South Capitol Street

Here we go again: yet more evidence that statements about Islamic doctrine like these from Muslims in the U.S. do not reflect Islamic doctrine as it is actually understood in Sharia states. So are al-Marayati, Bassiouni, Eteraz and all the others who say such things actually reformers? Unlikely, given the fact that they do not challenge actions like this latest in the Islamic Republic. Their statements are less likely to be declarations of a reformist impulse than deceptions designed to lull Western non-Muslims into thinking that there is no problem here worthy of attention from human rights activists and organizations or anyone else.

“Rev. Lorenz is then quoted in a local television station report saying that if a Muslim leaves his religion and does not return to Islam in a couple of days, then he must be killed. He claims that someone showed him the verse. There is no such verse, Rev. Lorenz. In every faith, apostasy is shunned but ultimate judgment is left to God, not people.” — Salam al-Marayati

“A Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law.” — M. Cherif Bassiouni

“It becomes really difficult, in light of this information, to persuasively argue that Islamic Law should permit a death penalty for apostasy.” — Ali Eteraz

Unfortunately for the apostates, the facts are otherwise.

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam and supreme example of conduct for the Muslim (cf. Qur’an 33:21), said: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9.84.57)

The Tafsir al-Qurtubi, a classic and thoroughly mainstream exegesis of the Qur’an, says this about Qur’an 2:217: “Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say that they are asked to repent and, if they do not, they are killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say that they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik. Al-Hasan said they are asked a hundred times. It is also said that they are killed without being asked to repent.”

All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that a sane adult male who leaves Islam must be killed. They have some disagreements about what must he done with other types of people who leave Islam, but they have no disagreement on that.

“Iran: regime hits out at apostasy — 70 arrested,” by Elizabeth Kendal for Assist News Service, January 13:

(ANS) – Ethnic Armenian and Assyrian Orthodox Churches in Iran may exist in peace as long as they do not proselytise (i.e. seek converts). It is illegal to preach Christianity in Farsi (the Persian language) just as it is illegal for Muslims to reject Islam (apostasy). The penalty for apostasy is death. So when Muslim Farsi-speaking Iranians convert to Christianity, they must meet and worship in illegal ‘underground’ fellowships.

Early on 25 26 December 2010 armed plainclothed agents from the infamous Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) raided the homes of Christians known to be converts from Islam and/or active in witnessing to Muslims. As well as confiscating CDs, Bibles, religious books, computers and personal documents, they arrested 25 Christians. Sixteen other Christians listed for arrest were not home at the time of the raids and remain unaccounted for. Further to this there are unconfirmed reports that as many as 50 other mostly young believers have since been arrested. Amongst those detained are five married couples, one of whom has been separated from their two-year-old child and another from their breast-feeding infant. The detained Christians are being interrogated and coerced. Eleven have since been released after signing documents promising to refrain from Christian activity. The detained believers are virtually all converts from Islam.

The governor of Tehran province, Morteza Tamadon, describes Protestants and evangelicals as ‘corrupt and deviant’ and also accuses them of conducting an ‘enemy cultural invasion’. ‘The leaders of this movement,’ he declared, ‘have been arrested in Tehran province and more will be arrested in the near future. Just like the Taliban, who have inserted themselves into Islam like a parasite, [evangelicals] have crafted a movement with Britain’s backing in the name of Christianity. But their conspiracy was unveiled quickly and the first blows were delivered to them.’

In June 2010 Protestant pastor Youcef Nadrkhani and his wife Fatemah were arrested in the northern city of Rasht. According to court documents, Nadrkhani has been convicted of apostasy, organising meetings, proselytising, establishing a house church, baptising people, and openly expressing his distaste for Islam. For these crimes he has been sentenced to death while Fatemah has been sentenced to life in prison. The couple have two young children. In September 2010 a court of appeals upheld the death sentence, which is being delayed to give MOIS more time to try to coerce Pastor Nadrkhani to return to Islam.

Pastor Behrouz Sadegh-Khanjani, also arrested in June 2010, has likewise been indicted for apostasy and similar ‘national security’ offences. Nine other believers arrested with him, including his wife, have been released but he has not yet been sentenced.

In October 2010 Iran’s intelligence minister said his agents had discovered hundreds of underground church groups, including 200 in the Muslim holy city of Mashad. According to iranfocus.com, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in an October speech that Iran’s enemies were behind the underground churches. The director of the Toronto-based Iranian Christian News Agency, Saman Kamvar states, ‘Since officials gave these comments, pressure has increased on our community, and the crackdowns have taken a more organised shape.’…

Jihad Watch

Observers and interested parties have expressed amazement, confusion and concern at the growth of Islam in the West since 9/11. Apparently, no acts of mass murder, familial barbarism and cruelty, jihad violence against non-Muslims, and threat of (nuclear) war from leaders of Islamic states are sufficient to dissuade some “searchers”.

After the 9/11 Islamic atrocities, conversions to Islam in the United States increased markedly – and have kept a steady pace of growth. It did not take long for this startling increase in conversions in the US to be widely noticed. According to the New York Times (October, 2001), “some clerics say they have seen conversion rates quadruple since Sept. 11.”

Favorable reactions (no response could be more “favorable” than conversion) to the 9/11 attacks in Europe were also widely noticed there. A Times of London article that appeared not long after the attacks included the following:

There is compelling anecdotal evidence of a surge in conversions to Islam since September 11, not just in Britain, but across Europe and America. One Dutch Islamic centre claims a tenfold increase, while the New Muslims Project, based in Leicester and run by a former Irish Roman Catholic housewife, reports a steady stream of new converts. (Times of London, 01/07/2002 as referenced in Joel Richardson’s “Islamic Anti-Christ.”)

For most thoughtful Americans only profound shock and confusion (and dismay) can result when faced with these growing trends of approval (through conversion – the highest form of “approval”) in the society for the perpetrators of the 9/11 barbarities and their draconian, supremacist ideology.

Many say the events of Sept. 11 only confirmed their commitment. …Upon hearing of the hijackings [one “searcher”] immediately grabbed a book from her backpack and recited the Arabic declaration of belief; she made the conversion official 12 days later.
New York Times, October 22, 2001

Certainly psychologists, religious and political leaders, and anyone concerned about our societal health andsurvival would wish to understand the foundations of a decision that propels someone to identify with the 9/11 killers (and their ideology) rather than with their innocent kafir/non-Muslim victims.

