Muslims Behaving Badly

Isn’t it astonishing that the same people who ranted and raved and marched over Israel’s response to years of terrorism from Gaza, remain silent over the atrocities in Saudi Arabia?

Imagine that the following item involved Israel. I’m sure we can all imagine the furore that would follow. No doubt Annie Lennox would appear on our screens, and the Guardian would spash the story across the front page. Oh, and the BBC would be sure to wade in as well.

But precisely because this travesty is set to occur in a nation other than Israel, the aforementioned parties are, well, distinctly disinterested. Never mind that barbarism like this happens in Islamic nations on a regular basis.

Muslims behaving badly isn’t news, you see .

Via The Australian:

HUMAN rights watchdog Amnesty International has called on Saudi Arabia to stay a sentence of 40 lashes handed down against a 75-year-old woman for breaching the kingdom’s sex segregation rules.

“The minister of the interior (Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz) is reported to have ordered the immediate detention and flogging of a 75-year-old woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, along with two Saudi Arabian men known only as Fahad and Hadyan,” the London-based watchdog said.

“The Saudi Arabian authorities must not carry out the imminent flogging and imprisonment of an elderly woman and two younger men.”

Amnesty said all avenues of appeal had been exhausted in Saudi courts against the trio’s March conviction for being in the company of members of the opposite sex who were not close relatives.

“It is abhorrent that an elderly woman is at risk of 40 lashes,” said the deputy director of the watchdog’s Middle East and North Africa Program, Philip Luther.
“We urge the authorities to prevent the imprisonment and flogging of Khamisa, Fahad and Hadyan.”

Sawadi and Fahad were sentenced to 40 lashes and four months’ imprisonment, and Hadyan to 60 lashes and six months’ imprisonment, Amnesty said.

Sawadi also faces deportation to her native Syria on completion of her prison term.

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict version of Islamic sharia law and imposes corporal punishment for a wide variety of offences.

Sharia Courts In Britain – Ruling Against British Law?

Eighty-five Sharia Courts are issuing private rulings that contradict British law, claims a new report. Independent think tank Civitas has issued this warning with regard to the Muslim courts that rule on things including child custody, polygamy and marriage.

Given that under Islamic laws, women have few rights, there is rising concern about these Sharia Courts. They meet behind closed doors and apparently don’t maintain any form of records.

Sharia courts have existed in Britain since 2007, primarily in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester. The courts’ rulings are legally binding under the 1996 Arbitration Act, on condition that  both parties are happy touse them, and as long as their decisions do not contradict British law.

But the Arbitration Act specifically excludes rulings on divorce and child-care cases.  Now Civitas notes that many  Sharia courts are exceeding the original mandate.

“Some of these courts are advising illegal actions,” said the report’s author, Denis MacEoin, a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic studies. “And others transgress human rights standards.”

Last year, the House Of Lords ruled in one case that Sharia law ‘is wholly incompatible’ with human rights legislation.

In this case, British law  prevented the deportation of a woman whose child would have been removed and placed with an abusive father under sharia law in Lebanon.

As he could not gain access to the actual Sharia courts,  MacEoin has  had to examine online fatwas ( religious decrees) issued by websites run by British mosques. He says:

Among the rulings … we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts.

Here are some examples: A Muslim woman may not under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam; such a woman’s children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man.

Also, polygamous marriage ( two to four wives) is considered legal … a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce … sharia law must override the judgments of British courts …

…taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law … a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia …

a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent (which may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden … a woman may not retain custody of her child after 7 (for a boy) or 9 (for a girl) …

fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty ….”

Neil Addison, an expert on the law as it applies to religion, says:

“About two thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal.  A woman in this type of marriage would have to submit to sharia law for a divorce proceeding. But it’s not the way arbitration is supposed to work.”

Some people argue that Sharia courts are the same as the Jewish Rabbinical courts, the Beth Din.

But Addison begs to differ:

“The beth din acknowledge that ‘the law of the land is the law,’ and a rabbi cannot perform a synagogue marriage ceremony unless a registrar is present to simultaneously register the marriage under English law.”

Several newspapers have carried stories of how, for instance, Sharia courts have arranged for fees of up to ten thousand pounds to go to youths attacked by Muslims, to avoid  any legal action on the part of the victim.

Now, I ask you: can you imagine the reaction if either Jews, or Christians or indeed any other religious group behaved in this manner?

Christians would be lambasted in the media if they ever sought to buy victims’ silence. Similarly, we all can envisage the slurs that would fly if the Jewish Rabbinical courts went around bribing people to avoid the courts!

But when it is the Muslim community doing it, well, that’s just fine, apparently.

It seems to me – and indeed to most sane people, I’m guessing – that the issue is a clear one. If a person – of any faith – wishes to live in Britain, they must abide by British law. It’s not complicated. It really isn’t.

