If you only learn one thing regarding Islam, learn about Islamic ethics. Islamic ethics do not share anything with our ethics. Islamic ethics are profoundly and foundationally dualistic. They have one set of rules for themselves, and another set of rules for everyone else, the kafirs. The treatment of kafirs varies from their being treated well to being beheaded. Both treatments reflect pure Islam. In Islam, kafirs can also be deceived, robbed, murdered and raped. There is even a word for sacred deceit---taquiyya.
On an ethical basis, there is no such thing as Islamic pacifism. Islam is a civilization of war and violence. The Sira and Koran show that Islam was a failure until it adopted violence. It then became overwhelmingly powerful. The Hadith (Traditions of Mohammed) is filled with details of the ethics of Islam.
Ethics is the great divide between Islam and all other cultures, but before we look at Islamic ethics, let's look at ours. Our ethics are based upon the Golden Rule---treat others as you would be treated. Who are the 'others?' The 'others' are ALL others. There's no elimination of someone because of race, sex, ethnicity, or religion. In our politics, everyone is to be treated fairly and equally before the law, and the Golden Rule leads to the concepts of what we call fair and what we call equal. Some may jump up and say, "But we don't do that all the time, do we?" No, it is true that we do not do that all the time, because every person is pulled between two contradictory ideas. One is to treat others as they should be treated. The other idea is purely selfish and to only look to ourselves. When we dwell on our own personal needs too much and start hurting or harming others, we can be corrected and brought back by saying, 'That is not fair,' and such 'fairness' is based upon the Golden Rule.
So the Golden Rule lies behind our legal and ethical system.
Islam does not follow the Golden Rule. Indeed Islam explicitly denies the Golden Rule. The Koran never addresses humanity as a whole. Instead, humanity is always divided into the kafir (the unbeliever) and the believer (the Muslim). The Koran is very clear that the kafir is to be treated differently from the believer, and this treatment can be very violent. So this division into kafir and believer eliminates the possibility of having a Golden Rule.
Islam, therefore, is dualistic. It has one set of rules for itself, and another set of rules for the kafir. There is no 'one humanity.'
The other difference between Islamic ethics and ours is that, fundamentally, there is no concept of right and wrong in Islam. All ethics in Islam are based upon what Mohammed did and did not do; therefore, the concepts inside of Islamic ethics are not 'right' and 'wrong,' but what is permitted and what is forbidden. Mohammed is viewed as the perfect ethical pattern. Every Muslim is to follow him and do what he did and say what he said. The ethics of Islam are determined by what Mohammed did and said---his Sunna. The rest of the ethics are found in the Koran.
Let's examine Islamic ethics regarding deceit, by reading some ideas that have been given to us by Muslims. Let's look at a quote from Ali Al Timimi, an internationally-known Muslim scholar and imam who had government clearance, who even worked with a former White House Chief of Staff and was invited to speak to the military about Islam.
Publicly, the imam denounced Islamic violence and said: "My position against terrorism and Muslim-inspired violence against innocent people is well known by Muslims." But privately, another picture emerged. Five days after the attacks on September 11th, he called them legitimate, and rallied young Muslim men in his mosque to carry out more Holy war and violent Jihad.
Another Islamic leader in this country, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who developed the Pentagon's Muslim chaplain corps, and acted as a good will ambassador for our State Department, also, denounced terror. "We are against all forms of terrorism," he claimed. "Our religion is against terrorism." Privately, he raised major funds for Al-Qaeda, and was caught on tape grumbling that Osama bin Laden had not killed enough kafirs in the U.S. Embassy bombings.
In our culture, we would call these men liars. But this does not apply inside of Islamic ethics, because what these men were practicing was deceit. They were talking to kafirs when they said those things. Let's examine what Mohammed said about deceiving the kafir.
In Medina, there was a Jew named al-Ashraf. Al-Ashraf wrote a poem in which he condemned Mohammed, and Mohammed, at the mosque, asked, "Who will rid me of Ashraf, the enemy of Allah and his prophet?" One of the Muslims said he would, but a few days later, Mohammed noticed that the task of killing al-Ashraf had not been done, so he went to the man and asked, "What are you doing?" The man said, "Mohammed, in order to kill Ashraf, I will have to tell a lie". Then Mohammed said, "Say whatever you need to say."
The Muslim took a couple of his friends and went to al-Ashraf and told him they were getting sick and tired of Mohammed, but before they could leave, they needed to have a little money, and were wondering if al-Ashraf could help. They wanted to borrow some money. Al-Ashraf said he would need some collateral to loan them money. And so, they suggested that perhaps they could bring him their weapons - their swords and knives - and leave them in pawn. He agreed.
So, the next night, the three Muslims showed up, their weapons in hand. But al-Ashraf was not concerned: they had come to pawn the weapons. They chatted with him in a friendly way and said, "It is night---a pleasant night; let us go for a walk and discuss things". So they did. But, in the middle of the walk, after they had recited some poetry, one of them grabbed him by the hair of the head, said to the other, "Kill him", and they knifed him in the stomach and killed al-Ashraf.
When they came back to Mohammed, Mohammed was delighted at the death of the enemy of Allah and the prophet. He had given them permission to lie, because they were dealing with a kafir, and the lie advanced Islam. Here we have dualism. A Muslim is told not to lie to another Muslim, but with a kafir, there is an option. The Muslim can tell the kafir the truth, or he can tell him a lie, if it will advance Islam. And this was repeated many times in Mohammed's life. So much so that, at one point he said, 'Jihad is deceit.'
Now let's go back to the idea that Islam does not use terror. And let's take a look at another story. This one happened in Russia, in Beslan, where there was a school, and the school had roughly a thousand people in it, including the children and the personnel. Some Muslim Jihadists attacked the school and took it over, and held everyone in it. The Jihadists took all of the children and put them in the gymnasium. They were kept there for days without food or water. Finally, the Russian special forces decided that they needed to go in. There was chaos, and as the children jumped out the windows and ran for safety, the Jihadists shot them in the back.
The attack continued. Once it became clear that they were going to lose the building, the Jihadists fell back from their original plan. They had brought explosives, so they placed them in such a way that, when they detonated them, the roof fell in on the children. This was the way that most of the children were killed. This was a terrible attack, but what happened after the attack is what we want to point out.
Muslim scholars and Muslim imams all said the same thing: "That was not Islam. In Islam, we are forbidden to kill women and children." And that is true; there are Hadiths which state that women and children are not to be killed. However, there are other Hadiths in which they were getting ready to attack a tribe, and the simple reason they were attacking is that the people were kafirs---who had done nothing wrong. They decided to attack at night, and they asked Mohammed, 'What if they made a mistake in the dark and wound up killing women and children?'---and Mohammed said, "They are from them." ("them" = unbelievers)
Well, now we have a contradiction. We have Mohammed saying, 'Do not kill women and children,' and we have Mohammed saying, 'Kill them, they are from them.' This is dualism. We have contradictory facts, but both of them are true. The Jihadists can choose whichever they want. And what did the Jihadists in Beslan do? They chose to kill the children. Why? "They are from them." That is, they are kafirs.
In Mohammed's time, in which he developed the ethics of Jihad, he always had the kafirs confused. The Arabs, just like everyone else, had rules for warfare. Since Mohammed was an Arab, they kept expecting him to follow the rules, but Mohammed did not follow the rules. He made them up as he went.
As far as terror not being Islamic, Mohammed said, in one of the most famous Hadiths, "I have been given five things that have never been given to anyone before me." One of these things he was given was that Allah allowed him to spread Islam by awe and terror.
Jihad is terror. So when Muslim scholars say terror is not the way of Islam, they are practicing deceit. Indeed, the practice of deceit even has a special name in Arabic, which we mentioned earlier---taquiyya. It means 'sacred deception.' To even have the concept of 'sacred deceit' is an amazing ethical thought.
Here's another example of deceit in Jihad. In modern times, we have grown used to the fact that a Muslim Jihadist can strap on dynamite and walk into a room filled with people---kafirs---and kill himself and everyone else. Muslim clerics say that is not Islam, because suicide is forbidden in Islam. And this is true. Suicide is forbidden in Islam. But there is a very famous Hadith in which Mohammed said that killing yourself while trying to kill kafirs sends you straight to Heaven; therefore, the ethical expectation of the person who kills himself in the face of killing others, is that he will go straight to Heaven. He is a martyr.
In the very term 'martyr' in Islam, we see the difference between the West and Islam, because the word 'martyr' in Islam means someone who dies while killing kafirs; whereas, in our language, a martyr is one who is killed because of what he believes.
Here's another example of the ethical divide. Currently, in America, there is debate over whether waterboarding is torture. Indeed, the idea of what constitutes torture has been talked about in the media. There is, however, no debate inside the Islamic world about torturing kafirs, and the reason is, Mohammed tortured kafirs. There's a famous story about when he attacked a tribe of Jews. After the Jews had surrendered, they took the leader of the Jews and staked him out on the ground at Mohammed's orders. The reason they did this was that they knew that the Jews had a buried treasure. Mohammed had a small fire built on the old man's chest, but the old man refused to speak. He would not give up the secret of the treasure, so, finally, Mohammed said, 'Cut him loose,' and he took him over to a Jihadist who had lost a brother in the attack on the Jews, and he gave the brother the pleasure of killing the leader of the Jews. So, as a consequence, inside of Islam, there are no questions about whether torture can be used against kafirs. It is Sunna. It is the way of Mohammed to torture the kafir.
Islamic ethics are clearly laid out in the Hadith. Here are some statements about Islamic ethics found in various traditions: 'A Muslim is to never cheat another Muslim in business.' 'A Muslim does not lie to another Muslim.' 'A Muslim does not kill another Muslim.' 'A Muslim does not bother another Muslim's wife.' These statements are very dualistic, because this behavior is only reserved for other Muslims. A Muslim is a brother to other Muslims. Anyone who knows Muslims says, "Wait a minute; I know a lot of Muslims, and they don't lie to me, and they don't cheat me in business. They don't come to work with dynamite and kill themselves and other people." This is duality. The kafir has two ways of being treated. He can be treated as a human being. The Golden Rule can even be applied to him if it will advance Islam, but the truth does not need to be told; the truth can be shaded. The most common form of this deceit is for Muslims to only discuss the Koran of Mecca. Only talking about the Koran of Mecca is telling a half-truth, not telling the whole truth.
In our courts, we swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 'Nothing but the truth' prohibits direct lies. But it's equally important to tell the whole truth, because telling half a truth is just another form of a lie. So, when a Muslim discusses with a kafir the Koran of Mecca---the 'good' Koran---this is a form of deceit. All Muslims obey an ethical code which is quite different from our ethical code.
