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.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
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.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
RIFQA BARY IN GRAVE DANGER
This is an e-mail that was recently sent to me:
To all those who value life,
Please take a few minutes to consider the life of our sister in the faith Rifqa Bary, which is once again in grave jeopardy. On Tuesday October 27th, Rifqa Bary was handed over to Ohio authorities for placement in foster care in Franklin County. Over the previous weekend, Rifqa’s former Florida Guardian Ad Litem, Krista Bartholomew, made a very unfortunate and naive deal with Rifqa’s parent’s attorney David Colley that allowed Rifqa to be transferred back to Ohio. The gist of this (behind the scenes) deal was the following:
1. Because Rifqa’s parents are in the U.S. illegally, they refused and defied numerous court orders to produce documents detailing their immigration status. As a result, Rifqa’s parents were in danger of being arrested for contempt of court. The Florida judge who had emergency jurisdiction over the case said that even though the jurisdiction is transferred to Ohio, he was not going to release her until they produced the proper documentation that satisfied the court.
Well, in order to have the immigration issue go away for Rifqa’s parents, Mohammad Bary’s attorney, David Colley, cut a ‘behind the scenes’ deal in which the Florida court would drop the contempt of court issue regarding their immigration situation in exchange for an assurance that they would leave Rifqa alone and let her stay in foster care for the next 9 months until she is 18. This sounded like it was too good to be true, and it was! As soon as Rifqa was transferred into Ohio custody and the Florida court gave up their emergency jurisdiction over Rifqa and the immigration issue, Rifqa’s parents fired their own attorney that made the deal! Simply put, now that Rifqa was in ‘favorable’ hands in Ohio, all deals are off!
In my opinion, this was all part of a premeditated plan on the part of Rifqa’s parents and the organization called C.A.I.R. who has been advising them according to the Florida department of law enforcement report released to the public. They have since hired a Muslim activist attorney named Omar Tarazi that is no doubt influenced by the mafia like C.A.I.R. organization whose sole agenda is to paint a positive picture of Islam in America at any cost. (The slander of the Lorenz family, as well as the slander of 17-year-old Rifqa’s own character by releasing her prayer journals to the media, are perfect examples of how C.A.I.R. ruthlessly operates to accomplish their agenda.) They completely went back on the agreement that they made to leave Rifqa alone, and I believe they now are planning to continue to pursue to get her back against Rifqa’s will. C.A.I.R. wants her silenced both now, and in the future, because they know that Rifqa’s story of abuse is common among many Muslim families. Apostasy in Islam is not something they want to shine a light on. They know that as her story gets out there, there will be a massive exodus of Muslims just like her. Indeed, it has already begun!
2. If that was not bad enough, Rifqa went back to a hostile environment in Ohio right away. In an article posted on Saturday October 24’th, three days before her return to Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch reported that Eric Fenner, the executive director of Franklin County Children Services, has said that he has stated that he “has no reason to believe that Rifqa wouldn’t be safe with her parents.” Remember this is coming from the very person who has charge over protecting her!
Rifqa then arrived back to Ohio on Tuesday October 27th. Upon her arrival came a new set of restrictions that her parents and Muslim attorneys have been trying to impose on her from the beginning…solitary confinement! While Rifqa was being protected in Florida, they repeatedly tried to separate Rifqa from other Christians that she leaned on for strength and encouragement. Rifqa’s Muslim parents have been saying from the beginning that they don’t believe that Rifqa became a Christian on her own accord, rather they believe that her real problem is that she has been brain washed by other people through Facebook and over the phone. Immediately upon Rifqa’s arrival to Ohio, came new draconian measures to limit her freedom already! Franklin County Juvenile Magistrate Mary Goodrich put these restrictions on Rifqa at the request of the Franklin county children's services agency immediately upon her arrival back to the state of Ohio.
“Bary's use of Facebook was one issue that led to the situation, said Jim Zorn, a children's services attorney, who asked Goodrich to restrict Bary from using the Internet and her cell phone. "What we want to restrict is the other people, the other organizations, the other forces, that have interjected themselves into this case inappropriately, and has caused the additional problems that we've seen," Zorn said.
Zorn’s account of Rifqa’s situation is absolutely false! Where is he getting his information? It seems as if the Ohio director of children’s services in Franklin County is reading right out of the C.A.I.R. and radical Muslim playbook for this case. Facebook did not in any way lead to this situation. What led to this situation was the fact that a very bright and intelligent girl decided to leave Islam and become a Christian. According to numerous passages in the Qur’an and other Islamic scriptures, this is called apostasy and is punishable by death. Like many others all over the world, Rifqa faced this threat of death, or even deportation back to Sri-Lanka by her own family along with pressure from the Columbus Ohio mosque that her family was actively apart of.
