Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Andrew G. Bostom

Andrew Bostom (http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/) is the author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (2005/2008) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (2008).
Follow Andrew G.:

My Hannity Appearance: Ottoman Caliphate of 1915-19 Exponentially Worse Than ISIS

Monday, September 15th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Last night, my brief sound bite during a Sean Hannity panel alluded to the timeless Koranic injunction to wage jihad war against Jews and Christians, specifically, Koran 9:29, for the purpose of forcibly imposing a Sharia-based Islamic order upon them. This reference was followed by a graphic, modern historical manifestation of this eternal Islamic “imperative”: the 1915-19 jihad genocide of the Armenian, Assyro-Chaldean, and Syrian Orthodox Christian communities of Anatolia, and northern “Mesopotamia,” i.e., modern Iraq, by the last Caliphate — the Ottoman Caliphate.

YouTube Preview Image 

Notwithstanding the recent horrific spate of atrocities committed against the Christian communities of northern Iraq by the Islamic State (IS/IL) jihadists, the Ottoman jihad ravages were equally barbaric, depraved, and far more extensive.

Occurring primarily between 1915-16 (although continuing through at least 1919), some one million Armenian and 250,000 Assyro-Chaldean and Syrian Orthodox Christians were brutally slaughtered or starved to death during forced deportations through desert wastelands.

The identical gruesome means used by IS/IL to humiliate and massacre its Christian victims were employed on a scale that was an order of magnitude greater by the Ottoman Muslim Turks, often abetted by local Muslim collaborators (the latter being another phenomenon which also happened during the IS/IL jihad campaign against Iraq’s Christians).

Tragically 2/3 of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia — hardly a “fringe minority of extremists” — support the eternal Islamic “ideal” to re-create a Caliphate.

The wrenching descriptions included below should make plain to all decent, sober-minded persons why any “Caliphate movement” must be confronted, and crushed.

Reverend K. Balakian’s eyewitness narrative Hai Koghota (The Armenian Golgotha) —  recounted the harrowing details of a particular slaughter at Yozgat, its Islamic religious motifs unexpurgated. Balakian quotes a Turkish gendarme who confirmed the Ottoman government’s sanction of this explicit act of mass-murderous jihad:

During the time we were searching the women, the government officials of Yozgat sent police officers to all the surrounding Turkish villages and in the name of holy jihad invited the Muslim population to participate in this sacred religious obligation … Thus, when we arrived at the designated site, the mass of people was waiting. The government order was clear: all were to be massacred, and nobody was to be spared. Therefore, in order to prevent any escape attempt, and to thwart any secret attempts of sympathizers intent on freeing them, I had the eighty police soldiers encircle this hill, and I stationed guards at every probable site of escape or hiding. Then I had the [Muslim] police soldiers announce to the people [Muslim men] that whoever wished to select a virgin girl or young bride could do so immediately, on the condition of taking them as wives and not with the intention of rescuing them. Making a selection during the massacre was forbidden. Thus about 250 girls and young brides were selected by the people and the police soldiers.

Balakian himself interjects:

Then the captain did something striking. Before continuing to tell his story of the actual massacre, he closed his eyes; in the special manner of performing ablutions, he raised his hands to his face and ran them down his white beard as if washing up. And muttering a few prayers, he turned to and said to me, “May Allah not show such death as this to anybody” … “Did you shoot them dead or bayonet them to death?” I [Balakian] asked. “It’s wartime, and bullets are expensive. So people grabbed whatever they could from their villages — axes, hatchets, scythes, sickles, clubs, hoes, pickaxes, shovels, — and they did the killing accordingly.

Regarding this particular massacre, Balakian laments:

It is impossible for me to convey what happened to those 6,400 defenseless women, virgins, and brides as well as suckling infants. Their heartrending cries and doleful pleas brought down the deaf canopies of heaven. The police soldiers in Yozgat (and Boghazliyan) who accompanied us would even boast to some of us about how they had committed tortures and decapitations, cut off and chopped up body parts with axes, and how they had dismembered suckling infants and children by pulling apart their legs, or dashing them on rocks.

Read bullet |

Iraq Poll: US Should Stay Out

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Dr. Munqith M. Dagher, is a bona-fide Iraqi pollster. His polling organization, IIACSS, Iraq, during June 2008, following “more than two years of testing, monitoring and evaluation” of its research practices, was recognized as a full member of the Gallup International Association.

Dr. Dagher was kind enough to send me a recent slide presentation he put together, entitled, “ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] in Iraq: A disease or just the symptoms? A public opinion analysis.”

