Symposium: Hate Behind the Niqab
By Frontpagemag.com
What impulses engender the desire to cover a woman with a full black body covering -- with only a small slit opening for the eyes? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel.
...
The word, niqaab (sing.) and nuqub (pl.) in its Arabic root means to bore, to pierce, to make a hole. The sexual nature of the root should be apparent. In Hebrew and Aramaic the same root meaning exists. In Modern Hebrew there is the word nikBA, which means ‘tunnel’ and more importantly, the very word for ‘female’, nekeVA comes from this root. Yet today there is no veiling remotely comparable to what is going on within the global umma.
...
The veil is about control/domination vis-à-vis submission of the female and her subjugation. The headscarf is the beginning of the slippery slope of subjugation that slides into the burqa and/or the niqab. Because it is such a sexually repressed culture, men shroud the female to avoid being sexually aroused by her essence. When exposed they feel not only highly aroused, but threatened and vulnerable, an emotional state not to be tolerated in Islam except in the presence of Allah. (personal communication, J. Lachkar)
...
When a woman is deprived of any worthiness by her religion such as the case with Islam's, she hangs on any symbols which give her respect in her society as a good woman. There is a saying in the Arabic world to a woman: "Allah Yustur Alaiki" May Allah cover your shame. Her existence as she is created by God is shameful and needs to be covered first by a veil then by a husband. The Niqab is the answer to that prayer.
...
Muhammad’s first wife Khadijah was a business lady, the richest woman of Arabia. There is no evidence to suggest she wore any form of veil during her lifetime. The same is true for Muhammad’s other wives, until Muhammad forced them to be covered in niqab, ostensibly mandated by Allah in a few verses in the Koran.
So why did Muhammad inflict this form of sartorial oppression on Muslim women? To know the reason we need to read the hadiths. The chief cause of veiling of Muhammad’s wives and the Muslim women in general is ingrained in the primitive latrine facilities in the deserts of Arabia.
After the death of Khadijah, Muhammad spent most of the wealth left by Khadijah. He became so poor that he had very little money to support himself. When he migrated to Medina, he and his followers were destitute. Under this dire poverty, Muhammad had to house his wives in places with very primitive or non-existent toilet/sanitary facilities. He had no choice but to ask his wives to go to an open field nearby and answer the call of nature.
In a hadith in Sahih Bukhari (1.4.149) we read that Muhammad permitted his wives to go out in the desert, in a secluded spot under the sky, and hide under trees and shrubs to defecate, though, he restricted them to the night hours only. That is: his wives could go out to relieve themselves only at night, when no one was watching them.
In another hadith of Sahih Bukhari (6.60.203) we read that performing sexual intercourse in the open sky, in the very spot where defecation used to take place was quite common. In other words, these spots in the desert, where there were shrubs and date palm trees, were the places where many people, who had no privacy at their homes, used to relieve themselves, as well as do sexual intercourse. It had been the way of the Arab Bedouins for millennia.
Nevertheless, Umar, the second Caliph of Islam urged Muhammad to change this.
As per the instruction, Muhammad’s wives started to go to an open field only at night to answer the call of nature without any veil or proper attire. Umar used to watch these ladies and was very uncomfortable and distressful to see them answering the call of nature in the open sky without much protection to their privacy. He requested Muhammad to cover his wives with veils whenever they went out to do their business in the open field at night.
At first, Muhammad ignored Umar’s plea. But when Umar kept pestering, Muhammad turned to Allah for His suggestion (since he did not have the pecuniary means to solve this toilet problem). Allah promptly sent down the verse on veil (33:59)
The above context of the veiling and ‘niqabing’ demonstrates that there is no compelling reason to enforce such a despicable, misogynist, barbaric system on Muslim women.
Today, we note, all around the world, that seventh century Bedouin barbaric custom is back in fashion. Not being content with the Muslim women, there is also pressure on the infidel women to cover up, because, as per the Islamic rule, these infidel women who do not wear the Islamic niqab are sluts, whores and ripe for Islamic rape by Islamic men.
According to Islam, Muslims are at perpetual war with the non-Muslims. Wherever, there is even a shred of Islam (even a single Muslim) it is incumbent upon him to enforce Islam in whatever capacity. This means, as per Islamic law (Sharia), infidel women, who do not comply with the Islamic dress codes, are captives of the Muslims living in the infidel territory. In Hedaya, the Hanafi law manual, we find that a Muslim living in an infidel land is allowed to have unlimited sex with the non-Muslim women without having the need to marry them. This should explain why, many Islamic men in the infidel world are caught for raping the ‘slutty’ ‘bitchy’, ‘whores’; of the western countries. They deserve to be purified by Islamic rape, as many such Muslim will say.
The Islamic hatred for western women who do not cover their bodies with Islamic ‘tents’ knows no bound. In 2006, the Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Hilali considered these western women as the ‘cat’s’ meat, that is: these western women deserve to be eaten (sexually) by Muslim men who chance upon them. We might not like what Mufti Hilali said, but he is absolutely correct. Islam allows Muslim men to have forced sex upon non-Muslim women who do not cover their ‘meat’. Here is the proof:
In verse 33:59. Allah says: O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever of Forgiving, Most Merciful.
The most eminent tafsir (exegesis) writer, bin Kathir comments on this verse:
Here Allah tells His Messenger to command the believing women -- especially his wives and daughters, because of their position of honour -- to draw their Jibes over their bodies, so that they will be distinct in their appearance from the women of the Jahiliyyah and from slave women. The Jilbab is a Rida', worn over the Khimar. This was the view of Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ubaydah, Qatadah, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Sa'id bin Jubayr, Ibrahim An-Nakha'i, 'Ata' Al-Khurasani and others. It is like the Izar used today. Al-Jawhari said: "The Jilbab is the outer wrapper. 'Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that Allah commanded the believing women, when they went out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from above their heads with the Jilbab, leaving only one eye showing. Muhammad bin Sirin said, "I asked 'Ubaydah As-Salmani about the Ayah: (to draw their Jalabib over their bodies.) He covered his face and head, with just his left eye showing.'' (That will be better that they should be known so as not to be annoyed. ) means, if they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not servants or whores.
Please read the last sentence once again. It reads:
[If they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not servants or whores—ibn Kathir]
The above explanation of ibn Kathir mean:
Muslim women must always keep their 'meat' covered whenever they venture out.
Infidel women who do not hide their 'meat' inside Jilbab and Hijab are either maidservants or whores.
The white Australian women who do not dress Islamically are maidservants or whores.
In Islam, Muslim men are allowed to have unlimited sexual intercourse with maidservants and/or sexual slaves. A Muslim man commits rape if and only if he has sex with a Muslim woman out of wedlock. Having forced sex with an infidel, uncovered woman does not at all constitute rape, Islamically speaking.
The natural conclusion is that Muslim men are completely free to Islamically rape these infidel women, if these whores fall in Muslim men's hands.
I quoted from the Koran and the tafsir of ibn Kathir to dispel any doubt that the non-Muslims might have about the unremitting hatred Islam has for infidel women, who do not comply with the Islamic specifications of women’s dress code.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Symposium: Hate Behind the Niqab
Showing posts with label Must Read. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Must Read. Show all posts
Friday, April 25, 2008
MUST READ: THE TWO KINDS OF DHIMMIS
The Two Kinds of Dhimmis
By Jamie Glazov
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.
...
FP: I would like to discuss the issue of dhimmis today. Let's begin like this: who are the dhimmis? And what different kinds are there?
Warner: Dhimmis begin with Mohammed. He was the world’s supreme master of making others submit to his will. Mohammed had the insight into the human psyche that all human beings have a genetic disposition to submit to the will of the group and higher ranked individuals.
We like to think of ourselves as individuals who can make decisions and freely execute them. Mohammed’s insight was into the submissive side of being human. To survive as a civilization we must allow others to dictate what we do to some extent. As an example, we all submit to the idea that we stop our car at the red light. We submit to society’s rules. We are not completely free, but a member of society. If we did not have this “pack” gene, we could not survive as a species. We must be able to work together. There is no way to survive alone.
In short, all humans have a beta gene, a submissive gene, as part of our DNA. But a beta needs an alpha. Mohammed was history’s supreme alpha male.
Previous religious leaders and philosophers approached humanity with the idea of freeing the individual from fear. Mohammed did not try to free humanity, but to make humanity a slave to Allah, the god of fear. So he “revealed” the ultimate alpha—Allah. Under Allah, all humans come to their fulfillment by being Allah’s slave. But since Mohammed was the only “prophet” of Allah, to obey Allah was to obey Mohammed. Islam is submission to Allah/Mohammed.
In his early phase in Mecca, Mohammed only talked about religious slavery to Allah/Mohammed. The Koran promises the use of violence in Hell after death. The Koran of Mecca has 67% of its text devoted to how the kafirs (unbelievers) must submit to Allah/ Mohammed.
Then in Medina, Mohammed’s message became political, and he became violent without limits towards kafirs. Mohammed made all the Jews of Medina submit to him by robbery, murder, war, assassinations, rape, torture, executions, exile and enslavement.
After he had subdued all of the kafirs in Medina, Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar. By now he realized that you could make more money from a live kafir than from a dead one. Kafirs can be enslaved, but the slave option has a disadvantage. Slaves have to be managed and be near at hand. So Mohammed created the dhimmi. The dhimmi agrees to live in a world that is dominated by Islam in all public areas. A dhimmi is free from Islam only in his own home. Law, customs, art, education, the media, government, speech and every thing in public space is Islamic. In addition, the dhimmi has to pay a tax to Islam called the jizya tax. In Khaybar the jizya tax was 50%.
The key psychological technique is that the dhimmi is to be humiliated in all possible ways. In effect, the dhimmi is halfway between freedom and slavery, a semi-slave.
Mohammed’s power structure was now complete. His first division of humanity was into believer/kafir. Then he refined kafir into dhimmi and slave. Humanity became divided into Muslim, kafir-slaves, kafir-dhimmis and kafirs.
As the Islamic conquest rolled over the kafirs, the dhimmi was the perfect tool of subjugation. After Islam conquered a country, for instance Egypt, the Muslims were the top dogs in the politics, but the Christians could keep their religion. However, they had to live without legal protection or civil rights. All public space was Islamic. The dhimmi could be insulted, abused and had no recourse. They had to pay the jizya tax. The dhimmi were cattle on the Islamic ranch, but could attend their church or synagogue.
FP: What happened to the dhimmis under these conditions?
Warner: The insults, humiliations and taxes wore the dhimmis down. What happened over time was that the dhimmis converted to Islam. It was easier to avoid all this pain and become a Muslim.
In the 20th century, Islam became so weak that the full dhimmi status was dropped. But if you meet and talk to Christians from the Middle East today, you will find that the centuries of dhimmitude have produced, in many cases, a personality similar to an abused wife. It is very sad to see how subjugated a personality can become.
There is another kind of dhimmi—kafirs who become apologists for Islam, fear and defer to it. So we have two types of dhimmi—the subjugated dhimmi who is under the political power of Islam and the apologist dhimmi who seeks Islamic favor.
FP: I see, so two kinds of dhimmis.
Warner: Exactly, the word dhimmi has two separate meanings—a subjugated dhimmi is persecuted and the apologist dhimmi helps the persecutor. The context determines which dhimmi we are talking about. One dhimmi is to be pitied and helped; the other dhimmi needs to be educated. But the apologist dhimmi is the key to defeating Islam.
Our civilization is under attack by political Islam. It is the intent of Islam to do this country what it has done to every country it has invaded—annihilate our civilization. This annihilation is the goal of political Islam for a simple reason. Annihilation is the process of Islamification. We must understand that Islam is a totally separate civilization from ours. The civilization of Islam is anti-everything in our civilization. As an example, our ethical system has at its core the Golden Rule and is a unitary system. We have one set of ethical rules for all possible groups. Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs.
Kafir logic is based upon Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them must be false. Islamic logic is dualistic. The Koran establishes the logic of Islam. The Koran of Mecca contradicts the Koran of Medina, but since both Korans are perfect, both sides of the contradiction are true. Dualistic logic allows two contradictory “facts” to be true at the same time. Islamic logic is built on contradiction.
Allah is the god of duality and submission. Islamic civilization is based upon the principles of duality and submission. Our civilization is based upon the principles of unitary ethics and unitary logic.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) The Two Kinds of Dhimmis
By Jamie Glazov
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.
...
FP: I would like to discuss the issue of dhimmis today. Let's begin like this: who are the dhimmis? And what different kinds are there?
Warner: Dhimmis begin with Mohammed. He was the world’s supreme master of making others submit to his will. Mohammed had the insight into the human psyche that all human beings have a genetic disposition to submit to the will of the group and higher ranked individuals.
We like to think of ourselves as individuals who can make decisions and freely execute them. Mohammed’s insight was into the submissive side of being human. To survive as a civilization we must allow others to dictate what we do to some extent. As an example, we all submit to the idea that we stop our car at the red light. We submit to society’s rules. We are not completely free, but a member of society. If we did not have this “pack” gene, we could not survive as a species. We must be able to work together. There is no way to survive alone.
In short, all humans have a beta gene, a submissive gene, as part of our DNA. But a beta needs an alpha. Mohammed was history’s supreme alpha male.
Previous religious leaders and philosophers approached humanity with the idea of freeing the individual from fear. Mohammed did not try to free humanity, but to make humanity a slave to Allah, the god of fear. So he “revealed” the ultimate alpha—Allah. Under Allah, all humans come to their fulfillment by being Allah’s slave. But since Mohammed was the only “prophet” of Allah, to obey Allah was to obey Mohammed. Islam is submission to Allah/Mohammed.