What crime did Rifqa Bary commit that she would be held with such restrictions from communicating to the outside world? While it is legal for 17-year-old girls in this country to have abortions without parental agreement, this 17-year-old girl is forbidden to have unrestricted access to her phone or Facebook friends of her choosing! Is she under house arrest because she is a Christian? This sounds like Sharia law in Ohio!
Immediate Call to Action:
Before I get into the specifics of how we can help, let me say this about a very common misunderstanding that many Christians have regarding God’s sovereignty and fighting for justice. Many of my well-meaning brothers and sisters in the church have wondered what the balance is between sitting back, trusting God, and actively fighting for justice. Some have said that because I am fighting for justice in Rifqa’s situation, I am taking the situation in my hands and I am not trusting that God is sovereign over this situation. That is ridiculous to say the least. First of all there is a tremendous amount of support in scripture that commands the people of God to not remain silent in the face of injustice, and to speak and defend those who cannot defend themselves. For time’s sake, I will not list those passages here. If you need help finding these scriptures along with their proper context, let me know and I’d be glad to help direct you to the appropriate passages. All actions of justice should come from a heart of prayer first and foremost. It is from this place of prayer and intimacy with the Lord that we will find the courage, specific direction, and strength to understand and actually do what He is calling us to do! While not everyone will be called to do the same thing, the Lord will burden our hearts for the things that burden His heart as well. His sovereign heart and actions are carried out through the church, which is made up of people! We cannot separate ourselves from this. We are His body, His hands, His feet, His mouth, etc…
A lack of a proper understanding between God’s sovereignty and His heart for justice is what allowed the church to sit passively by in Nazi Germany as Jewish people were slaughtered by the millions while Christians were paralyzed by fear and did nothing. Corrie Ten Boom was an exception to the rule. She was not afraid, and she knew what God had called her to do. There should have been millions of Corrie Ten Booms in Germany at that time. This same cowardice and passivity is also what has allowed over 3000 children to be murdered by abortion each and every day in this nation with little or no outcry in prayer and public against this tragedy. We must get this right!
Now with that said, here are some specific things we can do for Rifqa right now:
Since most of Rifqa’s Florida support base is cut off from her, and she is now under the care of authorities that do not take the threat to her life seriously, I would like to ask you to help them understand that Rifqa is not alone and that there are many people who will not sit idly by while Rifqa is sent back to her demise. This does make a difference. Rifqa’s story must continue to be told for her sake, and for the sake of many others! Feel free to repost this article and pass it along to anyone you would like for the sake of getting the word out.
Please contact Franklin County Children Services and the Ohio governor’s office at the following addresses and let them know that you want Rifqa to be able to have the basic freedoms to communicate to the outside world, and that she needs to be protected from her parents & the radical Islamic community:
Franklin County children services can be reached here:
http://www.franklincountyohio.gov/children_services/contact-us.cfm
The Ohio governor’s office can be reached here:
http://governor.ohio.gov/Contact/tabid/153/Default.aspx
To all those who value life,
Please take a few minutes to consider the life of our sister in the faith Rifqa Bary, which is once again in grave jeopardy. On Tuesday October 27th, Rifqa Bary was handed over to Ohio authorities for placement in foster care in Franklin County. Over the previous weekend, Rifqa’s former Florida Guardian Ad Litem, Krista Bartholomew, made a very unfortunate and naive deal with Rifqa’s parent’s attorney David Colley that allowed Rifqa to be transferred back to Ohio. The gist of this (behind the scenes) deal was the following:
1. Because Rifqa’s parents are in the U.S. illegally, they refused and defied numerous court orders to produce documents detailing their immigration status. As a result, Rifqa’s parents were in danger of being arrested for contempt of court. The Florida judge who had emergency jurisdiction over the case said that even though the jurisdiction is transferred to Ohio, he was not going to release her until they produced the proper documentation that satisfied the court.
Well, in order to have the immigration issue go away for Rifqa’s parents, Mohammad Bary’s attorney, David Colley, cut a ‘behind the scenes’ deal in which the Florida court would drop the contempt of court issue regarding their immigration situation in exchange for an assurance that they would leave Rifqa alone and let her stay in foster care for the next 9 months until she is 18. This sounded like it was too good to be true, and it was! As soon as Rifqa was transferred into Ohio custody and the Florida court gave up their emergency jurisdiction over Rifqa and the immigration issue, Rifqa’s parents fired their own attorney that made the deal! Simply put, now that Rifqa was in ‘favorable’ hands in Ohio, all deals are off!