Things have not improved in the ten years since the 9/11 mass murders. According to the UK Daily Mail of January 5, 2011:

The number of Muslim converts in Britain has passed 100,000, fuelled by a surge in young white women adopting the Islamic faith.

The figure has almost doubled in ten years – with the average convert now a 27-year-old white woman fed up with British consumerism and immorality.

The investigation as to comparative morality whereby Islam requires jihad against non-Muslims, considers women second class citizens (including religious and legal sanction for wife beating), and an undying ancient enmity against Jews and Christians (and all non-Muslims) that continues to fuel atrocities across the world versus the perceived moral failings of UK society in which the horrors of Islam are often viewed as more attractive by some British “searchers” elicited this:

The survey …asked converts for their views on the negative aspects of British culture. They identified alcohol and drunkenness, a ‘lack of morality and sexual permissiveness’, and ‘unrestrained consumerism’.
Daily Mail, 01/05/2011

Why some British non-Muslim “searchers” find their answers within a reactionary, absolutist worldview from Arabia rather than make a personal decision to not partake in such activities – or convert even to some more localized absolutist approach to existence like, say, Puritanism – if avoidance of sexual permissiveness, drunkenness, unrestrained consumerism, etc., is the goal of those who convert to Islam, is not particularly clear. Though the very public conversion of Lauren Booth, former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s sister-in-law, and Prince Charles numerous favorable comments on Islam have greatly benefited Islam in the UK in recent years they cannot explain the attraction the people in an open society have towards totalitarian, absolutist ideologies such as Islam.

Certainly, many have a deep need for surety and definitiveness. What could be the source of more certitude than an absolutist ideology to which one submits in entirety? After all, the word “Islam” translates to “Submission”, and “Muslim” to “one who submits.” Islam is about nothing else if not “Islam” – it’s an all-encompassing submission to an all-encompassing self-referential view of existence. Rising numbers of conversions to Islam seem to show that Islam’s brutal absolutism has found a fertile soil in the apparently morally confused and falling cultures of the west.

Many people need answers, but haven’t any idea as to how to ask the right questions. There are such “searchers” in every generation; those who know that “something is wrong” but haven’t any clear idea as to what.

Absolutist ideologies, religions, worldviews, political and legal systems (Islam includes all of those) are a welcome haven for such people from the challenges and confusions of daily life in open democratic societies. For too many, submission is by far easier than the frustrations and difficulties of the search for meaning itself.

Suna is the “Way of Mohammed.” It originates from the Hadith (Traditions), and the Sira (the biography of Mohammed). According to Islamic doctrine Mohammed is the greatest human being whose life is the perfect model for all Muslims to follow forever. Obeying Mohammed is commanded in the Koran. Devout followers of Islam follow the path of Suna – whatever Mohammed ordered others to do or did himself are the finest things that any human could do. We should not underestimate the power of examples.

The apostle said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’ Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Mas`ud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, ‘You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?’ Muhayyisa answered, ‘Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.’ He said that this was the beginning of Huwayyisa’s acceptance of Islam. The other replied, ‘By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?’ He said, ‘Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.’ He exclaimed, ‘By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvellous!’ and he became a Muslim.
-Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah as translated by A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, page 369
Note:Supporting Hadith from Sunan Abu-Dawd (19:2996), can be seen here

There is no doubt that absolutism appeals to many and always has, but there is cause for hope in that Islam’s supremacism, definitiveness, and cruel legal system (Sharia law) while attractive for some, is not at all for others. (More on Sharia Law here, and here, and here, and here.)

The day after the UK newspaper published its report that “100,000 Britons have chosen to become Muslim… and (the) average convert is (a) 27-year-old white woman” poll results were reported in the same newspaper (Daily Mail) that showed “Islam (is) now considered ‘a threat’ to national identity by almost half of French and Germans.” (Le Monde poll as cited in UK Daily Mail, 01/06/2011.)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel set the most high profile public tone of open criticism some months ago when she stated that multiculturalism (i.e., integration of immigrant groups) had “utterly failed” in Germany. In Britain, some public discussion starting in 2009 that massive immigration was a purposeful effort to forever alter the cultural makeup of the United Kingdom (that is, make it more “multicultural”) seems to show that the influx of Muslim immigrants into the UK is a component of a post-modernist, multicultural social engineering project that has utterly failed with disastrous consequences.

Rising awareness of Islamic doctrine, history, and its draconian, misogynist legal system (Sharia) in the United States is providing Americans with the foundational knowledge from which insightful questions about Islam can be formulated. The answers to these questions, more often than not, are – unpleasant, and show that the essential concepts of Islam, inclusive of submission and supremacism, to be incompatible with the US Constitution.

According to the Le Monde poll (comments on the article suggest that results would be duplicated in the UK) rising numbers of French and Germans now view Islam as a challenge to their national identities. The poll “…also found a majority in both countries believe Muslims have ‘not integrated properly.’”

If the history of jihad and Islamic expansionism are to be guides, non-Muslim citizens of France and Germany have cause for concern.

Ironically, the same day the Le Monde poll results appeared in a British newspaper the United States Constitution was read for the first time from the floor of the Senate.

The reading of the Constitution was recommended by Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia with the following by way of explanation (as if such explanation is required for the first public reading on the Senate floor of the central document of American history):

One of the resounding themes I have heard from my constituents is that Congress should adhere to the Constitution and the finite list of powers it granted to the federal government.
Kansas City Star, 01/03/2011

The limitations of federal powers and the enforcement of checks and balances are favorite themes of conservatives during this 2nd year of the Obama administration. It is correct, laudable, and understandable in our highly charged national political environment that the proper extent of federal power according to the Constitution should be so seriously considered.

While German and French poll respondents have reasonably identified Islam as a threat to their respective national identities, there appears to be little need for discussion to determine what a Frenchman or a German means when he/she talks about their “national identity.” This question: “what does it mean to be an American?” is now a central issue in the United States.

It was once widely understood that the concepts and freedoms delineated in the Constitution were the foundations upon which the country were constructed. With the post-war (WW2) advent of post-modernism and multiculturalism and a corresponding rise in national self-doubt and guilt, the proud idea of “American” now has become for too many one of confusion, dismay, self-doubt/self-disgust.

Some political observers have suggested that the reading of the Constitution on the Senate floor was a Republican right-wing “stunt.” Some members of the minority party chose to express their opinion about “the Constitution-reading stunt” by not attending the session. There has yet to be any definitive explanation provided by opposition voices as to what it is that is partisan about reading the foundational document of American politics from the Senate floor.