Islamic ethics support how Muslims treat women. For instance, women can be beaten. Women are set apart in their own separate code. There is an ethical system for slavery. Mohammed was the perfect slave master. His Sunna laid out all the ways that slaves are to be treated. There is also an ethical system for the treatment of the dhimmi, that strange political creature who is not quite a slave, but certainly not a citizen.
So, Islamic ethics lie behind everything that a Muslim does---but it does bring up political questions: If a Muslim does not have to tell the kafir the truth, why would we use Muslim translators for Arabic documents inside of the FBI and the CIA? Muslim translators take an oath, but Islam has a very unique interpretation of oaths: that is, an oath can always be changed by a Muslim for something better, and there is a Hadith which explicitly states this. But the Hadith does not really say what is better. That is the choice of the Muslim. So if we have a Muslim policeman or a military man who takes an oath to serve and protect, he can change it anytime he wishes. And for that matter, this same changing of oaths is applied to treaties---political treaties. If the Muslim nation signs a treaty with a kafir, it can be abrogated at any time, as long as Islam comes out on top.
To deal with Islam, it is critical that we understand its ethics. We assume that they're the same as ours, but this assumption is based upon ignorance, because Islamic ethics are very different from ours. Ours are based on the unitary law of treating all people the same (which originally comes from the Bible). Islamic ethics are based upon the idea of kafirs and believers, and having a separate set of ethics for each one. One cannot understand Islam without understanding its ethical duality.
The above text is taken from the website Political Islam.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Why did the Jewish religious leaders---the Pharisees---have Jesus killed?
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." (John 8:58-59)
"I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him." (John 10:30-31)
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)
"Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy." (Matthew 26:65)
God's temple was holy to the Jews. Who was holier than the temple? Only God Himself was holier than the temple. Yet, Jesus said in Matt. 12:6, referring to Himself, "I tell you that one greater than the temple is here." He was inferring that He was God.
The Sabbath Day was a holy day. The Lord of the Sabbath was God. Yet, Jesus said in Matt. 12:8, "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." He was claiming to be God here.
"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)
"Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " (Exodus 3:13-14)
Several times Jesus described Himself, introduced by the term, "I AM." (John 6:35; 8:12; 9:5; 10:7,9,11,14). In the Greek, the words are solemnly emphatic and echo Exodus 3:14. And John 8:58-59 says, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."
"Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that are coming upon him, having gone forth, said to them, `Whom do ye seek?' they answered him, `Jesus the Nazarene;' Jesus saith to them, `I am [he];' -- and Judas who delivered him up was standing with them; -- when, therefore, he said to them -- `I am [he],' they went away backward, and fell to the ground." (John 18:4-6, Young's Literal Translation)
[NOTE: The word "he" is not in the original Greek. In the Greek, Jesus merely says, "I am."]
The men who fell backward were those who had come to arrest Jesus before the crucifixion. This shows that Jesus was God, and had power over the soldiers, and could have destroyed them if He wished.
Those Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God, and was calling Himself by the Name of God from Exodus 3:14. They wanted to kill Jesus because of blasphemy, because He claimed to be God. This is why they finally manipulated the Romans into crucifying Him.
"Jesus, therefore, said to them, `When ye may lift up the Son of Man then ye will know that I am [he]; and of myself I do nothing, but according as my Father did teach me, these things I speak." (John 8:28, Young's Literal Translation)
"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." (John 6:46-47)
"Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come." (John 8:19-20)
"Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:25-30)
"You are not my sheep": The unbelieving Jews were not of the Elect; they did not know God. Though the Jews as a nation are God's chosen people, not every Jew will be saved.
"They shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my / my Father's hand": The Elect are secure in Christ.
In John 10:30, Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." The Greek is neuter--"one thing," not "one person." The two are one in essence or nature, but they are not identical Persons. This supports the Trinity---one God, yet three Persons. This great truth is what warrants Jesus' "I Am" declarations.
"I and the Father are one": Jesus was saying that He and the Father are one God (though distinct Persons). Each Person of the Trinity---Father, Son and Holy Spirit---has always existed. With man, one person = one being. But God is not like man. With God, one Supreme Being = three Persons. A human being does not have gills like fish. Neither does a human being have wings like a bird. Similarly, a human being is not made up of three persons. But, just as fish and birds are not human beings, so God is not a human being. So, although man was made in the image of God, that does not mean that man has all the characteristics of God. For example, man is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent; yet God is.
"Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:9)
"He who hates me hates my Father as well." (John 15:23)
"I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24, Young's Literal Translation)
"I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him." (John 10:30-31)
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)
"Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy." (Matthew 26:65)
God's temple was holy to the Jews. Who was holier than the temple? Only God Himself was holier than the temple. Yet, Jesus said in Matt. 12:6, referring to Himself, "I tell you that one greater than the temple is here." He was inferring that He was God.
The Sabbath Day was a holy day. The Lord of the Sabbath was God. Yet, Jesus said in Matt. 12:8, "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." He was claiming to be God here.
"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)
"Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " (Exodus 3:13-14)
Several times Jesus described Himself, introduced by the term, "I AM." (John 6:35; 8:12; 9:5; 10:7,9,11,14). In the Greek, the words are solemnly emphatic and echo Exodus 3:14. And John 8:58-59 says, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."
"Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that are coming upon him, having gone forth, said to them, `Whom do ye seek?' they answered him, `Jesus the Nazarene;' Jesus saith to them, `I am [he];' -- and Judas who delivered him up was standing with them; -- when, therefore, he said to them -- `I am [he],' they went away backward, and fell to the ground." (John 18:4-6, Young's Literal Translation)
[NOTE: The word "he" is not in the original Greek. In the Greek, Jesus merely says, "I am."]
The men who fell backward were those who had come to arrest Jesus before the crucifixion. This shows that Jesus was God, and had power over the soldiers, and could have destroyed them if He wished.
Those Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God, and was calling Himself by the Name of God from Exodus 3:14. They wanted to kill Jesus because of blasphemy, because He claimed to be God. This is why they finally manipulated the Romans into crucifying Him.
"Jesus, therefore, said to them, `When ye may lift up the Son of Man then ye will know that I am [he]; and of myself I do nothing, but according as my Father did teach me, these things I speak." (John 8:28, Young's Literal Translation)
"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." (John 6:46-47)
"Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come." (John 8:19-20)
"Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:25-30)
"You are not my sheep": The unbelieving Jews were not of the Elect; they did not know God. Though the Jews as a nation are God's chosen people, not every Jew will be saved.
"They shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my / my Father's hand": The Elect are secure in Christ.
In John 10:30, Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." The Greek is neuter--"one thing," not "one person." The two are one in essence or nature, but they are not identical Persons. This supports the Trinity---one God, yet three Persons. This great truth is what warrants Jesus' "I Am" declarations.
"I and the Father are one": Jesus was saying that He and the Father are one God (though distinct Persons). Each Person of the Trinity---Father, Son and Holy Spirit---has always existed. With man, one person = one being. But God is not like man. With God, one Supreme Being = three Persons. A human being does not have gills like fish. Neither does a human being have wings like a bird. Similarly, a human being is not made up of three persons. But, just as fish and birds are not human beings, so God is not a human being. So, although man was made in the image of God, that does not mean that man has all the characteristics of God. For example, man is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent; yet God is.
"Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:9)
"He who hates me hates my Father as well." (John 15:23)
"I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24, Young's Literal Translation)
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Islam and Slavery
You do not know the history of slavery if you do not know about Islam and slavery. Slavery is a very important part and a highly developed doctrine in Islam. It has a 1400-year-old history, which is still alive today in Africa. Mohammed was a slaver who dealt in every aspect of slavery.
It is impossible to study the history of Mohammed and the beginnings of Islam and not become involved in the role of slavery. The ‘politically correct’ version of slavery is that it only happened when white men showed up in wooden ships off the coast of Africa, went into the bush, captured slaves and brought them back to sell in America. That is the generally accepted history of slavery in America.
That does contain an element of truth, but it's not even remotely the story of world slavery, or even how slave trading worked in the Americas.
To study slavery from the standpoint of the world, you must study Islam, because Islam has enslaved all others - the African, the European, the Asian – Islam has enslaved everybody.
Francis Bok, a Christian, appeared at a university to give a talk. It was interesting, because he was an actual freed African slave. He and his sister had gone to the market to sell beans and, while they were in the market place, Muslim jihadis showed up. They captured his sister and him, along with others, and set out on a forced march. Every night the members of the troop raped his sister. When they finally got to the jihadis' camp, they were put on the block and sold as slaves. Once Francis was sold, he was taken to his new master's home. He was placed in the center of the family, and every member of the family took a small stick and began to beat him with it. Then they informed him that he no longer had any name. From this day forward there was no more Francis Bok. There was only abd - A-B-D - black slave.
Now this is interesting. ‘Abd’ is an Arabic word, but it's only one of about forty different words that Islam has for a slave. That's very interesting because, in the English language, we simply have one word - slave. Now ask yourself a question: Why would the Arabic language have so many words for ‘slave?’ Abd means ‘black slave’ and an ‘African.’ Think about that for a moment. ‘Abd’ means both ‘black slave’ and ‘African.’ There is an entire history in those two meanings.
There's a word for a white slave, as well—‘mamluk.’ There's also a word for a Hindu slave. Perhaps you're beginning to gain some idea that over a long period of time, Arabs have had a lot to do with the slave trade, because you don't change a language overnight. It takes a long time to accumulate 40 words for a slave.
Francis Bok was given a room with the animals in the barn. They gave him some straw to lie on. This is interesting, because when the subject of slavery is brought up, Muslims will admit that it happened in the past, but that it's long-since passed; and besides, they will say that they treated their slaves really well. Perhaps that message was not given to Francis Bok's masters, because he slept in the barn with animals. He tried to escape but was captured and beaten.
By the way, as soon as he escaped, the Arabic language had a new word for him. The Arabic language has a word for an escaped male slave, and it has a word for an escaped female slave. It even has a word for an escaped child slave. The Arabic language has honed its details of slavery to a fine point.
Francis kept working and plotting, and growing a little older and a little stronger. Finally, he found an opportune time and escaped, setting out on his own forced march. This time, however, it was not a forced march to slavery, but a forced march to freedom. He got to Egypt, and managed to get to America, where he works with an organization called Iabolish.com, which was the group that sponsored him to attend a university.
Francis was asked from the audience, "Who captured you?" His reply was, "Muslims.” Later, someone said, "Muslims can react very violently. Indeed, they can kill you if they don't like what you say about them. Are you afraid for your own life, in saying that ‘Muslims captured and enslaved me?’" His remark was memorable. He said, "I am now a free man. Now I can die, because I will die as a free man." Think about that. ‘I will die as a free man.’ You can learn more about Francis Bok by searching the Web under his name.