In my opinion, this was all part of a premeditated plan on the part of Rifqa’s parents and the organization called C.A.I.R. who has been advising them according to the Florida department of law enforcement report released to the public. They have since hired a Muslim activist attorney named Omar Tarazi that is no doubt influenced by the mafia like C.A.I.R. organization whose sole agenda is to paint a positive picture of Islam in America at any cost. (The slander of the Lorenz family, as well as the slander of 17-year-old Rifqa’s own character by releasing her prayer journals to the media, are perfect examples of how C.A.I.R. ruthlessly operates to accomplish their agenda.) They completely went back on the agreement that they made to leave Rifqa alone, and I believe they now are planning to continue to pursue to get her back against Rifqa’s will. C.A.I.R. wants her silenced both now, and in the future, because they know that Rifqa’s story of abuse is common among many Muslim families. Apostasy in Islam is not something they want to shine a light on. They know that as her story gets out there, there will be a massive exodus of Muslims just like her. Indeed, it has already begun!
2. If that was not bad enough, Rifqa went back to a hostile environment in Ohio right away. In an article posted on Saturday October 24’th, three days before her return to Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch reported that Eric Fenner, the executive director of Franklin County Children Services, has said that he has stated that he “has no reason to believe that Rifqa wouldn’t be safe with her parents.” Remember this is coming from the very person who has charge over protecting her!
Rifqa then arrived back to Ohio on Tuesday October 27th. Upon her arrival came a new set of restrictions that her parents and Muslim attorneys have been trying to impose on her from the beginning…solitary confinement! While Rifqa was being protected in Florida, they repeatedly tried to separate Rifqa from other Christians that she leaned on for strength and encouragement. Rifqa’s Muslim parents have been saying from the beginning that they don’t believe that Rifqa became a Christian on her own accord, rather they believe that her real problem is that she has been brain washed by other people through Facebook and over the phone. Immediately upon Rifqa’s arrival to Ohio, came new draconian measures to limit her freedom already! Franklin County Juvenile Magistrate Mary Goodrich put these restrictions on Rifqa at the request of the Franklin county children's services agency immediately upon her arrival back to the state of Ohio.
“Bary's use of Facebook was one issue that led to the situation, said Jim Zorn, a children's services attorney, who asked Goodrich to restrict Bary from using the Internet and her cell phone. "What we want to restrict is the other people, the other organizations, the other forces, that have interjected themselves into this case inappropriately, and has caused the additional problems that we've seen," Zorn said.
Zorn’s account of Rifqa’s situation is absolutely false! Where is he getting his information? It seems as if the Ohio director of children’s services in Franklin County is reading right out of the C.A.I.R. and radical Muslim playbook for this case. Facebook did not in any way lead to this situation. What led to this situation was the fact that a very bright and intelligent girl decided to leave Islam and become a Christian. According to numerous passages in the Qur’an and other Islamic scriptures, this is called apostasy and is punishable by death. Like many others all over the world, Rifqa faced this threat of death, or even deportation back to Sri-Lanka by her own family along with pressure from the Columbus Ohio mosque that her family was actively apart of.
What crime did Rifqa Bary commit that she would be held with such restrictions from communicating to the outside world? While it is legal for 17-year-old girls in this country to have abortions without parental agreement, this 17-year-old girl is forbidden to have unrestricted access to her phone or Facebook friends of her choosing! Is she under house arrest because she is a Christian? This sounds like Sharia law in Ohio!
Immediate Call to Action:
Before I get into the specifics of how we can help, let me say this about a very common misunderstanding that many Christians have regarding God’s sovereignty and fighting for justice. Many of my well-meaning brothers and sisters in the church have wondered what the balance is between sitting back, trusting God, and actively fighting for justice. Some have said that because I am fighting for justice in Rifqa’s situation, I am taking the situation in my hands and I am not trusting that God is sovereign over this situation. That is ridiculous to say the least. First of all there is a tremendous amount of support in scripture that commands the people of God to not remain silent in the face of injustice, and to speak and defend those who cannot defend themselves. For time’s sake, I will not list those passages here. If you need help finding these scriptures along with their proper context, let me know and I’d be glad to help direct you to the appropriate passages. All actions of justice should come from a heart of prayer first and foremost. It is from this place of prayer and intimacy with the Lord that we will find the courage, specific direction, and strength to understand and actually do what He is calling us to do! While not everyone will be called to do the same thing, the Lord will burden our hearts for the things that burden His heart as well. His sovereign heart and actions are carried out through the church, which is made up of people! We cannot separate ourselves from this. We are His body, His hands, His feet, His mouth, etc…
A lack of a proper understanding between God’s sovereignty and His heart for justice is what allowed the church to sit passively by in Nazi Germany as Jewish people were slaughtered by the millions while Christians were paralyzed by fear and did nothing. Corrie Ten Boom was an exception to the rule. She was not afraid, and she knew what God had called her to do. There should have been millions of Corrie Ten Booms in Germany at that time. This same cowardice and passivity is also what has allowed over 3000 children to be murdered by abortion each and every day in this nation with little or no outcry in prayer and public against this tragedy. We must get this right!
