilant in countering it that is the problem, NOT any actual failings by Muslim leaders. Two years after the report was published this sentence is almost laughable in its transparent spin. We do not have proper understanding and dialogue with Muslim Americans because non-Muslim Americans have stubbornly failed to see Muslim leaders doing something the report itself does not claim they actually DO. We are probably also at fault when Muslim American children don’t floss.
Some Americans have continued to view Muslim Americans with suspicion because they question the compatibility of Islam with American values, focusing on issues such as the treatment of women and the separation of church and state.
This sentence actually is completely accurate, if you define the “they” as “Muslims Americans” and not “some Americans.” I would be willing to bet however, that this was NOT the authors’ intention. Americans are suspicious of Muslims regarding these matters because of the outspoken, anti-Western stand on them taken by MANY Muslim leaders claiming to be representatives of the mainstream. The authors’ however seem to want us to believe that this suspicion is nothing but American Paranoia.
Many Muslim Americans and some other Americans believe that hostility toward Islam and Muslim Americans is preventing their voices from being heard and their contributions from being recognized.
Does your intelligence feel even a tad insulted yet? No matter that every time a truly moderate Muslim voice speaks out CAIR and the other Taqqiya Moderates attack them for exposing Islam and Muslims to prejudice and potential violence, this report KNOWS that moderate Muslims are not heard because of non-Muslim hostility. They are not heard simply because the very people who sponsored this report work actively to suppress them and their voices.
Let us not forget that this report was prominently featured on the resources page of the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association! We must assume that they carefully picked and chose just what links to include. The disclaimer of association with the content is a tad disingenuous when there is but ONE link to ONE report on Muslim Americans provided.
The contention among some Americans that Islam is incompatible with American values is thought to fuel organized attempts to discredit Islam and exclude Muslims from the nation’s civic and political life. This has created fear and resentment among many Muslim Americans that has also contributed to an atmosphere of mistrust.
I like this one! Another weasel word is introduced; contention. Forget about mentioning that ALL of the four main schools of Islamic thought agree that Islam is incompatible with ANY rule of law not based in Shari’a. According to this eminent report it is merely the CONTENTION by evil Westerners that this is so that fuels the anti-Islamist tide that is rising in the West and in Islam itself.
Okaay. Are you still with us Virginia, you are looking a touch green about the gills. Was it something you read?
The disengagement of Muslim Americans undermines American values, especially the conviction that the success of our nation relies on embracing our diversity and involving all our citizens in the public arena.
I wonder if anyone ever had the nerve to suggest to these people that “involving all our citizen’s…” means NOT treating Muslims ANY differently than anyone else in America? That it means NO special enclaves, rules or accommodations out of line with those already afforded to other religions? I for one would not put odds on it being likely they would listen.
The gathering climate of suspicion and mutual mistrust, exacerbated by the lack of engagement and dialogue, threatens to marginalize and alienate some Muslim Americans to the point where the danger of radicalization of a small minority could become a real possibility.
“Such a nice country you have, it would be SUCH a SHAME if anything were to happen to it!”
Is it a coincidence that the Mafia came from Sicily, where Islam just happened to have invaded and dominated the locals for a few hundred years immediately prior to their formation? It must be. It just would not be PC to think otherwise, would it now?
It would take only a single, significant act of terrorism in the United States involving Muslim Americans to cement the impression that rampant radicalism has taken root within the community.
Really? Go tell that to CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX and all the other mainstream news channels that can’t seem to figure out why the Ft. Hood massacre happened.
Therefore, the Task Force believes that creating full and equal opportunities for civic and political participation of Muslim Americans is an urgent national need.
Who is it that is denying them these opportunities? What I see are “mainstream” groups like CAIR telling the Muslim Americans to NOT act like they are fully American. How else should we view CAIR’s instructions to Muslims residing in America to call a lawyer then notify CAIR if the FBI asks them about extremists in their community?
It is vital that Muslim Americans find ways to demonstrate visibly their commitment to America, its institutions, and its values. This well-educated, diverse group has the potential to make contributions to civic life and policy discourse as varied and numerous as those of any other group of Americans.
FINALLY, a statement that we can agree on without reservations! It IS vital for Muslims in America to step up and be SEEN and HEARD supporting American values and institutions instead of demanding “respect” for practices outlawed long ago in the West for ALL peoples, religious or otherwise.
The Task Force prepared this report in order to present a balanced, nonpartisan assessment of the current Muslim American experience and recommendations for expediting the Muslim American journey to full civic and political integration. Many immigrant and minority groups have had to overcome suspicion and hostility in order to win full acceptance in the public sphere. While there is no doubt that Muslim Americans would in time achieve full integration in U.S. society, just as other groups have, the need to accelerate the process is urgent. The risks of inaction are substantial: further marginalization of Muslim Americans at best and serious alienation at worst.
Well we have seen how “balanced and non-partisan” first part of the executive summery is. Somehow I don’t think the recommendations will be any better.
The goal of bringing Muslim Americans into the fold of American life as quickly as possible is in the interest of all Americans. Muslim American leaders and organizations, government, the policy establishment, the media, and other major institutions all have significant roles to play in this process. The short-term need is critical, and the long-term gains cannot be overstated. The civic and political engagement of Muslim Americans will not only increase security, but enrich our policies, our society, and our standing as a nation that upholds basic human values of decency and fairness and that provides hope and opportunity for all.
So, once again we are assured that it is AMERICA that must adjust to Islam, not Islam to America. Why do I get the feeling that the report’s idea of civic and political engagement for Muslims will not involve MUSLIMS giving up any of their non-Western ways?
Later I will look at the report’s six recommendations and the conclusion. Right now I need a breath of fresh air. I am feeling a bit nauseated by the smell of manure.
Thousands of people are flooding into refugee camps such as this one in Swabi in north-west Pakistan. Yesterday they were holy warriors fighting for the popular cause of Islamic justice. Today Pakistan’s Taliban militants find themselves denounced by the orthodox clergy as infidels.
The Taliban’s fall from public grace over the past month has been dramatic, the slide having been sparked by an ill-timed statement by Sufi Mohammed, the cleric who negotiated a short-lived peace agreement in March between the Swat Taliban and the government of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP).
Mr Mohammed caused a political furore when, at a so-called peace rally in Swat on April 19, where hopes that the Taliban would disarm were finally dashed, he declared Pakistan’s constitutional democracy and judicial system un-Islamic and reiterated the militants’ intention to impose their agenda across the country.
Like the militants’ subsequent attempts to occupy the neighbouring districts of Buner, Dir and Shangla, the edict proved to be a huge tactical error.
Islamist politicians had, up to that point, dared not criticise the Taliban for fear of being branded America’s puppets. Mr Mohammed’s slur against democracy, which extended to many leading clerics with seats in parliament, ended the detente and set the stage for a war of words that has questioned the religious legitimacy of the Taliban.
Leaders of Pakistan’s mainstream religious parties pounced on the fact that Mr Mohammed had once, unsuccessfully, contested a local council election as a candidate of the Jamaat-i-Islami, and derided him as a hypocrite. Mr Mohammed was later expelled from the party for preaching extremist beliefs.