In his early phase in Mecca, Mohammed only talked about religious slavery to Allah/Mohammed. The Koran promises the use of violence in Hell after death. The Koran of Mecca has 67% of its text devoted to how the kafirs (unbelievers) must submit to Allah/ Mohammed.
Then in Medina, Mohammed’s message became political, and he became violent without limits towards kafirs. Mohammed made all the Jews of Medina submit to him by robbery, murder, war, assassinations, rape, torture, executions, exile and enslavement.
After he had subdued all of the kafirs in Medina, Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar. By now he realized that you could make more money from a live kafir than from a dead one. Kafirs can be enslaved, but the slave option has a disadvantage. Slaves have to be managed and be near at hand. So Mohammed created the dhimmi. The dhimmi agrees to live in a world that is dominated by Islam in all public areas. A dhimmi is free from Islam only in his own home. Law, customs, art, education, the media, government, speech and every thing in public space is Islamic. In addition, the dhimmi has to pay a tax to Islam called the jizya tax. In Khaybar the jizya tax was 50%.
The key psychological technique is that the dhimmi is to be humiliated in all possible ways. In effect, the dhimmi is halfway between freedom and slavery, a semi-slave.
Mohammed’s power structure was now complete. His first division of humanity was into believer/kafir. Then he refined kafir into dhimmi and slave. Humanity became divided into Muslim, kafir-slaves, kafir-dhimmis and kafirs.
As the Islamic conquest rolled over the kafirs, the dhimmi was the perfect tool of subjugation. After Islam conquered a country, for instance Egypt, the Muslims were the top dogs in the politics, but the Christians could keep their religion. However, they had to live without legal protection or civil rights. All public space was Islamic. The dhimmi could be insulted, abused and had no recourse. They had to pay the jizya tax. The dhimmi were cattle on the Islamic ranch, but could attend their church or synagogue.
FP: What happened to the dhimmis under these conditions?
Warner: The insults, humiliations and taxes wore the dhimmis down. What happened over time was that the dhimmis converted to Islam. It was easier to avoid all this pain and become a Muslim.
In the 20th century, Islam became so weak that the full dhimmi status was dropped. But if you meet and talk to Christians from the Middle East today, you will find that the centuries of dhimmitude have produced, in many cases, a personality similar to an abused wife. It is very sad to see how subjugated a personality can become.
There is another kind of dhimmi—kafirs who become apologists for Islam, fear and defer to it. So we have two types of dhimmi—the subjugated dhimmi who is under the political power of Islam and the apologist dhimmi who seeks Islamic favor.
FP: I see, so two kinds of dhimmis.
Warner: Exactly, the word dhimmi has two separate meanings—a subjugated dhimmi is persecuted and the apologist dhimmi helps the persecutor. The context determines which dhimmi we are talking about. One dhimmi is to be pitied and helped; the other dhimmi needs to be educated. But the apologist dhimmi is the key to defeating Islam.
Our civilization is under attack by political Islam. It is the intent of Islam to do this country what it has done to every country it has invaded—annihilate our civilization. This annihilation is the goal of political Islam for a simple reason. Annihilation is the process of Islamification. We must understand that Islam is a totally separate civilization from ours. The civilization of Islam is anti-everything in our civilization. As an example, our ethical system has at its core the Golden Rule and is a unitary system. We have one set of ethical rules for all possible groups. Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs.
Kafir logic is based upon Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them must be false. Islamic logic is dualistic. The Koran establishes the logic of Islam. The Koran of Mecca contradicts the Koran of Medina, but since both Korans are perfect, both sides of the contradiction are true. Dualistic logic allows two contradictory “facts” to be true at the same time. Islamic logic is built on contradiction.
Allah is the god of duality and submission. Islamic civilization is based upon the principles of duality and submission. Our civilization is based upon the principles of unitary ethics and unitary logic.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) The Two Kinds of Dhimmis
MUST READ: SYMPOSIUM - A NEW KORAN?
Symposium: A New Koran?
By Jamie Glazov
The organization Muslims Against Sharia is creating a new Koran with the violent verses removed. How legitimate and wise is this action? There is an effort in Turkey, for instance, to also revise Islamic texts. What real hope can these acts offer to bring Islam into the modern and democratic world? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Symposium: A New Koran?
By Jamie Glazov
The organization Muslims Against Sharia is creating a new Koran with the violent verses removed. How legitimate and wise is this action? There is an effort in Turkey, for instance, to also revise Islamic texts. What real hope can these acts offer to bring Islam into the modern and democratic world? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Symposium: A New Koran?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
MUST READ: IRAN & TURKEY MOVE CLOSER ON COUNTER-TERRORISM COOPERATION
Iran and Turkey Move Closer on Counter-Terrorism Cooperation
By Giray Sadik
There are signs that Turkey and Iran intend to increase cooperation in their mutual struggle against militant Kurdish nationalists based in northern Iraq. The Turkish Interior Ministry announced in a statement on April 17 that “ Turkish and Iranian officials have signed a memorandum of understanding expressing their willingness to develop cooperation in security issues.” According to the statement, issued after the conclusion of the 12th High Security Commission (HSC) meeting between Turkey and Iran: “The increase in some terrorist movements in the region damages both countries, and the most influential way to battle this outlawed problem is the exchange of intelligence and security cooperation” (Hurriyet, April 17). The main movements alluded to in this statement are the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which seeks autonomy for Kurds in Turkey, and the closely related Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), whose members are militants from the heavily Kurdish northwestern provinces of Iran who carry out cross-border strikes into Iran.
Various media sources confirmed that the primary agenda of the HSC meeting was to negotiate new joint measures both countries can take in order to further their existing “active counterterrorism cooperation” (Today’s Zaman, April 15). It is important to recall the results of the previous High Security Commission meeting in February 2006, when Turkey and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding calling for the mountainous region of northern Iraq bordering Turkey and Iran to become “a peaceful land which is purified of all kinds of terror” (Sabah, April 14). On April 15 Iranian Deputy Interior Minister Abbas Mohtai told journalists prior to his departure for Turkey that “there is no difference between the PKK and PJAK. Turkey and Iran are the targets of terrorist attacks” (Hurriyet, April 15). To further explain the Iranian position and the purpose of his visit, Abbas Mohtaj emphasized that “the two countries fight against terror and cooperate with each other, and Iran looks at the PKK and the PJAK as a single terrorist organization under two different names. We want to increase cooperation with Turkey against the terrorist organizations” (Hurriyet, April, 15, 2008).
The visit of the Iranian Deputy Interior Minister was the first high profile security visit from Iran in the aftermath of late February’s Turkish cross-border ground operations and air strikes against terrorist havens in northern Iraq. Although Turkish ground units returned to their homeland a week after beginning a precise and effective operation, occasional clashes and hot pursuits around the Turkish-Iraqi border have continued to take place.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Iran and Turkey Move Closer on Counter-Terrorism Cooperation
By Giray Sadik
There are signs that Turkey and Iran intend to increase cooperation in their mutual struggle against militant Kurdish nationalists based in northern Iraq. The Turkish Interior Ministry announced in a statement on April 17 that “ Turkish and Iranian officials have signed a memorandum of understanding expressing their willingness to develop cooperation in security issues.” According to the statement, issued after the conclusion of the 12th High Security Commission (HSC) meeting between Turkey and Iran: “The increase in some terrorist movements in the region damages both countries, and the most influential way to battle this outlawed problem is the exchange of intelligence and security cooperation” (Hurriyet, April 17). The main movements alluded to in this statement are the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which seeks autonomy for Kurds in Turkey, and the closely related Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), whose members are militants from the heavily Kurdish northwestern provinces of Iran who carry out cross-border strikes into Iran.
Various media sources confirmed that the primary agenda of the HSC meeting was to negotiate new joint measures both countries can take in order to further their existing “active counterterrorism cooperation” (Today’s Zaman, April 15). It is important to recall the results of the previous High Security Commission meeting in February 2006, when Turkey and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding calling for the mountainous region of northern Iraq bordering Turkey and Iran to become “a peaceful land which is purified of all kinds of terror” (Sabah, April 14). On April 15 Iranian Deputy Interior Minister Abbas Mohtai told journalists prior to his departure for Turkey that “there is no difference between the PKK and PJAK. Turkey and Iran are the targets of terrorist attacks” (Hurriyet, April 15). To further explain the Iranian position and the purpose of his visit, Abbas Mohtaj emphasized that “the two countries fight against terror and cooperate with each other, and Iran looks at the PKK and the PJAK as a single terrorist organization under two different names. We want to increase cooperation with Turkey against the terrorist organizations” (Hurriyet, April, 15, 2008).
The visit of the Iranian Deputy Interior Minister was the first high profile security visit from Iran in the aftermath of late February’s Turkish cross-border ground operations and air strikes against terrorist havens in northern Iraq. Although Turkish ground units returned to their homeland a week after beginning a precise and effective operation, occasional clashes and hot pursuits around the Turkish-Iraqi border have continued to take place.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Iran and Turkey Move Closer on Counter-Terrorism Cooperation
MUST READ: PAKISTAN'S NEW GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES PEACE INITIATIVE W/ISLAMIST MILITANTS IN SWAT
Pakistan’s New Government Launches Peace Initiative with Islamist Militants in Swat
By Rahimullah Yusufzai
Maulana Sufi Mohammad, the aged leader of the banned Islamic group, Tanzim Nifaz Shariat-i-Mohammadi (TNSM), was released in Peshawar on April 21 after more than six years of imprisonment as part of the reconciliation efforts undertaken by the newly-elected coalition government of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) (The News International [Islamabad], April 22).
His release is part of an effort to tackle the conflict in the militancy-hit Swat district and restore order in the once peaceful valley. It coincided with the signing of an agreement between the TNSM and the government. Under the six-point agreement, the TNSM renounced the use of force in achieving its goal of enforcing Shari’a (Islamic law) in Swat and other parts of Malakand region (Dawn [Islamabad], April 22). It pledged to respect the institutions of the state and accept the government’s right to establish its writ. The TNSM also distanced itself from elements involved in attacks on security forces in Swat and elsewhere. In return, the government withdrew all pending cases against Sufi Mohammad, commuted his remaining prison term and set him free unconditionally.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Pakistan’s New Government Launches Peace Initiative with Islamist Militants in Swat
By Rahimullah Yusufzai
Maulana Sufi Mohammad, the aged leader of the banned Islamic group, Tanzim Nifaz Shariat-i-Mohammadi (TNSM), was released in Peshawar on April 21 after more than six years of imprisonment as part of the reconciliation efforts undertaken by the newly-elected coalition government of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) (The News International [Islamabad], April 22).
His release is part of an effort to tackle the conflict in the militancy-hit Swat district and restore order in the once peaceful valley. It coincided with the signing of an agreement between the TNSM and the government. Under the six-point agreement, the TNSM renounced the use of force in achieving its goal of enforcing Shari’a (Islamic law) in Swat and other parts of Malakand region (Dawn [Islamabad], April 22). It pledged to respect the institutions of the state and accept the government’s right to establish its writ. The TNSM also distanced itself from elements involved in attacks on security forces in Swat and elsewhere. In return, the government withdrew all pending cases against Sufi Mohammad, commuted his remaining prison term and set him free unconditionally.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Pakistan’s New Government Launches Peace Initiative with Islamist Militants in Swat
MUST READ: DOSTUM - AFGHANISTAN'S EMBATTLED WARLORD
Dostum: Afghanistan’s Embattled Warlord
By Brian Glyn Williams
While the resurgence of the Taliban is the focus of interest in the Pashtun south of Afghanistan, the year started with a different story in the north that many are depicting as one of the greatest challenges to the Karzai government. Namely the surreal confrontation between General Abdul Rashid Dostum, the larger-than-life Uzbek jang salar (warlord)—who was once described as “one of the best equipped and armed warlords ever”—and one of his former aides [1].
In a move that many critics of the situation in Afghanistan saw as epitomizing the Karzai government’s cravenness in dealing with brutal warlords, the Afghan government backed away from arresting Dostum after he beat up and kidnapped a former election manager and spokesman in Kabul on February 3 (IHT, February 4). As his house was besieged by Ministry of the Interior police, Dostum appeared on the roof, defiantly waving his fist.
While many critics of President Karzai’s policy of appeasing warlords called for making an example of Dostum, Karzai limited his response to removing Dostum from his largely symbolic post of “Commander in Chief” of the Afghan Army. Karzai’s decision not to prosecute Dostum for his brazen assault in the Afghan capital was depicted as “timid and hesitant” (Asia Times, April 9; RFE/RL, February 3). Glib calls for “removing” warlords like Dostum, however, display a lack of understanding of the complex issues involved in Karzai’s delicate balancing act in a country faced with a mounting Taliban insurgency.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Dostum: Afghanistan’s Embattled Warlord
By Brian Glyn Williams
While the resurgence of the Taliban is the focus of interest in the Pashtun south of Afghanistan, the year started with a different story in the north that many are depicting as one of the greatest challenges to the Karzai government. Namely the surreal confrontation between General Abdul Rashid Dostum, the larger-than-life Uzbek jang salar (warlord)—who was once described as “one of the best equipped and armed warlords ever”—and one of his former aides [1].
In a move that many critics of the situation in Afghanistan saw as epitomizing the Karzai government’s cravenness in dealing with brutal warlords, the Afghan government backed away from arresting Dostum after he beat up and kidnapped a former election manager and spokesman in Kabul on February 3 (IHT, February 4). As his house was besieged by Ministry of the Interior police, Dostum appeared on the roof, defiantly waving his fist.