Now with that said, here are some specific things we can do for Rifqa right now:
Since most of Rifqa’s Florida support base is cut off from her, and she is now under the care of authorities that do not take the threat to her life seriously, I would like to ask you to help them understand that Rifqa is not alone and that there are many people who will not sit idly by while Rifqa is sent back to her demise. This does make a difference. Rifqa’s story must continue to be told for her sake, and for the sake of many others! Feel free to repost this article and pass it along to anyone you would like for the sake of getting the word out.
Please contact Franklin County Children Services and the Ohio governor’s office at the following addresses and let them know that you want Rifqa to be able to have the basic freedoms to communicate to the outside world, and that she needs to be protected from her parents & the radical Islamic community:
Franklin County children services can be reached here:
http://www.franklincountyohio.gov/children_services/contact-us.cfm
The Ohio governor’s office can be reached here:
http://governor.ohio.gov/Contact/tabid/153/Default.aspx
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Islamic view of Christians
Islam has two views of Christians (which should not be surprising since, as noted in my recent posts, there is a duality in Islam). The first view is that Christianity and Islam are ‘brother’ religions. The second view is that Christians must change their religion to meet the demands of Islam. Modern Christians want to believe that there is a bridge between Islam and Christianity. But the history of Islam shows that Islam works first to deceive, and then annihilate, Christianity. For 1400 years, Islam has destroyed Christian lands.
The Christians do not play a pivotal role like the Jews did, in the formation of Islam. That is, the Koran does not have a lot to say about Christians. Nor does the Sira (the life of Mohammed) have much to say about Christians. But Islam's attitude toward Christians can be seen in some of the final days of Mohammed's life, when he sent out troops against the Christians in the North of Syria. It was Mohammed's intent to attack the Christians. Soon after he died, that's exactly what occurred. Though the Christians did not play a pivotal role in the formation of Islam, the Christians did, however, play a very important role in the history of Islam. Remember that all the Middle East, North Africa, and what we now call Turkey, was Christian.
Since these areas are Islamic today, there is a history there, but let's take a look at Islam through a more modern eye. Two days after 9/11, phone calls started going out to all of the churches, with the request: “Let us send a Muslim to your church, and he will tell you about Islam, the peaceful religion.” Well, one church decided to go one better. They invited a group of imams (the imams are Muslim religious leaders); they also invited several Christian ministers. The Christians arrived that night in groups of ones and twos. Then, about the time the meeting was to start, in came all the Muslims. The imams came in as a group onto the stage, and the Muslim men filed in next. They surrounded the Christians in their seats. And then, the Muslim women came in, all dressed in black, from head to toe, and they sat in the back of the room. As Muslim women, they knew what their place was in public gatherings.
The first thing that happened was, an imam walked up to the lectern and placed a very large Koran on top, and opened it up about half-way. This was a symbolic act that was indicative of the entire night. The Christians didn't think anything about it one way or the other, but for the Muslims, it was a mark of who they were.
You see, Islam is a word that means ‘submission.’ In Islam, ‘submission’ has several meanings. For the Muslim, it means to submit to the Koran, the will of Allah and the sunnah of Mohammed. In addition, all Muslims are to make all others who are not Muslims, submit to them. So, they were there to dominate. What the Muslims did was to place the Koran as the focal point of dominance, because this is where, normally, the Bible would have been. This act of dominance was symbolic of the entire night.
One of the imams got up and started to give his talk. He first said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Well, that seemed like a good foot to get started on. Of course, it is not true, but since the Christians did not know anything about the god Allah, that seemed fine to them. The imam said they, too, honor Jesus, because Jesus was a prophet of Allah, and Jesus was a Muslim. He also explained that Jesus was not the Son of God; He was merely a Muslim prophet. And for that matter, the apostles were also Muslims. This came perhaps as a surprise to the ministers, but they didn't say anything. The imam then went ahead to say that Jesus was not crucified, and therefore was not resurrected.
The next thing he told the Christians was that the concept of the Trinity was a great affront to Allah. There was no such thing as the Trinity, and such a doctrine made the Christians polytheists. The fact that Christians are viewed as polytheists explains something that happened at the beginning, when the Christian minister first said, “Let us pray together.” There was almost a panicked response from the imams at this. "No," they said, "No! We do not pray with others." This was quite puzzling to the Christian minister, but since the Christians were there as hosts, and they were there to be kind and polite, he didn't say anything. But you could tell from the puzzled look on the minister's face that he was thinking, “Why would they object to praying together?” The reason is that the Christians are viewed as polytheists. To pray with them is a terrible sin, so terrible in fact, that it has a special name: “shirk.” The Koran says that if they had prayed with the Christians, they would definitely go to Hell. Praying with the Christians would have been a sin worse than mass murder, for the Muslims.