“By his own reckoning, Sufi Mohammed is at least part infidel,” sneered the Senator Allama Sajid Mir, the head of the Markazi Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadith, a party that follows the Saudi-based Wahhabi school of Islamic thought. The Jamaat-i-Islami and Markazi Jamiat Ahl-i-Hadith represent the right-wing fringe of Muslim thinking in Pakistan and have long campaigned for the enforcement of Islamic laws, with a significant degree of success, despite their modest presence in parliament.
However, the most significant criticism came from the Tableegh-i-Jamaat, an influential movement of proselytisers that is popular among born-again Muslims. It is considered apolitical, having cleansed its ranks of al Qa’eda sympathisers after some embarrassing arrests several years ago, and has a big following among educated, urban Pakistanis, particularly within the civil service and armed forces.
“Islamic law cannot be enforced at gunpoint. People who think that are ignorant [of their faith],” Haji Abdul Wahab, the leader of its Pakistan chapter, told a congregation of thousands in Islamabad on April 27.
Predictably, the response of the Swat Taliban was violent: four members of a Tableegh-i-Jamaat mission, preaching in the valley during the last days of the brief peace, were kidnapped and their fate remains unknown.
The criticisms by mainstream clerics have played on a key weakness of the Taliban leadership: their failure to attain advanced Islamic educational qualifications that would empower with the scholarly authority to issue edicts.
Islamist party activists said the clash of the ideologues was inevitable because they were competing for the same conservative political audience. They said the Taliban had been waging a cold war against the mainstream Islamist parties in their parliamentary strongholds, threatening, kidnapping and sometimes killing activists.
The parties, some of which maintain highly organised, armed cadres of their own, had refrained from taking retaliatory action because it would have undermined their stance against the Nato occupation of Afghanistan and the promotion of Islamic laws in Pakistan, the activists said.
But privately, activists concede they might have to switch tack if the Taliban responds with an expected campaign of terror attacks.
“An armed conflict is something we want to avoid, but if it comes to that, the Taliban will find themselves confronted with a force led by their teachers – men who led the jihad against Soviet occupation in Afghanistan and Indian forces in Kashmir,” said a senior official of the Jamaat-i-Islami, who requested anonymity.
Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. He has taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University, and Michigan State University. He also writes for the Jerusalem Post.–
Finally, someone has dared to publicly talk about Muslim youth in Germany and their reckless, aggressive behavior.
The German radio, WDR5, broadcast a two-hour live talk show called “Hallo Ü-Wagen” on April 25, 2009, to find out why Muslim youth are so aggressive and fanatic. Julitta Münch, the moderator of this program, invited several specialists to discuss the topic.
Over two hours, the majority of the participating specialists and the public depicted an egregious picture of Muslim youth – in particular, the males among them.
Ms. Münch, noted at the outset of her show that she had invited many teachers, especially female ones, but none turned up. She assumed they were scared to speak up against their Muslim youth.
Mansour Ahmed, a Palestinian social worker in Berlin who daily deals with Muslim youth and their families, said that more than 30% of Muslim young men are “very violent.” They do not allow their sisters to talk to other boys, especially German boys. Mansour also said that Muslim boys would never approve of their sisters marrying a German man. A Muslim boy told Mansour, he would kill his sister if she marries a German infidel, or has sex with a man before she is married. “More than 60% of Muslim girls are forced to marry a man of their parents’ choice.” Mansour added. He concluded that the majority of Muslim young and older men in Germany interpret and apply a kind of Taliban Islam.
Ahmet Toprak, a Muslim Turk, and social science professor at a high school in Germany, and a typical apologist, does not believe that “Muslim youth are more violent than their German counterparts.” As most apologists, he believes radical Islamism is due to social deprivation.
Toprak also claimed that Muslim men behave like machos not because of Islam, but because of their social traditions.
Illona Rothin, a school teacher and film producer, vehemently rejected Toprak’s views. Ms. Rothin interviewed numerous young Muslims and lots of German teachers, and presented several facts:
– Female teachers, in particular, are afraid of Muslim young men at German schools. Rothin said, she attended a class at a school in Hamburg whose most of its students are Turks and Arabs. At the beginning of the class there were 29 students. At the end only 8 students remained seated in the class. The rest left the class without any excuse. As Rothin asked the teacher why she allowed that to happen, the teacher said, “I’m scared. I cannot do anything against that. And the head teacher tries to hush all this up.” Mr. Grimm, a man from the public and one who is well-informed about what is going on in German schools, intervened and said, “The ministry of Education sent out several decrees to schools urging head teachers not to follow up wrong doing by the Muslim youth.”
Also in Bielefeld, in Stieghorst, a district that is predominantly inhabited by Turks, Muslim boys do not allow their sisters to enter the “Freizentrum” (recreation center). And German boys are not allowed to enter the center either.
According to various studies, more than 70% of young Muslims in Germany drop school before reaching the 10th grade. Later many of them join the “army of jobless” and live on “Harz-Vier,” the welfare system.
Both mosques and affiliated centers fill the brains of young male Muslims with hatred toward the German society and blame it on their misery. These indoctrination centers, and the fact that schools and state authorities shy off confrontation with young Muslims, have simply emboldened these youth and encourage them to stay defiant.
Another German apologist, Mathias Rohe from Erlangen, and judge who uses Shari’a in his verdicts when Muslims are involved, claimed on the same radio show, “Islam is compatible with secularism.”
The truth of the matter is German politicians and mainstream media have ignored and suppressed for decades the fact that Muslims must also abide by local laws. After 9/11 the Germans received a wake-up call. They got scared and have all the time been trying to appease Muslims out of fear, not conviction.
However, it seems that the German public is better informed about Islam and radical Muslims than their media and politicians.
German politicians and mainstream media condemned freeing the American hostage Richard Phillips in Somali waters by force. They claimed that this would endanger the life of five German sailors kept hostage by Somali pirates for more than two months now.
The Germans prefer to pay ransom money, which they would get back from selling their machines and goods worldwide. They do not want to make their hands dirty in the war on terror. They want the others to do the job for them.
Thanks to the CIA, the German security agencies could foil a devastating attack by radical Muslims in Germany. The CIA information helped the German police arrest four Muslims and recover 26 detonators which could have cost the life of hundreds of innocent people.
Uschi Eid from the German Green Party told Deutschland-Radio, “We must encourage the Somalis apply Shari’a. This might help building the state again. Islam regulates both religious and mundane life. This might help bring peace to Somalia and rid us of piracy.”
In other words, Eid is advocating setting up a Taliban state in Somalia.
The Germans use every opportunity to condemn and fight the NPD, the neo-Nazis in Germany. Why do not they do the same with radical Muslims who are as dangerous as the NPD? Radical Muslims preach that their Islam is the best “faith” on earth, and they are better believers than the rest of the world. This is discrimination “par excellence.”
Muslim religious and political discrimination is as egregious as the NPDs. Both are politically (in)correct.
Most recently, Switzerland prosecuted a German lady for bashing radical Muslims. Her criticism has been interpreted as an act of “racism.” This trial is meant as a warning to all critics of Islam to stop doing so. Petrodollars come first.