While many critics of President Karzai’s policy of appeasing warlords called for making an example of Dostum, Karzai limited his response to removing Dostum from his largely symbolic post of “Commander in Chief” of the Afghan Army. Karzai’s decision not to prosecute Dostum for his brazen assault in the Afghan capital was depicted as “timid and hesitant” (Asia Times, April 9; RFE/RL, February 3). Glib calls for “removing” warlords like Dostum, however, display a lack of understanding of the complex issues involved in Karzai’s delicate balancing act in a country faced with a mounting Taliban insurgency.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Dostum: Afghanistan’s Embattled Warlord
MUST READ: WHY EUROPEANS SHOULD SUPPORT ISRAEL
Why Europeans Should Support Israel
by Fjordman
One of the most frustrating things to watch is the powerful anti-Israeli and sometimes outright anti-Semitic current that is prevalent in too much of Europe’s media. Bat Ye’or’s predictions about Arab anti-Semitism spreading in Europe as the continent’s Islamization and descent into Eurabia continues have so far proved depressingly accurate. This trend needs to be fought, vigorously, by all serious European anti-Jihadists. Not only because it is immoral and unfair to Israelis, which it is, but also because those who assist it are depriving Europeans of the opportunity to fully grasp the threat and understand the nature of the Jihad that is now targeting much of Europe as well.
In 2005 the Norwegian police issued a mobile security alarm to Carl I. Hagen, leader of the right-wing Progress Party. Mr. Hagen had criticized Islam and could see no similarity with the concept of morality and justice found in Christianity. During the 1990s, Mr. Hagen was one of the few politicians who protested against giving money to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as a part of the Norwegian-brokered Oslo Peace Process.
Hagen said that if Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next. He felt that Christians should support Israel and oppose Islamic inroads into Europe. In an unprecedented step, a group of Muslim ambassadors to Norway blasted Carl I. Hagen in a letter to the newspaper Aftenposten, claiming that he had offended 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. Other Norwegian politicians quickly caved in and condemned Hagen. Maybe Norway, “the country of peace” and home to the Nobel Peace Prize, will get along just fine with Islam, “the religion of peace.”
Although some political leaders such as Mr. Carl I. Hagen have a clear understanding of what’s going on, they are unfortunately few and far between. Most European media commentators are hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, partly because they get angry with anybody defending themselves against Islamic Jihad instead of surrendering, and partly because they want to project their own feelings of guilt from the Holocaust onto Israel by recasting the Jews as villains and the Palestinians as victims.
French filmmaker Pierre Rehov made the film Suicide Killers where he interviewed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He warns that we are facing “a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization,” a “culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God. I hear a mother saying ‘Thank God, my son is dead.’ Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. [...] They don’t see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.”
Rehov believes that we are dealing with “a new form of Nazism” that it is going to spread to Europe and the United States, too.
Spanish journalist Sebastian Villar Rodriguez claims that Europe died in Auschwitz: “We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!” Yet in 2007, Ciempozuelos, a small Madrid suburb, refused to commemorate Holocaust Day and opted instead to commemorate the ‘Day of Palestinian Genocide.’ In Britain following Muslim pressure, the Bolton Council scrapped its Holocaust Memorial Day event. The Muslim Council of Britain asked for a Genocide Day to protest the Israeli “genocide” against the Palestinians. The secretary-general of the MCB, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, has earlier compared the situation of Muslims in Britain to Jews under Hitler.
We thus have the absurd situation where the Nazis of today are presented as Jews while the Jews are presented as Nazis.
French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut thinks that Auschwitz has become part of the foundation of the European Union, a culture based on guilt. “I can understand the feeling of remorse that is leading Europe to this, but this remorse goes too far.” It is too great a gift to present Hitler to reject every single aspect of European culture. This is said by the Jewish son of an Auschwitz prisoner.
The Holocaust was an unspeakable crime. It also did massive damage to Europe’s own identity and cultural confidence, and is one of the major causes of Europe’s seeming inability to withstand the ongoing Islamic Jihad.
As Hugh Fitzgerald notes, “Fortunately for so many, and for the Arabs, the victory of Israel in the Six-Day War promptly provided a reason to depict Jews as villains, not victims. This found an eager audience of Europeans, who were already eager for psychological reasons to find fault with Jews so as to avoid thinking unduly about the behavior of many European peoples and states during the war. [...] The damage done to the morale of Europe because of the destruction of European Jewry has been great. If Western Europe, or the West generally, were after all that has happened to permit Israel to go under, Europe would not recover.”
He warns that those who believe sacrificing Israel would in any way stop the global Jihad are very wrong. On the contrary, “The loss of Israel would fill the Arabs and Muslims with such triumphalism that their Jihad in Western Europe and elsewhere (including the Americas) would receive a gigantic boost. The duty is to make sure that Islam covers the globe; that Islam dominates, and Muslims rule.”
Europeans need to understand how closely intertwined are the fates of Israel and of Europe itself. The term “Judeo-Christian” is not a cliche. We cannot defend Western civilization without defending its Jewish component, without which modern Western culture would have been unthinkable.
The religious identity of the West has two legs: The Christian and the Jewish ones. It needs both to stand upright. Sacrificing one to save the other is like fighting a battle by chopping off one of your legs, throwing it at the feet of your enemies and shouting: “You won’t get the other one! We will never surrender!” We could always hope that our enemies will laugh themselves to death faster than we bleed to death, the Monty Python way of fighting. Maybe that works, but most likely it will leave us crippled and pathetic, if not dead.
I agree with Mr. Finkielkraut: To reduce absolutely everything about Europe to gas chambers, thereby allowing the Nazis the opportunity to expropriate everything that has been created during thousands of years, is to grant Adolf Hitler victory posthumously. We should not award him that pleasure, especially since what would replace Western civilization would be Islamic culture, the most warlike and anti-Semitic on earth, and greatly admired by Mr. Hitler for it.
We cannot change what has happened in the past. We should, however, consider it our duty to combat anti-Semitism in the here and now and make sure that the remaining Jews both in Europe and in Israel are safe. This is not just because it is our moral and historical obligation, which it is, but also because we only gain the right to defend ourselves against Islamization of we grant the same right to Israel. Likewise, we can only begin to heal our self-inflicted civilizational wounds if we embrace the Jewish component of our cultural identity.
Written by well known blogger Fjordman, you can find many of his works at: Gates of Vienna, Islam-Watch, Global Politician, JihadWatch, The Brussels Journal and his own blog @ Blogspot bearing his name Fjordman.
Pertinent Links:
1) Why Europeans Should Support Israel
by Fjordman
One of the most frustrating things to watch is the powerful anti-Israeli and sometimes outright anti-Semitic current that is prevalent in too much of Europe’s media. Bat Ye’or’s predictions about Arab anti-Semitism spreading in Europe as the continent’s Islamization and descent into Eurabia continues have so far proved depressingly accurate. This trend needs to be fought, vigorously, by all serious European anti-Jihadists. Not only because it is immoral and unfair to Israelis, which it is, but also because those who assist it are depriving Europeans of the opportunity to fully grasp the threat and understand the nature of the Jihad that is now targeting much of Europe as well.
In 2005 the Norwegian police issued a mobile security alarm to Carl I. Hagen, leader of the right-wing Progress Party. Mr. Hagen had criticized Islam and could see no similarity with the concept of morality and justice found in Christianity. During the 1990s, Mr. Hagen was one of the few politicians who protested against giving money to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as a part of the Norwegian-brokered Oslo Peace Process.
Hagen said that if Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next. He felt that Christians should support Israel and oppose Islamic inroads into Europe. In an unprecedented step, a group of Muslim ambassadors to Norway blasted Carl I. Hagen in a letter to the newspaper Aftenposten, claiming that he had offended 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. Other Norwegian politicians quickly caved in and condemned Hagen. Maybe Norway, “the country of peace” and home to the Nobel Peace Prize, will get along just fine with Islam, “the religion of peace.”
Although some political leaders such as Mr. Carl I. Hagen have a clear understanding of what’s going on, they are unfortunately few and far between. Most European media commentators are hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, partly because they get angry with anybody defending themselves against Islamic Jihad instead of surrendering, and partly because they want to project their own feelings of guilt from the Holocaust onto Israel by recasting the Jews as villains and the Palestinians as victims.
French filmmaker Pierre Rehov made the film Suicide Killers where he interviewed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He warns that we are facing “a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization,” a “culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God. I hear a mother saying ‘Thank God, my son is dead.’ Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. [...] They don’t see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.”
Rehov believes that we are dealing with “a new form of Nazism” that it is going to spread to Europe and the United States, too.
Spanish journalist Sebastian Villar Rodriguez claims that Europe died in Auschwitz: “We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!” Yet in 2007, Ciempozuelos, a small Madrid suburb, refused to commemorate Holocaust Day and opted instead to commemorate the ‘Day of Palestinian Genocide.’ In Britain following Muslim pressure, the Bolton Council scrapped its Holocaust Memorial Day event. The Muslim Council of Britain asked for a Genocide Day to protest the Israeli “genocide” against the Palestinians. The secretary-general of the MCB, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, has earlier compared the situation of Muslims in Britain to Jews under Hitler.
We thus have the absurd situation where the Nazis of today are presented as Jews while the Jews are presented as Nazis.
French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut thinks that Auschwitz has become part of the foundation of the European Union, a culture based on guilt. “I can understand the feeling of remorse that is leading Europe to this, but this remorse goes too far.” It is too great a gift to present Hitler to reject every single aspect of European culture. This is said by the Jewish son of an Auschwitz prisoner.
The Holocaust was an unspeakable crime. It also did massive damage to Europe’s own identity and cultural confidence, and is one of the major causes of Europe’s seeming inability to withstand the ongoing Islamic Jihad.
As Hugh Fitzgerald notes, “Fortunately for so many, and for the Arabs, the victory of Israel in the Six-Day War promptly provided a reason to depict Jews as villains, not victims. This found an eager audience of Europeans, who were already eager for psychological reasons to find fault with Jews so as to avoid thinking unduly about the behavior of many European peoples and states during the war. [...] The damage done to the morale of Europe because of the destruction of European Jewry has been great. If Western Europe, or the West generally, were after all that has happened to permit Israel to go under, Europe would not recover.”
He warns that those who believe sacrificing Israel would in any way stop the global Jihad are very wrong. On the contrary, “The loss of Israel would fill the Arabs and Muslims with such triumphalism that their Jihad in Western Europe and elsewhere (including the Americas) would receive a gigantic boost. The duty is to make sure that Islam covers the globe; that Islam dominates, and Muslims rule.”
Europeans need to understand how closely intertwined are the fates of Israel and of Europe itself. The term “Judeo-Christian” is not a cliche. We cannot defend Western civilization without defending its Jewish component, without which modern Western culture would have been unthinkable.
The religious identity of the West has two legs: The Christian and the Jewish ones. It needs both to stand upright. Sacrificing one to save the other is like fighting a battle by chopping off one of your legs, throwing it at the feet of your enemies and shouting: “You won’t get the other one! We will never surrender!” We could always hope that our enemies will laugh themselves to death faster than we bleed to death, the Monty Python way of fighting. Maybe that works, but most likely it will leave us crippled and pathetic, if not dead.
I agree with Mr. Finkielkraut: To reduce absolutely everything about Europe to gas chambers, thereby allowing the Nazis the opportunity to expropriate everything that has been created during thousands of years, is to grant Adolf Hitler victory posthumously. We should not award him that pleasure, especially since what would replace Western civilization would be Islamic culture, the most warlike and anti-Semitic on earth, and greatly admired by Mr. Hitler for it.
We cannot change what has happened in the past. We should, however, consider it our duty to combat anti-Semitism in the here and now and make sure that the remaining Jews both in Europe and in Israel are safe. This is not just because it is our moral and historical obligation, which it is, but also because we only gain the right to defend ourselves against Islamization of we grant the same right to Israel. Likewise, we can only begin to heal our self-inflicted civilizational wounds if we embrace the Jewish component of our cultural identity.
Written by well known blogger Fjordman, you can find many of his works at: Gates of Vienna, Islam-Watch, Global Politician, JihadWatch, The Brussels Journal and his own blog @ Blogspot bearing his name Fjordman.
Pertinent Links:
1) Why Europeans Should Support Israel
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
MUST READ: BRITAIN - RAISING HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS
Britain – Raising Homegrown Terrorists
by Adrian Morgan
Though his presence has hardly made any impact compared to the Pope, Britain's near-invisible prime minister Gordon Brown has been visiting the United States. Brown's trip to the States happens as his popularity plunges at home, and he faces a rebellion from the ranks of his Labour Party. Once again, Brown quotes Winston Churchill. At home, Brown never quotes Churchill. He would be savaged by the press for hypocrisy.
It is not the first time Brown that has resurrected the ghost of Churchill in a bland attempt to impress America. In July last year on his first visit to America as prime minister, he used words lifted from a famous speech by Churchill. To resurrect Churchill for a second time indicates either a lack of imagination on Brown's part, or he patronizingly thinks Americans are so shallow they can only relate to Churchill as an influential British politician.
In 1975, while rector of Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown wrote fawningly of Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist party. For socialist Brown to compare himself to Churchill would make the former Tory statesman turn in his grave.
Gordon Brown was the "right-hand man" of Tony Blair until June 27, 2007, so he cannot be absolved of the messes that Labour has made since it assumed power in May 1997. Ever since July 7, 2005, there have been ample opportunities for Britain to work out a coherent strategy against homegrown terrorism. Sadly, the Labour Party is too dependent upon Muslim votes in inner cities to really produce any strategy of substance.
In the aftermath of 7/7, instead of ensuring that potential extremists were kept under control, the Labour government acted to appease the Muslim "representatives." When Tony Blair wanted to ban the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, his own advisory group, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) refused to support the move, and Hizb is still active in Britain nearly three years later. The MCB claims to be moderate but has a history of relations with Islamists. Indeed, the group was co-founded by Kemal el-Helbawy, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood member.