Now, let's stop and take a closer look at the white man's involvement with slavery. Did he show up on the coast of Africa in a wooden ship to get slaves? Yes, he did. But he didn't go into the bush to get them. He went to the slave market, where he bought them at a wholesale price, in wholesale lots. Bills of sale, money and invoices were exchanged. He left with his boatload of slaves that he got from the Muslim slave trader. The Muslims had been trading slaves and capturing slaves in Africa for 1400 years, and the white man merely represented a new market. That's all. Muslims had been enslaving before the white man, and when white people put together the code that eliminated slavery and the slave trade, Muslims just kept on with their old business. The laws of the kafir do not inhibit them.
We know that Mohammed had black slaves. It says so in the Hadith. It says so in the Sira. So, slavery is nothing new to Islam, because slavery is the ideal in Islam. The ideal Muslim is the slave of Allah, and indeed, Mohammed called himself the slave of Allah, because inside of Islam, there is no freedom. Everything has been prescribed. Everything you need to do has been recorded---laid out---and your job as a Muslim is to be a slave to Allah and follow all the rules, which includes the Sunna of Mohammed. A slave is the ideal Muslim. This is reflected in one of the Muslim names, Abdullah. ‘Abdullah’ is a combination of two words: Abd - slave; and Allah - slave of Allah.
Islam has enslaved many peoples, including Europeans. It's estimated that a total of 25 million Africans have been sold as slaves, and we know that about a million Europeans have been sold into slavery. Indeed, the one word that we have for slave comes from the Slavic people---the Slavs. The Muslims took many slaves out of Eastern Europe, and the primary ethnic group they preyed upon was the Slavs. So we adopted the term "slave" from the poor Slavs.
There are different uses for different races of people as slaves. The blacks were usually put into rough, hard work, and frequently died at it. It was a death sentence to be a black slave in the Saharan salt mines.
Whites were usually put to work in what we would call white-collar jobs. They could even become leaders in the army. The highest-priced slave in the Meccan slave market for 1400 years never changed. It was always a white woman who brought the highest price. Writings from medieval Islamic documents show that they were very free and open in discussing which race you used for which job. For instance, the white woman was preferred as a slave of pleasure, but if you could not afford her, since she was the most expensive, then an Ethiopian woman---or as they called them then, Abyssinian woman---was the second-best choice.
It is very unfortunate, but Mohammed put this sale of white women in place. You see, Mohammed had all manner of slaves, and his favorite sexual partner was a white woman. Her name was Miriam. She was a Coptic Christian. Since Mohammed's Sunnah determines what everything shall be, this means that the preference of all Muslims who wish a slave of pleasure should be the same that Mohammed had---a white slave. So, the Sunnah of Mohammed was very bad for white women.
There is an interesting special kind of slave that was used in Islam---that of the Eunuch. Generally, these were black slaves, and the castration process removed everything about the sex. Eunuchs are even referred to in the Koran, because they can see the woman of the house unveiled. The Koran is very clear about slavery. It's quite desirable, and it has only one limitation---you cannot enslave Muslims. Only kafirs (infidels) can be enslaved, and poor Francis Bok, being a Christian, was a kafir.
Now, Francis ran away to get his freedom, but he might have escaped being a slave if he had chosen to become a slave of Allah, a Muslim. The rules of slavery inside of Islam---and there are many rules---is that it is good to free slaves, because that brings a great merit with Allah---but you don't free a kafir slave. So perhaps Francis could have converted to Islam and been freed through that path. But Francis Bok wanted to be a Christian. He did not want to be a Muslim, so he had to take the only path open to him, which was flight.
The full history of slavery is not taught in any university in the United States. Nor is it easy to find books written that include the fact of Islam's role in world slavery. The only acceptable history of slavery is the 200-year white man theory---and, BTW, while we're talking about the white man and slavery, I’d like to point out that it was the white man who actually did the most to stop the international slave trade. The British Navy was commanded to intercept all slave ships. This did not stop the Islamic enslavement of Africans, however.
Out of the 25 million slaves that were taken out of Africa, 11 million were sold in the Americas. The other 14 million were sold in West and North Africa, where Islam is, and in the rest of Asia.
There was a terrible side effect of slavery. For every slave captured, the slavers had to kill others. For instance, Francis Bok's parents were killed. The slavers showed up with armed troops, and killed all those who tried to defend their tribe. When the slavers finally killed all the defenders, they could then take the best of the survivors as slaves. The old, the sick and the very young were left behind, because they couldn't take the forced march that comes right after capture. The estimate of the collateral damage there was, from taking each slave, varies. Some of those who visited Africa during the peak slave-trading days said that as many as ten had to die to produce one slave in the wholesale market. Others said no, only five. So, using the lower figure, we can see that out of the 25 million enslaved, there were over 100 million Africans---as many as 120 million Africans---who have died over the 1400 year period, including today. These figures are never talked about.
Now then, let's talk about Mohammed's role in slavery. He had slaves in his family. His first wife, Khadijah, owned slaves. Indeed, one of Mohammed's first converts was a black slave, and Mohammed himself owned black slaves. Mohammed was deep into slavery. As a matter of fact, slavery was one of the chief ways he financed jihad. He would have kafir men killed so their women and children could be made slaves. He sent his own jihadists out on slave missions. He gave away slaves as gifts. He owned all kinds of slaves, including males, females and black slaves. He passed around slaves, for the purpose of sexual pleasure, to his chief lieutenants. He stood by and prayed while others beat slaves. He shared the pleasure of forced sex with female slaves after conquest. He captured slaves and wholesaled them, to raise money for jihad. One of his favorite sexual partners was a slave who bore him a son. He got slaves as gifts from other rulers. A slave made the very pulpit he preached from. Some of his cooks were slaves. A slave treated him medically. He had a slave tailor. He declared that any slave who ran away from his master would not have his prayers answered. Now, that didn't work out for Francis Bok, because he did escape from slavery. His prayers were answered, because his prayer was to be free.
It is interesting to note how slavery falls under Islam's two fundamental principles-- submission and duality. Slavery includes submission, for who is more submissive than a slave? Slavery also includes duality, because the Islamic doctrine creates a separate legal classification---an ethical classification---for the slave.
It's no wonder that for all these years, Islam has been involved in slavery, because Allah likes a slave, and Allah wants Muslims to enslave others---because after you keep them as a slave long enough, they will convert to Islam; and if they don't, then, their children will. The Koran and Islam see slavery as a great good.
Now you might say to yourself, "If it's in the Koran, why don't they still do it?" In fact, Muslims are indeed still involved in slavery. Women who are brought in from the Philippines to work in Saudi Arabia are treated as slaves---their passports are taken away; and they may never get back home. So, Islam has always been involved in the slave-trading business. It's there, it's in the Koran---it's in the Sunnah---and the only reason they don't do it openly anymore is because they're simply not militarily strong enough. But slavery cannot be removed from the Islamic doctrine because, unlike our Constitution, for instance, Islamic doctrine is eternal; it's permanent; it's forever.
When David Livingston was in Africa, he saw the slave trade up close. He said that the paddle wheels on the boat he was on frequently hit slaves who had drowned in the river, or the bodies of those who were killed in the process of trying to get slaves. He described a peculiar disease among slaves, which the slave owners told him about. "The strangest disease I have seen in this country really seems to be broken-heartedness, and it attacks kafirs who have been captured and made slaves. Speaking with many who later died from it, they ascribe that their only pain was to the heart, and place the hand correctly on that spot. Some slavers expressed surprise to me that these men would die, seeing that they had plenty to eat and no work. It really seems that they died of a broken heart."
He talked with slave traders for a long time about what they did, and the Muslims told him that their object in capturing slaves is to get them into their possession and make them of their religion.
Now this history is quite sad, but the saddest thing about this whole history of Islam---and slavery---is that it's not taught. Our universities don't teach it. In fact, the universities don't even teach how white people were enslaved, or how many Hindus were sold into slavery. It is not enough that slavery has been in our past. We must teach the complete history of slavery in our schools and universities. Only then can we fully understand this dreadful history.
Every Muslim is a slave of Allah. Slavery is Islam's dark secret. Islam has enslaved Europeans, Africans and Asians. Unfortunately, the Western intellectuals, including blacks, are determined to cover up Islam's crimes against humanity.
The text above is taken from the website Political Islam.
It is impossible to study the history of Mohammed and the beginnings of Islam and not become involved in the role of slavery. The ‘politically correct’ version of slavery is that it only happened when white men showed up in wooden ships off the coast of Africa, went into the bush, captured slaves and brought them back to sell in America. That is the generally accepted history of slavery in America.
That does contain an element of truth, but it's not even remotely the story of world slavery, or even how slave trading worked in the Americas.
To study slavery from the standpoint of the world, you must study Islam, because Islam has enslaved all others - the African, the European, the Asian – Islam has enslaved everybody.
Francis Bok, a Christian, appeared at a university to give a talk. It was interesting, because he was an actual freed African slave. He and his sister had gone to the market to sell beans and, while they were in the market place, Muslim jihadis showed up. They captured his sister and him, along with others, and set out on a forced march. Every night the members of the troop raped his sister. When they finally got to the jihadis' camp, they were put on the block and sold as slaves. Once Francis was sold, he was taken to his new master's home. He was placed in the center of the family, and every member of the family took a small stick and began to beat him with it. Then they informed him that he no longer had any name. From this day forward there was no more Francis Bok. There was only abd - A-B-D - black slave.
Now this is interesting. ‘Abd’ is an Arabic word, but it's only one of about forty different words that Islam has for a slave. That's very interesting because, in the English language, we simply have one word - slave. Now ask yourself a question: Why would the Arabic language have so many words for ‘slave?’ Abd means ‘black slave’ and an ‘African.’ Think about that for a moment. ‘Abd’ means both ‘black slave’ and ‘African.’ There is an entire history in those two meanings.
There's a word for a white slave, as well—‘mamluk.’ There's also a word for a Hindu slave. Perhaps you're beginning to gain some idea that over a long period of time, Arabs have had a lot to do with the slave trade, because you don't change a language overnight. It takes a long time to accumulate 40 words for a slave.
Francis Bok was given a room with the animals in the barn. They gave him some straw to lie on. This is interesting, because when the subject of slavery is brought up, Muslims will admit that it happened in the past, but that it's long-since passed; and besides, they will say that they treated their slaves really well. Perhaps that message was not given to Francis Bok's masters, because he slept in the barn with animals. He tried to escape but was captured and beaten.
By the way, as soon as he escaped, the Arabic language had a new word for him. The Arabic language has a word for an escaped male slave, and it has a word for an escaped female slave. It even has a word for an escaped child slave. The Arabic language has honed its details of slavery to a fine point.