Again, the Christians did not understand anything about Islam, or they would have never made the invitation to prayer. Or, they would have simply gone ahead and prayed, with the Muslims sitting there. The Muslims dominated at this point. Inside of a Christian Church, there would be no prayers with the Christians.
Another thing that the imam said in his talk was that the New Testament was a corrupt document, and was in error. Not only was the New Testament in error, but also, so was the Old Testament. But in particular, the reason that the New Testament was wrong was that Jesus' chief prophecy foretold that after him would come the final prophet, and his name would be Ahmed (‘Ahmed’ and ‘Mohammed’ are like ‘Bill’ and ‘William’). The imam said Christians had removed these prophecies from the New Testament. This was one of the many reasons that the New Testament was a document that was simply wrong. If Christians wanted to learn the real story of Jesus, what they would have to do was to read the Koran, because the Koran contains the exact truth about Isa, the Arabic word for Jesus.
[Note: Muslims claim that in one of the early codices of the Qur’an which Uthman ordered to be burnt, namely that of the expert reciter Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Surah 61.6 read somewhat differently. He omitted the conclusion "his name will be Ahmad" (ismuhu ahmad) and in its place records Jesus as saying that he was announcing a prophet who would bear the seal of Allah from his prophets and messengers (khatumullaahu bihil-anbiyaa’ wal-rusuli).]
Imagine if the Christian minister had stood up and made these assertions - that Mohammed was not a prophet of any sort; that the Koran was a derivative work; that is it was just a book in which things were copied from the Jews and Christians, Zoroastrians and the old Arabic religions; that Allah was simply the tribal moon god of the Koreish tribe. That is equivalent to what the Muslim minister said, but the Christians didn't do that for two reasons: One, they were the host, and they were going to be polite. The other reason was they had no idea that the Koran was a derivative work. In response to questions from the audience, none of the Christians had read the Koran, nor had they read the traditions of Mohammed (the hadith). Nor did they know anything about Mohammed's life. But, the imams had read the New Testament and the Old Testament, so they knew the Christian beliefs, and Christians knew nothing of them. This was the way the entire night went. The Muslims asked the Christians questions, and the questions that they asked were 1400 years old. These were stock questions, but the ministers were caught flat-footed. They had never thought about these kinds of questions before. Again, the Moslems came prepared, and the Christians were not prepared.
The lack of preparations by the Christians could be shown when one minister started talking badly about the Crusades and apologized for them. This meant he knew nothing about the Crusades. Yes, mistakes were made in the Crusades, but overall, they were a great good. Why were they a great good? It was one of the few times the Christians in Europe recognized the intense suffering of the Christians in the Middle East. The reasons the Crusades were started were simple. They came as a response to a cry for help. And why did these Christians cry for help? Because they were being murdered, robbed and taxed to death by their Muslim overlords.
Now how did these Muslims become their overlords? Well, originally that part of the world had been mostly Christian. It did not become Islamic because some imams showed up and started preaching in the marketplace. No; it was Islamic because the sword had been used to kill all those who would defend Christianity, and used to take over the government. So the Crusaders arrived in response to a desperate cry for help.
Basically the minister, with his comments, said he didn't know anything about the history of Christianity and Islam. This is tragic---dreadfully tragic. For over 60 million Christians have been killed in the process of jihad. How did Turkey, which is 99.7 percent Islamic, go from a Greek culture---a country called Anatolia---how did that country go from being Christian to Islamic? The Christians on the stage didn't know how this process happened, nor did they know that 60 million Christians have died in jihad. They also didn't know that in the 20th century alone, a million Armenians were killed in Turkey. Why didn't the ministers know these dreadful facts? Very simply, it's because they went to divinity school and no one ever mentioned these facts. They had never been taught the doctrine of Islam. They didn't know, for instance, that Islam is primarily a political ideology, not a religion.
Why don't they teach this at the universities and divinity schools? Well, nothing happens by accident. And in this case, the reason that Christians don't teach the history of Christianity and Islam is because the process whereby the Middle East, Turkey and North Africa all became Moslem is so dreadful, so painful--- even disgusting---that this horrible, tragic subject has been avoided altogether.
Islam has a political status for the Christians called being a ‘dhimmi.’ Although the Jews were the first dhimmis, the Christians were the biggest dhimmis of all…for one simple reason: there were far more of them. When the Muslims came in and took over the government, and implemented Islamic law---Sharia law---part of this included how Christians and Jews would be treated in public, and how they would be treated in the courts of law. It was dreadful. A dhimmi has no civil rights. So, this history of dhimmitude and special taxes that Christians had to pay, was dreadfully humiliating.