In 2005, Home Office minister Hazel Blears was sent on a tour of Muslim communities and came back with the anodyne statement: "What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love." The Muslims who killed 52 civilians in London on 7/7 were well-versed in Islam, but were hardly radiating "peace and love" for their fellow citizens when they detonated their explosive rucksacks.
The British government has attempted to deal with Muslim extremism by dishonestly pretending that extremists are not Muslims. They are. They just happen to be extreme Muslims. Such blinkered approaches continue and the current Home Secretary is either naive or dishonest when she maintains that Islamist terrorism is "anti-Islamic activity."
In 2006, the Labour government wasted tax-payers’ money by creating a Muslim website that claims to be moderate, entitled "The Radical Middle Way." Funds are being thrown at Islamic extremism, with little hope of actually doing anything. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office wastes tax-payers' money on sending groups of Muslims abroad to Muslim countries to meet other Muslims to "share their experiences."
The Foreign Office spends much time trying to "reach out" to Islamofascists. In 2005, it approved of the disastrous "Waziristan Accord," a peace deal between the Taliban and the army in northwestern Pakistan. Though that accord was broken by Islamists within days, Gordon Brown appears to approve of similar acts of appeasement. His Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, is currently in Pakistan to encourage more negotiations with terrorists.
In October 2007 the communities secretary Hazel Blears announced that £70 million would be granted to set up websites so that young Muslims in Britain can discuss their "identity." Currently, the government has increased the annual funding of such hare-brained schemes to £90 million ($180 million).
The latest half-baked attempt by the British government to defuse extremism in the Muslim community is a suggestion to import more foreign imams into Britain. These are to come mainly from Pakistan, a country with such a "moderate" approach to Islam that anyone found guilty of blaspheming against the prophet Mohammed receives a mandatory death sentence. Imams brought up in such a climate are hardly going to understand or support the "liberal" customs of Britain, where freedom of speech is meant to trump religious supremacy. Who is going to decide which of these Pakistani imams is "moderate?"
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Britain – Raising Homegrown Terrorists
by Adrian Morgan
Though his presence has hardly made any impact compared to the Pope, Britain's near-invisible prime minister Gordon Brown has been visiting the United States. Brown's trip to the States happens as his popularity plunges at home, and he faces a rebellion from the ranks of his Labour Party. Once again, Brown quotes Winston Churchill. At home, Brown never quotes Churchill. He would be savaged by the press for hypocrisy.
It is not the first time Brown that has resurrected the ghost of Churchill in a bland attempt to impress America. In July last year on his first visit to America as prime minister, he used words lifted from a famous speech by Churchill. To resurrect Churchill for a second time indicates either a lack of imagination on Brown's part, or he patronizingly thinks Americans are so shallow they can only relate to Churchill as an influential British politician.
In 1975, while rector of Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown wrote fawningly of Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist party. For socialist Brown to compare himself to Churchill would make the former Tory statesman turn in his grave.
Gordon Brown was the "right-hand man" of Tony Blair until June 27, 2007, so he cannot be absolved of the messes that Labour has made since it assumed power in May 1997. Ever since July 7, 2005, there have been ample opportunities for Britain to work out a coherent strategy against homegrown terrorism. Sadly, the Labour Party is too dependent upon Muslim votes in inner cities to really produce any strategy of substance.
In the aftermath of 7/7, instead of ensuring that potential extremists were kept under control, the Labour government acted to appease the Muslim "representatives." When Tony Blair wanted to ban the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, his own advisory group, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) refused to support the move, and Hizb is still active in Britain nearly three years later. The MCB claims to be moderate but has a history of relations with Islamists. Indeed, the group was co-founded by Kemal el-Helbawy, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood member.
In 2005, Home Office minister Hazel Blears was sent on a tour of Muslim communities and came back with the anodyne statement: "What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love." The Muslims who killed 52 civilians in London on 7/7 were well-versed in Islam, but were hardly radiating "peace and love" for their fellow citizens when they detonated their explosive rucksacks.
The British government has attempted to deal with Muslim extremism by dishonestly pretending that extremists are not Muslims. They are. They just happen to be extreme Muslims. Such blinkered approaches continue and the current Home Secretary is either naive or dishonest when she maintains that Islamist terrorism is "anti-Islamic activity."
In 2006, the Labour government wasted tax-payers’ money by creating a Muslim website that claims to be moderate, entitled "The Radical Middle Way." Funds are being thrown at Islamic extremism, with little hope of actually doing anything. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office wastes tax-payers' money on sending groups of Muslims abroad to Muslim countries to meet other Muslims to "share their experiences."
The Foreign Office spends much time trying to "reach out" to Islamofascists. In 2005, it approved of the disastrous "Waziristan Accord," a peace deal between the Taliban and the army in northwestern Pakistan. Though that accord was broken by Islamists within days, Gordon Brown appears to approve of similar acts of appeasement. His Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, is currently in Pakistan to encourage more negotiations with terrorists.
In October 2007 the communities secretary Hazel Blears announced that £70 million would be granted to set up websites so that young Muslims in Britain can discuss their "identity." Currently, the government has increased the annual funding of such hare-brained schemes to £90 million ($180 million).
The latest half-baked attempt by the British government to defuse extremism in the Muslim community is a suggestion to import more foreign imams into Britain. These are to come mainly from Pakistan, a country with such a "moderate" approach to Islam that anyone found guilty of blaspheming against the prophet Mohammed receives a mandatory death sentence. Imams brought up in such a climate are hardly going to understand or support the "liberal" customs of Britain, where freedom of speech is meant to trump religious supremacy. Who is going to decide which of these Pakistani imams is "moderate?"
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Britain – Raising Homegrown Terrorists
Britain – Highs and Lows in the War on Terrorism
by Adrian Morgan
Britain's commitment to the war on terror is certainly less strong under the unelected leadership of Gordon Brown, who became prime minister on June 27, 2007. As soon as he became the premier, Brown ordered his cabinet ministers to avoid the term "War on terror."
A sign of the current administration's lack of realism came in January this year, when Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Islamic terrorism was "anti-Islamic activity." She said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic." Smith's Islamic scholars seem to ignore the evidence of the Hadith of Bukhari, in which Mohammed's last words included the statement: "I have been made victorious with terror."
Despite previous bland statements about terrorism, Brown and Smith are now facing rebellion from Labour party ranks for trying to be "tough" on terror suspects. On November 9, 2005 Tony Blair was defeated when he tried to extend the time that terror suspects could be detained without being charged. Blair wanted suspects detained for 90 days, but Parliament only accepted a compromise of 28 days. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith want the time to be raised to 42 days in a bill to be discussed next month.
In 1998 the Labour Party introduced the Human Rights Act, which ensured that all of British law had to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights. Already this legislation has proved to be disastrous when dealing with terrorism. It has allowed Afghan terrorists the right to remain in Britain indefinitely.
Control orders were introduced by then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke in 2005. These measures were brought in to monitor and regulate the activities of terror suspects who could not be prosecuted, often in the form of a partial house arrest. In May 2007 it was revealed that three individuals – Cerie Bullivant, Lamine Adam and Ibrahim Adam – had escaped, despite being under "control orders."
A month later, it was revealed that another individual had escaped a control order. Zeeshan Sidique, like the Adam brothers and Bullivant, had connections with the individuals convicted in the Operation Crevice trial of trying to cause explosions in Britain. Sidique had gone to Pakistan to commit "Jihad." He had been admitted to a lunatic asylum while on a control order, but had escaped through a window in September 2006. He has not been found. His diary entries record the rantings of a disturbed individual, desperate to return to "the battlefield" of Jihad for the sake of Allah.
On December 12, 2007, Cerie Bullivant was cleared by a jury on seven counts relating to his breaching his control order. He admitted he had absconded, but claimed that the control order had made his life miserable. He was placed on another control order, but his lawyer announced that he would appeal against the original order on the grounds that it breached Bullivant's human rights.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Britain – Highs and Lows in the War on Terrorism
by Adrian Morgan
Britain's commitment to the war on terror is certainly less strong under the unelected leadership of Gordon Brown, who became prime minister on June 27, 2007. As soon as he became the premier, Brown ordered his cabinet ministers to avoid the term "War on terror."
A sign of the current administration's lack of realism came in January this year, when Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that Islamic terrorism was "anti-Islamic activity." She said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic." Smith's Islamic scholars seem to ignore the evidence of the Hadith of Bukhari, in which Mohammed's last words included the statement: "I have been made victorious with terror."
Despite previous bland statements about terrorism, Brown and Smith are now facing rebellion from Labour party ranks for trying to be "tough" on terror suspects. On November 9, 2005 Tony Blair was defeated when he tried to extend the time that terror suspects could be detained without being charged. Blair wanted suspects detained for 90 days, but Parliament only accepted a compromise of 28 days. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith want the time to be raised to 42 days in a bill to be discussed next month.
In 1998 the Labour Party introduced the Human Rights Act, which ensured that all of British law had to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights. Already this legislation has proved to be disastrous when dealing with terrorism. It has allowed Afghan terrorists the right to remain in Britain indefinitely.
Control orders were introduced by then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke in 2005. These measures were brought in to monitor and regulate the activities of terror suspects who could not be prosecuted, often in the form of a partial house arrest. In May 2007 it was revealed that three individuals – Cerie Bullivant, Lamine Adam and Ibrahim Adam – had escaped, despite being under "control orders."
A month later, it was revealed that another individual had escaped a control order. Zeeshan Sidique, like the Adam brothers and Bullivant, had connections with the individuals convicted in the Operation Crevice trial of trying to cause explosions in Britain. Sidique had gone to Pakistan to commit "Jihad." He had been admitted to a lunatic asylum while on a control order, but had escaped through a window in September 2006. He has not been found. His diary entries record the rantings of a disturbed individual, desperate to return to "the battlefield" of Jihad for the sake of Allah.
On December 12, 2007, Cerie Bullivant was cleared by a jury on seven counts relating to his breaching his control order. He admitted he had absconded, but claimed that the control order had made his life miserable. He was placed on another control order, but his lawyer announced that he would appeal against the original order on the grounds that it breached Bullivant's human rights.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Britain – Highs and Lows in the War on Terrorism
MUST READ: THE PLOT TO ATTACK U.S.-BOUND PLANES FROM BRITAIN
The Plot to Attack US-Bound Planes from Britain
by Adrian Morgan
On Thursday, April 3, a trial began at Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London. Eight men stood accused under Section 1 (1) of Britain's Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiring to murder others. They are also accused under Section 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 of preparing acts of terrorism.
The men on trial are: Abdullah Ahmed Ali, (27), Assad Sarwar, (27), Tanvir Hussain, (27), Mohammed Gulzar, (26), Ibrahim Savant (27), Arafat Khan, (26), Waheed Zaman, (25) and Umar Islam aka Brian Young (29).
The men were among 21 who had been arrested on the morning of Thursday, August 10, 2006. The arrests had taken place after an operation that had involved intelligence shared between Britain, Pakistan and the United States. The chief of U.S. Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, announced to a press conference in Washington D.C. that: "This operation is in some respects suggestive of an al-Qaeda plot... They had accumulated and assembled the capabilities that they needed and they were in the final stages of planning for execution."
He said that the plan had been to smuggle explosives on board planes which were bound for North America. These explosives would be disguised as harmless drinks and also electronic apparatus. On board the planes these would be assembled into bombs. Secretary Chertoff said the plan was "really quite close to the execution phase."
Transatlantic flight plans were thrown into chaos as Britain and America raised their security threat levels to their highest. President George W. Bush was on vacation at Crawford, Texas. He made a press announcement, in which he said: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.... Travelers are going to be inconvenienced as a result of the steps we've taken. I urge their patience and ask them to be vigilant. The inconvenience is – occurs because we will take the steps necessary to protect the American people."
At British airports, the inconvenience was widespread. Flights were delayed, and several outgoing flights were cancelled. Passengers had their shoes examined before boarding planes, and limits were placed on hand luggage. Only items that could be placed in a small clear plastic bag were allowed onto planes. No cans or bottles of drinks were allowed onto flights. Mothers who had babies were asked to take a sample sip from bottles of milk they wished to take on board.
British officials made announcements to inform the public. The arrests took place at three main locations, London, High Wycombe in Buckingamshire and Birmingham. The Bank of England froze the accounts of nineteen of the arrested suspects.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) The Plot to Attack US-Bound Planes from Britain
by Adrian Morgan
On Thursday, April 3, a trial began at Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London. Eight men stood accused under Section 1 (1) of Britain's Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiring to murder others. They are also accused under Section 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 of preparing acts of terrorism.
The men on trial are: Abdullah Ahmed Ali, (27), Assad Sarwar, (27), Tanvir Hussain, (27), Mohammed Gulzar, (26), Ibrahim Savant (27), Arafat Khan, (26), Waheed Zaman, (25) and Umar Islam aka Brian Young (29).
The men were among 21 who had been arrested on the morning of Thursday, August 10, 2006. The arrests had taken place after an operation that had involved intelligence shared between Britain, Pakistan and the United States. The chief of U.S. Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, announced to a press conference in Washington D.C. that: "This operation is in some respects suggestive of an al-Qaeda plot... They had accumulated and assembled the capabilities that they needed and they were in the final stages of planning for execution."
He said that the plan had been to smuggle explosives on board planes which were bound for North America. These explosives would be disguised as harmless drinks and also electronic apparatus. On board the planes these would be assembled into bombs. Secretary Chertoff said the plan was "really quite close to the execution phase."