Francis kept working and plotting, and growing a little older and a little stronger. Finally, he found an opportune time and escaped, setting out on his own forced march. This time, however, it was not a forced march to slavery, but a forced march to freedom. He got to Egypt, and managed to get to America, where he works with an organization called Iabolish.com, which was the group that sponsored him to attend a university.
Francis was asked from the audience, "Who captured you?" His reply was, "Muslims.” Later, someone said, "Muslims can react very violently. Indeed, they can kill you if they don't like what you say about them. Are you afraid for your own life, in saying that ‘Muslims captured and enslaved me?’" His remark was memorable. He said, "I am now a free man. Now I can die, because I will die as a free man." Think about that. ‘I will die as a free man.’ You can learn more about Francis Bok by searching the Web under his name.
Now, let's stop and take a closer look at the white man's involvement with slavery. Did he show up on the coast of Africa in a wooden ship to get slaves? Yes, he did. But he didn't go into the bush to get them. He went to the slave market, where he bought them at a wholesale price, in wholesale lots. Bills of sale, money and invoices were exchanged. He left with his boatload of slaves that he got from the Muslim slave trader. The Muslims had been trading slaves and capturing slaves in Africa for 1400 years, and the white man merely represented a new market. That's all. Muslims had been enslaving before the white man, and when white people put together the code that eliminated slavery and the slave trade, Muslims just kept on with their old business. The laws of the kafir do not inhibit them.
We know that Mohammed had black slaves. It says so in the Hadith. It says so in the Sira. So, slavery is nothing new to Islam, because slavery is the ideal in Islam. The ideal Muslim is the slave of Allah, and indeed, Mohammed called himself the slave of Allah, because inside of Islam, there is no freedom. Everything has been prescribed. Everything you need to do has been recorded---laid out---and your job as a Muslim is to be a slave to Allah and follow all the rules, which includes the Sunna of Mohammed. A slave is the ideal Muslim. This is reflected in one of the Muslim names, Abdullah. ‘Abdullah’ is a combination of two words: Abd - slave; and Allah - slave of Allah.
Islam has enslaved many peoples, including Europeans. It's estimated that a total of 25 million Africans have been sold as slaves, and we know that about a million Europeans have been sold into slavery. Indeed, the one word that we have for slave comes from the Slavic people---the Slavs. The Muslims took many slaves out of Eastern Europe, and the primary ethnic group they preyed upon was the Slavs. So we adopted the term "slave" from the poor Slavs.
There are different uses for different races of people as slaves. The blacks were usually put into rough, hard work, and frequently died at it. It was a death sentence to be a black slave in the Saharan salt mines.
Whites were usually put to work in what we would call white-collar jobs. They could even become leaders in the army. The highest-priced slave in the Meccan slave market for 1400 years never changed. It was always a white woman who brought the highest price. Writings from medieval Islamic documents show that they were very free and open in discussing which race you used for which job. For instance, the white woman was preferred as a slave of pleasure, but if you could not afford her, since she was the most expensive, then an Ethiopian woman---or as they called them then, Abyssinian woman---was the second-best choice.
It is very unfortunate, but Mohammed put this sale of white women in place. You see, Mohammed had all manner of slaves, and his favorite sexual partner was a white woman. Her name was Miriam. She was a Coptic Christian. Since Mohammed's Sunnah determines what everything shall be, this means that the preference of all Muslims who wish a slave of pleasure should be the same that Mohammed had---a white slave. So, the Sunnah of Mohammed was very bad for white women.
There is an interesting special kind of slave that was used in Islam---that of the Eunuch. Generally, these were black slaves, and the castration process removed everything about the sex. Eunuchs are even referred to in the Koran, because they can see the woman of the house unveiled. The Koran is very clear about slavery. It's quite desirable, and it has only one limitation---you cannot enslave Muslims. Only kafirs (infidels) can be enslaved, and poor Francis Bok, being a Christian, was a kafir.
Now, Francis ran away to get his freedom, but he might have escaped being a slave if he had chosen to become a slave of Allah, a Muslim. The rules of slavery inside of Islam---and there are many rules---is that it is good to free slaves, because that brings a great merit with Allah---but you don't free a kafir slave. So perhaps Francis could have converted to Islam and been freed through that path. But Francis Bok wanted to be a Christian. He did not want to be a Muslim, so he had to take the only path open to him, which was flight.
The full history of slavery is not taught in any university in the United States. Nor is it easy to find books written that include the fact of Islam's role in world slavery. The only acceptable history of slavery is the 200-year white man theory---and, BTW, while we're talking about the white man and slavery, I’d like to point out that it was the white man who actually did the most to stop the international slave trade. The British Navy was commanded to intercept all slave ships. This did not stop the Islamic enslavement of Africans, however.
Out of the 25 million slaves that were taken out of Africa, 11 million were sold in the Americas. The other 14 million were sold in West and North Africa, where Islam is, and in the rest of Asia.
There was a terrible side effect of slavery. For every slave captured, the slavers had to kill others. For instance, Francis Bok's parents were killed. The slavers showed up with armed troops, and killed all those who tried to defend their tribe. When the slavers finally killed all the defenders, they could then take the best of the survivors as slaves. The old, the sick and the very young were left behind, because they couldn't take the forced march that comes right after capture. The estimate of the collateral damage there was, from taking each slave, varies. Some of those who visited Africa during the peak slave-trading days said that as many as ten had to die to produce one slave in the wholesale market. Others said no, only five. So, using the lower figure, we can see that out of the 25 million enslaved, there were over 100 million Africans---as many as 120 million Africans---who have died over the 1400 year period, including today. These figures are never talked about.
Now then, let's talk about Mohammed's role in slavery. He had slaves in his family. His first wife, Khadijah, owned slaves. Indeed, one of Mohammed's first converts was a black slave, and Mohammed himself owned black slaves. Mohammed was deep into slavery. As a matter of fact, slavery was one of the chief ways he financed jihad. He would have kafir men killed so their women and children could be made slaves. He sent his own jihadists out on slave missions. He gave away slaves as gifts. He owned all kinds of slaves, including males, females and black slaves. He passed around slaves, for the purpose of sexual pleasure, to his chief lieutenants. He stood by and prayed while others beat slaves. He shared the pleasure of forced sex with female slaves after conquest. He captured slaves and wholesaled them, to raise money for jihad. One of his favorite sexual partners was a slave who bore him a son. He got slaves as gifts from other rulers. A slave made the very pulpit he preached from. Some of his cooks were slaves. A slave treated him medically. He had a slave tailor. He declared that any slave who ran away from his master would not have his prayers answered. Now, that didn't work out for Francis Bok, because he did escape from slavery. His prayers were answered, because his prayer was to be free.
It is interesting to note how slavery falls under Islam's two fundamental principles-- submission and duality. Slavery includes submission, for who is more submissive than a slave? Slavery also includes duality, because the Islamic doctrine creates a separate legal classification---an ethical classification---for the slave.
It's no wonder that for all these years, Islam has been involved in slavery, because Allah likes a slave, and Allah wants Muslims to enslave others---because after you keep them as a slave long enough, they will convert to Islam; and if they don't, then, their children will. The Koran and Islam see slavery as a great good.
Now you might say to yourself, "If it's in the Koran, why don't they still do it?" In fact, Muslims are indeed still involved in slavery. Women who are brought in from the Philippines to work in Saudi Arabia are treated as slaves---their passports are taken away; and they may never get back home. So, Islam has always been involved in the slave-trading business. It's there, it's in the Koran---it's in the Sunnah---and the only reason they don't do it openly anymore is because they're simply not militarily strong enough. But slavery cannot be removed from the Islamic doctrine because, unlike our Constitution, for instance, Islamic doctrine is eternal; it's permanent; it's forever.
When David Livingston was in Africa, he saw the slave trade up close. He said that the paddle wheels on the boat he was on frequently hit slaves who had drowned in the river, or the bodies of those who were killed in the process of trying to get slaves. He described a peculiar disease among slaves, which the slave owners told him about. "The strangest disease I have seen in this country really seems to be broken-heartedness, and it attacks kafirs who have been captured and made slaves. Speaking with many who later died from it, they ascribe that their only pain was to the heart, and place the hand correctly on that spot. Some slavers expressed surprise to me that these men would die, seeing that they had plenty to eat and no work. It really seems that they died of a broken heart."
He talked with slave traders for a long time about what they did, and the Muslims told him that their object in capturing slaves is to get them into their possession and make them of their religion.
Now this history is quite sad, but the saddest thing about this whole history of Islam---and slavery---is that it's not taught. Our universities don't teach it. In fact, the universities don't even teach how white people were enslaved, or how many Hindus were sold into slavery. It is not enough that slavery has been in our past. We must teach the complete history of slavery in our schools and universities. Only then can we fully understand this dreadful history.
Every Muslim is a slave of Allah. Slavery is Islam's dark secret. Islam has enslaved Europeans, Africans and Asians. Unfortunately, the Western intellectuals, including blacks, are determined to cover up Islam's crimes against humanity.
The text above is taken from the website Political Islam.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Islam: the Dhimmi
A dhimmi lives in fear of Islam, but agrees that they will not resist political Islam, and they will even support it. In return, dhimmis can live safely. Dhimmitude is the mind of the dhimmi. Today we see our politicians, journalists and intellectuals play the role of dhimmis.
The dhimmi was a unique invention by Mohammed. He created a new type of creature, and that creature is a semi-slave. Dhimmis started with what Mohammed did to the Jews. He took their land and then let them work the land and the dhimmis paid a tax, the jhizya (also spelled “jizya”), which was half of their income. A dhimmi was a kafir that lived in an Islamic country. The first dhimmis were the Jews, but Christians and others were added later.
Jews and Christians could still practice their religion, but that must be done in a private way. The laws were Islamic; the dress was dictated by Islamic law. A dhimmi was not really free. For instance, a church couldn't ring its bells, because bells are a sign of Satan, according to Mohammed. A dhimmi couldn't hold any job that made him a supervisor over Muslims. This limited rank in the military for a dhimmi. If Christians wanted to repair the church, or Jews the synagogue, they had to get permission from the government. All of these laws are dreadful, because they established a second-class citizenship; the dhimmi did not have civil rights. A dhimmi couldn't sue a Muslim or prosecute a crime against a Muslim. This type of citizen had no power, and had to pay a special tax--the jhizya. The Koran says that the dhimmi had to pay the jhizya. Classically, when the Christian or the Jewish dhimmi came to pay their yearly jhizya tax, they were humiliated-- grabbed by the beard, slapped in the face, or made to kneel and give the money. They were humiliated because the Koran said to humiliate the dhimmi.
In some Islamic countries, particularly when the country felt powerful, it was more tolerant towards the dhimmis. A dhimmi could even rise to a decent level of power within government, but that could all vanish overnight. The treatment of the dhimmi was shown in Coptic Egypt. (The Copts were the original Egyptians.) A dhimmi could have his tongue removed if he spoke Coptic in front of an Islamic government official. The dhimmi was always persecuted and was never really an equal.