There are larger and more important themes than the silly “political theater” accusation (and thus dismissal of the reading). It seems a bizarre oversight on the part of all former Congresses that the Constitution had never been read aloud on the Senate floor – it ought to be read at the opening of each new Congressional session.

Charles Krauthammer in his article “Constitutionalism” rightly notes the event as the beginning of a new way of looking at ourselves as Americans – the old way.

Krauthammer suggests that a renewed focus on the central document of American political/public life by Republicans likely indicates a new national political focus on core values based around those guaranteed to the people under the Constitution. This focus on the Constitution should always be the core of conservatism.

Some liberals are already disdaining the new constitutionalism, denigrating the document’s relevance and sneering at its public recitation. They do so at their political peril. In choosing to focus on a majestic document that bears both study and recitation, the reformed conservatism of the Obama era has found itself not just a symbol but an anchor.
National Review – January 7, 2010

Until recently the Constitution was commonly understood (and appreciated) as the foundation of the concept of “American” as well as the literal core of our concepts of freedom, and government. (Since we are in the midst of the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, it should be noted that both Northerners and Confederates considered themselves Constitutionalists). Until recently the answer to “what does it mean to be an American” almost always included some or all of the following components:

• our Constitution
• our Founders
• the “melting pot”
• our individual freedoms
• our special consideration from Providence
• and the sacrifices our heroes have made throughout our history to preserve our country and protect the Constitution.

It is good that we are returning to the core concepts of what it means “to be American” especially during this time of economic, ideological, cultural, and international crises.

If our understanding, appreciation of, and linkage with the US Constitution is re-established; and we can again see ourselves (without post-modernist false doubts/guilt) within a context of historical development over time and compare our foundations and core beliefs to most any other culture and country on the planet we will know once again our own value, and the contributions we have made to the world.

Since 9/11, the growth of Islam in the United States has increased by immigration, high birth rate, and conversions. It is almost counter-intuitive that Americans would convert to a religion/political ideology whose adherents committed the atrocities of 9/11 (specifically because they were adherents of that ideology) – the largest atrocity of mass murder in American history.  We can look to Mohammed’s biography (Suna) and our own embrace of post-modernism for an answer.

The adherent of Islam who told his brother that he would decapitate him if commanded to do so by Mohammed impressed his brother so deeply with his zeal and surety that the horrified brother immediately converted to Islam. This is the very same scenario to explain the wave of post-9/11 conversions to Islam in the West.

Some people were apparently so impressed at the absolute zeal and surety of the 19 Muslim hijacker killers (rather than revolted by their cruelty, brutality, and hatred), they adopted the ideological path of the killers rather than the path of compassion for their victims.

The popular post-911 suggestion (now falling from favor) that the Muslim killers of that day had somehow “hijacked” the “religion of peace” and were not representative of it (an approach that would minimize the moral horror and inversion of converting to Islam) is not borne out by any reading of Islamic doctrine. Nor does such a view take into account the statements of those jihadists and those who followed them (both as individuals and as members of organizations/states) as they justified then and now their barbaric cruelties within an Islamic doctrinal context.

Searching for answers is a great tradition for people lucky to live in open societies, and one of our greatest freedoms. The great danger of searching is that some will find their “answers” on the wrong path.

It is good and right to look to our foundations, to the great people and ideas that created our country. If we put our national political and cultural life back on a Constitutional path – understanding that these core ideals are alive and belong to all of us and are not reserved for any particular party but for all Americans – and if we compare other ideologies and systems against our own, founded upon the standard of our Constitution, we will not find ourselves wanting.

Big Peace

This piece on the Arizona shootings and radical Islam caught my eye.  The media’s look at the Arizona shootings has been long on linking the shooter to talk radio (non-existent), conservatives (nada), and Sarah Palin (nope).  But is the media ignoring the issue of Jared Loughner and anti-semitism?  And does it mimic the way the media looks (or fail to look) at radical Islam?  Worth thinking about.  From the Jerusalem Post:

“Mainline American sources and government officials are avoiding, or treating in the most circumspect manner the issue of anti-Semitism. Police and prosecutors are staying away from the description of this as a hate crime. The New York Times website has a prominent article headlined ‘Federal Charges Cite Assassination Plan,’ which is squeaky clean of reference to ethnicity or religion.

National Public Radio’s web site reported about an FBI official who was asked about possible motives after the shooter was arraigned. The response: ‘It’s a bit too early to speculate.’

This resembles the efforts of ranking politicians to do everything they can to absolve Islam from any responsibility for terror. The distance from ethnic profiling in airports and other sensitive places insisted upon by officials concerned about security in the context of what is politically correct.

All this is understandable in the case of a society that has been multi-ethnic since its founding, and has invested the most recent half-century working to cleanse racism from its culture.

There are costs. The awkward avoiding of realities means that lots of us old folks with European faces have to go through the same screening as dusky young people with Middle Eastern accents. Those who protest efforts to boycott Israeli products or personnel do what they can to avoid accusing their opponents of anti-Semitism – and Mein Kampf is just another item on a reading list.”

Big Peace

From Fast Company (h/t Jihad Watch):

Saudi Arabia has enacted stringent new regulations forcing some bloggers to obtain government licenses and to strongarm others into registering. In addition, all Saudi news blogs and electronic news sites will now be strictly licensed, required to “include the call to the religion of Islam” and to strictly abide by Islamic sharia law. The registration and religion requirements are also being coupled with strict restrictions on what topics Saudi bloggers can write on-a development which will essentially give Saudi authorities the right to shut down blogs at their discretion.

The new regulations went into effect on January 1, 2011. 

What the new regulations center around is a legal redefinition of almost all online content created in Saudi Arabia. Blogs are now legally classified as “electronic publishing” and news blogs (the term is not explicitly defined in the Saudi law) are now subject to the same legal regulations as newspapers. All Saudi Arabia-based news blogs, internet news sites, “internet sites containing video and audio materials” and Saudi Area-created mobile phone/smartphone content will fall under the newspaper rubric as well.

Under the regulations, any operators of news blogs, mobile phone content creators or operators of news sites in Saudi Arabia have to be Saudi citizens, at least 20 years old and possess a high school degree.

At least 31% of Saudi Arabia residents do not possess citizenship; these range from South Asian migrants living in poor conditions to well-off Western oil workers. All of them will find their internet rights sharply curtailed as a result of the new regulations.