Transatlantic flight plans were thrown into chaos as Britain and America raised their security threat levels to their highest. President George W. Bush was on vacation at Crawford, Texas. He made a press announcement, in which he said: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.... Travelers are going to be inconvenienced as a result of the steps we've taken. I urge their patience and ask them to be vigilant. The inconvenience is – occurs because we will take the steps necessary to protect the American people."
At British airports, the inconvenience was widespread. Flights were delayed, and several outgoing flights were cancelled. Passengers had their shoes examined before boarding planes, and limits were placed on hand luggage. Only items that could be placed in a small clear plastic bag were allowed onto planes. No cans or bottles of drinks were allowed onto flights. Mothers who had babies were asked to take a sample sip from bottles of milk they wished to take on board.
British officials made announcements to inform the public. The arrests took place at three main locations, London, High Wycombe in Buckingamshire and Birmingham. The Bank of England froze the accounts of nineteen of the arrested suspects.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) The Plot to Attack US-Bound Planes from Britain
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
MUST READ: IMPROVED INTELLIGENCE BEHIND TURKISH SUCCESS IN LATEST ANTI-PKK OPERATIONS
Improved Intelligence Behind Turkish Success in Latest Anti-PKK Operations
By Frank Hyland
The latest operations by the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) against the facilities and personnel of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in northern Iraq and in southeastern Turkey have displayed a growing competence on the part of the TSK in the use of real-time information in directing its forces in quick-reaction operations. As a result of this heightened level of skill, the TSK gives every appearance of having markedly altered the balance of power between the TSK and the PKK guerrillas since December 2007. The terrain of southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq has long been one of the chief obstacles faced by Turkey in its ongoing battle with PKK forces since 1984. The hostile wintertime climate has only added further to Turkey’s difficulty in pinpointing and reaching PKK locations in a timely fashion to carry out effective operations. In many cases over the years, Turkish forces have found themselves in the role of being forced to react to PKK attacks rather than being able to take the offensive. In its latest actions against the PKK, Operation Sancak 2, which have included cross-border artillery fire and airstrikes and ground forces operations in southeastern Turkey, it has been the PKK that has found itself on the defensive and on the run continually.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Improved Intelligence Behind Turkish Success in Latest Anti-PKK Operations
By Frank Hyland
The latest operations by the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) against the facilities and personnel of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in northern Iraq and in southeastern Turkey have displayed a growing competence on the part of the TSK in the use of real-time information in directing its forces in quick-reaction operations. As a result of this heightened level of skill, the TSK gives every appearance of having markedly altered the balance of power between the TSK and the PKK guerrillas since December 2007. The terrain of southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq has long been one of the chief obstacles faced by Turkey in its ongoing battle with PKK forces since 1984. The hostile wintertime climate has only added further to Turkey’s difficulty in pinpointing and reaching PKK locations in a timely fashion to carry out effective operations. In many cases over the years, Turkish forces have found themselves in the role of being forced to react to PKK attacks rather than being able to take the offensive. In its latest actions against the PKK, Operation Sancak 2, which have included cross-border artillery fire and airstrikes and ground forces operations in southeastern Turkey, it has been the PKK that has found itself on the defensive and on the run continually.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Improved Intelligence Behind Turkish Success in Latest Anti-PKK Operations
Welcome to ‘Lawfare’ - A New Type of Jihad
by Brooke Goldstein
The Islamist movement has two wings – one violent and one lawful, which can operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published in Denmark, the lawful arm is skillfully maneuvering within Western legal systems, both here and abroad.
Islamists with financial means have launched a “legal Jihad,” filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits with the aim of abolishing public discourse critical of Islam and with the goal of establishing principles of Sharia law (strict Islamic law dating back to the 9th Century) as the governing political and legal authority in the West.
Islamist Lawfare is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants. The lawsuits range in their claims from defamation to workplace harassment and they have resulted in books being pulped and meritorious articles going unpublished.
Forum shopping, whereby Plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of “libel tourism.” At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and other jurisdictions by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work.
Libel Tourism has also resulted in foreign judgments against American authors mandating the regulation of their speech and behavior. The litany of American anti-Islamist researchers, authors, activists, publishers, congressman, newspapers, television news stations, think tanks, NGOs, reporters, student journals and others targeted for censorship is long and merits brief mentioning here.
One of the earliest cases in the US dates back to 1937, where in Birmington, Alabama, an Arab Sheik sued the Birmington Post for libel over an article entitled “Arabian Sheik Asks Friend Here to Buy him an American Girl for Harem.” The Post reported that Sheik Fareed Iman, “who is 29 years old and fears he may reach 30 before he obtains a chief-wife for his four-wife harem, is ready to purchase a suitable girl from her parents. The lucky girl”, the article continued, “will benefit from the traditional Arabian protective treatment of women but she can’t be seen by those who are not members of the household.”
The article read more like a parody of a personal ad in the dating section of a magazine and listed a telephone number should anyone reading be interested. Nevertheless, the Alabama court of appeals refused to dismiss the suit and judged the article libelous per se, or defamatory on its face, and remanded it for jury trial, where eventually the Plaintiff lost for his failure to state a cause of action.
Within the last ten years, however, we have seen a steady increase in cases pursued by Islamic organizations and Muslim individuals attempting to use Western courts to stop the flow of certain information. They are achieving a degree of success in Europe because the judicial systems in England, France and elsewhere don’t afford their citizens, or American citizens for that matter, the same free speech protections granted in America under the U.S. Constitution. The cumulative effect of the suits abroad, and of the suits here at home even if they are not successful, and the looming threat of future suits is creating a detrimental chilling effect on dialogue concerning important matters of public concern because, naturally, people want to avoid costly litigation.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Welcome to ‘Lawfare’ - A New Type of Jihad
by Brooke Goldstein
The Islamist movement has two wings – one violent and one lawful, which can operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published in Denmark, the lawful arm is skillfully maneuvering within Western legal systems, both here and abroad.
Islamists with financial means have launched a “legal Jihad,” filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits with the aim of abolishing public discourse critical of Islam and with the goal of establishing principles of Sharia law (strict Islamic law dating back to the 9th Century) as the governing political and legal authority in the West.
Islamist Lawfare is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants. The lawsuits range in their claims from defamation to workplace harassment and they have resulted in books being pulped and meritorious articles going unpublished.
Forum shopping, whereby Plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of “libel tourism.” At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and other jurisdictions by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work.
Libel Tourism has also resulted in foreign judgments against American authors mandating the regulation of their speech and behavior. The litany of American anti-Islamist researchers, authors, activists, publishers, congressman, newspapers, television news stations, think tanks, NGOs, reporters, student journals and others targeted for censorship is long and merits brief mentioning here.
One of the earliest cases in the US dates back to 1937, where in Birmington, Alabama, an Arab Sheik sued the Birmington Post for libel over an article entitled “Arabian Sheik Asks Friend Here to Buy him an American Girl for Harem.” The Post reported that Sheik Fareed Iman, “who is 29 years old and fears he may reach 30 before he obtains a chief-wife for his four-wife harem, is ready to purchase a suitable girl from her parents. The lucky girl”, the article continued, “will benefit from the traditional Arabian protective treatment of women but she can’t be seen by those who are not members of the household.”
The article read more like a parody of a personal ad in the dating section of a magazine and listed a telephone number should anyone reading be interested. Nevertheless, the Alabama court of appeals refused to dismiss the suit and judged the article libelous per se, or defamatory on its face, and remanded it for jury trial, where eventually the Plaintiff lost for his failure to state a cause of action.
Within the last ten years, however, we have seen a steady increase in cases pursued by Islamic organizations and Muslim individuals attempting to use Western courts to stop the flow of certain information. They are achieving a degree of success in Europe because the judicial systems in England, France and elsewhere don’t afford their citizens, or American citizens for that matter, the same free speech protections granted in America under the U.S. Constitution. The cumulative effect of the suits abroad, and of the suits here at home even if they are not successful, and the looming threat of future suits is creating a detrimental chilling effect on dialogue concerning important matters of public concern because, naturally, people want to avoid costly litigation.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Welcome to ‘Lawfare’ - A New Type of Jihad
Friday, April 11, 2008
MUST READ: UNDERSTANDING CHECHNYA PART I: A SHORT HISTORY
Understanding Chechnya Part I: A Short History
Tom Ordeman, Jr.
Author's note: This is the first piece in a series on Chechnya. A remote and poorly understood component of the Russian Federation, Chechen history is dominated by secessionism and influenced in part by Islamism. In order to understand the global connections of international terrorism, one must understand Chechnya.
As the conflict between the West and militant Islam continues, international focus has fallen primarily on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. While Afghanistan and Iraq remain the primary fronts in this conflict and Iran remains the primary state sponsor of terrorism, terrorism remains a globally linked phenomenon. Terrorism and Islamist militancy have played a pivotal role in the recent history of the Russian Federation. Both phenomena have played an important role in Russian domestic and foreign policies, and terrorism within Russia is believed to have influenced terrorism globally. The region of Russia most closely tied to Islamist militancy, separatism, and terrorism is one that many of heard of, but few are truly familiar with: Chechnya.
...
Another factor, possibly more important than the issue of political cohesion, was and is Chechnya's natural resources in general, and oil in particular. Just as the Russian Federation continues to exert its influence over the energy resources of the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union, Russia was and is unwilling to sacrifice the Chechen component of its energy infrastructure. These oil fields, among others, combine with Chechen and Central Asian gas reserves to become a piece of Russia's last credible trump card in its relationship with the outside world. Russia's disputes during the last several years with Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania over energy supplies demonstrate how crucial Chechen oil is to an otherwise unstable Russian economy.
The next piece in this series will detail the two Chechen Wars and the history of Chechen terrorism.
Pertinent Links:
1) Understanding Chechnya Part I: A Short History
Tom Ordeman, Jr.
Author's note: This is the first piece in a series on Chechnya. A remote and poorly understood component of the Russian Federation, Chechen history is dominated by secessionism and influenced in part by Islamism. In order to understand the global connections of international terrorism, one must understand Chechnya.
As the conflict between the West and militant Islam continues, international focus has fallen primarily on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. While Afghanistan and Iraq remain the primary fronts in this conflict and Iran remains the primary state sponsor of terrorism, terrorism remains a globally linked phenomenon. Terrorism and Islamist militancy have played a pivotal role in the recent history of the Russian Federation. Both phenomena have played an important role in Russian domestic and foreign policies, and terrorism within Russia is believed to have influenced terrorism globally. The region of Russia most closely tied to Islamist militancy, separatism, and terrorism is one that many of heard of, but few are truly familiar with: Chechnya.
...
Another factor, possibly more important than the issue of political cohesion, was and is Chechnya's natural resources in general, and oil in particular. Just as the Russian Federation continues to exert its influence over the energy resources of the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union, Russia was and is unwilling to sacrifice the Chechen component of its energy infrastructure. These oil fields, among others, combine with Chechen and Central Asian gas reserves to become a piece of Russia's last credible trump card in its relationship with the outside world. Russia's disputes during the last several years with Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania over energy supplies demonstrate how crucial Chechen oil is to an otherwise unstable Russian economy.
The next piece in this series will detail the two Chechen Wars and the history of Chechen terrorism.
Pertinent Links:
1) Understanding Chechnya Part I: A Short History
MUST READ: UNDERSTANDING CHECHNYA PART II: THE FIRST CHECHEN WAR
Understanding Chechnya Part II: The First Chechen War
by Tom Ordeman, Jr.
Author's note: This is the second piece in a series on Chechnya. A remote and poorly understood component of the Russian Federation, Chechen history is dominated by secessionism and influenced in part by Islamism. In order to understand the global connections of international terrorism, one must understand Chechnya.
In the years directly following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the tiny Russian republic of Chechnya became increasingly independent. Having declared their independence from Russia on several previous occasions, the Chechens prepared Grozny for the coming invasion by Russia in the hopes that they would be able to bleed Russian resolve. Meanwhile, Russia appeared to make exacting preparations for a massive assault; as the waning days of 1994 would show, Russian military leaders made numerous critical errors. The First Chechen War, as it would come to be known, became an object lesson in failed urban warfare doctrines.
...
In many ways, the siege of Grozny and the ensuing war were inevitable. The Chechens were motivated by a mix of nationalism and religious fervor, and their separatist history compelled them to once again seize the opportunity of a weak and preoccupied Russia to attempt a forced independence. Meanwhile, Moscow was motivated by economic, political, and social motivators to prevent a second secessionist domino effect from beginning. Although the invasion was likely to have been bloody and protracted no matter what, the near-total failure of the Russian military to secure a timely victory was astonishing. Had the Russian military leadership put forth a realistic and cognizant plan, the conflict may not have dragged into a two year boondoggle that ended in a bloody stalemate.
Unfortunately for both the Russians and the Chechens, this bloody stalemate was only temporary. The First Chechen War would only set the stage for subsequent conflicts in the Caucasus.
Pertinent Links:
1) Understanding Chechnya Part II: The First Chechen War
by Tom Ordeman, Jr.
Author's note: This is the second piece in a series on Chechnya. A remote and poorly understood component of the Russian Federation, Chechen history is dominated by secessionism and influenced in part by Islamism. In order to understand the global connections of international terrorism, one must understand Chechnya.
In the years directly following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the tiny Russian republic of Chechnya became increasingly independent. Having declared their independence from Russia on several previous occasions, the Chechens prepared Grozny for the coming invasion by Russia in the hopes that they would be able to bleed Russian resolve. Meanwhile, Russia appeared to make exacting preparations for a massive assault; as the waning days of 1994 would show, Russian military leaders made numerous critical errors. The First Chechen War, as it would come to be known, became an object lesson in failed urban warfare doctrines.