When the Egyptian military tried to conquer the Byzantine Christians, but lost a battle, back in Egypt, the Muslims rioted against the Christians. Christians would be killed because riots were one of the favorite ways to punish the dhimmi. When Smyrna--the last of the seven churches of Asia-- was destroyed in 1922, it was not done with the military and bulldozers. No, rioting Muslims did it. Riots are a form of jihad. The dhimmi could always be persecuted, not only in the courts of law, but a riot could destroy an entire section of a city. Dhimmis were killed if they criticized Mohammed, and actually, dhimmis were not even supposed to study Mohammed at all.
There was a formal treaty called the Treaty of Omar, which laid out everything that was to be done to the dhimmi. A dhimmi could not ride a horse, but he could ride an ass or a donkey. If they were caught on a horse, they could be pulled off and beaten. When a dhimmi met a Muslim on the sidewalk, he had to step out into the street and let the Muslim pass. The dhimmi also had to wear special clothing or, if not special clothing, a belt or a patch on the clothing to immediately identify a person as a dhimmi. The only protection that a Christian or a Jew had would be to make Muslim friends, because many times the Muslim friend could keep the weight of dhimmi laws off of his Christian or Jewish friend.
The persecution of the dhimmis was unrelenting. It went on for generation after generation. Finally, the dhimmi would give up and become a Muslim. All of a sudden, he had more money, because he didn't have to pay the jhizya tax. Converted dhimmis could be promoted in their jobs. They would not be spit at or have stones thrown at them on the street. They could go to court and be treated as full, equal citizens.
As the centuries passed, more and more dhimmis converted to Islam. Dhimmitude, which is the mindset of the dhimmi, destroys the civilization into which Islam moves, because the only way out is to become more Islamic, by giving up all of your old culture. When Islam moved into Coptic Egypt, the culture was a blend of the old pharonic culture mixed with the culture of the Greeks. In the end, all of the Coptic culture disappeared, just as the pyramids were stripped of their beautiful marble veneer. Why? This occurs basically because Islam attempts to destroy all kafir civilization.
Islam seeks to annihilate all other cultures by dhimmitude. The lack of civil rights, the abuse, humiliation and tax burden wears away the spirit to resist becoming Islamic. They get new names, and even the names of the cities change, until the cultural history vanishes. Once a nation has been fully Islamisized, all of its history disappears. When Napoleon invaded Egypt, none of the Muslims there could explain anything about the old temples, the statues, or the pyramids. The people were ignorant of their history. They didn't remember anything, because the culture of the pharaohs had been annihilated. The culture of the Greeks in Anatolia was destroyed. In Pakistan, a Muslim country, the native culture was Hindu. Afghanistan was a Buddhist culture that has been completely annihilated.
Part of the Islamic takeover and eradication of a nation and its culture includes the destruction of sacred sites. Churches or temples that were beautiful or valuable were converted to a mosque. At one time, an estimate put the number of churches destroyed by the Islamic conquest of Turkey at nearly 20,000. As another example, India had magnificent temples of worship that the Muslims destroyed.
Islam basically invented defacing. When Islam invaded a country, all of the religious objects were destroyed, just as Mohammed destroyed all religious art. If there was a mural on a wall, the face was destroyed. Once the face was gone, the rest of the object was left. The Sphinx does not have a nose, because Muslims defaced it.
The purpose of dhimmitude was twofold: (1) to bring in money by the dhimmi tax and (2) to slowly grind out the dhimmi's culture. This process worked really well. As a matter of fact, it was so successful that there is a black hole in history about dhimmitude. No one studies this part of world history. As a result, today in our universities, the history of the dhimmi is not taught, and is never mentioned. In some divinity schools, which consider themselves sophisticated, the dhimmi is discussed. However, what is said is, "Oh, the dhimmi was protected." It makes life as a dhimmi sound warm and fuzzy, like living in the arms of your father. And the question arises: protected from what and whom? What is not taught is how the dhimmi was humiliated. When it is said that the dhimmi was protected, that is the truth. To be protected as a dhimmi means that, as long as one kept paying the tax, he would not be killed, nor would his goods be stolen, unless there was a riot. In a riot, no dhimmi was protected.
Today, there is no Islamic country strong enough to have a full legal dhimmi, or slavery, as a formal policy. However, both the dhimmi and slavery are part of Islam, and the doctrine of Islam cannot be changed. The Koran is complete, perfect and absolute. The condition and rule of the dhimmi is laid out in the Koran, so the dhimmi cannot be eliminated. The reason that there is no longer a formal dhimmi status is that Islam is not powerful enough to enforce it. Instead of having a formal status for the dhimmi, bigotry and prejudice limit the civil rights. This leads to extralegal persecution of kafirs.
Today, the dhimmis are not just inside Islamic countries, but most kafirs are dhimmis, meaning that they defer to Islam on all sorts of issues. Kafirs have replaced the dhimmi legal status with the mindset of the dhimmi (dhimmitude). Let's look at some examples of dhimmitude: Soon after 9/11, this scene was repeated in many cities: a public gathering would be held, and there would be a minister, a rabbi, an imam, and someone to operate as Master of Ceremonies. At this gathering, the Jews and Christians would say that they all worshipped the same god as the Muslims. At one of these gatherings, the three religious representatives were questioned. The Christian minister was asked, "Have you read the Koran? Do you know the traditions? Do you know the Sira (the life of Mohammed)?" The minister answered, "Well, no." Then the rabbi was asked, "Have you read the Koran?" "No." "Do you know the life of Mohammed?" "No." "Have you read the traditions?" "No." Then the imam was asked, "Have you read the New Testament?" "Oh, yes!" "Have you read the Old Testament?" "Sure!"
There is something wrong with this picture, because the rabbi and the minister said, "Oh, we worship the same God." Then in response to the questions they said, "Well we really don't know anything about Allah." Then why would they say they worshipped the same god as Allah? This is dhimmitude. It is a desperate attempt to please the Muslim, even by telling a lie! Think about it---religious leaders standing up in public and telling a deliberate lie! Why? Because it sounds good, and they are deferring to Islam, because inside nearly every Christian, every Jew, and for that matter nearly every kafir, there is a fear of Islam. Added to that, today we have the dreadful ‘political correctness,’ which says that minority groups can never be talked about in a negative way. For some reason, one-and-a-half billion Muslims are categorized as a minority!
Dhimmitude is the attitude of one who always tries to placate the bully. Islam is always pressuring for this attitude of submission. For example, the Sharia---Muslim Law---permits a Muslim to have up to four wives. In the West, we have monogamous laws. However, England allows a Muslim to have more than one wife, and all of them can qualify for welfare. This is dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is submitting to Islam for the simple purpose of submitting.
Another example of dhimmitude is the phrase "the war on terror." The war on terror is the mark of a dhimmi, because it does not name the enemy. After Pearl Harbor, the United States did not declare war against the kamikazes. It named the enemy and declared war against Japan. Dhimmis don't want to have an ideological war against political Islam. Thus, we create an artificial phrase that has no meaning. "Terror" is a technique. We cannot go to war against a technique; we can only go to war against an enemy.
We see dhimmitude in government, when it comes to hiring and promotion. Government agencies give preference to Muslim Arabs over Christian Arabs in translation work. Forums are opened for Muslims to come in and talk about Islam. As a contrary example, Buddhists do not get any forum to explain Buddhism.
In another form of dhimmitude, our universities do not teach the history of the dhimmi, nor do they teach the history of Islamic conquest. The universities teach a history of Islam which is glorious and in which no suffering occurs.
The United States prides itself on freedom of the press and political speech. Citizens are supposed to have the right to stand up and say anything about politics. People might laugh at you, and they may not vote for you, but it's not a crime to speak. Remember the Mohammed cartoons? No newspaper in the United States published the Mohammed cartoons. Mohammed was a political figure, and yet, our newspapers, by law having freedom of the press, did not publish those cartoons. Newspapers defended themselves, saying that they did not want to offend anyone. Politics frequently involves offending someone. Newspapers are in the business of offending people at times. The newspapers were not offending Islam to be nice, but because dhimmis are always afraid of Islam. Dhimmis are always looking for a way to placate and appease. When the cartoons were not shown on TV, and when they were not published in the newspapers, those refusals to exercise freedom of speech or freedom of the press were acts of dhimmis. No one was being nice; they were being dhimmis.
To gradually accept Sharia Law is another form of dhimmitude. Airports in the United States are changing the plumbing, so that Muslims will have a place to wash their feet before prayer. Universities have "meditation rooms;" however, the Muslims monopolize them. If a university is questioned about this seemingly unfair use, it will not defend the practice. That is dhimmitude. When a workplace that runs an assembly line says, "If you're Muslim we will provide for you a place to pray, and you can leave the production line when it is prayer time." That's dhimmitude. Why? It’s because the employer does not provide that opportunity for any other employee. It is the dhimmi who operates out of fear, to placate Islam.
In the United States and in Europe, there is no formal dhimmi status, but there is dhimmitude. As a result of this attitude, Europe is rapidly becoming Islamicized. The day will come when the churches in Europe will live in fear, as they do now in Turkey. Churches will have to get permission from the Muslim ‘masters’ to get the roof fixed. The reason the people will be subjected to Islamic rule is that they never studied the history of the dhimmi, and never studied the history of political Islam.
The people who do not study the history of political Islam, and study the history of the dhimmi, and learn from it, are doomed to repeat the history of subjection of dhimmis, and will lose their civilization.
The above is taken from the website Political Islam: the Dhimmi.
The dhimmi was a unique invention by Mohammed. He created a new type of creature, and that creature is a semi-slave. Dhimmis started with what Mohammed did to the Jews. He took their land and then let them work the land and the dhimmis paid a tax, the jhizya (also spelled “jizya”), which was half of their income. A dhimmi was a kafir that lived in an Islamic country. The first dhimmis were the Jews, but Christians and others were added later.
Jews and Christians could still practice their religion, but that must be done in a private way. The laws were Islamic; the dress was dictated by Islamic law. A dhimmi was not really free. For instance, a church couldn't ring its bells, because bells are a sign of Satan, according to Mohammed. A dhimmi couldn't hold any job that made him a supervisor over Muslims. This limited rank in the military for a dhimmi. If Christians wanted to repair the church, or Jews the synagogue, they had to get permission from the government. All of these laws are dreadful, because they established a second-class citizenship; the dhimmi did not have civil rights. A dhimmi couldn't sue a Muslim or prosecute a crime against a Muslim. This type of citizen had no power, and had to pay a special tax--the jhizya. The Koran says that the dhimmi had to pay the jhizya. Classically, when the Christian or the Jewish dhimmi came to pay their yearly jhizya tax, they were humiliated-- grabbed by the beard, slapped in the face, or made to kneel and give the money. They were humiliated because the Koran said to humiliate the dhimmi.