The most telling-and dangerous- detail in the new Saudi regulations is a provision requiring all news bloggers to provide the Saudi Arabian government with detailed information on their hosting company. This could easily allow the Saudi Arabian government to block access to a particular website across domains or to even force hosting companies to take dissidents’ websites offline.

Non-citizens will still be allowed to blog on non-news topics. However, all Saudi Arabian bloggers-both citizens and non-citizens-are “recommended” to register with the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Culture and Information. In addition, blogs are now defined as falling under the Saudi Press and Publications Law.

This requires all publications created in Saudi Arabia to “include the call to the religion of Islam,” not to “violate the Islamic Shari’a rulings,” or to compromise national security or “public order.”

Posters on online forums, internet users who communicate on listservs and guests in online chat rooms are also “recommended” to register with the government under the law.

While the registration process is optional, it will serve as a likely coercion tool in the case of websites or blogs targeted by Saudi authorities. The regulations strictly classify and offer a bureaucratic taxonomy for all online media in a country with one of the most extensive censorship regimes in the world.

Arabic speakers can find a copy of the new laws as a Word document provided by the Saudi Arabian government.

The Saudi Arabian government has a long history of jailing bloggers who write about politics, corruption or religion. Now the situation may even get worse. 

The story itself is evidence of the difference between a closed society and an open one.

It took twelve full days for the existence of these laws to make it to the Western media!

Any new law that is even contemplated in Western nations must go through at least somewhat of a transparent process. But this Saudi law was already on the books for nearly two weeks!

This is exactly why major human rights organizations need to be concentrating on closed societies rather than open ones. The open ones have checks and balances built in to limit the possibility of abuse. They have robust media, reasonably fair judicial systems and entire arms of the government meant to audit and check the powers of other government agencies.

But places like Saudi Arabia can crack down on basic personal freedoms without any worries. Here is a case where they did exactly that.

While Fast Company interviewed a Human Rights Watch representative on the issue, there is nothing on their site about this yet.

Elder of Ziyon

He doesn’t seem to have addressed the question of whether or not large segments of Islam are at war with us, and what the implications of that might be. He doesn’t seem to have addressed how it is that Pakistan can be a “key anti-terror ally” when it has funneled much of the money it has received from the U.S. to fight jihadists to those same jihadists. He doesn’t seem to have addressed the involvement of Pakistan’s spy service in jihad activity, including the Mumbai jihad massacre. Instead, he yet again reflected the core Obama Administration assumption (shared by many on the other side of the political fence as well) that it is incumbent upon the U.S. to reassure and mollify the Islamic world, as if the causes for the suspicion and conflict were all our fault.

“Biden tells Pakistan: ‘We are not the enemy of Islam,’” by Claire Truscott for AFP, January 12:

ISLAMABAD — US Vice President Joe Biden delivered a bold message of support for key anti-terror ally Pakistan during a trip to Islamabad Wednesday, telling the country that America is “not the enemy of Islam”….

“There are… some sections in Pakistani society and elsewhere that suggest America disrespects Islam and its followers,” Biden told reporters at the prime minister’s residence.

“We are not the enemies of Islam and we embrace those who practise that great religion in all our country,” he added.

As Biden wrapped up his visit, a suicide blast in the northwest town of Bannu killed 18 people, most of them security officers, and injured 15 in an attack claimed by the Taliban as revenge for US missile strikes in the area.

Biden said militancy in Pakistan was a threat to both countries, and he referred to the killing last week of Punjab governor Salman Taseer, who was shot dead by his bodyguard over his outspoken opposition to strict blasphemy laws.

The confessed killer has been hailed a hero by religious conservatives and rallies have been held across the country in his honour.

“Societies that applaud such actions end up being consumed by those actions,” Biden said….

US officials have announced they will fast-track part of a 7.5-billion-dollar five-year aid package to help the country recover from devastating floods last year.…

Pakistan won US praise after it mounted an offensive against homegrown Taliban extremists in the South Waziristan region in late 2009.

But a White House report to Congress in October stated bluntly that Pakistan had not confronted Afghanistan’s Taliban, in what experts see as a bid by Islamabad to preserve influence over its northern neighbour….

Yep.

Jihad Watch

The rule of Islam — that is, Sharia.

These scholars retail standard jihad doctrine about the necessity and obligation of jihad, defensive and offensive jihad, etc. I have explained these doctrines in several of my books and many, many times here at this site. These Islamic scholars confirm the truth of everything I have said about the jihad doctrine. Are they “greasy Islamophobes”? Are they Misunderstanders of Islam? Note that the Islamic spokesmen in the West who claim that what I say is false will do nothing to show that these Islamic scholars, who have dedicated their lives to studying the Qur’an and Sunnah, have gotten it all wrong, wrong, wrong — and that exposes the hollowness and hypocrisy of their critique of Jihad Watch and my books.

“Discussion About the Concept of Jihad on Pakistani Television: ‘Other Prayers Can be Postponed… But Jihad Cannot be Deferred’; ‘Muhammad Said That a Person Who Dies Not Having Waged Jihad… Is Like One Who Died in a State of Hypocrisy’; ‘It Has Been Stated Most Explicitly In The Koran… Fight Those Who Interfere With Establishing the Rule Of Allah; ‘Today, In Every Part of the World, Muslims are Being Forced to Wage Jihad in Their Own Defense,’” from MEMRI, January 11:

[…] The popular religious program Alim Online (Scholar Online) talk show, on Pakistan’s Geo TV, recently devoted an exclusive episode to the subject of jihad in Islam. The talk show featured host Dr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain, former religious affairs minister of Pakistan and Islamic scholar, journalist, politician, and physician, and two prominent Islamic scholars – Qari Mansoor Ahmad, an Islamic cleric and columnist for the Urdu-language jihadist magazine Zarb-e-Momin, and Mohammad Hanif Tayyab, former Pakistani federal minister and Islamic scholar.

As part of their discussion of the issue of jihad, the three scholars took several calls from viewers. One key point in the discussion was made by Qari Mansoor Ahmad, who said that the requirement that only the head of an Islamic state can order jihad is only one aspect of the issue; the other aspect is that Muslims are under attack and therefore are waging jihad as required by Islamic law, and ethically, in self-defense.