...
In many ways, the siege of Grozny and the ensuing war were inevitable. The Chechens were motivated by a mix of nationalism and religious fervor, and their separatist history compelled them to once again seize the opportunity of a weak and preoccupied Russia to attempt a forced independence. Meanwhile, Moscow was motivated by economic, political, and social motivators to prevent a second secessionist domino effect from beginning. Although the invasion was likely to have been bloody and protracted no matter what, the near-total failure of the Russian military to secure a timely victory was astonishing. Had the Russian military leadership put forth a realistic and cognizant plan, the conflict may not have dragged into a two year boondoggle that ended in a bloody stalemate.
Unfortunately for both the Russians and the Chechens, this bloody stalemate was only temporary. The First Chechen War would only set the stage for subsequent conflicts in the Caucasus.
Pertinent Links:
1) Understanding Chechnya Part II: The First Chechen War
Thursday, April 10, 2008
MUST READ: PAMELA, ATLAS SHRUGS INTERVIEWS BAT YE'OR - - - THE TRANSCRIPT
Instead of watching/listening to the YOU TUBE video's below, you may read the complete transcript at Atlas Shrugs:
MUST READ: THE FUNNY SIDE OF ISLAM: MUHAMMAD & THE HADITH
The Funny Side of Islam: Muhammad and the Hadith
by Fjordman
First of all I’d like to remind readers that all of my essays can be republished online or translated into other languages by anybody who wants to, as long as I am credited as the author. If you like this essay, I encourage you to republish it at your website.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Iranian Islamic leader the Ayatollah Khomeini once said that “There is no fun in Islam.” I disagree. Islam can be quite funny; it just isn’t intended to be so. I have long said that Islam’s weakest point is mockery. Any enemy will reveal what he fears the most, if you listen to him closely. Muslims fear criticism or mockery of their religion more than they fear death. Well, if mockery is what they fear above all else, maybe that’s exactly what we should give them?
The good thing about Islam is that you don’t actually have to mock it, Islam mocks itself. To demonstrate the funny side of Islam, I will quote a number of authentic hadith, exclusively taken from the major collections of Bukhari and al-Muslim. These are the most important religious texts for a billion Sunni Muslims, second only to the Koran itself.
The Sunna of Muhammad, his personal example, is mainly contained in extra-Koranic sources, especially the hadith (plural: ahadith). Even the practices of prayer and pilgrimage are to a very large extent based on information from the hadith literature. One should always be careful with using Wikipedia as a source, but their entry on the five pillars of Islam is reasonably accurate:
Five Pillars of Islam is the term given to the five duties incumbent on every Muslim. These duties are:
1) Shahadah (profession of faith)
2) Salat (ritual prayer five times each day)
3) Sawm (fasting during Ramadan)
4) Zakat (Islamic tax or tithing)
5) Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during life).
These practices are essential to Sunni Islam. Shi’a Muslims subscribe to eight ritual practices which substantially overlap with the Pillars. The concept of five pillars is taken from the Hadith collections, notably those of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The Qur’an does not speak of five pillars, although one can find in it scattered references to their associated practices.
The Shias have their own hadith collections. They differ from the Sunnis in some respects in terms of theology, but not by much when it comes to violence and aggression against non-Muslims. For instance, here is a speech by Khomeini from 1981:
“Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing? Quran says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God. Mehrab means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed, just as all the wars of Islam used to proceeded out of the mehrabs. The Prophet has [had] sword to kill people. Our [Holy] Imams were quite military men. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords; they used to kill people. We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throat, stone people in the same way that the messenger of God used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people. In the same way that he massacred the Jews of Bani Qurayza because they were a bunch of discontent people. If the Prophet used to order to burn a house or exterminate a tribe, [then] that was justice.”
At the mainstream Sunni website IslamOnline, Dr. Khalid Alvi answers a question as to whether there is any need for hadith. According to him, the Koran contains dozens of reminders of the important position of Muhammad, and “No one remains Muslim if he does not accept the Prophet’s decisions and judgments.”
As Alvi writes, “The Qur’an, while pressing the Muslims to obey the Prophet, goes a step further when it announces that the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is above all the limitations of time and space. He is the Last Prophet and is a Messenger of Allah for the whole of humanity for all time to come. Hadith is nothing but a reflection of the personality of the Prophet, who is to be obeyed at every cost. Any student of the Qur’an will see that the Qur’an generally deals with the broad principles or essentials of religion, going into details in very rare cases. The details were generously supplied by the Prophet himself, either by showing in his practice how an injunction is to be carried out, or by giving an explanation in words.”
The great Hungarian orientalist Ignác Goldziher has cast doubt on the authenticity of the hadith literature, but according to other scholars, much of the same can be said about the Koran as well, which was probably completed far later, and with far more changes, than Muslims would like us to believe. Some of the Koran may even be based on pre-Islamic texts.
And as Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch asks, “who is going to red-pencil a number of the most ‘authentic’ Hadith, or perhaps throw them out altogether, and while we are at it, throw out the Sira (the biography, in the basic Muslim version, of Muhammad)? Who will declare it done? And how could it possibly be accepted? It can’t, and holding out such hope to naïve Infidels is meretricious and sinister.”
It is true that Muslim reformists do exist, though they are numerically marginal, who from time to time will argue for downplaying or ignoring the hadith and the Sunna in favor of relying on the Koran alone. I personally doubt whether they will succeed in reforming Islam in this way, as this will be viewed as heresy by people who follow the traditional interpretation of Islamic law, where heresy is punishable by death.
Sheikh Tantawi, leader of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the most important center of learning for Sunni Muslims, attacked the Sunna deniers, calling them “ignoramuses, liars, and hypocrites” and warning the public not to listen to their views. In statements delivered on November 5, 2004 at a conference organized by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Sheikh Tantawi said, “The attack on the Sunna is a means employed by the enemies of Islam for the [upcoming] attack on the Koran, because the Sunna is only a clarification of the laws appearing in the Koran… Thus, anyone who raises doubts about the prophetic Sunna as a source of legislation is acting according to a plan that is hostile to Islam… We have no life, future, or greatness among the societies except by clinging to the Koran and the Sunna. It is incumbent upon us all to stand in one rank and in one thought against anyone who attacks and denies the Sunna, because the laws [regarding matters] between man and Allah are not correct without the Sunna that explains in detail the rules and clarifies the things that are important.”
We should remember, from a theological point of view, that the Koran on quite a few occasions orders Muslims to follow the example of Muhammad, and most of his Sunna is contained in extra-Koranic sources, especially in the hadith. If you remove these, Islam will essentially collapse as a recognizable religion. Moreover, the Koran contains dozens of Jihad-verses and other verses advocating violence and intolerance against non-Muslims. Even if you ignored the entire hadith literature, a religion based on the Koran alone would still be the most aggressive major religion on earth.
In order to put the hadith into perspective, let me quote one of the most pro-Islamic writers in existence, John L. Esposito. In his book Islam: The Straight Path, Esposito says about Muhammad:
“He was revered from earliest times: Muslims remembered and recounted what he said and did. Both during his lifetime and throughout the following centuries, Muhammad has served as the ideal model for Muslim life, providing the pattern that all believers are to emulate. He is, as some Muslims say, the ‘living Quran’ — the witness whose behavior and words reveal God’s will. Thus the practices of the Prophet became a material source of Islamic law alongside the Quran. Muslims look to Muhammad’s example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, how to make love and war. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the growth of Prophetic traditions.”
In Esposito’s view, “His impact on Muslim life cannot be overestimated, since he served as both religious and political head of Medina: prophet of God, ruler, military commander, chief judge, lawgiver. As a result, the practice of the Prophet, his Sunna or example, became the norm for community life. Muslims observed and remembered stories about what the Prophet said and did. These reports or traditions (hadith) were preserved and passed on in oral and written form. The corpus of hadith literature reveals the comprehensive scope of Muhammad’s example; he is the ideal religiopolitical leader as well as the exemplary husband and father. Thus when many Muslims pray five times each day or make the pilgrimage to Mecca, they seek to pray as the Prophet prayed, without adding or subtracting from the way Muhammad is reported to have worshipped. Traditions of the Prophet provide guidance for personal hygiene, dress, eating, marriage, treatment of wives, diplomacy, and warfare.”
As Turkey’s leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is reported to have said, “Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.” The following quotes, with links, are from authentic hadith with sayings by or about Muhammad, according to Muslims the “living Koran,” the most perfect human being who has ever lived. Until the end of time, we should all emulate the way he eats, farts, or kills his enemies for mocking him. Some of these nuggets are hysterically funny, some less so. But whatever you do, don’t laugh when reading this. That makes you a dangerous Islamophobe according to the United Nations, and Muslims across the world want you dead for insulting their prophet.
Enjoy:
Volume 1, Book 11, Number 662:
- - - - - - - - -
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, “Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief.”
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 505:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “People are just like camels, out of one hundred, one can hardly find a single camel suitable to ride.”
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 356:
Narrated Sad:
Allah’s Apostle said, “He who eats seven ‘Ajwa dates every morning, will not be affected by poison or magic on the day he eats them.”
Book 028, Number 5612:
Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: He who played chess is like one who dyed his hand with the flesh and blood of swine.
Volume 7, Book 67, Number 403:
Narrated Ibn Abi Aufa:
We participated with the Prophet in six or seven Ghazawat, and we used to eat locusts with him.
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 747:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “If you want to put on your shoes, put on the right shoe first; and if you want to take them off, take the left one first. Let the right shoe be the first to be put on and the last to be taken off.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 105:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “If somebody keeps a horse in Allah’s Cause motivated by his faith in Allah and his belief in His Promise, then he will be rewarded on the Day of Resurrection for what the horse has eaten or drunk and for its dung and urine.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 238:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “A wound which a Muslim receives in Allah’s cause will appear on the Day of Resurrection as it was at the time of infliction; blood will be flowing from the wound and its color will be that of the blood but will smell like musk.”
The Prophet said, “You will meet Allah barefooted, naked, walking on feet, and uncircumcised.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease.”
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 366:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said, ‘When you eat, do not wipe your hands till you have licked it, or had it licked by somebody else.”
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 754:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet forbade the wearing of a gold ring.
Volume 7, Book 71, Number 636:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “The effect of an evil eye is a fact.” And he prohibited tattooing
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 536:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Once while a prophet amongst the prophets was taking a rest underneath a tree, an ant bit him. He, therefore, ordered that his luggage be taken away from underneath that tree and then ordered that the dwelling place of the ants should be set on fire. Allah sent him a revelation:— “Wouldn’t it have been sufficient to burn a single ant? (that bit you)
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 362:
Narrated ‘Abdul ‘Aziz:
It was said to Anas “What did you hear the Prophet saying about garlic?” Anas replied, “Whoever has eaten (garlic) should not approach our mosque.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 210:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
Allah’s Apostle drank milk, rinsed his mouth and said, “It has fat.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 245:
Narrated Abu Burda:
My father said, “I came to the Prophet and saw him carrying a Siwak in his hand and cleansing his teeth, saying, ‘U’ U’,” as if he was retching while the Siwak was in his mouth.”
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 368:
Narrated Abu Umama:
Whenever the dining sheet of the Prophet was taken away (i.e., whenever he finished his meal), he used to say: “Al-hamdu lillah kathiran taiyiban mubarakan fihi ghaira makfiy wala muwada’ wala mustaghna’anhu Rabbuna.”
Volume 7, Book 69, Number 535:
Narrated Thumama bin Abdullah:
Anas used to breathe twice or thrice in the vessel (while drinking) and used to say that the Prophet; used to take three breaths while drinking.
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 143:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said, “If anyone of you on having sexual relations with his wife said (and he must say it before starting) ‘In the name of Allah. O Allah! Protect us from Satan and also protect what you bestow upon us (i.e. the coming offspring) from Satan, and if it is destined that they should have a child then, Satan will never be able to harm that offspring.”
Volume 8, Book 77, Number 594:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, “Allah puts an angel in charge of the uterus and the angel says, ‘O Lord, (it is) semen! O Lord, (it is now ) a clot! O Lord, (it is now) a piece of flesh.’ And then, if Allah wishes to complete its creation, the angel asks, ‘O Lord, (will it be) a male or a female? A wretched (an evil doer) or a blessed (doer of good)? How much will his provisions be? What will his age be?’ So all that is written while the creature is still in the mother’s womb.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 433:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “On every Friday the angels take heir stand at every gate of the mosques to write the names of the people chronologically (i.e. according to the time of their arrival for the Friday prayer and when the Imam sits (on the pulpit) they fold up their scrolls and get ready to listen to the sermon.”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 660:
Quote: Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “Isn’t he who raises his head before the Imam afraid that Allah may transform his head into that of a donkey or his figure (face) into that of a donkey?”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 174:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “A man saw a dog eating mud from (the severity of) thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise.” And narrated Hamza bin ‘Abdullah: My father said. “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, the dogs used to urinate, and pass through the mosques (come and go), nevertheless they never used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog.)”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 494:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said, “When the (upper) edge of the sun appears (in the morning), don’t perform a prayer till the sun appears in full, and when the lower edge of the sun sets, don’t perform a prayer till it sets completely. And you should not seek to pray at sunrise or sunset for the sun rises between two sides of the head of the devil (or Satan).”
Volume 7, Book 71, Number 619:
Narrated Nazi’:
Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “The Prophet said, ‘Fever is from the heat of Hell, so put it out (cool it) with water.’ “ Nafi’ added: ‘Abdullah used to say, “O Allah! Relieve us from the punishment,” (when he suffered from fever).