In some Islamic countries, particularly when the country felt powerful, it was more tolerant towards the dhimmis. A dhimmi could even rise to a decent level of power within government, but that could all vanish overnight. The treatment of the dhimmi was shown in Coptic Egypt. (The Copts were the original Egyptians.) A dhimmi could have his tongue removed if he spoke Coptic in front of an Islamic government official. The dhimmi was always persecuted and was never really an equal.
When the Egyptian military tried to conquer the Byzantine Christians, but lost a battle, back in Egypt, the Muslims rioted against the Christians. Christians would be killed because riots were one of the favorite ways to punish the dhimmi. When Smyrna--the last of the seven churches of Asia-- was destroyed in 1922, it was not done with the military and bulldozers. No, rioting Muslims did it. Riots are a form of jihad. The dhimmi could always be persecuted, not only in the courts of law, but a riot could destroy an entire section of a city. Dhimmis were killed if they criticized Mohammed, and actually, dhimmis were not even supposed to study Mohammed at all.
There was a formal treaty called the Treaty of Omar, which laid out everything that was to be done to the dhimmi. A dhimmi could not ride a horse, but he could ride an ass or a donkey. If they were caught on a horse, they could be pulled off and beaten. When a dhimmi met a Muslim on the sidewalk, he had to step out into the street and let the Muslim pass. The dhimmi also had to wear special clothing or, if not special clothing, a belt or a patch on the clothing to immediately identify a person as a dhimmi. The only protection that a Christian or a Jew had would be to make Muslim friends, because many times the Muslim friend could keep the weight of dhimmi laws off of his Christian or Jewish friend.
The persecution of the dhimmis was unrelenting. It went on for generation after generation. Finally, the dhimmi would give up and become a Muslim. All of a sudden, he had more money, because he didn't have to pay the jhizya tax. Converted dhimmis could be promoted in their jobs. They would not be spit at or have stones thrown at them on the street. They could go to court and be treated as full, equal citizens.
As the centuries passed, more and more dhimmis converted to Islam. Dhimmitude, which is the mindset of the dhimmi, destroys the civilization into which Islam moves, because the only way out is to become more Islamic, by giving up all of your old culture. When Islam moved into Coptic Egypt, the culture was a blend of the old pharonic culture mixed with the culture of the Greeks. In the end, all of the Coptic culture disappeared, just as the pyramids were stripped of their beautiful marble veneer. Why? This occurs basically because Islam attempts to destroy all kafir civilization.
Islam seeks to annihilate all other cultures by dhimmitude. The lack of civil rights, the abuse, humiliation and tax burden wears away the spirit to resist becoming Islamic. They get new names, and even the names of the cities change, until the cultural history vanishes. Once a nation has been fully Islamisized, all of its history disappears. When Napoleon invaded Egypt, none of the Muslims there could explain anything about the old temples, the statues, or the pyramids. The people were ignorant of their history. They didn't remember anything, because the culture of the pharaohs had been annihilated. The culture of the Greeks in Anatolia was destroyed. In Pakistan, a Muslim country, the native culture was Hindu. Afghanistan was a Buddhist culture that has been completely annihilated.
Part of the Islamic takeover and eradication of a nation and its culture includes the destruction of sacred sites. Churches or temples that were beautiful or valuable were converted to a mosque. At one time, an estimate put the number of churches destroyed by the Islamic conquest of Turkey at nearly 20,000. As another example, India had magnificent temples of worship that the Muslims destroyed.
Islam basically invented defacing. When Islam invaded a country, all of the religious objects were destroyed, just as Mohammed destroyed all religious art. If there was a mural on a wall, the face was destroyed. Once the face was gone, the rest of the object was left. The Sphinx does not have a nose, because Muslims defaced it.
The purpose of dhimmitude was twofold: (1) to bring in money by the dhimmi tax and (2) to slowly grind out the dhimmi's culture. This process worked really well. As a matter of fact, it was so successful that there is a black hole in history about dhimmitude. No one studies this part of world history. As a result, today in our universities, the history of the dhimmi is not taught, and is never mentioned. In some divinity schools, which consider themselves sophisticated, the dhimmi is discussed. However, what is said is, "Oh, the dhimmi was protected." It makes life as a dhimmi sound warm and fuzzy, like living in the arms of your father. And the question arises: protected from what and whom? What is not taught is how the dhimmi was humiliated. When it is said that the dhimmi was protected, that is the truth. To be protected as a dhimmi means that, as long as one kept paying the tax, he would not be killed, nor would his goods be stolen, unless there was a riot. In a riot, no dhimmi was protected.
Today, there is no Islamic country strong enough to have a full legal dhimmi, or slavery, as a formal policy. However, both the dhimmi and slavery are part of Islam, and the doctrine of Islam cannot be changed. The Koran is complete, perfect and absolute. The condition and rule of the dhimmi is laid out in the Koran, so the dhimmi cannot be eliminated. The reason that there is no longer a formal dhimmi status is that Islam is not powerful enough to enforce it. Instead of having a formal status for the dhimmi, bigotry and prejudice limit the civil rights. This leads to extralegal persecution of kafirs.
Today, the dhimmis are not just inside Islamic countries, but most kafirs are dhimmis, meaning that they defer to Islam on all sorts of issues. Kafirs have replaced the dhimmi legal status with the mindset of the dhimmi (dhimmitude). Let's look at some examples of dhimmitude: Soon after 9/11, this scene was repeated in many cities: a public gathering would be held, and there would be a minister, a rabbi, an imam, and someone to operate as Master of Ceremonies. At this gathering, the Jews and Christians would say that they all worshipped the same god as the Muslims. At one of these gatherings, the three religious representatives were questioned. The Christian minister was asked, "Have you read the Koran? Do you know the traditions? Do you know the Sira (the life of Mohammed)?" The minister answered, "Well, no." Then the rabbi was asked, "Have you read the Koran?" "No." "Do you know the life of Mohammed?" "No." "Have you read the traditions?" "No." Then the imam was asked, "Have you read the New Testament?" "Oh, yes!" "Have you read the Old Testament?" "Sure!"
There is something wrong with this picture, because the rabbi and the minister said, "Oh, we worship the same God." Then in response to the questions they said, "Well we really don't know anything about Allah." Then why would they say they worshipped the same god as Allah? This is dhimmitude. It is a desperate attempt to please the Muslim, even by telling a lie! Think about it---religious leaders standing up in public and telling a deliberate lie! Why? Because it sounds good, and they are deferring to Islam, because inside nearly every Christian, every Jew, and for that matter nearly every kafir, there is a fear of Islam. Added to that, today we have the dreadful ‘political correctness,’ which says that minority groups can never be talked about in a negative way. For some reason, one-and-a-half billion Muslims are categorized as a minority!
Dhimmitude is the attitude of one who always tries to placate the bully. Islam is always pressuring for this attitude of submission. For example, the Sharia---Muslim Law---permits a Muslim to have up to four wives. In the West, we have monogamous laws. However, England allows a Muslim to have more than one wife, and all of them can qualify for welfare. This is dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is submitting to Islam for the simple purpose of submitting.
Another example of dhimmitude is the phrase "the war on terror." The war on terror is the mark of a dhimmi, because it does not name the enemy. After Pearl Harbor, the United States did not declare war against the kamikazes. It named the enemy and declared war against Japan. Dhimmis don't want to have an ideological war against political Islam. Thus, we create an artificial phrase that has no meaning. "Terror" is a technique. We cannot go to war against a technique; we can only go to war against an enemy.
We see dhimmitude in government, when it comes to hiring and promotion. Government agencies give preference to Muslim Arabs over Christian Arabs in translation work. Forums are opened for Muslims to come in and talk about Islam. As a contrary example, Buddhists do not get any forum to explain Buddhism.
In another form of dhimmitude, our universities do not teach the history of the dhimmi, nor do they teach the history of Islamic conquest. The universities teach a history of Islam which is glorious and in which no suffering occurs.
The United States prides itself on freedom of the press and political speech. Citizens are supposed to have the right to stand up and say anything about politics. People might laugh at you, and they may not vote for you, but it's not a crime to speak. Remember the Mohammed cartoons? No newspaper in the United States published the Mohammed cartoons. Mohammed was a political figure, and yet, our newspapers, by law having freedom of the press, did not publish those cartoons. Newspapers defended themselves, saying that they did not want to offend anyone. Politics frequently involves offending someone. Newspapers are in the business of offending people at times. The newspapers were not offending Islam to be nice, but because dhimmis are always afraid of Islam. Dhimmis are always looking for a way to placate and appease. When the cartoons were not shown on TV, and when they were not published in the newspapers, those refusals to exercise freedom of speech or freedom of the press were acts of dhimmis. No one was being nice; they were being dhimmis.
To gradually accept Sharia Law is another form of dhimmitude. Airports in the United States are changing the plumbing, so that Muslims will have a place to wash their feet before prayer. Universities have "meditation rooms;" however, the Muslims monopolize them. If a university is questioned about this seemingly unfair use, it will not defend the practice. That is dhimmitude. When a workplace that runs an assembly line says, "If you're Muslim we will provide for you a place to pray, and you can leave the production line when it is prayer time." That's dhimmitude. Why? It’s because the employer does not provide that opportunity for any other employee. It is the dhimmi who operates out of fear, to placate Islam.
In the United States and in Europe, there is no formal dhimmi status, but there is dhimmitude. As a result of this attitude, Europe is rapidly becoming Islamicized. The day will come when the churches in Europe will live in fear, as they do now in Turkey. Churches will have to get permission from the Muslim ‘masters’ to get the roof fixed. The reason the people will be subjected to Islamic rule is that they never studied the history of the dhimmi, and never studied the history of political Islam.
The people who do not study the history of political Islam, and study the history of the dhimmi, and learn from it, are doomed to repeat the history of subjection of dhimmis, and will lose their civilization.
The above is taken from the website Political Islam: the Dhimmi.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Islam and Women
The dualism in Islam allows for two ways to treat women. They can be honored and protected, or they can be beaten. Today, Western nations allow Islamic women to be treated as Islam wants to treat them. In short, they are not subject to our laws and customs of equality. Why? Our politicians and intellectuals do not want to offend Islam by discussing the second-class status of women in Islam.
This lesson is on women. If you're going to study Islam, you have to study women as a separate category. And the reason for this is simple---Islamic doctrine denies that men and women are equal. The dualism of Islam separates women into a separate category. The Koran has whole sections devoted to how women are treated differently from men. Many hadith (traditions) put women in a special category. Islam is very proud of how it treats its women and says that, in the West, our treatment of women is terrible---that they are not protected and honored. In Islam, women are protected and honored (Muslims claim).