Following are some excerpts from the talk show, which aired in August 2010:[1]

“If the Enemy Attacks and Muslims Are Standing Against Them, and There Comes the Time Of Namaz and the Muslims Cannot Find the Time To Say That Prayer – Then Namaz Can Be Postponed; But Jihad Cannot Be Postponed”

Host Aamir Liaquat Hussain: “Aamir Liaquat Hussain is here with the Alim Online Special. There are different types of obligatory prayers in vogue in Islam, commanded by Allah the Almighty, and it is mandatory that we obey His commandments. Each prayer has its distinct feature and position, and each has its own effect. For example, the Namaz [prayer] is a great mode of worship in Islam, which is meant to imbibe the greatness of Allah the Almighty in one’s heart and mind; Zakat [Islamic tax] is meant for inculcating into one’s head and mind the spirit of chastity, sympathy, sacrifices, and serving humanity. The effect of Roza [fasting] is to gain control of sensual and carnal desires and is meant to instill tolerance and hard labor in the body. Hajj [pilgrimage to Mecca] is meant to imbibe the passion of extreme love and sacrifices for Allah, and the philosophy of reverence and love in one’s heart and mind.

“But besides all these prayers, Jihad is a great prayer, and is meant to spread the message of Allah and the rule of Islam, and to end fitna and fasad [mischief and rebellion], to establish peace and harmony throughout the world. Dear viewers, this is a prayer which has been made obligatory [for Muslims] for the sake of safeguarding all other prayers, and it works as a line of defense for all these [prayers]. That is why other prayers can be postponed for the time being, but Jihad cannot be deferred or delayed from its time and place.

“Therefore, if the enemy attacks and Muslims are standing against them, and there comes the time of Namaz and the Muslims cannot find the time to say that prayer, then Namaz can be postponed. But Jihad cannot be postponed. Because if Jihad is postponed at that time, the enemy will take that territory and in that case there would be neither Namaz nor worshipers, and no place to worship. That is why, in the war of Khandaq [Trench War], three prayers – Zuhr, Asr and Maghrib [noon, afternoon and evening prayers] – of the Prophet of both the worlds, Muhammad peace be upon him, were missed…, but Prophet Muhammad did not leave the battlefront.

“Before introducing you to our guests, let us know the meaning of Jihad first. Jihad has been derived from the word Jihd [strenuous efforts], which literally means to try, to make effort, to use strength, and to keep the struggle continuing till the goal is achieved. But according to Shari’a, Jihad means to put all efforts into fighting the enemies of Islam. And the Mujahid is the person who focuses all his efforts for the sake of Islam so that it is victorious.

“On the other hand, Allah the Almighty, in Surah Saf and Surah Tauba [two Koran chapters], said that He sent the Prophet Muhammad with the right religion, and one of the goals behind sending His Prophet was to establish the supremacy of Islam over other religions. However, Allah’s work is done by chosen ones and the righteous in all ages and in various regions.”

“Muhammad… Said That a Person Who Dies Not Having Waged Jihad, Or Never Having Wished In His Heart to Participate in Jihad, Is Like One Who Died In a State Of Hypocrisy”

“In Sahih Muslim [book of Hadith considered correct by most Muslim sects] Hazrat Jabir bin Samaira RA [May Allah be pleased with him] narrates that the Prophet of Allah, Muhammad peace be upon him, said that deen [true religion of Islam] will always remain established and that a group of Muslims would continue waging Jihad everywhere and always till the Day of Judgment. In Sunan Abu Daud [book of Hadith], Hazrat Imran bin Hussain narrates that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said that a group of people from his followers will continue fighting in the right path of Allah, and every other nation will show animosity against it, but it would prevail against them till the people from among them [i.e. Muslims] would fight against the Dajjal [Anti-Christ].

“Dear viewers, that is why there is a severe threat [by Allah] against those who do not crave Jihad in their heart. According to the Sahih Muslim, Hazrat Abu Hurairah RA narrates that Muhammad PBUH [peace be upon him] said that a person who dies not having waged Jihad, or never having wished in his heart to participate in Jihad, is like one who died in a state of hypocrisy. Hazrat Abu Umama RA narrates that Prophet Muhammad PBUH said that such people who did not fight in Jihad and did not contribute in making arrangements for Jihadis, and also did not care for the families of those who are waging Jihad – Allah would give them very harsh difficulty before the Day of Judgment.

“According to Tirmizi and Ibn-e-Maja [both books of Hadith], Hazrat Abu Hurairah RA narrates that Prophet Muhammad PBUH said that when a person meets Allah on the Day of Judgment in a condition that he had no sign of Jihad on him, he is like a person who is with some defect insofar as the religious point of view is considered. On the other hand, those who participate in Jihad are guaranteed exemption from the hellfire.

“In Sahih Bukhari [the most prominent book of Hadith] Hazrat Abu Abas RA narrates that Prophet Muhammad PBUH said that a person whose feet were covered in dirt in the path of Allah would have his feet untouched by the hellfire. Apart from this, Allah the Sustainer has called the drop of blood shed in His path by a momin [faithful Muslim] His most beloved thing. So, according to Tirmizi, Hazrat Abu Umama narrates that Prophet Muhammad PBUHC said that Allah loves two drops and two marks very much – one is the teardrop which comes from fearing Allah, and the second is the drop of blood by a man in His path [i.e. Jihad]. One of these two marks is a cut wound received in the path of Allah, and the second is the one borne in performing any of the obligations ordered by Allah, such as the mark on the forehead created by prostration in Namaz. The only ones who can achieve all these distinction are those who want to please Allah with true intentions…” […]

“Now we have to understand one basic thing here: that we have people with two different viewpoints regarding Jihad. One of them doesn’t accept the importance of Jihad altogether. [I] don’t know who they are. They don’t have any craving for Jihad in their hearts, but call Jihad terrorism, under the influence of the Western media. They, in the line of Hadith, are following the line of hypocrites. The second category is those who do not place Jihad in its just and right place; they don’t maintain its rules, regulations and terms, and they keep creating trouble on earth and shed the blood of innocent people through suicide attacks to achieve their just or unjust goals – even going so far as to record a video before suicide attacks and to release their tapes after the attacks. Such people are not likely to get any benefit as far the sayings of the Prophet go; on the contrary, their work will be a burden for them [on the Day of Judgment]. […]

Caller: “This is Ehteshamul Haq calling from Karachi. I would like to ask two questions related to today’s program. First, who gives the call for Jihad in an Islamic state? Is it the ruler of the time or any group can give the call? And my second question, what is the difference between Jihad and terrorism, please elaborate on this.”