Muslim radicalism in Europe and across the globe is pandemic and must be confronted and eradicated, like any other virus. Sticking our head in sand like an ostrich is futile.
By all means read it all by clicking on the title.
The Taleban have not yet heeded calls to disarm
Taleban militants operating in Pakistan’s Swat region who agreed a peace deal with the government have expanded operations into nearby Buner.
Dozens of militants have been streaming into bordering Buner to take over mosques and government offices.
Buner is part of the Malakand region, which has just seen the implementation of Sharia law under the peace deal.
Under the deal the Taleban were expected to disarm.
Buner district is only about 100km (62 miles) from the capital, Islamabad.
Recent reports said the Taleban had ransacked the offices of international aid and development agencies working in Buner.
Some employees of the agencies were also briefly taken hostage before being released on Monday.
The Taleban have banned the playing of music in cars and are also using mosques to invite local youth to join them.
We implemented Sharia law as it was a demand of the people, not just the Taleban
Mian Iftikhar Hussain,
The Taleban have also started regular patrols in the district.
Buner’s police chief, Rashid Khan, said the police had lodged an official complaint over the matter.
But the Taleban are not mentioned in the reports, which only names “unknown persons” as the culprits.
Mian Iftikhar Hussain maintains that the Taleban must disarm as agreed under the peace deal.
“Even Sufi Mohammad has said that there is no reason for the Taleban not to disarm,” he said.
He was referring to the head of a local religious group who has been acting as the government’s chief negotiator with the Taleban.
“We initially adopted the path of dialogue and reconciliation, but this is as far as we can go,” Mr Hussain said.
“We implemented Sharia law as it was a demand of the people, not just the Taleban.
“If they continue with their activities, they will not have the support of the people.
“The majority of the people are now with the government. The government will not stand by and tolerate [the violation of] the peace deal.”
The Taleban say they will not lay down their arms until Sharia is fully implemented.
Muslim Khan, a spokesman for the Swat Taleban, said his movement’s aim was the enforcement of Sharia law in all of Pakistan.
(Head Heretic here: I can’t say that I need to comment much. There is an active slow-burn civil war gouing on in Pakistan and the government is, at best, passive in its face. The people have no power against the Talibs and it is worth a policemants life to even report that the “culprits” were Talibs. This story definately belongs in the “not a good thing” file.)
(HH here: The Arab Atheists Network has released a film entitled The Story of Women in Islam that is available on YouTube. It it in six parts. I am here embedding them interspersed with a transcript and my commentary.)
A female experiences disparagement in Islam from the moment of her birth. While a newborn male gets to have two sheep offered as a sacrifice of thanksgiving on his behalf, they offer only one on behalf of the female. Muhammad (570-632), the prophet of Islam, said, “Two sheep for the boy and one for the female” (see: The authentic of Al-Tirmidhi’s collection, Al-Albani, Hadith no. 1516). Islam also permits the father to marry off his daughter before she reaches adolescence. On the legally prescribed period of waiting (termed as `Iddah’) during which a woman may not remarry after being widowed or divorced in order to ensure no pregnancy occurred, the Quran says, “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if you have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same).” (65:4).
“Those who have no courses” that is, those who have not reached adolescence yet. Ubay Bin Kab, a close companion of Mohammad, said: “When the verse in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the `Iddah’ of divorce, some people in Al-Madinah said, `There are still some women whose Iddah has not been mentioned in the Qur’an. There are the little girls, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant’. In response, this verse was revealed: “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses…” (See: Al-Mustadrak, by Al-Hakim. pp. 492-493. This narration is authentic according to Al-Hakim and Al-dhahabi.).
(HH here: let us not too lightly skip over the concept of ‘Iddah’. As the children of a marriage are considered the property of the husband it is important for the Muslim man to have a clear claim on any children his divorced former wife may carry. Make no bones about it, the sole purpose of that is to ensure his ability to come and take them from her after birth if he wishes. To be sure certain traditions allow the mother to keep her bebies until they reach some pre-determined “Age of reason” where the male is needed to ensure they get a “proper” upbringing.”
Throughout the ages, the Muslim commentators of the Quran confirmed this explanation of the verse. Here are quotations from the most notable of them. Al- Tabari (839-923) said, “This also includes the ‘Iddah’ of girls who have not menstruated yet as they are such little.. if divorced after being sexually consummated in marriage”.
Al-Baghawi (1045-1117) said, “Those little girls who have not reached menstruation age yet”.
Az-Zammakhshari (1074-1143) said, “They are those little girls”.
Al-Qurtubi (1204-1273) said, “She is the little girl”.
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) said, “The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying: “and for those who have no courses”.
Al-Mahali and As-Syyouti (1445-1505) both said, “for how such young they are”.
Al-Alousi (1802-1854) said, “Those little girls who have not got their menstruation period yet”.
As Mohammad reached 52, Abu Bakr got his daughter, Aisha, married off to him when she was only 6 years old. Mohammad began having sexual relations with her when she was just 9. This is what Aisha says as recoded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic”, the second authoritative book in Islam next to the Quran, “The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. My mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, ‘Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.’ Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.” (See: Al-Bukhari’s authentic vol.3 p.66). Muslim jurisprudents unanimously agreed on having the little girl being married off. Ibn Abdul Bur (978-1071) says, ” Jurisprudents have unanimously agreed that a father is entitled to marry off his little girl without consulting her as Aisha herself was married off to the Messenger of Allah when she was six years old.” (See: Al Tamhid vol. 19 p. 98).
Ibn Battal (died 1057) said, “A little girl is unanimously permitted to marry an adult even if she is in the crib” (See: Fat`h Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar, vol. 9 p. 124).
Ibn Al-Monther (856-931) said, “All known jurisprudents have unanimously agreed that a father’s marrying off his firstborn daughter is permissible as long as he gets her to be married off to an acceptable man. In fact, as a father he is allowed that in spite of her reluctance and refusal”. (See: Al-Moghni by Ibn Qudama, vol. 9 p. 398).
Ibn Qudama (1146-1223) said, “A father is entitled to marry off his little girl undisputedly since Abu Bakr Al Sidiq married Aisha off to the prophet while she was 6 years old without asking her permission” (See: Al Kafi by Ibn Qudama, vol. 4 p. 243).
A husband is entitled to have sexual intercourse with his wife, a little girl though she may be, as long as her body is capable of enduring sexual intercourse, even if she has not reached adolescence yet. If she, however, is not capable of enduring this intercourse, he is allowed to sexually enjoy her without having intercourse. Al-Kharshi (died 1101) said, “His saying ‘and it is possible to have sex with her’ has a reference to the fact that there is no specific age, which will vary from one person to another, and this does not necessitate been adult as it is the case with man, for if she endured intercourse, then she is enabling the man to receive full sexual pleasure”. (See: Sharh Mukhtassar Khalil, Al-Kharsahi, section on “marriage”, chapter on dowry).
Al Zali`yye (died 1343) says, “They varied on specifying the age, some said, she could be nine years of age. What is true is it has nothing to do with age but it has everything to do with the ability to endure sexual intercourse, as a fat, large woman would endure sexual intercourse, though she may be young of age” (See: Tabyeen Al-Haqa’eq, book of divorce, chapter on divorce alimony).