It's a shameful history that includes the death of 60 million Christians. None of the Christians up on the stage knew what happened to the seven churches of Asia. In the book of Revelation in the New Testament, the seven churches are addressed. The seven churches were in Asia Minor, which was Anatolia, or what we call Turkey today. They don't know what happened to those churches, which is a real tragedy. But the story of the destruction of those churches tells a large part of the history of Islam.
Those Christian ministers also had not studied enough about Islam to know that, not only had 60 million Christians been killed in jihad, but 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists and 120 million Africans.
The Christians up on the stage that day didn't know enough to ask about slavery. You see, every slave that was sold to the white man on a wooden ship that brought them to America was bought from a Moslem wholesaler. The Christians didn't know enough to ask, why is it that when you say the Arabic word African, ‘abed,’ it's the same word that's used for a black slave. This night was a demonstration of two things: the knowledge and power of Islam; and how the Christians had not done their homework.
Christians, as well as all “kafirs,” should know how to use the Golden Rule to attack the Koran. Christians and all ‘kafirs’ should know the story of Mohammed.
All ‘kafirs’ should know enough about the Koran that when a Muslim claims that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same God, you can offer arguments to show how that is simply not true. The information is available. All ‘kafirs’ should know how to address those issues raised in the church, because everything that the Muslims said from the podium of that church, are the same things they say continually.
All ‘kafirs’---not only Christians---should be able to debate regarding the issue of political Islam---if not with a Muslim, then with anyone, at work or wherever, who brings up the subject. What actual argument can anybody make for being ignorant about the history of political Islam? You really can't. You must face any fears or hesitations you may have about studying political Islam, which may come from a sense of unease about the history of political Islam. There may be good reason that you feel uneasy or hesitant, but these fears must be faced.
One of the reasons that these fears must be faced is that this dreadful history of Islam is continuing and moving through our world today. As an example, Iraq, which used to be a majority Christian nation, is now only 3% Christian---and, of the refugees who are leaving Iraq, 30% are Christian. Why is it that they're being persecuted? That 1400-year history is continuing today in Iraq. All ‘kafirs’ should be made aware of this. In Africa, Christian Africans are being killed and destroyed almost on a daily basis. How can these people be helped?
What is done to Christians is also done to Hindus, Buddhists and atheists. Islam does not discriminate. All ‘kafirs’ must submit.
If you're aware of the history of Islam---if you're aware of its political doctrine---then you can be more useful. And, knowledge about Islam is not merely an ability to hold your own in public debate. Knowledge about Islam will sensitize you so that your politics change, so that you can see that not only has Islam killed 270 million ‘kafirs’ in the past, but it's continuing to do so today.
Islam is destroying ‘kafir’ civilizations on a daily basis. When a Christian is persecuted, a ‘kafir’ is persecuted. The way to prevent this destruction is very simple. It is through knowledge about Islam, knowledge about the Koran, and knowledge about Mohammed.
From Political Islam: Christians
"The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim." -- 'Umdat al-Salik, o4.9
"Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution...Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash.... Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim...then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain...Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed....Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." -- Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Christians do not play a pivotal role like the Jews did, in the formation of Islam. That is, the Koran does not have a lot to say about Christians. Nor does the Sira (the life of Mohammed) have much to say about Christians. But Islam's attitude toward Christians can be seen in some of the final days of Mohammed's life, when he sent out troops against the Christians in the North of Syria. It was Mohammed's intent to attack the Christians. Soon after he died, that's exactly what occurred. Though the Christians did not play a pivotal role in the formation of Islam, the Christians did, however, play a very important role in the history of Islam. Remember that all the Middle East, North Africa, and what we now call Turkey, was Christian.
Since these areas are Islamic today, there is a history there, but let's take a look at Islam through a more modern eye. Two days after 9/11, phone calls started going out to all of the churches, with the request: “Let us send a Muslim to your church, and he will tell you about Islam, the peaceful religion.” Well, one church decided to go one better. They invited a group of imams (the imams are Muslim religious leaders); they also invited several Christian ministers. The Christians arrived that night in groups of ones and twos. Then, about the time the meeting was to start, in came all the Muslims. The imams came in as a group onto the stage, and the Muslim men filed in next. They surrounded the Christians in their seats. And then, the Muslim women came in, all dressed in black, from head to toe, and they sat in the back of the room. As Muslim women, they knew what their place was in public gatherings.
The first thing that happened was, an imam walked up to the lectern and placed a very large Koran on top, and opened it up about half-way. This was a symbolic act that was indicative of the entire night. The Christians didn't think anything about it one way or the other, but for the Muslims, it was a mark of who they were.