Qari Mansoor Ahmad: “First, I would like to thank you for inviting me on this program. And whatever you said about Jihad in your introduction of Jihad in the beginning of the program represents not only our views but also the views of all the Muslims in the world. In fact, Jihad is essentially one of the greatest orders of Allah, and it is extremely necessary for safeguarding Islam and its very existence (Talk show host interjects: ‘True.’) My brother has asked whether the ruler of an Islamic state has the authority to give the order for Jihad or can any other person do this. “In my opinion, it would be better if the Islamic concept of Jihad is explained, so that it is easier [to make the point clear] later.

“It is accepted throughout the world that the powerful institution, be it a person or a group or an organization or the parliament, has the authority to make law. It is accepted throughout the world. And if anyone goes against it, then the person or group or organization makes him obey his writ. If we expand our viewpoint, then we may ask who is the real ruler of this universe, who possesses it? The rulers of the world don’t have the full authority over their country or nation. They are made ruler by the people. And Allah is the real Lord, Ruler and King. He has the power and the authority. When He is the Lord of this Earth and the whole universe, then the authority to make law and its implementation remains in His hands alone.”

“One Thing Should Be Clear to All of Us: The Law of Allah Should Be Followed in This World, and the Muslims Are Responsible for Its Implementation… It Has Been Stated Most Explicitly In the Koran… Fight Those Who Interfere With Establishing the Rule Of Allah”

Qari Mansoor Ahmad [continues]: “Allah would like His laws to rule this world. The Koran says: An order is from Allah only. To govern this land in accordance with His law, He sent His last Prophet [Muhammad] and also gave His law, which the Koran calls Islam. And He made His Prophet responsible for the implementation of His laws, and also gave him the responsibility of its supremacy. And this responsibility was transferred through Prophet Muhammad PBUH to his followers.

“In other words, we can say that the establishment and implementation of the law of Allah on this earth is, in fact, the responsibility of Muslims. And, in practical terms, the ruler does not go into the battlefield to ensure that his law is followed. But his responsibility is carried out by the police and the military and administrative institutions in this world today on his behalf. And those who challenge the law of the land are not accepted anywhere in this world, no concession is made with them.

“One thing should be clear to all of us: The law of Allah should be followed in this world, and the Muslims are responsible for its implementation. The next point is whether Allah has told us the ways and means to implement His laws, or has he left it to us [to decide]? In Surah Fatah, Surah Saf and Surah Tauba [Koran chapters], three verses have been revealed with similar wording, which says: ‘He is the one who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad, peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islamic monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religions.’ In other words, Allah has entrusted this responsibility upon His Messenger to make His religion victorious over other religions. On three occasions this has been said [in the Koran], with similar wordings which emphasize its importance.

“Secondly, what would be the means to achieve it? Should it be decided through consultation or through interpretations? No, if Allah has entrusted such a big responsibility, he has also shown us the way to achieve it. And there are two occurrences about it in the Koran, in two different places – one in Surah Baqrah and second in Surah Anfal [Koran chapters]; [Qari Mansoor Ahmad recites Koranic verses] If we want to end the mischief and disobedience in this world, and want peace and harmony established, and want none remaining to challenge the writ of Allah, and want the law of Allah, which is the guarantee of all comfort, peace, and harmony for the whole world, to be victorious – then it is necessary to fight those who create obstacles in the path of, or challenge the writ of Allah.

“The Koran’s diction states the important things in the most explicit and easy way, so as to make it clear – although people may take many literal meanings of Jaheduhum – to strive, to make an effort, to try – in other meanings, but it has been stated most explicitly in the Koran. In this regard, it has been said most explicitly and in such a way that no other meaning can be attached to it, except to fight those who interfere with establishing the rule of Allah.”

“[Another Form is] Defensive Jihad; It is Common Sense… as An Ethical Norm, That If Someone Attacks You and Occupies Your Land… Anyone is Entitled to Defend Himself”

Talk show host Aamir Liaquat Hussain [interjects]: “You have given a good explanation [of Jihad], but the part of the question asked is, who is authorized to do it…”

Qari Mansoor Ahmad: “I am just coming to that point. When we go out to implement this law [of Allah], there should be an organization, some people, a group, and power behind it. When we attack or advance and try to implement the writ [of Allah] worldwide, there should be some authority, some power behind it. And we advance on the basis of that power and ask and invite people towards that writ and make them accept it. Certainly, an Emir or a ruler, who has the authority to implement, is needed for that. This is one aspect [of Jihad]. This is when Muslims of the world advance for the implementation of the writ of Allah in different parts of the world.

“The second aspect of Jihad is the defensive one; we might call it defensive Jihad. It is common sense and a common phenomenon throughout the world, and is accepted worldwide as universal truth, as an ethical norm, that if someone attacks you and occupies your land and your houses, disgraces you… and is hell-bent on cutting your father’s throat, then anyone is entitled to defend himself. In such a case, there is no condition that he must wait for someone to give an order. He would not wait until the next day to ask a Mufti or an Alim [scholar] what Islam says about it, whether it is an individual attacker or a group of attackers (Talk show host interjects: ‘It is obvious that he would defend himself.’)

“The situation in today’s world is commonly of a defensive nature (Talk show host interjects: ‘At present, defensive Jihad is being waged.’) Today, wherever Muslims are, they are waging defensive Jihad, and there is no condition for it. A nation, a land, a country has been attacked, the honor of people is at risk, their blood is being shed, their houses have been looted, they have none to come to their aid, their country has been turned into debris, there is none to care for them (Talk show host interjects: ‘For example, Palestine…’) like the situation in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya, (Talk show host interjects: ‘Kashmir.’) and in Kashmir. There is no need to wait for any fatwa [decree] or for any other condition, it is even beyond reasoning.

“And it goes the same in Islam too… It comes into the sayings of the Prophet. The Prophet Muhammad PBUH was asked, if someone tries to snatch my belongings, what should I do? Should I defend myself, and in doing so, what if I kill that person? The Prophet said, you have the right, and it would not be a sin. He asked, and if I got killed, the Prophet said then you are a martyr. If a person fights for the sake of his personal belongings, risks his life for that, and does not hesitate even to kill, if the Muslim community is faced with such a situation, then there would be no condition to wait for an order [to wage jihad].” […]

There is much, much more. Read it all.

Jihad Watch

By Hisham

Blogger and lawyer Ibn Kafka gives an insight into the legal dispositions provided by the Moroccan law [Fr] to protect cults and religions, other than Sunni Islam, the Maliki rite of which is officially adopted as State religion.