And this is what happened with Aisha. Her family fattened her up before sending her off to her wedding with Mohammed. Aisha said, “My mother was giving me fattening recipes in order to prepare me for the Messenger of Allah, and she got nowhere until I began eating cucumber until I got fattened very well” (See: The authentic of Ibn Maja’s collection, Al-Albani. vol. 3 p. 131). This would lead Al-Sarakhsi (died 1090) to comment on this story related by Aisha stating, “This in itself is a proof that a little girl is permitted to be wedded with her husband if she is fit for men, for she was in her wedded with him while she was 9 years old. so she was young as it appears. In a Hadith it is mentioned that they fattened her and when she got fat she was sent off to her wedding with the Messenger of Allah”. (See: Al-Mabsoott by Al Sarakhsi, vol. 4 p. 213).
(A video clip of Dream Channel by Sheikh Farahat Al Sayyed Al Manji of Al-Azhar).
Sheikh Al Manji says: “There is no evidence in Islam for specifying marriage age. Just upfront, in Islam there is no set specific age for marriage.
Interviewer: From this I gather you agree.
Al Manji: Yes.
Interviewer: You are confirming that Fatwa (previously mentioned in the show).
Al Manji: I am not confirming that Fatwa, I am simply telling you that she can bear marriage, that is, bear sexual intercourse.
Interviewer: At what age can a girl endure “marriage”?
Al Manji: I actually don’t know, but let me tell you, there is a girl who could be 15 years old, bubbly though she may be, yet she is not good for anything and knows nothing. Also there might be a girl who is just 10 years of age and look at her! She is so big and tall, to give you an example. What does it all depend on? Well, it all depends on where she is raised.
Interviewer: So it has nothing to do with age?
Al Manji: No, Islamic Law didn’t specify age.
Interviewer: There is a girl who is 9 years old and she is so big and tall, could she get married?
Al Manji: Of course yes. Why not?
Interviewer: Call us at this number… as I am not really in the mood. Your honor the Sheikh this is so hard to accept. 9 years of age and gets married? This is…….
Al Manji: yes, 9 years old and getting married. And I said, as long as she can bear a man. I am speaking to you in light of the Islamic Law. This Law “Sharia” is what really matters.
In one of the largest Islamic sites on the Internet specialized in giving fatwas (religious authoritative verdicts) www.islamweb.net , a fatwa entitled “Sexually Enjoying the Little Girl of a Wife- Legally Islamic View” said, “There is no problem or issue in kissing the little girl of a wife lustfully and thighing (rubbing the penis against her thighs) and so on, even if she cannot bear sexual intercourse. Muslim jurisprudents have shown that the foundation lies in man’s being able to sexually enjoy his wife if he wants to as long as there is no harm. This included his masturbating with her hands, fondling her and kissing her and so forth”. http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=78529&Option=FatwaId
In another fatwa entitled “Sexually Enjoying the Little Girl of a Wife”, it stated, “There is no harm in ejaculating between the thighs of this little girl who cannot afford to bear intercourse and it might harm her, as long as such ejaculation is without sexual penetration. Muslim jurisprudents have shown that the starting point in all of this and what really matters the most is that the man is permitted to sexually enjoy his wife in any manner he wants as long as there is no harm.” http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?Option=FatwaId&lang=A&Id=56312
Shiite Muslims are not any different. Imam Khomeini (1902-1989), leader of Islamic revolution in Iran, said in his book “Tahrir Al Wasilah” (vol. 2 p. 221) the following: “A wife should not receive sexual intercourse before she is fully nine years old, be this marriage permanent or temporary. But for all other forms of pleasure, as in lustful touch, embrace or thighing (rubbing the penis against her thighs), there is no problem in them, even if she is a little suckling baby”.
Shiite scholar, Al-Ayrawani, says that to receive sexual pleasure from the suckling baby is unanimously agreed upon by Muslim jurisprudents, be they Sunnis or Shiites.”
(HH here: Take note that all of the verses and ahadith quoted are from authoritative sources. As we will see futher on in the video the major Islamic sources are NOT in disagreement on this subject at all.)
Enquiring person: “Mr Imam Khomeini has mentioned in his book Tahrir Al-Wasilah a matter: ‘A wife should not receive sexual intercourse before she is fully nine years old, be this marriage permanent or temporary. But for all other forms of pleasure, as in lustful touch or embrace, there is no problem in them, even if she is a little suckling baby’. We hope that the Sheikh would expound on the last paragraph. Please go ahead our mullah”.
Sheikh Ayrawani: In fact, this issue is one of the things that our Shiite jurisprudents, have all unanimously agreed upon. They (Sunnis) also have it in their books, it’s not belonging to us (Shiites) only. Now, suppose a man wants to get married to a little girl, to marry her permanently. What do you think? Let us now leave aside temporal marriage. I am here talking about the permanent kind of marriage. It is permitted for a man to marry off his daughter of 5 years of age to a man. Question: is that permitted or not permitted?. All Muslim jurisprudents agree and see no problem with that whatsoever. The father has every right to marry her off to a man. He is her custodian. Within the bounds of interest that is perfectly normal. The father is entitled to marry her off without any prohibition. Let us suppose that she is just two years of age. Or let us even say she is just one year old. There is not the least problem in that. By marrying her, she becomes lawful ‘halal’ for the husband (to do whatever he wants to her). Now, you tell me, can the husband kiss her or no?. Well, there is not the least problem in that since this little one is his own wife and therefore no problem at all.”
An adolescent woman experiences disparagement at the first sign of her becoming an adult woman, which is the beginning of menses. Scientifically speaking, menstruation is normal blood that passes due to the fall of the arterioles that multiplied to from a layer in the uterine wall so that the expected fertilized egg be attached to and fed by. Due largely to the ignorance of the people of the old days, there is wide misunderstanding on the nature of menses, a number of cultures and religions dealt with the menses as unclean and imposed demeaning rituals for the woman in her menstrual period. Islam is one of these religions. The Quran says (2: 222), “And they ask you about menstruation. Say: it is a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.” In Islam, a woman in her time of menstruation is not permitted to pray or fast. Muhammad said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 2 p.45), “Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?..This is the deficiency in her religion.”
Now that she is an adult woman, she is put on equal footing with the donkey and the dog insofar as abolishing the prayer of a Muslim male if she would just pass in front of him. Mohammad said as recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 2 p.60), the third authoritative book in Islam next to the Quran and “Al-Bukhari’s authentic”, “A woman, a donkey and a dog disrupt the prayer”.
In Islam, a woman is of a lesser mind than the man, and so her testimony in financial dealings is only worth half his, according to the Quran (2:282), “and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs (by forgetting), the other can remind her”.
Muhammad said about women as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 1, p. 115), “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you (women). A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the witness of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “That is from the deficiency in her intelligence.”
Women cannot provide witness in the case of felonies and penalties. They cannot give witness without a man except in matters which men should not be exposed to. Ali Bin Abi Talib (Muhammad’s cousin) said, “Women’s witness is not permitted in the case of divorce, marriage, felonies and blood”. (See: Abdul Razzaiq’s collection, vol. 8, pp. 329-330).