Volume 9, Book 87, Number 123:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, “Whoever has seen me in a dream, then no doubt, he has seen me, for Satan cannot imitate my shape.
Volume 9, Book 87, Number 124:
Narrated Abu Qatada:
The Prophet said, “A good dream is from Allah, and a bad dream is from Satan. So whoever has seen (in a dream) something he dislike, then he should spit without saliva, thrice on his left and seek refuge with Allah from Satan, for it will not harm him, and Satan cannot appear in my shape.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 513:
Narrated Abu Qatada:
The Prophet said, “A good dream is from Allah, and a bad or evil dream is from Satan; so if anyone of you has a bad dream of which he gets afraid, he should spit on his left side and should seek Refuge with Allah from its evil, for then it will not harm him.”
Volume 2, Book 21, Number 245:
Narrated ‘Abdullah :
A person was mentioned before the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and he was told that he had kept on sleeping till morning and had not got up for the prayer. The Prophet said, “Satan urinated in his ears.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 509:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “Yawning is from Satan and if anyone of you yawns, he should check his yawning as much as possible, for if anyone of you (during the act of yawning) should say: ‘Ha’, Satan will laugh at him.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 516:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.”
Volume 1, Book 1, Number 2:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
(the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah’s Apostle “O Allah’s Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?” Allah’s Apostle replied, “Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes ‘ off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says.” ‘Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over).
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 558:
Narrated Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur’an at night, and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget.”
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 550:
Narrated Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “It is a bad thing that some of you say, ‘I have forgotten such-and-such verse of the Qur’an,’ for indeed, he has been caused (by Allah) to forget it. So you must keep on reciting the Qur’an because it escapes from the hearts of men faster than camel do.”
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 552:
Narrated Abu Musa:
The Prophet said, “Keep on reciting the Qur’an, for, by Him in Whose Hand my life is, Quran runs away (is forgotten) faster than camels that are released from their tying ropes.”
Salman reported that it was said to him: Your Apostle teaches you about everything, even about excrement. He replied: Yes, he has forbidden us to face the Qibla at the time of excretion or urination, or cleansing with right hand or with less than three pebbles, or with dung or bone.
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 200:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
That once he was in the, company of the Prophet carrying a water pot for his ablution and for cleaning his private parts. While he was following him carrying it(i.e. the pot), the Prophet said, “Who is this?” He said, “I am Abu Huraira.” The Prophet said, “Bring me stones in order to clean my private parts, and do not bring any bones or animal dung.” Abu Huraira went on narrating: So I brought some stones, carrying them in the corner of my robe till I put them by his side and went away. When he finished, I walked with him and asked, “What about the bone and the animal dung?” He said, “They are of the food of Jinns. The delegate of Jinns of (the city of) Nasibin came to me—and how nice those Jinns were—and asked me for the remains of the human food. I invoked Allah for them that they would never pass by a bone or animal dung but find food on them.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 144:
Narrated Anas:
Whenever the Prophet went to answer the call of nature, he used to say, “Allah-umma inni a’udhu bika minal khubuthi wal khaba’ith i.e. O Allah, I seek Refuge with You from all offensive and wicked things (evil deeds and evil spirits).”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 145:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
Once the Prophet entered a lavatory and I placed water for his ablution. He asked, “Who placed it?” He was informed accordingly and so he said, “O Allah! Make him (Ibn ‘Abbas) a learned scholar in religion (Islam).”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 146:
Narrated Abu Aiyub Al-Ansari:
Allah’s Apostle said, “If anyone of you goes to an open space for answering the call of nature he should neither face nor turn his back towards the Qibla; he should either face the east or the west.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 147:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
People say, “Whenever you sit for answering the call of nature, you should not face the Qibla or Bait-ul-Maqdis (Jerusalem).” I told them. “Once I went up the roof of our house and I saw Allah’s Apostle answering the call of nature while sitting on two bricks facing Bait-ul-Maqdis (Jerusalem) (but there was a screen covering him. ‘
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 152:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Whenever Allah’s Apostle went to answer the call of nature, I along with another boy used to accompany him with a tumbler full of water. (Hisham commented, “So that he might wash his private parts with it.)”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “The prayer of a person who does Hadath (passes, urine, stool or wind) is not accepted till he performs (repeats) the ablution.” A person from Hadaramout asked Abu Huraira, “What is ‘Hadath’?” Abu Huraira replied, “ ‘Hadath’ means the passing of wind from the anus.”
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 797:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: A group of people from ‘Ukl (or ‘Uraina) tribe ——but I think he said that they were from ‘Ukl came to Medina and (they became ill, so) the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she-camels and told them to go out and drink the camels’ urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought to the Prophet before midday. He ordered to cut off their hands and legs and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water. (Abu Qilaba said, “Those were the people who committed theft and murder and reverted to disbelief after being believers (Muslims), and fought against Allah and His Apostle”).
[MY COMMENT: The idea of drinking urine remains in force today, as do other practices of Muhammad (MEMRI, June 2007): Media Uproar Following Egyptian Mufti’s Fatwa on Companions of the Prophet Muhammad Being Blessed by Drinking His Urine]
Volume 1, Book 5, Number 277:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, ‘The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, ‘By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.’ So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, “My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, ‘By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone.” Abu Huraira added, “By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from that excessive beating.”
Book 030, Number 5654:
Jabir b. Samura reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I recognise the stone in Mecca which used to pay me salutations before my advent as a Prophet and I recognise that even now.
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 808:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “The boy is for (the owner of) the bed and the stone is for the person who commits illegal sexual intercourse.’
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’
[MY COMMENT: Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage sexually when she was nine and he was 54. See “Aisha the Child Wife of Muhammad”: by Ali Sina]
Book 008, Number 3311:
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).
Volume 1, Book 5, Number 282:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33:
Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
The Prophet said, “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 250:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
That he heard the Prophet saying, “It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman, and no lady should travel except with a Muhram (i.e. her husband or a person whom she cannot marry in any case for ever; e.g. her father, brother, etc.).”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy).
The Koran 8,12:
I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Book 041, Number 6983:
Abdullah b. ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You and the Jews would fight against one another until a stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’“
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle called, “War is deceit”.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 42:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
Allah’s Apostle said, “There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 63:
Narrated Al-Bara:
A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor) came to the Prophet and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first? “The Prophet said, “Embrace Islam first and then fight.” So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah’s Apostle said, A Little work, but a great reward. “(He did very little (after embracing Islam), but he will be rewarded in abundance).”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Abi Aufa: Allah’s Apostle said, “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 80i:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah’s Cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the ‘killer who also get martyred (In Allah’s Cause).”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 195:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, “Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, Allahu—Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 270:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?” He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka’b) and said, “This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity.” Ka’b replied, “By Allah, you will get tired of him.” Muhammad said to him, “We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair.” Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him.
[MY COMMENT: Ka’b bin al-Ashraf was murdered by Muhammad’s followers for the crime of having verbally criticized Muhammad and his teachings. See: Answering Islam. Asma bint Marwan, a female poet, suffered the same fate. See: Answering Islam and Wikipedia. The murder of Theo van Gogh by the devout Muslim Mohammed Bouyeri in Amsterdam in November 2004 was based on the same principle as these murders of Islam critics almost 1400 years ago. The Sunna of Muhammad, his personal example as contained in the quotes above, is valid forever.]
Written by well known blogger Fjordman, you can find many of his works at: Gates of Vienna, Islam-Watch, Global Politician, JihadWatch, The Brussels Journal and his own blog @ Blogspot bearing his name Fjordman.
Pertinent Links:
1) The Funny Side of Islam: Muhammad and the Hadith
by Fjordman
First of all I’d like to remind readers that all of my essays can be republished online or translated into other languages by anybody who wants to, as long as I am credited as the author. If you like this essay, I encourage you to republish it at your website.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Iranian Islamic leader the Ayatollah Khomeini once said that “There is no fun in Islam.” I disagree. Islam can be quite funny; it just isn’t intended to be so. I have long said that Islam’s weakest point is mockery. Any enemy will reveal what he fears the most, if you listen to him closely. Muslims fear criticism or mockery of their religion more than they fear death. Well, if mockery is what they fear above all else, maybe that’s exactly what we should give them?
The good thing about Islam is that you don’t actually have to mock it, Islam mocks itself. To demonstrate the funny side of Islam, I will quote a number of authentic hadith, exclusively taken from the major collections of Bukhari and al-Muslim. These are the most important religious texts for a billion Sunni Muslims, second only to the Koran itself.
The Sunna of Muhammad, his personal example, is mainly contained in extra-Koranic sources, especially the hadith (plural: ahadith). Even the practices of prayer and pilgrimage are to a very large extent based on information from the hadith literature. One should always be careful with using Wikipedia as a source, but their entry on the five pillars of Islam is reasonably accurate:
Five Pillars of Islam is the term given to the five duties incumbent on every Muslim. These duties are:
1) Shahadah (profession of faith)
2) Salat (ritual prayer five times each day)
3) Sawm (fasting during Ramadan)
4) Zakat (Islamic tax or tithing)
5) Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during life).
These practices are essential to Sunni Islam. Shi’a Muslims subscribe to eight ritual practices which substantially overlap with the Pillars. The concept of five pillars is taken from the Hadith collections, notably those of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The Qur’an does not speak of five pillars, although one can find in it scattered references to their associated practices.
The Shias have their own hadith collections. They differ from the Sunnis in some respects in terms of theology, but not by much when it comes to violence and aggression against non-Muslims. For instance, here is a speech by Khomeini from 1981:
“Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing? Quran says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God. Mehrab means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed, just as all the wars of Islam used to proceeded out of the mehrabs. The Prophet has [had] sword to kill people. Our [Holy] Imams were quite military men. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords; they used to kill people. We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throat, stone people in the same way that the messenger of God used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people. In the same way that he massacred the Jews of Bani Qurayza because they were a bunch of discontent people. If the Prophet used to order to burn a house or exterminate a tribe, [then] that was justice.”
At the mainstream Sunni website IslamOnline, Dr. Khalid Alvi answers a question as to whether there is any need for hadith. According to him, the Koran contains dozens of reminders of the important position of Muhammad, and “No one remains Muslim if he does not accept the Prophet’s decisions and judgments.”
As Alvi writes, “The Qur’an, while pressing the Muslims to obey the Prophet, goes a step further when it announces that the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is above all the limitations of time and space. He is the Last Prophet and is a Messenger of Allah for the whole of humanity for all time to come. Hadith is nothing but a reflection of the personality of the Prophet, who is to be obeyed at every cost. Any student of the Qur’an will see that the Qur’an generally deals with the broad principles or essentials of religion, going into details in very rare cases. The details were generously supplied by the Prophet himself, either by showing in his practice how an injunction is to be carried out, or by giving an explanation in words.”
The great Hungarian orientalist Ignác Goldziher has cast doubt on the authenticity of the hadith literature, but according to other scholars, much of the same can be said about the Koran as well, which was probably completed far later, and with far more changes, than Muslims would like us to believe. Some of the Koran may even be based on pre-Islamic texts.
And as Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch asks, “who is going to red-pencil a number of the most ‘authentic’ Hadith, or perhaps throw them out altogether, and while we are at it, throw out the Sira (the biography, in the basic Muslim version, of Muhammad)? Who will declare it done? And how could it possibly be accepted? It can’t, and holding out such hope to naïve Infidels is meretricious and sinister.”
It is true that Muslim reformists do exist, though they are numerically marginal, who from time to time will argue for downplaying or ignoring the hadith and the Sunna in favor of relying on the Koran alone. I personally doubt whether they will succeed in reforming Islam in this way, as this will be viewed as heresy by people who follow the traditional interpretation of Islamic law, where heresy is punishable by death.
Sheikh Tantawi, leader of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the most important center of learning for Sunni Muslims, attacked the Sunna deniers, calling them “ignoramuses, liars, and hypocrites” and warning the public not to listen to their views. In statements delivered on November 5, 2004 at a conference organized by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Sheikh Tantawi said, “The attack on the Sunna is a means employed by the enemies of Islam for the [upcoming] attack on the Koran, because the Sunna is only a clarification of the laws appearing in the Koran… Thus, anyone who raises doubts about the prophetic Sunna as a source of legislation is acting according to a plan that is hostile to Islam… We have no life, future, or greatness among the societies except by clinging to the Koran and the Sunna. It is incumbent upon us all to stand in one rank and in one thought against anyone who attacks and denies the Sunna, because the laws [regarding matters] between man and Allah are not correct without the Sunna that explains in detail the rules and clarifies the things that are important.”
We should remember, from a theological point of view, that the Koran on quite a few occasions orders Muslims to follow the example of Muhammad, and most of his Sunna is contained in extra-Koranic sources, especially in the hadith. If you remove these, Islam will essentially collapse as a recognizable religion. Moreover, the Koran contains dozens of Jihad-verses and other verses advocating violence and intolerance against non-Muslims. Even if you ignored the entire hadith literature, a religion based on the Koran alone would still be the most aggressive major religion on earth.
In order to put the hadith into perspective, let me quote one of the most pro-Islamic writers in existence, John L. Esposito. In his book Islam: The Straight Path, Esposito says about Muhammad:
“He was revered from earliest times: Muslims remembered and recounted what he said and did. Both during his lifetime and throughout the following centuries, Muhammad has served as the ideal model for Muslim life, providing the pattern that all believers are to emulate. He is, as some Muslims say, the ‘living Quran’ — the witness whose behavior and words reveal God’s will. Thus the practices of the Prophet became a material source of Islamic law alongside the Quran. Muslims look to Muhammad’s example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, how to make love and war. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the growth of Prophetic traditions.”