You see, Islam is a word that means ‘submission.’ In Islam, ‘submission’ has several meanings. For the Muslim, it means to submit to the Koran, the will of Allah and the sunnah of Mohammed. In addition, all Muslims are to make all others who are not Muslims, submit to them. So, they were there to dominate. What the Muslims did was to place the Koran as the focal point of dominance, because this is where, normally, the Bible would have been. This act of dominance was symbolic of the entire night.
One of the imams got up and started to give his talk. He first said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Well, that seemed like a good foot to get started on. Of course, it is not true, but since the Christians did not know anything about the god Allah, that seemed fine to them. The imam said they, too, honor Jesus, because Jesus was a prophet of Allah, and Jesus was a Muslim. He also explained that Jesus was not the Son of God; He was merely a Muslim prophet. And for that matter, the apostles were also Muslims. This came perhaps as a surprise to the ministers, but they didn't say anything. The imam then went ahead to say that Jesus was not crucified, and therefore was not resurrected.
The next thing he told the Christians was that the concept of the Trinity was a great affront to Allah. There was no such thing as the Trinity, and such a doctrine made the Christians polytheists. The fact that Christians are viewed as polytheists explains something that happened at the beginning, when the Christian minister first said, “Let us pray together.” There was almost a panicked response from the imams at this. "No," they said, "No! We do not pray with others." This was quite puzzling to the Christian minister, but since the Christians were there as hosts, and they were there to be kind and polite, he didn't say anything. But you could tell from the puzzled look on the minister's face that he was thinking, “Why would they object to praying together?” The reason is that the Christians are viewed as polytheists. To pray with them is a terrible sin, so terrible in fact, that it has a special name: “shirk.” The Koran says that if they had prayed with the Christians, they would definitely go to Hell. Praying with the Christians would have been a sin worse than mass murder, for the Muslims.
Again, the Christians did not understand anything about Islam, or they would have never made the invitation to prayer. Or, they would have simply gone ahead and prayed, with the Muslims sitting there. The Muslims dominated at this point. Inside of a Christian Church, there would be no prayers with the Christians.
Another thing that the imam said in his talk was that the New Testament was a corrupt document, and was in error. Not only was the New Testament in error, but also, so was the Old Testament. But in particular, the reason that the New Testament was wrong was that Jesus' chief prophecy foretold that after him would come the final prophet, and his name would be Ahmed (‘Ahmed’ and ‘Mohammed’ are like ‘Bill’ and ‘William’). The imam said Christians had removed these prophecies from the New Testament. This was one of the many reasons that the New Testament was a document that was simply wrong. If Christians wanted to learn the real story of Jesus, what they would have to do was to read the Koran, because the Koran contains the exact truth about Isa, the Arabic word for Jesus.
[Note: Muslims claim that in one of the early codices of the Qur’an which Uthman ordered to be burnt, namely that of the expert reciter Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Surah 61.6 read somewhat differently. He omitted the conclusion "his name will be Ahmad" (ismuhu ahmad) and in its place records Jesus as saying that he was announcing a prophet who would bear the seal of Allah from his prophets and messengers (khatumullaahu bihil-anbiyaa’ wal-rusuli).]
Imagine if the Christian minister had stood up and made these assertions - that Mohammed was not a prophet of any sort; that the Koran was a derivative work; that is it was just a book in which things were copied from the Jews and Christians, Zoroastrians and the old Arabic religions; that Allah was simply the tribal moon god of the Koreish tribe. That is equivalent to what the Muslim minister said, but the Christians didn't do that for two reasons: One, they were the host, and they were going to be polite. The other reason was they had no idea that the Koran was a derivative work. In response to questions from the audience, none of the Christians had read the Koran, nor had they read the traditions of Mohammed (the hadith). Nor did they know anything about Mohammed's life. But, the imams had read the New Testament and the Old Testament, so they knew the Christian beliefs, and Christians knew nothing of them. This was the way the entire night went. The Muslims asked the Christians questions, and the questions that they asked were 1400 years old. These were stock questions, but the ministers were caught flat-footed. They had never thought about these kinds of questions before. Again, the Moslems came prepared, and the Christians were not prepared.
The lack of preparations by the Christians could be shown when one minister started talking badly about the Crusades and apologized for them. This meant he knew nothing about the Crusades. Yes, mistakes were made in the Crusades, but overall, they were a great good. Why were they a great good? It was one of the few times the Christians in Europe recognized the intense suffering of the Christians in the Middle East. The reasons the Crusades were started were simple. They came as a response to a cry for help. And why did these Christians cry for help? Because they were being murdered, robbed and taxed to death by their Muslim overlords.