Ibn Al Munther (856-931) said: “Muslim jurists have unanimously agreed on the literal reading of this verse in that they permitted women’s testimony alongside that of men. They limited this to finances and debts. But they said that her witness is not allowed in the case of felonies and penalties. They didn’t reach agreement on the position of her testimony in marriage, divorce, genealogy and loyalties. While the majority prohibited it, the Kufis permitted it. Muslim jurists have also agreed on accepting their testimonies without a man in matters which men should not be exposed to such as menstruation and the giving of birth”. (See: Fat`h Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar, vol. 5 p. 266).
(Quran 4:5) “To those fools do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support”.
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373), the most notable Quran commentator, says: “`The ‘fool’ is the ignorant, simple-minded person who has little knowledge in areas of benefit and harm. This is why, according to the majority of the scholars, Allah used the term foolish to include women and children, when He said (4:5) “To those fools do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support”. (See: Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir vol. 1 p. 290, Sura 2 verse no. 13).
(Quran 2:228) “men have a degree (of advantage) over them (women)” Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) commentated: “men are in a more advantageous position than women physically as well as in their mannerism, status, obedience (of women to them), spending, taking care of the affairs and in general, in this life and in the Hereafter”.
(Quran 4:34) “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property”.
Ibn Kathir commentated: “meaning, the man is responsible for the woman, and he is her maintainer, caretaker and leader who disciplines her if she deviates. ‘because Allah has made one of them to excel the other’, meaning, because men excel over women and are better than them. This is why prophethood was exclusive of men, as well as other important positions of leadership. The Prophet said, ‘People who appoint a woman to be their leader, will never achieve success.’ Al-Bukhari recorded this Hadith. Such is the case with appointing women as judges or on other positions of leadership. A man in himself is superior to the woman and he bestows favour upon her always. For these reasons it is suitable that he is appointed her maintainer”.
A female in Islam is allotted half of what a male gets in inheritance. (Quran 4:11) “Allah directs you regarding your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females”.
A woman is also an image of devil as recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 4, p. 129), that the prophet “saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her.He then went to his Companions and told them: a woman advances and retires in the image of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife (for sex), for that will repel what he feels in his heart.”
After adolescence, it is an obligation for the woman to cover her body in front of men who might not be “Maharem” (ie. Father, siblings, sons, uncles and nephews), or a spouse. In our age, Muslims claim that the veil was sanctioned out of guarding modesty and morality and also so that a woman will not entice a man. But historical facts from Islamic sources reveal that the veil was originally sanctioned as a classifying law to separate slave girls, who would be captives of war, from free women. The veil verse says, (33:59) “O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper that they should be recognized and not annoyed”. “more proper that they should be recognized” which means their being recognized as free women and not slave girls. Throughout the ages, the Muslim commentators of the Quran have backed up this interpretation.
Al-Tabari (839-923) says, “To draw their cloaks close round them helps them in not being identified by anybody passing by so that they might know that these are not slave girls, thus harassing them”.
Al-Baghawi (1045-1117) says, “This verse was revealed in the case of those adulterers who would chase in Al-Madinah after women who might have to go outside to use the bathroom. At first they would wink at the woman, and if she keeps silent they keep following her, but if she rebukes them, they would leave her alone. They were only seeking after slave girls, and yet it was hard for them to identify a free woman from a slave girl since they all dressed alike, dressed in some kind of cover. They complained to their husbands and it got mentioned to the messenger of Allah and thus the verse was revealed”.
Az-Zamakhshari (1074-1143) says, “In the beginning of Islam, women who were following their customs dressed immodestly. Young men would go out in the fields and palm lots at night in order to chase after slave girls going to bathroom. They would try to sexually harass a free woman under the pretext that she might be a slave girl, and so they were ordered to change their attire from that of the slave girls by wearing cloaks, quilts, and covering both heads and faces”.
Ibn Al-Jawzi (1114-1201) said, “’should be recognized’ means their being recognized as free women”. Al-Qurtubi (1204-1273) said, “Before this verse was revealed, a woman of the household of believers would go outside to use the bathroom and some perverts would try to harass her thinking that she is a slave girl. She would scream and he goes away. They complained to the prophet and this verse was revealed for that reason”.
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) said, “means, if they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not slaves or whores.”
Al-Mahali and As-Syyoutti (1445-1505) both said, “ ‘more proper’ that is they are closer to be ‘to be recognized’ i.e. that they are free women ‘and not annoye’ that is, by sexually harassing them unlike the slave girls, as they are not covered in their faces and getting harassed by hypocrites”.
Al Alousi (1802-1854) said, “ ‘Adna’ means closer to ‘to be recognized’ that is being set apart from the slave girls who were vulnerable to being sexually harassed”.
Ummar Bin Al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Mohammad and second successor (caliph) to him, used to beat a slave girl if she wore the veil. Anas Bin Malik, a companion of Muhammad, said, “Omar saw a slave girl of ours wearing the veil, he struck her and said to her: “Don’t be dressed like free women” (See: Ibn Abi Shaiba’s collection, vol. 3, p. 127). Anas Bin Malik also said: “A slave girl went on into where Omar Bin Al-Khattab was sitting. She had a dressed that she used for a veil. Omar asked her, “Have you been freed?”. She said, “No”. He said, “What then is the veil for? Move it away from your head, for the veil is to be on the heads of free women”. She tarried and Omar got up to her and struck her on her head with a rod until she moved it away from her head”. (See: Ibn Abi Shaiba’s collection, vol. 3 p. 128).
Anas Ibn Malik also said, “slave girls of Omar were waiting on us with their hair being uncovered and their breasts shaking”. (See: As-Sunnan Al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi, vol. 2 p. 321). This narration is authentic according to Al-Albani. (See: Hijab Al-mar;a Walibasuha Fe Al-Sala, Ibn Taymyyah p. 43 , checked by Al-Albani). Al Bayhaqi said, “These narrations about Omar Bin Al-Khattab are authentic”. (See: As-Sunnan Al-Kubra by Al Bayhaqi, vol. 2 p. 321).
For a slave girl what parts in view of another male is the same thing that a male should not show in front of another male, and that stretches from the navel to the knees. Mohammad said, “When one of you marries off his female servant to his slave or to his employee, he should not look at her private part below the navel and above the knees.” (See: The authentic of Abu Dawood’ collection, by Al-Albani, vol. 2, p. 523). That means if a slave girl gets married, she changes status as far as her owner is concerned in that he is no longer allowed to see more than what is between the navel and the knees, and this is what has been established by most Muslim jurisprudents. Al-Nawawi (1233-1277) said: “Man’s private parts would be what is between his navel and knees, and the same goes for the slave girl. But a free woman can show only her face and hands”. (See: Minhaj Al-Talibeen by Al-Nawawi, p. 105).
Al-Maqdisi (1160-1227) says, “A slave girl’s privates are the same like man”. (See: Sharh Al-Umdah, p. 65).
Al-Dardeer (1715-1786) says, “private parts for a man is his male organ and buttocks, and for the slave girl it is the same”. (See: Al-sharh Al- Sagheer, vol. 1 p. 285).