In Esposito’s view, “His impact on Muslim life cannot be overestimated, since he served as both religious and political head of Medina: prophet of God, ruler, military commander, chief judge, lawgiver. As a result, the practice of the Prophet, his Sunna or example, became the norm for community life. Muslims observed and remembered stories about what the Prophet said and did. These reports or traditions (hadith) were preserved and passed on in oral and written form. The corpus of hadith literature reveals the comprehensive scope of Muhammad’s example; he is the ideal religiopolitical leader as well as the exemplary husband and father. Thus when many Muslims pray five times each day or make the pilgrimage to Mecca, they seek to pray as the Prophet prayed, without adding or subtracting from the way Muhammad is reported to have worshipped. Traditions of the Prophet provide guidance for personal hygiene, dress, eating, marriage, treatment of wives, diplomacy, and warfare.”
As Turkey’s leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is reported to have said, “Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.” The following quotes, with links, are from authentic hadith with sayings by or about Muhammad, according to Muslims the “living Koran,” the most perfect human being who has ever lived. Until the end of time, we should all emulate the way he eats, farts, or kills his enemies for mocking him. Some of these nuggets are hysterically funny, some less so. But whatever you do, don’t laugh when reading this. That makes you a dangerous Islamophobe according to the United Nations, and Muslims across the world want you dead for insulting their prophet.
Enjoy:
Volume 1, Book 11, Number 662:
- - - - - - - - -
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, “Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief.”
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 505:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “People are just like camels, out of one hundred, one can hardly find a single camel suitable to ride.”
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 356:
Narrated Sad:
Allah’s Apostle said, “He who eats seven ‘Ajwa dates every morning, will not be affected by poison or magic on the day he eats them.”
Book 028, Number 5612:
Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: He who played chess is like one who dyed his hand with the flesh and blood of swine.
Volume 7, Book 67, Number 403:
Narrated Ibn Abi Aufa:
We participated with the Prophet in six or seven Ghazawat, and we used to eat locusts with him.
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 747:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “If you want to put on your shoes, put on the right shoe first; and if you want to take them off, take the left one first. Let the right shoe be the first to be put on and the last to be taken off.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 105:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “If somebody keeps a horse in Allah’s Cause motivated by his faith in Allah and his belief in His Promise, then he will be rewarded on the Day of Resurrection for what the horse has eaten or drunk and for its dung and urine.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 238:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “A wound which a Muslim receives in Allah’s cause will appear on the Day of Resurrection as it was at the time of infliction; blood will be flowing from the wound and its color will be that of the blood but will smell like musk.”
The Prophet said, “You will meet Allah barefooted, naked, walking on feet, and uncircumcised.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease.”
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 366:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said, ‘When you eat, do not wipe your hands till you have licked it, or had it licked by somebody else.”
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 754:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet forbade the wearing of a gold ring.
Volume 7, Book 71, Number 636:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “The effect of an evil eye is a fact.” And he prohibited tattooing
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 536:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Once while a prophet amongst the prophets was taking a rest underneath a tree, an ant bit him. He, therefore, ordered that his luggage be taken away from underneath that tree and then ordered that the dwelling place of the ants should be set on fire. Allah sent him a revelation:— “Wouldn’t it have been sufficient to burn a single ant? (that bit you)
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 362:
Narrated ‘Abdul ‘Aziz:
It was said to Anas “What did you hear the Prophet saying about garlic?” Anas replied, “Whoever has eaten (garlic) should not approach our mosque.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 210:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
Allah’s Apostle drank milk, rinsed his mouth and said, “It has fat.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 245:
Narrated Abu Burda:
My father said, “I came to the Prophet and saw him carrying a Siwak in his hand and cleansing his teeth, saying, ‘U’ U’,” as if he was retching while the Siwak was in his mouth.”
Volume 7, Book 65, Number 368:
Narrated Abu Umama:
Whenever the dining sheet of the Prophet was taken away (i.e., whenever he finished his meal), he used to say: “Al-hamdu lillah kathiran taiyiban mubarakan fihi ghaira makfiy wala muwada’ wala mustaghna’anhu Rabbuna.”
Volume 7, Book 69, Number 535:
Narrated Thumama bin Abdullah:
Anas used to breathe twice or thrice in the vessel (while drinking) and used to say that the Prophet; used to take three breaths while drinking.
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 143:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said, “If anyone of you on having sexual relations with his wife said (and he must say it before starting) ‘In the name of Allah. O Allah! Protect us from Satan and also protect what you bestow upon us (i.e. the coming offspring) from Satan, and if it is destined that they should have a child then, Satan will never be able to harm that offspring.”
Volume 8, Book 77, Number 594:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, “Allah puts an angel in charge of the uterus and the angel says, ‘O Lord, (it is) semen! O Lord, (it is now ) a clot! O Lord, (it is now) a piece of flesh.’ And then, if Allah wishes to complete its creation, the angel asks, ‘O Lord, (will it be) a male or a female? A wretched (an evil doer) or a blessed (doer of good)? How much will his provisions be? What will his age be?’ So all that is written while the creature is still in the mother’s womb.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 433:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “On every Friday the angels take heir stand at every gate of the mosques to write the names of the people chronologically (i.e. according to the time of their arrival for the Friday prayer and when the Imam sits (on the pulpit) they fold up their scrolls and get ready to listen to the sermon.”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 660:
Quote: Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “Isn’t he who raises his head before the Imam afraid that Allah may transform his head into that of a donkey or his figure (face) into that of a donkey?”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 174:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “A man saw a dog eating mud from (the severity of) thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise.” And narrated Hamza bin ‘Abdullah: My father said. “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, the dogs used to urinate, and pass through the mosques (come and go), nevertheless they never used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog.)”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 494:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said, “When the (upper) edge of the sun appears (in the morning), don’t perform a prayer till the sun appears in full, and when the lower edge of the sun sets, don’t perform a prayer till it sets completely. And you should not seek to pray at sunrise or sunset for the sun rises between two sides of the head of the devil (or Satan).”
Volume 7, Book 71, Number 619:
Narrated Nazi’:
Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “The Prophet said, ‘Fever is from the heat of Hell, so put it out (cool it) with water.’ “ Nafi’ added: ‘Abdullah used to say, “O Allah! Relieve us from the punishment,” (when he suffered from fever).
Volume 9, Book 87, Number 123:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, “Whoever has seen me in a dream, then no doubt, he has seen me, for Satan cannot imitate my shape.
Volume 9, Book 87, Number 124:
Narrated Abu Qatada:
The Prophet said, “A good dream is from Allah, and a bad dream is from Satan. So whoever has seen (in a dream) something he dislike, then he should spit without saliva, thrice on his left and seek refuge with Allah from Satan, for it will not harm him, and Satan cannot appear in my shape.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 513:
Narrated Abu Qatada:
The Prophet said, “A good dream is from Allah, and a bad or evil dream is from Satan; so if anyone of you has a bad dream of which he gets afraid, he should spit on his left side and should seek Refuge with Allah from its evil, for then it will not harm him.”
Volume 2, Book 21, Number 245:
Narrated ‘Abdullah :
A person was mentioned before the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and he was told that he had kept on sleeping till morning and had not got up for the prayer. The Prophet said, “Satan urinated in his ears.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 509:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “Yawning is from Satan and if anyone of you yawns, he should check his yawning as much as possible, for if anyone of you (during the act of yawning) should say: ‘Ha’, Satan will laugh at him.”
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 516:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.”
Volume 1, Book 1, Number 2:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
(the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah’s Apostle “O Allah’s Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?” Allah’s Apostle replied, “Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes ‘ off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says.” ‘Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over).
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 558:
Narrated Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur’an at night, and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget.”
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 550:
Narrated Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “It is a bad thing that some of you say, ‘I have forgotten such-and-such verse of the Qur’an,’ for indeed, he has been caused (by Allah) to forget it. So you must keep on reciting the Qur’an because it escapes from the hearts of men faster than camel do.”
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 552:
Narrated Abu Musa:
The Prophet said, “Keep on reciting the Qur’an, for, by Him in Whose Hand my life is, Quran runs away (is forgotten) faster than camels that are released from their tying ropes.”
Salman reported that it was said to him: Your Apostle teaches you about everything, even about excrement. He replied: Yes, he has forbidden us to face the Qibla at the time of excretion or urination, or cleansing with right hand or with less than three pebbles, or with dung or bone.
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 200:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
That once he was in the, company of the Prophet carrying a water pot for his ablution and for cleaning his private parts. While he was following him carrying it(i.e. the pot), the Prophet said, “Who is this?” He said, “I am Abu Huraira.” The Prophet said, “Bring me stones in order to clean my private parts, and do not bring any bones or animal dung.” Abu Huraira went on narrating: So I brought some stones, carrying them in the corner of my robe till I put them by his side and went away. When he finished, I walked with him and asked, “What about the bone and the animal dung?” He said, “They are of the food of Jinns. The delegate of Jinns of (the city of) Nasibin came to me—and how nice those Jinns were—and asked me for the remains of the human food. I invoked Allah for them that they would never pass by a bone or animal dung but find food on them.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 144:
Narrated Anas:
Whenever the Prophet went to answer the call of nature, he used to say, “Allah-umma inni a’udhu bika minal khubuthi wal khaba’ith i.e. O Allah, I seek Refuge with You from all offensive and wicked things (evil deeds and evil spirits).”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 145:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
Once the Prophet entered a lavatory and I placed water for his ablution. He asked, “Who placed it?” He was informed accordingly and so he said, “O Allah! Make him (Ibn ‘Abbas) a learned scholar in religion (Islam).”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 146:
Narrated Abu Aiyub Al-Ansari:
Allah’s Apostle said, “If anyone of you goes to an open space for answering the call of nature he should neither face nor turn his back towards the Qibla; he should either face the east or the west.”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 147:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
People say, “Whenever you sit for answering the call of nature, you should not face the Qibla or Bait-ul-Maqdis (Jerusalem).” I told them. “Once I went up the roof of our house and I saw Allah’s Apostle answering the call of nature while sitting on two bricks facing Bait-ul-Maqdis (Jerusalem) (but there was a screen covering him. ‘
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 152:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Whenever Allah’s Apostle went to answer the call of nature, I along with another boy used to accompany him with a tumbler full of water. (Hisham commented, “So that he might wash his private parts with it.)”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “The prayer of a person who does Hadath (passes, urine, stool or wind) is not accepted till he performs (repeats) the ablution.” A person from Hadaramout asked Abu Huraira, “What is ‘Hadath’?” Abu Huraira replied, “ ‘Hadath’ means the passing of wind from the anus.”
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 797:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: A group of people from ‘Ukl (or ‘Uraina) tribe ——but I think he said that they were from ‘Ukl came to Medina and (they became ill, so) the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she-camels and told them to go out and drink the camels’ urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought to the Prophet before midday. He ordered to cut off their hands and legs and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water. (Abu Qilaba said, “Those were the people who committed theft and murder and reverted to disbelief after being believers (Muslims), and fought against Allah and His Apostle”).
[MY COMMENT: The idea of drinking urine remains in force today, as do other practices of Muhammad (MEMRI, June 2007): Media Uproar Following Egyptian Mufti’s Fatwa on Companions of the Prophet Muhammad Being Blessed by Drinking His Urine]
Volume 1, Book 5, Number 277:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, ‘The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, ‘By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.’ So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, “My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, ‘By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone.” Abu Huraira added, “By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from that excessive beating.”
Book 030, Number 5654:
Jabir b. Samura reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I recognise the stone in Mecca which used to pay me salutations before my advent as a Prophet and I recognise that even now.
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 808:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “The boy is for (the owner of) the bed and the stone is for the person who commits illegal sexual intercourse.’
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’
[MY COMMENT: Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage sexually when she was nine and he was 54. See “Aisha the Child Wife of Muhammad”: by Ali Sina]
Book 008, Number 3311:
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).
Volume 1, Book 5, Number 282:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33:
Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
The Prophet said, “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 250:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
That he heard the Prophet saying, “It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman, and no lady should travel except with a Muhram (i.e. her husband or a person whom she cannot marry in any case for ever; e.g. her father, brother, etc.).”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy).
The Koran 8,12:
I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Book 041, Number 6983:
Abdullah b. ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You and the Jews would fight against one another until a stone would say: Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’“
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle called, “War is deceit”.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 42:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
Allah’s Apostle said, “There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 63:
Narrated Al-Bara:
A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor) came to the Prophet and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first? “The Prophet said, “Embrace Islam first and then fight.” So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah’s Apostle said, A Little work, but a great reward. “(He did very little (after embracing Islam), but he will be rewarded in abundance).”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Abi Aufa: Allah’s Apostle said, “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 80i:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah’s Cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the ‘killer who also get martyred (In Allah’s Cause).”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 195:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, “Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, Allahu—Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.”
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 270:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?” He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka’b) and said, “This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity.” Ka’b replied, “By Allah, you will get tired of him.” Muhammad said to him, “We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair.” Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him.
[MY COMMENT: Ka’b bin al-Ashraf was murdered by Muhammad’s followers for the crime of having verbally criticized Muhammad and his teachings. See: Answering Islam. Asma bint Marwan, a female poet, suffered the same fate. See: Answering Islam and Wikipedia. The murder of Theo van Gogh by the devout Muslim Mohammed Bouyeri in Amsterdam in November 2004 was based on the same principle as these murders of Islam critics almost 1400 years ago. The Sunna of Muhammad, his personal example as contained in the quotes above, is valid forever.]
Written by well known blogger Fjordman, you can find many of his works at: Gates of Vienna, Islam-Watch, Global Politician, JihadWatch, The Brussels Journal and his own blog @ Blogspot bearing his name Fjordman.
Pertinent Links:
1) The Funny Side of Islam: Muhammad and the Hadith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