Thus Muslim women have every right to wear the niqab or the burkha – in Muslim countries.

And if Muslim families wish to buy the silence of victims of their relatives’ aggression, then again – fine, in Muslim countries.

But here, in Britain, we already have an albeit flawed legal system and all people should be equal under the law. After all, isn’t this premise at the heart of  democracy…?

Answering The Apologists For Islam

Those who seek to justify Islamic terrorism, often do so by stating that both Judaism and Christianity also have violent histories. Islam, they insist, is being ‘unfairly’ singled out, even though the other Abrahamic faiths are also inherently violent.

The two favourite and increasingly weary examples offered are the slaying by the Hebrews of the Canaanites (Judaism) and the bloody crimes of the Crusades (Christianity).

And this tactic by apologists for Islamic terrorism often works. It helps shore up the pervasive yet false premise that Islam is ‘just like other religions’.  Or, to put it another way: it is not Islam that causes Islamic terrorism, but rather human nature.

One of the best responses I’ve read to this apologist tactic, comes courtesy of writer and expert on radical Islam, Raymond Ibrahim. Here is what he says on the issue of whether Judaism and Christianity also promote violence in the same manner as Islam (emphasis is mine):

“Such questions reveal a great deal of confusion between history and theology, between the temporal actions of men and the immutable words of G-d. The fundamental error being that Jewish andChristian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands violence.

Of course all religions have had their fair share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by G-d or whether warlike man merely wished it thus is the all-important question.

The Israelites’ violence is an interesting case in point. G-d clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of G-d’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Tanakh is just that—history. It happened; G-d commanded it.

But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e. the Halakha).

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Tanakh —commanded by G-d and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e. the Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Koranic verses:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the pagans wherever you find them—take them [captive], besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (9:5).

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [i.e. Islamic law], nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [i.e. Islam], from the people of the book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued (9:29).

As with Tanakh  verses where G-d  commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, these Koranic verses also have a historical context. Allah (through Muhammad) first issued these commandments after the Arab tribes had finally unified under the banner of Islam and were preparing to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors.

But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Tanakh  these so-called “sword-verses” subsequently became fundamental to Islam’s relationship to both the “people of the book” (i.e. Christians and Jews) and the “pagans” (i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc).

In fact, based on the sword-verses (as well as countless other Koranic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), Islam’s scholars, sheikhs, muftis, imams, and qadis throughout the ages have all reached the consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world, until the former subsumes the latter. (It is widely held that the sword-verses alone have abrogated some 200 of the Koran’s more tolerant verses.)

Famous Muslim scholar and “father of modern history” Ibn Khaldun articulates the dichotomy between jihad and defensive warfare thus:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [i.e. jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...

The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people.

That is why the Israeilites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g. a “caliphate”]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations]…

But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations (The Muqudimmah, vol. 1 pg. 473, emphasis added).

Even when juxtaposed to their Jewish and Christian counterparts, the Islamic sword-verses are distinctive for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay non-believers today no less than yesterday.

G-d commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did G-d  give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their descendants the Jews, to fight and kill gentiles.

On the other hand, though Islam’s original enemies were, like Judaism’s, historical (e.g. Christian Byzantines and pagan Persians), the Koran rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—“until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” (9:5).

The two conjunctions “until” and “wherever” demonstrate the perpetual nature of these commandments: there are still “people of the book” who have yet to be “utterly subdued” (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “pagans” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).

Aside from the divine words of the Koran, Muhammad’s pattern of behavior—his “Sunna” or “example”—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]” (33:21).

And Muhammad’s pattern of conduct vis-à-vis non-Muslims is quite explicit. Sarcastically arguing against the concept of “moderate” Islam, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world’s support per a recent al-Jazeera poll, portrays the prophet’s Sunna thus:

“Moderation” is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women” (from The Al-Qaeda Reader).

In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad’s Sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50, etc.).

While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though recorded in the Tanakh  never went on to be part of Jewish law. Neither Abraham’s “white-lies,” nor Jacob’s perfidy, nor Moses’ short-fuse, nor David’s adultery, nor Solomon’s philandering ever went on to instruct Jews. They were merely understood to be historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by G-d for their less than ideal behavior.“

And regarding the Crusades, Raymond Ibrahim points out:

“In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades ironically help better explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings—indeed, in the case of these so-called “Christian” Crusades, despite them—man is truly predisposed to violence and intolerance. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved—who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder non-believers?“

Read more of Raymond Ibrahim’s excellent articles here

Muslim Chef Accuses Police Of ‘Religious Discrimination’ – Because He Was Asked To Cook Pork

Have you heard the latest from Dhimmiland UK?

A Muslim chef is suing Britain’s largest police force, claiming he suffered religious discrimination –  because he was asked to cook bacon and pork sausages for breakfast.