In the history of Islam, slave girls were being sold in the markets, stripped naked and men would check them out in any form they wanted to. If Ubdallah Bin Omar Bin Al-Khattab, a companion of Mohammad, wanted to buy a slave girl, he would place his hand on her buttocks, take a look at her legs, belly, put his hand between her breasts and then shake her. (See Abdul Razzaq’s collection, vol. 7 p. 286. and see also As-Sunnan Al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi, vol. 5 p. 537).
Ali Bin Abi Talib, Mohammad’s cousin and the fourth caliph, was asked about the slave girl being sold. “Is it permissible to look at her legs, buttocks, and her belly?”. He replied, “No problem with that. No prohibition. She was not made to stand except to be checked out as a bargain” (See Abdul Razzaq’s collection, vol. 7 p. 287).
Abdullah Bin Masood, a prominent Quran scholar and a close companion of Mohammad, said in relation to the slave girl being sold, “If I touch her or a wall, I don’t care; it is all the same to me”. (See Abdul Razzaq’s collection, vol.7 p.287).
In Islam, a man is entitled to marry up to 4 wives. Yet he has an unlimited number of slave girls that he is entitled to have sex with. A woman, however, has nobody but her own husband.
(Quran 4:3) “marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess”.
(Quran 23:5-6) “And who guard their private parts, Except with their wives or what their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame”.
(comments on the last verse) Al-Tabari (839-923) says, “ ‘what their right hands possess’ refers to the slave girls.”
Al Baghawi (1045-1117) says, “This verse is specific of men as evidenced in his saying ‘or whom their right hands possess‘, since that a woman isn’t allowed to sexually enjoy her own slave.”
Az-Zamakhshari (1074-1143) says, “what is meant is that they guard their private parts at all times except in the case of their marrying or having slave girls”.
Ibn Al Jawzi (1114-1201) expounds, “ ‘But who ever seeks’, that is, he actually sought after, ‘beyond that’ referring to wives and slave girls.”
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) says, “and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives”.
Al Mahali and As-Soyyoutti (1445-1505) both said: ” ‘what their right hands possess’ ” referring to slave girls.”
Al-Aloussi (1802-1854) says, “what is meant is whatever slave girl their right hand has owned. Note that Allah used the word ‘what’ in describing who they are instead of the word ‘whom’. This signifies that they are objects, articles of merchandise for sale. Or signifies that they are considered non-sentient beings because of their femininity which points to their lacking brains in reasoning. Women’s being non-sentient is quite obvious whether they be Circassian, Roman or anything like that. But how obvious would it be if they be Negro or from any black ethnicity?, I swear that if they supposedly aren’t belonging to the animals class, then they aren’t far from belonging to it. The verse is specific to men, since that women unanimously aren’t permitted to have sex with their slaves”.
(Quran 4:24) “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those which your right hands possess”.
It’s recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 4 p.170) that “at the Battle of Hanain Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having sex with married captive women. Then Allah sent down regarding that: ” Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those which your right hands possess ” (i.e. it’s lawful to have sex with them when their ‘Idda’ period came to an end).”
Ibn Kathir says in his commentary: “you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, ‘except those which your right hands possess’, meaning, except those whom you acquire through war, it’s allowed for you to have sex with such women after making sure they are not pregnant. The verse was revealed for this case.”
What Muslims claim to be the privileges of Mohammad is the fact that he could marry more than 4 wives. Anas Bin Malik, a close companion of Mohammad, said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 1 p.110), “The Prophet used to visit (for sex) all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.”
As for the slave-girls of Mohammad, the Quran says, (33:50) “O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and what your right hand possesses out of what Allah has given to you as prisoners of war”.
Ibn Kathir says in his commentary, “means, the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you. He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim; they were both among the slave-girls”.
Muslims’ many raids resulted in capturing many women, which multiplied the number of slave-girls in Muslim lands. Ali Bin Abi Talib, Mohammad’s cousin and the fourth caliph, passed away while he had 19 slave girls in his property. (See: Abdul Razzaq’ collection, vol. 7 p. 288).
At the end of the first century of Islamic era, Musa Bin Nusair conquered Morocco. Ibn Kathir says in his history on this regard:
“Plenty of pretty boys and pretty women were taken as captives. And sent off to the caliph, 40, 000 heads, which is fifth of what he captured. . . when he went entered upon the caliph in Damascus he came along with 30,000 of captives, not to mention what we already listed. This was fifth of what he captured in the last raid which he launched into the lands of Morocco.” (See: Al Bidaya wa Al-Nihayyah, vol. 12 p. 629).
The caliph of Abbasid period, Harun Al Rashid, a very well-renowned caliph for the Abbassaid State which ruled the Muslims for 5 centuries, had in his house 4,000 slave-girls. (See: Al Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya, Ibn Kathir, vol. 14 p. 49).
(A video clip from Iqra Channel in a show entitled “Before You are Judged” by Basma Wahba)
Basma: Well, now, folks, I have now 2 of the giants of Al-Azhar Islamist scholars. They are required to refute this allegation, that Islam encourages slavery and the companions of the Prophet were sexually enjoying whatever their right hands possessed. How shall we respond to that?
Jamal Qutub: whoever doesn’t like it can bang his head against the wall.
Mabrook: I have a very small question. Do you believe that the Quran is the Word of God?. Or it is the same like Hadith which some are authentic and some are questionable?
Basma: I am Basma Wahbah a believer.
Mabrook: I am asking Ms. Basma in the same way I am asking any of the people watching the TV show now.
Basma: We are indeed believers.
Mabrook: This is not the point. We are trying to objectively discuss an issue now. What does objectivity here mean? It means, I ask people if they believe that the Quran is the Word of God? A person might say, yes and there is no corruption in the Quran. He might quote for me the verse in the Quran “We have revealed the Book and we are guarding it. Great! Is everybody fully at peace that it is the Word of God? Yes! Then read from surat Al-Nissa (“women” chapter). I read “marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess”. Do I have any right to abolish such a verse? What do I do about it now? Erase it with an eraser? In order to make it a beautiful religion and I defend it, I do this to the Quran?. And this was the first question.
Basma: I am a believer. How do I answer (the allegation)? How do I answer?.
Mabrook: (islam) is not accused so no need to answer. My religion is God’s Word. It says “Or what your right hands possess”. In surat Al-Muminin, (sura 23), it begins with saying, “Successful indeed are the believers. Who are humble in their prayers,…..” until he said” “And who guard their private parts, Except with their wives or what their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame. But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they that exceed the limits.”. Having read this, how shall I answer? I simply say, “This is my religion”.
Basma: So, in brief, you have no answer.
Mabrook: No! We have a world!.
Basma: This is how our religion works and if anyone doesn’t like it he can bang his head against the wall.
Basma: what if somebody we meet at the street is asking, we can’t reply? I just want to know. I really want to know.
Jamal Qutb: What do you want to know?
Basma: I want to know.
Jamal: We are telling you that the Quran is there and this verse is not abrogated.
Basma: Sheikh Jamal, May I frankly say something to you? I want to frankly tell you that 90% of Muslims including me don’t know what the point is in this verse saying “or what your right hands possess”.