Let's examine the doctrine that underlies each separate case of how women are treated. Islam is a rational system of politics and culture. It always has a doctrinal reason for everything it does, and this is one of the things that make studying Islam easy. If Muslims do it, there is a reason. There is very little creativity inside of Islam. It doesn't need to create, because Islam has a perfect universal and final doctrine. Its doctrine about women is perfect; therefore, it doesn't need to innovate in any way. Islam even claims that it is the world's first feminist movement--that women now have more rights than they did before Islam.
Let's examine the subject of beatings. The Koran is clear: It says that if a woman does not obey her husband---that is, does not submit---she can be beaten. Let's see how this plays out. A Palestinian woman sued in a Sharia court. What she wanted was this: a judgment that her husband would only beat her once a week. She said that currently, he beats her every day, and that that was excessive. So, she sued in Sharia court to have them direct her husband to only beat her once a week.
At the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, it was decided that everyone who crossed the border had to be photographed. The US military was doing this, and since many of the people coming across the border were Afghani women, in their full head-to-toe burqa---including the face veil---they were taken to a separate tent where a female soldier helped them get their burqa off and photographed their face.
Now, this is merely anecdotal information that was passed to me by a soldier, and doesn't have any scientific evidence, but the women who did this work said that it seemed to them like nine out of ten women that they saw, had been bruised in the face.
This goes along with what the Pakistan Institute of Medical Science reported. In a scientific survey of Pakistani women, about 90% of them said that they had been beaten by their husbands. In the country of Chad, in Africa, they tried to outlaw beatings, but Islam is very strong in Chad. The imams and other Islamic leaders protested, saying that anti-wife beating laws were against Sharia law. The bill was defeated.
Some argue cynically, but practically, that, since Islamic women are beaten from early on, by the time they are married they are used to this treatment, and it does not seem to bother them. This business of beating wives is thoroughly established in Islam. This is not some sort of aberration. We've already mentioned that the Koran says that the beating of a wife is permitted. It also goes further to say, though, that if the woman submits, she should be given food, clothing and shelter, so those are also part of a woman's rights.
Mohammed left behind a great deal of information about the beating of women. There is one tradition that summarizes Islam and women. He said, never ask a man why he beats his wife. We know that from one tradition (hadith) that he himself hit his favorite wife, Aisha, and we know that he stood by without comment when her father struck Aisha in his presence. But then again, Mohammed also stood by without saying a word when Ali beat Aisha's black female slave. Ali was Mohammed's cousin, son-in-law and the fourth caliph (supreme leader).
There's a famous hadith where a woman comes to Mohammed with a complaint about her husband. The hadith says that there was a bruise on her face that was green in color. Mohammed addressed the issue that she brought up, but he made no remark about the bruise on her face. Actually, another time, he left a hadith, which says that when you hit women, do not strike them in the face. He also left behind one other piece of information regarding the beating of women. He said that they should be beaten lightly. This invites questions. What does it mean to beat lightly? Does it mean to use a small stick? And when using a stick, can you raise the stick above the head as you strike down at the woman? The Sunna doesn't describe this; it merely says that they are to be beaten lightly.
Now, Islam is a dualistic system. Dualism means that Islam always has two contradictory positions. So if there is a statement that says that it is proper to beat a woman, then somewhere else, there will be a contradictory statement. So, in another hadith, Mohammed said: "do not strike Allah's handmaidens." That is, don't hit women. However, there are only one or two of these statements; and there are many that describe how women should be subjugated. Of course, in Islam, hitting a woman is not abuse, because hitting a woman is allowed and not forbidden. If she's been trained properly, she does not object to these beatings. Since Mohammed established very firmly that striking women was within the bounds of Islam, Sharia incorporates the Sunna of Mohammed into the formal structure of Islamic law. There are rules laid out as to the gradation of how the man makes the woman submit, and the final stage is a beating.
Now, let's look at another way that women are treated inside of Islam. In 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found that half the girls were married by age 13. In an Afghan refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged! Virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of 60. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Afghan girls under the age of 16, and many as young as nine, are in arranged marriages. This is pure Sunna---the way of Mohammed. How do we know this? When Mohammed was in his mid-fifties, he was engaged to Aisha, a child of six. Then, when she was nine years old, he consummated the marriage. So, when a 60-year-old Pakistani Muslim is engaged to a 10-year-old, that is Sunna, because it is the way of Mohammed.
Now we come to a treatment of Islamic women which is not strictly Islamic doctrine, and that is "honor killings." An honor killing is when a man kills a woman because she has violated his honor. A Muslim male must control the sexuality of the females in his household, or else he is dishonored. It is one of his chief concerns. In Dallas, Texas, two Muslim sisters were found shot to death in the back of their father's taxicab. The father is being sought by the FBI in conjunction with the murder. A friend who knew them said the father was very strict about the girl's relationships with boys; their talking with boys, as well as the type of clothing the daughters wore. The sisters dressed in Western clothes and listened to popular music. The father was quite angry that his daughters were not acting like 'proper' Muslim women.
Islam does not say to kill the woman who does not obey. Instead, it brings the level of punishment up to beatings. However, once a woman is to be subjugated where she can be beaten, it's not too far from taking the final step. Killing a family member over the issue of Islam is Sunna. We know that, at the Battle of Bader, there is a story in which a son is remorseful about having killed his father, who was a kafir (infidel/unbeliever), but in the end he realizes that since his father was a kafir, even though he was a cultured man, it was better that he was dead. So it is Sunna for one family member to kill another, to advance Islam.
The Koran speaks at great length about women's rights. Among them are these: that they are to receive half the amount of inheritance of a male; and that, in a court of law, it takes the testimony of two women to equal the testimony of one man. So, if a woman testifies against a man, and he denies the accusation, then the testimony has no weight at all. In Islamic court, this makes cases of rape almost impossible to prove.
Muslims will say: "Oh no, no, no! Islam teaches the equality of women!" and indeed, there are many verses which say that women are equal on Judgment Day. That's when they're equal. Then, every person will be called upon to account for what they did and said in life, and in this matter, men and women will be treated equally.
Let's examine the fine print. It is true that the Koran says that women are to be treated equally on Judgment Day. They are to be judged on what they did in this life, and what they're supposed to do in this life is to obey the men, to submit to them; therefore, their "equality" on Judgment Day means that they will be judged on how well they submitted to men.
Mohammed commented that he had seen Hell, and the great majority of its inhabitants were women. Why were they there? They had not fully appreciated their husbands. In the same hadith, he made the remark that women were spiritually inferior to men, and that women were not as intelligent as men. Part of a woman's "rights" inside of Islam is that she is not as intelligent, and she has a much better chance of going to Hell.
But even if she goes to Paradise, she is still in for a second-class treatment. Paradise for men is a sexual playground, but none of that seems to extend to women; so that, even in Paradise, women are not rewarded like men.
There's another interesting comment about women and worship in Islam. A man is to pray facing Mecca; the women are to be behind him in prayer. This is the reason why women always sit in the back, in the mosque. Now, interestingly, in the religion of Islam, there are many things that can negate the power of prayer. One of those things that can negate prayer is, while you're praying, if a dog, a donkey or a woman should walk in front of you. So, for the purposes of this tradition, a woman is equal to a dog or a donkey.
Now let's take up the matter of the infamous burqa -the covering from head to toe, which can even include the face. Some Islamic women say, "Well, that is not really required." Others say that it is. So, on this issue, the Koran does display a dualism. We do know this: Mohammed made all of his wives wear a veil; we also know that everyone in his entourage around him did so, as well. So, although there is not a universal commandment that says women should wear a burqa, we do know that, from the Sunna of Mohammed, his wives did that, and all the women around him did that as well. This is a powerful influence with regard to the burqa.
In the Muslim holy city of Mecca, a girls' school caught on fire. Naturally, the girls tried to escape, but they were driven back into the burning building, because they were not wearing their face covering and full-body veil. They died, because it was the decision of the religious police that, better they should die, than have their faces exposed in public.
Another aspect of Islam is polygamy. The Koran is quite clear on polygamy. A man may have one, two, three or four wives. However, it does not say that a woman can have one, two, three, or four husbands.
There is also the matter of stoning. Now, it can be argued that stoning is not Islamic, or it can be argued that it is Islamic. For instance, in 2008, in Tehran, Iran (which calls itself an Islamic republic), two sisters, Zohre and Azar Kabiri, were convicted of adultery. They were sentenced to be stoned to death. Adultery is a crime punishable by death. The way this worked was, at first, they were convicted of having illegal relations, and they were given 99 lashings each. They were then brought back into court, and the same evidence was used to try them for adultery, whereupon they were sentenced to be stoned to death. The evidence? It was a videotape where the two sisters were caught talking to some men without adult family members with them.
There's an interesting thing about stoning, by the way. Sharia law is very technical about this, and what it says is that the stones should be chosen so they do not kill immediately. They have to be big enough so that, when enough of them are thrown, they will kill the victim. Death by stoning is meant to be a torturous death that the entire community participates in.
Now we come to an important thing. We have just described Islam. We must now talk about our response to this, and our response to this is shameful. In this country, starting in the 1960s, we had a political movement called feminism, which said women should be fully equal to men before the law, and a great deal of progress has been made in that. But on the issue of Islam, kafir (non-Muslim) women are shamefully silent. What we see here is indication of how our universities, for instance, have responded to Islam. They are silent. Universities should be a place where issues are discussed and described, but no Women's Studies teach anything about what Sharia law demands concerning women in Islam. Social workers do not report beatings inside Islamic families in Europe. The whole system has turned a blind eye to this.
What's happening in Europe---and it's starting to happen in America---is this: Muslim civil rights organizations maintain that Muslims should not fall under any aspect of family law in the West, because our family law is based on ignorance of Allah's law. Therefore, there should be two sets of laws---one for kafirs, and one for Muslims. So if a beaten Muslim woman shows up in the emergency room, the police would not be called. Or, if she wishes to press charges, it would be in an Islamic court.
What is the response of Western women to this? Well, they don't want to be culturally insensitive. They don't want to be racist. So if this culture of Islam wants to beat its women, why should they say anything about it? They do not want to be culturally insensitive. Our universal human rights stop at Mohammed's door.
Islam has a precise doctrine concerning how to treat women. Other than after death, the Islamic treatment of women says that they are less than a man. That is dreadful, but what is worse is that we will not help Islamic women, for fear we will offend Islam.
The text above is taken from the website Political Islam.