Now how did these Muslims become their overlords? Well, originally that part of the world had been mostly Christian. It did not become Islamic because some imams showed up and started preaching in the marketplace. No; it was Islamic because the sword had been used to kill all those who would defend Christianity, and used to take over the government. So the Crusaders arrived in response to a desperate cry for help.
Basically the minister, with his comments, said he didn't know anything about the history of Christianity and Islam. This is tragic---dreadfully tragic. For over 60 million Christians have been killed in the process of jihad. How did Turkey, which is 99.7 percent Islamic, go from a Greek culture---a country called Anatolia---how did that country go from being Christian to Islamic? The Christians on the stage didn't know how this process happened, nor did they know that 60 million Christians have died in jihad. They also didn't know that in the 20th century alone, a million Armenians were killed in Turkey. Why didn't the ministers know these dreadful facts? Very simply, it's because they went to divinity school and no one ever mentioned these facts. They had never been taught the doctrine of Islam. They didn't know, for instance, that Islam is primarily a political ideology, not a religion.
Why don't they teach this at the universities and divinity schools? Well, nothing happens by accident. And in this case, the reason that Christians don't teach the history of Christianity and Islam is because the process whereby the Middle East, Turkey and North Africa all became Moslem is so dreadful, so painful--- even disgusting---that this horrible, tragic subject has been avoided altogether.
Islam has a political status for the Christians called being a ‘dhimmi.’ Although the Jews were the first dhimmis, the Christians were the biggest dhimmis of all…for one simple reason: there were far more of them. When the Muslims came in and took over the government, and implemented Islamic law---Sharia law---part of this included how Christians and Jews would be treated in public, and how they would be treated in the courts of law. It was dreadful. A dhimmi has no civil rights. So, this history of dhimmitude and special taxes that Christians had to pay, was dreadfully humiliating.
It's a shameful history that includes the death of 60 million Christians. None of the Christians up on the stage knew what happened to the seven churches of Asia. In the book of Revelation in the New Testament, the seven churches are addressed. The seven churches were in Asia Minor, which was Anatolia, or what we call Turkey today. They don't know what happened to those churches, which is a real tragedy. But the story of the destruction of those churches tells a large part of the history of Islam.
Those Christian ministers also had not studied enough about Islam to know that, not only had 60 million Christians been killed in jihad, but 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists and 120 million Africans.
The Christians up on the stage that day didn't know enough to ask about slavery. You see, every slave that was sold to the white man on a wooden ship that brought them to America was bought from a Moslem wholesaler. The Christians didn't know enough to ask, why is it that when you say the Arabic word African, ‘abed,’ it's the same word that's used for a black slave. This night was a demonstration of two things: the knowledge and power of Islam; and how the Christians had not done their homework.
Christians, as well as all “kafirs,” should know how to use the Golden Rule to attack the Koran. Christians and all ‘kafirs’ should know the story of Mohammed.
All ‘kafirs’ should know enough about the Koran that when a Muslim claims that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same God, you can offer arguments to show how that is simply not true. The information is available. All ‘kafirs’ should know how to address those issues raised in the church, because everything that the Muslims said from the podium of that church, are the same things they say continually.
All ‘kafirs’---not only Christians---should be able to debate regarding the issue of political Islam---if not with a Muslim, then with anyone, at work or wherever, who brings up the subject. What actual argument can anybody make for being ignorant about the history of political Islam? You really can't. You must face any fears or hesitations you may have about studying political Islam, which may come from a sense of unease about the history of political Islam. There may be good reason that you feel uneasy or hesitant, but these fears must be faced.
One of the reasons that these fears must be faced is that this dreadful history of Islam is continuing and moving through our world today. As an example, Iraq, which used to be a majority Christian nation, is now only 3% Christian---and, of the refugees who are leaving Iraq, 30% are Christian. Why is it that they're being persecuted? That 1400-year history is continuing today in Iraq. All ‘kafirs’ should be made aware of this. In Africa, Christian Africans are being killed and destroyed almost on a daily basis. How can these people be helped?
What is done to Christians is also done to Hindus, Buddhists and atheists. Islam does not discriminate. All ‘kafirs’ must submit.
If you're aware of the history of Islam---if you're aware of its political doctrine---then you can be more useful. And, knowledge about Islam is not merely an ability to hold your own in public debate. Knowledge about Islam will sensitize you so that your politics change, so that you can see that not only has Islam killed 270 million ‘kafirs’ in the past, but it's continuing to do so today.
Islam is destroying ‘kafir’ civilizations on a daily basis. When a Christian is persecuted, a ‘kafir’ is persecuted. The way to prevent this destruction is very simple. It is through knowledge about Islam, knowledge about the Koran, and knowledge about Mohammed.
From Political Islam: Christians
"The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim." -- 'Umdat al-Salik, o4.9
"Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution...Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash.... Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim...then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain...Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed....Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." -- Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