Jamal: you don’t need to know.
Basma: And we frankly can’t stomach this verse.
Jamal: you don’t need to know.
Basma: what do you mean “I don’t need to”? Is that a reasonable answer sheikh Jamal?.
Jamal: Of course, all Muslims don’t need to…..
Basma: I come to ask you a question and you tell me that I don’t need to know?
Jamal: is there a wise person in the world who would claim to express the divine wisdom that god knows?. Is there anybody in the world Dr Mabrook who would know how to express divine wisdom in these verses? .
Mabrook: only god would.
Basma: This is not about divine wisdom, this is about human liberty.
Jamal: No everybody is free with himself.
In Islam, a woman cannot marry without the approval of her ‘Walee’, that is, the man in charge of her as a father or a brother. Mohammed said, “whichever woman gets married without the approval of her ‘Walee’, her marriage is abolished” (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’s collection, Al-Albany, vol. 1 p. 584).
Regarding the wife’s status in marriage in Islam, Mohammad says, “If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: ‘O Allah, I ask you for the good in her, and in the disposition you have given her; I take refuge in you from the evil in her, and in the disposition you have given her.’ When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing.” (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’ collection, Al-Albani, vol. 1 p. 601).
And also Mohammad says: “If I were to justify a person to prostrate after anybody other than God, I would have commanded the woman to prostrate after her husband. I swear to my lord, a woman cannot fulfill the obligation of her Lord until she has fulfilled the obligation of her husband, and even if he calls her for sex while she is on the back of a camel, she would never refuse him”. (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’ collection, Al-Albani, vol. 2 p.121).
Mohammad said, “Three are there whose prayers do not get any further than their ears. A rebellious slave until he comes back to his owner, a woman who would go to bed and her husband is indignant at her, and the leader of a people that they are loathing to have for a leader.” (See: The authentic of Al-Tirmidhi’s collection, Al-Albani, vol. 1 p. 209).
Muhammad said, “If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odor of Paradise will be forbidden to her”. (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’ collection, Al-Albani, vol.2 p.17).
(A video clip from Iqra Channel by Dr. Ghazi Al-Shimari, Saudi expert of family affairs. Translated by Memri TV)
Ghazi: The prophet said: “If I were to order anybody to bow before anyone, I would order the wife to bow before her husband”. The husband’s rights are very great. Therefore, according to a reliable Hadith, a woman said: “Oh Prophet of Allah, I will not marry before you tell me what my husband’s rights from me are.” The prophet said: “Do you really want to know?” she said: “yes”. He said: “if pus or blood comes out of your husband’s nose and you lick it up, you still will not have observed all his rights”. The rights of the husband are great, and a wife must observe them.
(A video clip from Iqra Channel by Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid. Translated by Memri TV)
According to Islam, a wife needs to comply with her husband’s desires in bed. The prophet Muhammad said: “If a man calls his wife to fulfill his needs. She must come, even if she is by the stove.” According to the Al-Tarmizi tradition. The prophet issued a severe warning to any wife who rebels against her husband in bed. The prophet said: “If a man invites his wife to bed and she refuses, and he is angry at her, the angels curse her until she wakes up in the morning.” This tradition was mentioned in the collections of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. God is aware of men’s needs. He knows that a man my have just come home, and maybe he desires something or maybe he saw something. He knows what this need is, and this is why he ordered the wife to consent to her husband even if she is by the stove, even if she is baking she must consent to him. Moreover, the prophet Muhammad said to the woman: “Compare yourself to him, he’s your paradise and your hell.” Imam Ahmad passed this on in his true Hadith. The wife must consent to her husband’s wishes and obey him. The wife in the west is not obliged to do so. Moreover, a wife can be raped by her husband there. They claim that if he has sex with her against her will – this is rape!, they consider this rape. They claim she must be willing. They claim that she must want it.”
(A video clip from Al-Majd Channel by Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Fuzan. Translated by Memri TV)
This is why the prophet said: “When a man calls his wife to fulfill his needs, she must go to him, even if she is busy with the oven”. Imagine this: There is fire in the oven, and she wants to bake bread. But even if she’s busy with this work that cannot be neglected, when he calls her, she must leave the oven and go to her husband. Another Hadith says: “She must go to him even if she is on the back of a camel”. She must go to him even if she is riding.
The Quran permits a man to beat his wife if she did not obey him, or even if he feels that she might not obey him, that is before the disobedience might occur. (Quran 4:34) ““As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them”. Ibn Kathir says in his commentary, “meaning, the woman from whom you fear ill conduct with her husband, such as when she acts as if she is above her husband, disobeys him, ignores him, dislikes him, and so forth.”
(A video clip from Mercy Channel by Sheikh Al Khatib. Translated by Memri TV)
One of the husband’s rights is to discipline his wife if she is disobedient. What does the “disobedience” mean?. Disobedience is to leave the house without the husband’s permission, to refuse to obey the husband in bed, to speak to the husband impolitely, or to do the opposite of what he likes. All these are forms of disobedience.
Mohammad said, “Hang the whip up somewhere so that the people of the household might see it; it is discipline to them” (See: The authentic of Al-Jami Al-Sagheer Wa Ziyadatuh, Al-Albani, vol. 2 p. 744).
(A video clip from Qatar TV. Friday sermon. Translated by Memri TV)
(The Koran says: ) “and beat them.” This verse is of a wondrous nature. There are three types of women with whom a man cannot live unless he carries a rod on his shoulder. The first type is a woman who was brought up this way. Her parents ask her to go to school and she doesn’t – the beat her. “Eat” – “I don’t want to” – they beat her. So she became accustomed to beatings, she was brought up that way. We pray Allah will help her husband later. He will only get along with her if he practices wife beating. The second type is a woman who is condescending towards her husband and ignores him. With her, too, only a rod will help. The third type is a twisted woman who will not obey her husband unless he oppresses her, beats her, uses force against her, and overpowers her with his voice.
In Jordan, one of the Arab open countries where they achieved the highest Arab percentage in eliminating illiteracy, a survey conducted by the National Council for Family Affairs in 2002, has revealed that 83% of women have supported man’s right to beat his wife if she is found to have done anything that shows her being unfaithful to the husband. 60% of women have voted for the husband’s right to beat the wife if she burnt the food in cooking, and 52% have voted for a man’s beating his wife if she did not obey his commands. This is what Islam does to women in society.
Death and the Afterlife
In Islam, whoever kills a soul willfully is to be also murdered. The family of the murdered one have the right to give up punishment and ask for the blood money. This compensation could be the judgment in cases of unintentional killing as road accidents. In Islam, the blood money paid for the killing of a woman is half the sum paid for the killing of a man. Imam Shafe`ee (767-820) said, “Be it in old or recent times, I do not know of a verdict except that woman’s blood money is half the one of the man” (See his book Al-Om, vol. 7 p. 261).