Hasanali Khoja is due to put his case against the Metropolitan Police before an employment tribunal. The ten day hearing begins tomorrow.

And Mr Khoja’s case is being supported by the Assocation Of Muslim Police and also the National Black Police Assocation. Khoja insists that he was refused permission to avoid handling pork, while working as a catering manager at a West London police HQ.

Personally, I think columnist Richard Littlejohn sums it up rather well: “There are some stories which are so preposterous on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.

“Whoever heard of a chef being excused pork? Naturally, he now wants a large sum of money by way of compensation. The Met has a long and undistinguished record of grovelling to this kind of opportunist bullying.

“What astonishes me is that he ever applied for a job cooking for policemen in the first place. What, precisely, did he think they serve up in a police canteen – vegetarian samosas?”

Funny how you never hear of British Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, or Pagans kicking up a fuss and howling about ‘religious discrimination’, isn’t it? But then, members of these faiths don’t have a nasty and frankly duplicitous habit of freely choosing to work in a SECULAR arena, then protesting when their RELIGIOUS sensibilities are offended.

The case should be slung out of court. Of course, this being Britain, no doubt the chef will win, be paid damages, and then laugh all the way to the Mosque.

Some people have suggested that the whole thing looks like a set up. I can’t disagree.   This man knew that, at some point, he’d be required to handle pork. Yet he took the job despite this – no doubt biding his time. Now he’s set to be rewarded for this deceit.

And where are all the dissenting cries from other British Muslims…?  Oh, silly me. There aren’t any. All of the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims seem to vanish the very second their voices most need to be heard.

Muslim Scholar: ‘Jews Are The Cause Of All The Pigs In The World’

This would be laughable if not for the fact that millions of Muslims will believe it. A new edict just published in Egypt has announced that the source of all the world’s pigs is – get this – Jews.

Yep. Jews – the very people who don’t consume pork – are the cause of the world’s pig population.

Well, glad we cleared that up…

The new edict was issued by Sheikh Ali Osman, a religious scholar from the Egyptian Waqf ministry, who stated that Jews are ‘cursed by Allah’, hence the appearance of all the pigs.

Due to their ‘jewish roots’, pigs are fair game and can be slaughtered, according to Sheikh Osman. Oh, and he adds that this accounts for why Islam bans pork, as well.

Some scholar.  Judaism was, as most  folk know, the first faith to declare that pork must not be eaten. The same prohibition is present in Islam purely because old Mohammed nicked a fair few things from Judaism!

There have already been claims from some Muslims that Jews are the ’cause’ of Swine Flu. But then, are any of us surprised at this lunacy? After all, Let’s Blame The Jews has been a favoured Muslim game throughout history.

Islam: Not Like Other Faiths

All faiths have their share of fruitcakes.

Christianity had the Crusaders. Judaism has produced a few raving Rabbis. And Scientology has…….well, Tom Cruise…

Then there’s Islam. A faith that actually orders its followers to set up Sharia law and Islamic rule in non Islamic states. A faith that tells its members that hey, it’s fine to lie to non Muslims; it doesn’t count! A faith that exhorts its acolytes to kill ‘infidels’ and that to die in service to Allah is a good thing, a noble thing.

No. Islam is inherently different to other faiths.

And if more of us don’t wake up to this reality pretty soon, we may learn more about life as a dhimmi than we bargained for.

For across the globe, the voice of the infidel – the non Muslim – is growing weaker.

Take Britain. Ten years ago, the Brits laughed when Iran issued a fatwah on author Salman Rushdie.

Then in 2006, the row exploded over the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. At first, the Brits chuckled. Oh, those mad Muslims! Getting all upset over a drawing! The Brits rolled their eyes and cracked jokes about it.

They soon stopped smiling when 10,000 Muslims took to the streets, going beserk at the mere idea of the cartoons being published:

The Brits hadn’t anticipated such rage:

So the British media gave in to this mass temper tantrum on the part of the Muslim community – and didn’t run the Mohammed cartoons.

And it’s been a case of placating British Muslims ever since. Now, in 2009, there are parts of the country labelled as ‘ no go’ for non Muslims. And in other towns, the Islamic calls to prayer can be heard echoing through the streets, five times daily from local Mosques.

Even police dogs must now wear little booties if entering a Mosque or home of a devout Muslim, as bare footed dogs have ‘offended’ some in the Islamic community.

Across Europe, it’s the same story. And woe betide any non Muslims who dare to speak out – they are instantly branded as ‘islamophobic’. In several countries, Islamists have issued death threats against infidels who have dared to challenge the religion. Some of those threats were carried out.

Of course, there are also many moderate Muslims who are unhappy about what radical Islamic groups are getting up to. But they need to shout so much more loudly for us to hear them above the racket coming from the extremists.

Meanwhile, we, the infidels, must speak up.

Let’s face it, if we don’t, nobody else is going to!