Global Voices in English

Pamela Geller shows here that the would-be assassin in Arizona is actually a Leftist, but when have the facts ever stopped the Leftist/Islamic supremacist smear machine? Mainstream media operatives are leaping to conclusions about conservative responsibility for the Giffords shooting, showing none of the delicacy and compunction they showed when refusing to label the obvious jihad massacre at Fort Hood accurately as just that. Here Lachlan Markay skewers their dhimmi double standard: “Media Falsely Blame Palin for Giffords Shooting, But Refused to Talk Islam At Ft. Hood,” by Lachlan Markay for Newsbusters, January 9:

The colossal double standard revealed in the past 24 hours at CNN is a microcosm of the larger media reaction to the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords yesterday. In short, the reporters jumping at the chance to use the shooting to score points against conservatives would in all likelihood be demanding patience and temperance if the potential for political cheap shots weren't available.

The Washington Examiner's Byron York recalled CNN's reaction to the Fort Hood shooting in a post Sunday. The cable channel "became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care."

The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

"We cannot jump to conclusions," said CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. "We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever."

"I'm on Pentagon chat room," said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting. "Right now, there's messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam."

The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." In the days that followed, CNN jouralists [sic] and guests repeatedly echoed the president's remarks.

"We can't jump to conclusions," Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8. The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a "transparent" investigation into the shootings "so the American people don't jump to conclusions." And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN's John Roberts was quick to intervene. "Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions," Roberts said to Hoekstra. "By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?"

In stark contrast to that reaction, here's how York sums up CNN's coverage of the burgeoning story in Tuscon:

After reporting that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had condemned what Dupnik called "the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," CNN's Wolf Blitzer turned to congressional reporter Jessica Yellin for analysis. The sheriff "singled out some of the political rhetoric, as you point out, in creating the environment that allowed this kind of instance to happen," Yellin told Blitzer. "Even though, as you point out, this suspect is not cooperating with investigators, so we don't know the motive. President Obama also delivered that message, saying it's partly the political rhetoric that led to this. So that's why we want to bring up one of the themes that's burning up the social media right now. On Twitter and Facebook, there is a lot of talk, in particular, about Sarah Palin. As you might recall, back in March of last year, when the health care vote was coming to the floor of the House and this was all heating up, Palin tweeted out a message on Twitter saying 'common sense conservatives, don't retreat — instead reload.' And she referred folks to her Facebook page. On that Facebook page was a list of Democratic members she was putting in crosshairs, and Gabrielle Giffords was one of those in the crosshairs."

Blaming Palin has become the media refrain of choice, despite the preponderance of evidence cited both at NewsBusters and elsewhere that Giffords's shooter was (a) crazy, and (b) of the radical left (to the extent that he had coherent political views).

NewsBusters also reported on CNN's eagerness to assign blame for the shooting on conservatives. It took mere minutes for them to find a few liberals to parrot boilerplate attacks against conservatives – devoid of any evidence, mind you, and before CNN could possibly have known the facts surrounding the shooting.

But not only did CNN and its guests urge viewers not to "jump to conclusions" after the Fort Hood shooting, in one segment, the channel went so far as to misquote an Army private – a victim of and eyewitness to the shooting – in order to cast doubt on his recollection that Major Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire….

Jihad Watch

The colossal double standard revealed in the past 24 hours at CNN is a microcosm of the larger media reaction to the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords yesterday. In short, the reporters jumping at the chance to use the shooting to score points against conservatives would in all likelihood be demanding patience and temperance if the potential for political cheap shots weren't available.

The Washington Examiner's Byron York recalled CNN's reaction to the Fort Hood shooting in a post Sunday. The cable channel "became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care."

read more

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

The colossal double standard revealed in the past 24 hours at CNN is a microcosm of the larger media reaction to the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords yesterday. In short, the reporters jumping at the chance to use the shooting to score points against conservatives would in all likelihood be demanding patience and temperance if the potential for political cheap shots weren't available.

The Washington Examiner's Byron York recalled CNN's reaction to the Fort Hood shooting in a post Sunday. The cable channel "became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care."

read more

NewsBusters.org blogs

What does the Ft. Hood massacre, and Saturday’s Arizona massacre have in common? Almost nothing.

With Ft. Hood, an open islamist gunned down dozens in an attack he all but said he was going to launch, and the best the Left could do was blame America’s love of guns while preaching that we cannot rush to judgment. To this day apologists on the left still will not bring themselves to conclude that Major Hasan was a Jihad terrorist animated by radical Islam.

On the other hand, the blood hasn’t even been mopped up yet in Tucson, and disgusting opportunists on the Left have already declared the Arizona massacre an official act of the Tea Party:

DISGRACEFUL: Krugman Blames GOP For “Attempted Assassination” Today (Before We Found Out He’s a Leftwinger)

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Blames AZ “Prejudice & Bigotry” for Shooting (Video)

Yes, that’s right. The very same people who cannot figure out what animated Major Hasan al Jihad, have swiftly concluded that the lunatic who murdered 6 people Saturday was motivated by the Tea Party.

Funny how that works. The Tea Party is afforded less benefit of the doubt than radical Islam!

Big Government

Where are the Moderate Muslim voices speaking up to say these Somali Muslims are getting Islam all wrong, wrong, wrong?

Sharia Alert from Somalia: isn’t it great that Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange made Oklahoma safe for Sharia? “Somali Islamists ban men, women from shaking hands,” from AP, January 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — Al-Qaida-linked militants in war-torn southern Somalia have banned unrelated men and women from shaking hands, speaking or walking together in public, residents said Saturday. People who break the rules could be imprisoned, whipped or even executed.

The insurgents already have banned women from working in public, leaving many mothers with a terrible choice: risk execution by going to sell some tea or vegetables in the marketplace, or stay safely at home and watch the children slowly starve.

“It’s an awful rule. I feel like I’m under arrest. I’ve started to ignore the greetings of the women I know to avoid punishment,” Hussein Ali said by phone form [sic] the southern Somali town of Jowhar. The edict is also being enforced in the town of Elasha.

Gunmen are searching buses for improperly dressed women or women traveling alone, said student Hamdi Osman in Elasha. She said she was once beaten for wearing Somali traditional dress instead of the long, shapeless black robes favored by the fighters.

The Islamists’ insistence that women wear the long, heavy robes also forces many women to stay at home because they can’t afford the new clothing….

The insurgents even control parts of the capital, brazenly carrying out amputations, whippings and stonings in public places. The list of forbidden things differs from town to town and commander to commander.