Ibn Abdul Bar (978-1071) said, “Jurisprudents of Islam have agreed that woman’s blood money is half that of a man” (See: Al-Tamhid by Ibn Abd al Bar, vol. 17, p. 358). Al Kasani (died 1191) said, “Woman’s blood money is worth half the one of the man, as the companions of the prophet unanimously have established, in that it is related by Omar, Ali and Ibn Masood and Zayd Bin Thabit (companions) that they said in relation to woman’s blood money that it is indeed half that of the male. No one among companions objected to them, so it’s unanimously agreed. And since a woman in inheritance and testimony is on half merit of the male, so her blood money is on the same status” (See: Bada`ee Al Sana`ee vol. 7 p. 254).
In the Shiite sect, if a woman is murdered and her family asked for the penalty (killing the murderer), they have to pay to the family of the man who committed the murder half of his blood money. Al-Kulainy recorded in Al-Kafi (the first authoritative Hdith collection according to Shiites) (vol. 7 p.299) that Jaafar Al-Sadiq (699-765), one of the 12 Infallible Imams of Shiites, said in relation to a man who murdered his wife on purpose, “If her family wishes to kill him then they have to pay his family half of his blood money. But if they wish, they can take half of the blood money.”
After a woman dies, the greater likelihood is that she is going to Hell. Muhammad said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 1 p. 1), “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the inmates of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?”. He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands.”
Muhammed also said as recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 8 p. 88), “Amongst the inmates of Paradise the women would form a minority”.
But if she is fortunate and she gets into Paradise she is facing the fact that a man will have in addition to his wives from this world his other wives from paradise, the wide-eyed virgins (Houris). The Quran says (44:54), “and We will wed them with Houris pure, beautiful ones.”
Regarding the men of paradise, Mohammad said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 2 p. 434), “Everyone of them will have two wives”.
Moreover, The ‘Shaheed’ (martyr) is married to 72 virgins of the wide-eyed Houris. Thus says Mohammad. (See: The authentic of Al-Tirmidhi’s collection, Al-Albani, vol. 2 p. 240).
But as for a woman, in Paradise, she has none but her husband of the world where she lived previously. The Quran says regarding the wives of these men in paradise, “And with them shall be those who restrain the eyes, having beautiful eyes” (37:48). Ibn Kathir said in his commentary, “means, chaste females, who will not look at anyone other than their husbands”.
And Mohammad also said, “A woman (in paradise) is to the last of her husbands.” (See: The collection of authentic Hadith, Al Albany, vol. 3 p. 275). Hudhayfah Bin Al-Yaman, a companion of the Prophet, said to his wife, “If you wish to be my wife in Paradise, don’t re-marry after I die, for a woman in paradise is for the last of her husbands, and so Allah has prohibited the wives of the prophet to re-marry after him because they are his wives in paradise too” (See: As-Sunan Al-Kubra, Al-Bayhaqi, vol. 7 p. 111).
This is the story of woman in Islam: injustice and disparagement from the moment of her birth and to no end, even in the alleged Paradise.
(HH here: Frankly I didn’t have the stomach to go and comment on all the things that I would have liked to address. This film makes me very tired. Please do note however how the chanted verses relate supposedly God Given FACT OF REALITY that the rest of us see as child abuse and obscenity. By hallowing the Quran as the actual, factual and only word of God they sidestep all moral restraints and logic. The religion that supposedly takes the ban on Idolatry the most seriously has completely idolized and declared sacrosanct the words of a disturbed warlord. Now take a deep breath and go hug your wife, girlfriend, husband, son or daughter.)
Wilders Prosecution is a Welcome Opportunity to Expose Islam
Dr. Sami Alrabaa
Prosecuting Geert Wilders, member of the Dutch Parliament, is a welcome opportunity to expose fascist Islam and radical Muslims. Wilders and his lawyers do not need to go far away to fetch crystal clear evidence that Islam, i.e. the Koran and Hadeeth, incite to violence and hatred, and radical Muslims are behind numerous crimes against humanity.
Ali Gom’a, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he says, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs, not only the Jews.
Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.”
Yousef Al Qaradhawi, the spiritual leader of the fundamentalist organization, the Muslim Brothers, urged on Al Jazeera TV (Jan. 9, 2009) Muslims to kill the Jews, not only in Israel but also worldwide. He added, “No peace can be made between us (Muslims) and the non-believers. This what our holy book says. This what Allah says.”
Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz Bin Abdullah Bin Mohammed al Sheikh said on Iqra’ TV channel, “Killing producers who show women unveiled is legal.”
The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, told Al Watan daily, (March 25, 2008) “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes). Further, there is not such a thing as Shiites, Sufis, etc. There are only Sunnis. All these sects must renounce their pagan beliefs and return to Sunna, the right path of Islam.”
Most recently, demonstrators in Berlin and Munich, and elsewhere in Germany, raised banners reading, “Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas.” The police did not arrest any one of them and nobody filed a court case against them for inciting to murder, which according to German law is punishable.
German apologists like Claudia Roth and Cem Ozdemir (a Muslim of a Turkish decent), chairpersons of the German Green Party, said in a press conference in Berlin (January 20, 2009), “Wilders’ film “Fitna” has contributed to worsening our relations with the Muslims around the globe. Geert Wilders is hurting the feelings of Muslims.”
I said in the conference, “This is not true. I know many Muslims who approve of Wilders’ critique of Islam. They do not feel offended. Only fascist Muslims feel so.” Roth and Ozdemir ignored my remark.
The truth of the matter is Fitna is simply reflecting how radical Muslims think and act, inspired and encouraged by the Koran.
Wilders’ comparison of the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and describing it as a fascist book is not inappropriate. Hitler referred to the Jews as “rats and vermin” and the Koran and fascist Muslims call the Jews “The descendants of apes and pigs.”
…Ahmed Marcouch, a prominent member of the Dutch Labor Party, of Moroccan descent, …told ARD, German TV (December 19, 2008), “Not only many Westerners approve of Fitna, but also many decent Muslims like me, but they dare not say that openly. Fascist Islam is a virus that is not only infecting Western societies, but also Muslim societies. This virus must be exposed and dealt with by all means.”
Wilders is simply warning the West and moderate Muslims that fascist Islam is a devastating threat to humanity. This virus was born in the Arabian Peninsula and is spreading across the world.
Wilders’ prosecution is a defining point in the clash between fascist Muslims and the rest of the world. Regardless whether he is convicted or not, he must be thanked for his courage. He is simply disseminating the truth about a violent and hate-inciting “religion.” His message is very clear: “Westerners, wake up before it is too late.”
Zaghlul Al Najjar rejoices in the rise and spread of Islam across the globe. He writes in the Egyptian daily Al Ahram (November 14, 2008), “Islam now is everywhere. Gorgeous mosques are build everywhere in the heart of Europe, in Rome and Cologne. The number of Muslims all over the world is also rising. More than 20 million Muslims live now in Europe. Alone in Germany there are 3.5. Demographers estimate that the majority of citizens in Germany will be Muslims in the year 2050. Two decades ago very few women wore the Hijab (headscarf). Now you can see them everywhere. Sooner or later, Islam will be in control of the whole world. This time, we don’t need to fight the infidel West with our troops as we did at the gates of Vienna. This time we’ll infiltrate the West and convert it to Islam, willy-nilly.”
Ramadan said, “My brothers and sisters, we must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals. Our Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the Koran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah. Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on. The only law we must respect and apply is the Shari’s.”