This lesson is on women. If you're going to study Islam, you have to study women as a separate category. And the reason for this is simple---Islamic doctrine denies that men and women are equal. The dualism of Islam separates women into a separate category. The Koran has whole sections devoted to how women are treated differently from men. Many hadith (traditions) put women in a special category. Islam is very proud of how it treats its women and says that, in the West, our treatment of women is terrible---that they are not protected and honored. In Islam, women are protected and honored (Muslims claim).
Let's examine the doctrine that underlies each separate case of how women are treated. Islam is a rational system of politics and culture. It always has a doctrinal reason for everything it does, and this is one of the things that make studying Islam easy. If Muslims do it, there is a reason. There is very little creativity inside of Islam. It doesn't need to create, because Islam has a perfect universal and final doctrine. Its doctrine about women is perfect; therefore, it doesn't need to innovate in any way. Islam even claims that it is the world's first feminist movement--that women now have more rights than they did before Islam.
Let's examine the subject of beatings. The Koran is clear: It says that if a woman does not obey her husband---that is, does not submit---she can be beaten. Let's see how this plays out. A Palestinian woman sued in a Sharia court. What she wanted was this: a judgment that her husband would only beat her once a week. She said that currently, he beats her every day, and that that was excessive. So, she sued in Sharia court to have them direct her husband to only beat her once a week.
At the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, it was decided that everyone who crossed the border had to be photographed. The US military was doing this, and since many of the people coming across the border were Afghani women, in their full head-to-toe burqa---including the face veil---they were taken to a separate tent where a female soldier helped them get their burqa off and photographed their face.
Now, this is merely anecdotal information that was passed to me by a soldier, and doesn't have any scientific evidence, but the women who did this work said that it seemed to them like nine out of ten women that they saw, had been bruised in the face.
This goes along with what the Pakistan Institute of Medical Science reported. In a scientific survey of Pakistani women, about 90% of them said that they had been beaten by their husbands. In the country of Chad, in Africa, they tried to outlaw beatings, but Islam is very strong in Chad. The imams and other Islamic leaders protested, saying that anti-wife beating laws were against Sharia law. The bill was defeated.
Some argue cynically, but practically, that, since Islamic women are beaten from early on, by the time they are married they are used to this treatment, and it does not seem to bother them. This business of beating wives is thoroughly established in Islam. This is not some sort of aberration. We've already mentioned that the Koran says that the beating of a wife is permitted. It also goes further to say, though, that if the woman submits, she should be given food, clothing and shelter, so those are also part of a woman's rights.
Mohammed left behind a great deal of information about the beating of women. There is one tradition that summarizes Islam and women. He said, never ask a man why he beats his wife. We know that from one tradition (hadith) that he himself hit his favorite wife, Aisha, and we know that he stood by without comment when her father struck Aisha in his presence. But then again, Mohammed also stood by without saying a word when Ali beat Aisha's black female slave. Ali was Mohammed's cousin, son-in-law and the fourth caliph (supreme leader).
There's a famous hadith where a woman comes to Mohammed with a complaint about her husband. The hadith says that there was a bruise on her face that was green in color. Mohammed addressed the issue that she brought up, but he made no remark about the bruise on her face. Actually, another time, he left a hadith, which says that when you hit women, do not strike them in the face. He also left behind one other piece of information regarding the beating of women. He said that they should be beaten lightly. This invites questions. What does it mean to beat lightly? Does it mean to use a small stick? And when using a stick, can you raise the stick above the head as you strike down at the woman? The Sunna doesn't describe this; it merely says that they are to be beaten lightly.
Now, Islam is a dualistic system. Dualism means that Islam always has two contradictory positions. So if there is a statement that says that it is proper to beat a woman, then somewhere else, there will be a contradictory statement. So, in another hadith, Mohammed said: "do not strike Allah's handmaidens." That is, don't hit women. However, there are only one or two of these statements; and there are many that describe how women should be subjugated. Of course, in Islam, hitting a woman is not abuse, because hitting a woman is allowed and not forbidden. If she's been trained properly, she does not object to these beatings. Since Mohammed established very firmly that striking women was within the bounds of Islam, Sharia incorporates the Sunna of Mohammed into the formal structure of Islamic law. There are rules laid out as to the gradation of how the man makes the woman submit, and the final stage is a beating.
Now, let's look at another way that women are treated inside of Islam. In 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found that half the girls were married by age 13. In an Afghan refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged! Virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of 60. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Afghan girls under the age of 16, and many as young as nine, are in arranged marriages. This is pure Sunna---the way of Mohammed. How do we know this? When Mohammed was in his mid-fifties, he was engaged to Aisha, a child of six. Then, when she was nine years old, he consummated the marriage. So, when a 60-year-old Pakistani Muslim is engaged to a 10-year-old, that is Sunna, because it is the way of Mohammed.
Now we come to a treatment of Islamic women which is not strictly Islamic doctrine, and that is "honor killings." An honor killing is when a man kills a woman because she has violated his honor. A Muslim male must control the sexuality of the females in his household, or else he is dishonored. It is one of his chief concerns. In Dallas, Texas, two Muslim sisters were found shot to death in the back of their father's taxicab. The father is being sought by the FBI in conjunction with the murder. A friend who knew them said the father was very strict about the girl's relationships with boys; their talking with boys, as well as the type of clothing the daughters wore. The sisters dressed in Western clothes and listened to popular music. The father was quite angry that his daughters were not acting like 'proper' Muslim women.
Islam does not say to kill the woman who does not obey. Instead, it brings the level of punishment up to beatings. However, once a woman is to be subjugated where she can be beaten, it's not too far from taking the final step. Killing a family member over the issue of Islam is Sunna. We know that, at the Battle of Bader, there is a story in which a son is remorseful about having killed his father, who was a kafir (infidel/unbeliever), but in the end he realizes that since his father was a kafir, even though he was a cultured man, it was better that he was dead. So it is Sunna for one family member to kill another, to advance Islam.
The Koran speaks at great length about women's rights. Among them are these: that they are to receive half the amount of inheritance of a male; and that, in a court of law, it takes the testimony of two women to equal the testimony of one man. So, if a woman testifies against a man, and he denies the accusation, then the testimony has no weight at all. In Islamic court, this makes cases of rape almost impossible to prove.
Muslims will say: "Oh no, no, no! Islam teaches the equality of women!" and indeed, there are many verses which say that women are equal on Judgment Day. That's when they're equal. Then, every person will be called upon to account for what they did and said in life, and in this matter, men and women will be treated equally.
Let's examine the fine print. It is true that the Koran says that women are to be treated equally on Judgment Day. They are to be judged on what they did in this life, and what they're supposed to do in this life is to obey the men, to submit to them; therefore, their "equality" on Judgment Day means that they will be judged on how well they submitted to men.
Mohammed commented that he had seen Hell, and the great majority of its inhabitants were women. Why were they there? They had not fully appreciated their husbands. In the same hadith, he made the remark that women were spiritually inferior to men, and that women were not as intelligent as men. Part of a woman's "rights" inside of Islam is that she is not as intelligent, and she has a much better chance of going to Hell.
But even if she goes to Paradise, she is still in for a second-class treatment. Paradise for men is a sexual playground, but none of that seems to extend to women; so that, even in Paradise, women are not rewarded like men.
There's another interesting comment about women and worship in Islam. A man is to pray facing Mecca; the women are to be behind him in prayer. This is the reason why women always sit in the back, in the mosque. Now, interestingly, in the religion of Islam, there are many things that can negate the power of prayer. One of those things that can negate prayer is, while you're praying, if a dog, a donkey or a woman should walk in front of you. So, for the purposes of this tradition, a woman is equal to a dog or a donkey.
Now let's take up the matter of the infamous burqa -the covering from head to toe, which can even include the face. Some Islamic women say, "Well, that is not really required." Others say that it is. So, on this issue, the Koran does display a dualism. We do know this: Mohammed made all of his wives wear a veil; we also know that everyone in his entourage around him did so, as well. So, although there is not a universal commandment that says women should wear a burqa, we do know that, from the Sunna of Mohammed, his wives did that, and all the women around him did that as well. This is a powerful influence with regard to the burqa.
In the Muslim holy city of Mecca, a girls' school caught on fire. Naturally, the girls tried to escape, but they were driven back into the burning building, because they were not wearing their face covering and full-body veil. They died, because it was the decision of the religious police that, better they should die, than have their faces exposed in public.
Another aspect of Islam is polygamy. The Koran is quite clear on polygamy. A man may have one, two, three or four wives. However, it does not say that a woman can have one, two, three, or four husbands.
There is also the matter of stoning. Now, it can be argued that stoning is not Islamic, or it can be argued that it is Islamic. For instance, in 2008, in Tehran, Iran (which calls itself an Islamic republic), two sisters, Zohre and Azar Kabiri, were convicted of adultery. They were sentenced to be stoned to death. Adultery is a crime punishable by death. The way this worked was, at first, they were convicted of having illegal relations, and they were given 99 lashings each. They were then brought back into court, and the same evidence was used to try them for adultery, whereupon they were sentenced to be stoned to death. The evidence? It was a videotape where the two sisters were caught talking to some men without adult family members with them.
There's an interesting thing about stoning, by the way. Sharia law is very technical about this, and what it says is that the stones should be chosen so they do not kill immediately. They have to be big enough so that, when enough of them are thrown, they will kill the victim. Death by stoning is meant to be a torturous death that the entire community participates in.
Now we come to an important thing. We have just described Islam. We must now talk about our response to this, and our response to this is shameful. In this country, starting in the 1960s, we had a political movement called feminism, which said women should be fully equal to men before the law, and a great deal of progress has been made in that. But on the issue of Islam, kafir (non-Muslim) women are shamefully silent. What we see here is indication of how our universities, for instance, have responded to Islam. They are silent. Universities should be a place where issues are discussed and described, but no Women's Studies teach anything about what Sharia law demands concerning women in Islam. Social workers do not report beatings inside Islamic families in Europe. The whole system has turned a blind eye to this.
What's happening in Europe---and it's starting to happen in America---is this: Muslim civil rights organizations maintain that Muslims should not fall under any aspect of family law in the West, because our family law is based on ignorance of Allah's law. Therefore, there should be two sets of laws---one for kafirs, and one for Muslims. So if a beaten Muslim woman shows up in the emergency room, the police would not be called. Or, if she wishes to press charges, it would be in an Islamic court.
What is the response of Western women to this? Well, they don't want to be culturally insensitive. They don't want to be racist. So if this culture of Islam wants to beat its women, why should they say anything about it? They do not want to be culturally insensitive. Our universal human rights stop at Mohammed's door.
Islam has a precise doctrine concerning how to treat women. Other than after death, the Islamic treatment of women says that they are less than a man. That is dreadful, but what is worse is that we will not help Islamic women, for fear we will offend Islam.
The text above is taken from the website Political Islam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