In Jowhar, the insurgents are now also insisting that men grow their beards but shave their mustaches, said another resident, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution.

The Islamists have also banned the cinema, music, and bras because they say they are all un-Islamic. Such restrictions are influenced by foreign fighters practicing Wahhabi Islam, which is much stricter than Somalia’s traditional Sufi Islam that incorporates a long tradition of poetry and song.

“The last time I listened a song or music, was two years ago, before the insurgents managed the full control of my village,” said Bile Hassan. Now, he says, even the memory of music makes him feel afraid.

Progress!

Jihad Watch

How does the Islam of Muslims in America differ from that of Hafiz Sajid Anwar, such that they have no problem with secularism, i.e., the separation of religion and the state? Maybe Honest Ibe Hooper or the oily Feisal Abdul Rauf would be so kind as to explain. But I won’t be holding my breath. “No room for secularism in Pakistan as Islam is its sole identity: Jama’at-e-Islami,” from ANI, January 8:

Lahore, Jan 8: Islam is Pakistan’s sole identity, and there is no room for secularism and its believers in this country, Jama’at-e-Islami deputy Secretary General Hafiz Sajid Anwar has said.

Addressing the congregation at Mansoora mosque, Anwar said that a Muslim could not tolerate blasphemy of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), The Nation reports.

Even Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik had told media persons that if someone committed blasphemy in his presence, he would shoot him to death, he added.

Anwar exhorted the rulers to learn a lesson from Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer’s assassination, as none of the official Khatibs and Imams was ready to lead his funeral prayer.

On Tuesday, Taseer was assassinated by Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, one of his own elite security force protectors, who opened fire on him because of the governor’s support for the release of Pakistani-Christian woman Asia Bibi, who has been sentenced to death on blasphemy charges.

There was consensus of the Ummah that blasphemy of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was punishable by death, said Anwar, adding that Taseer publicly sympathised with the blasphemer woman, expressed full support to her and promised her clemency, and all this was unbecoming of his high office.

He said that Asia Bibi had been convicted by a law court and not by any mufti or cleric, and that Taseer had been issuing statements in violation of the country’s constitution, the Quran and the Sunnah, which gave the impression of his anti-Islamic views and finally led to his assassination.

He also demanded the immediate release of the relatives of Mumtaz Qadri, the bodyguard who shot Taseer at least 17 times before surrendering.

Addressing another congregation at Syed Maudoodi Institute mosque, JI leader Hafiz Muhammad Idrees said that Taseer’s murder should be an eye opener for the other rulers who were clamouring against the Blasphemy Law.

Referring to Malik’s statement that he would shoot down a blasphemer, Idrees asked what crime Mumtaz Qadri had committed.

He advised the anti-Islam elements in the country to stop attacks on the religion, and study it thoroughly. The western powers could cow down the Muslim rulers but not the Muslim masses, he added.

Jihad Watch

These people could be murdered, for that is the traditional penalty for apostasy in Islamic law.

Islamic apologists in the U.S. routinely deny that Islamic law mandates that apostates from Islam be murdered.

“Rev. Lorenz is then quoted in a local television station report saying that if a Muslim leaves his religion and does not return to Islam in a couple of days, then he must be killed. He claims that someone showed him the verse. There is no such verse, Rev. Lorenz. In every faith, apostasy is shunned but ultimate judgment is left to God, not people.” — Salam al-Marayati

“A Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law.” — M. Cherif Bassiouni

“It becomes really difficult, in light of this information, to persuasively argue that Islamic Law should permit a death penalty for apostasy.” — Ali Eteraz

Unfortunately for the apostates, the facts are otherwise.

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam and supreme example of conduct for the Muslim (cf. Qur’an 33:21), said: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9.84.57)

The Tafsir al-Qurtubi, a classic and thoroughly mainstream exegesis of the Qur’an, says this about Qur’an 2:217: “Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say that they are asked to repent and, if they do not, they are killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say that they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik. Al-Hasan said they are asked a hundred times. It is also said that they are killed without being asked to repent.”

All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that a sane adult male who leaves Islam must be killed. They have some disagreements about what must he done with other types of people who leave Islam, but they have no disagreement on that.

“Christians arrested in Iran,” from UPI, January 7 (thanks to Amil Imani):

TEHRAN, Jan. 7 (UPI) — Amid widespread outrage over Christian persecution, Iranian authorities said they arrested dozens of Christians who had converted from Islam.

Tehran Gov. Morteza Tamadon said Iranian Christians were arrested during the Christmas holiday for converting from Islam or trying to convert others to Christianity.

“Just like the Taliban, who have inserted themselves into Islam like a parasite, (evangelicals) have crafted a movement in the name of Christianity,” he was quoted by Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency as saying….

An Iranian evangelical group in Canada, the Journal notes, claims plainclothes security guards stormed Christian households during the Christmas season looking for religious items….

Jihad Watch

From Translating Jihad:

Hamad ‘Abd-al-Samad: I Consider Islam Part of the Problem in the Islamic World

masrawy.com, 6 Jan 2011, (link to Arabic)

What would the world lose if the Islamic nations disappeared from the map? Almost nothing, says Hamad ‘Abd-al-Samad, and he adds that the Islamic world has stopped innovating, and become a burden on the civilized nations. Indeed it has become a breeding ground for intolerance and violence. The researcher at the University of Munich says in his book, which was published in German and Arabic under the title “The Fall of the Islamic World,” that the Muslims are fixed on the past, and are unable to answer the difficult questions of the future. Therefore they flee to the successes of a glorious past.”

The book has caused serious controversy since its release in Germany, between those who accuse ’Abd-al-Samad of disseminating and establishing stereotypes, and those who consider him a “brave writer” who has placed his finger on the problem for many people, calling on Muslims to take charge of the reform of their own societies. In this book, ’Abd-al-Samad considers Islam a part of the problem in the Islamic world, and he looks at the Qur’an as a stumbling block in the way of Muslim development, due to the enormous influence the text of the Qur’an has over Muslims. The author has received a number of death threats, and also received accusations that he-the son of an imam of a mosque in the Egyptian countryside-is swimming in the current of hostility to Islam and Muslims. […]

In another article, possibly based on the same interview which seems to have been done by Deutsche Welle, he says “that the Islamic world will collapse, and is expected to fall during the decades after the oil runs out and the desertification of parts of it occur due to climate change.”

Tweet

Elder of Ziyon