His presentation included these sobering data (verbatim) which underscored that the violent changes in Mosul were wrought by an indigenous, broad-based Sunni insurgency:

  • The population of Mosul is around 2,000,000. Most of them are Arab Sunni.

  • Total number of security forces in Mosul was between 120,000 to 150,000 armed with light, medium and heavy weapons including tanks and air force.

  • The highest number of ISIL fighters reported by media was 500!!

Who is Fighting in Mosul and the Sunni Areas of Iraq?

  • 10-20% ISIL
  • Several Iraqi armed groups with full coordination on the ground:

1- Baathist (6 different  groups including former Iraqi army officers under the name of Jihad and Liberty Front).

2- Moderate Islamist [note: whatever that means!]

3- Tribal rebels

Dagher concluded, with understatement, ISIL benefited from the wide, strong dissatisfaction among Sunnis.

Most striking, were data from 200 telephone interviews of Mosul residents conducted in the period of June 19-21, 2014, i.e., after the city had come under control by the Sunni insurgents, including the jihad terror organization ISIL.

Notwithstanding subsequent dissatisfaction with ISIL, and its newly minted “Caliphate”—already emerging (as documented yesterday, 7/1/14 by the Washington Post’s Loveday Morris) within 3-weeks after the regular Iraqi army and police forces of the al-Maliki central government were crushed, or fled — two key sentiments were apparent in the immediate aftermath of the Sunni takeover:

  • 81.5% of Mosul’s predominantly Sunni residents felt more secure after the Sunni insurgents seized control of the city;
  •  they overwhelmingly rejected—i.e., 84.5%U.S. involvement with the (longstanding Iranian proxy) Maliki government to repulse the Sunni insurgents, including ISIL.

When President George W. Bush announced the much ballyhooed “surge,” during 2007, he maintained the overall objectives for this great expenditure of precious U.S. blood and treasure were to establish a “...unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror. Any rational post-mortem indicates none of those goals were achieved, from either an Iraqi or sober U.S. perspective, even in the near term, let alone chronically.

Before the surge wound down in June, 2008, but at the height of its alleged “success,” a March 2008 poll from Iraq found that 42% of Iraqis labeled attacks on U.S. forces acceptable, and only 4% believed that U.S. forces were responsible for the transient decline in violence. The poll also revealed that 61% maintained that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq was actually worsening the security situation.

In July 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and Iraqi National security advisor Muwaffaq Al-Rubaie both sought a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. A cursory, incomplete tally of murderous sectarian Sunni-Shiite car bombings in Iraq for the 4-years after the surge, i.e. June, 2008 through June, 2012 reveals at least 65 with 2000 dead and 2- to 3-fold that number injured, many seriously. More importantly, then Iraqi President Talabani attended an Orwellian Counter-terrorism Conference in Tehran (June 25–26, 2011), just 6-months before the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Not only did our Iraqi “ally” fail to object to the conference agitprop of their Iranian hosts — “defining” the United States and Israel as the primary sources of global terrorism,

In his meeting with Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, [Iran’s Supreme Theocrat Leader]Khamenei said that U.S. power in the Middle East had declined, and that this fact should be taken advantage of against the U.S. Talabani replied that the Iraqis were united in their opposition to the ongoing U.S. pres­ence in their country, and likewise asked for Iranian assistance.

Finally, post-surge Iraq — the paragon of General David Petraeus’ counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine “triumph” — rapidly deteriorated, well-before the emergence of ISIL, per se, into a hotbed of anti-Christian, Islamic brutality.

  • As reported December 5, 2011, in the Wall Street Journal, according to Archbishop Louis Sako of the Chaldean Catholic Church in the northern provinces of Kirkuk and Sulimaniya, at least fifty-four Iraqi churches had been bombed and at least 905 Christians killed in various acts of violence since the US invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003. Noting that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled, the archbishop stated: It’s a hemorrhage. Iraq could be emptied of Christians.
  • Archbishop Louis Sako’s assessment was confirmed by a Minority Rights Group International report, released at the end of November 2011, which included these summary findings:

Since 2003, Iraq’s religious minority communities have been targeted for abduction, rape and murder and had their homes and businesses destroyed, specifically because of their faith. They have received threats and intimida­tions to pay a protection tax, convert to Islam, or leave their homes and country. The violations against religious minorities documented by MRG in its 2010 report continue. Major areas of ongoing concern are Baghdad, Nineveh Plains, Mosul and Kirkuk. . . . Christians are at particular risk for a number of reasons, including religious ties with the West, perceptions that Christians are better off than most Iraqis, and leadership positions in the pre-2003 government. The fact that Christians, along with Yezidis, con­tinue to trade in alcohol in Iraq (both groups have traditionally sold alcohol in Iraq), has also made them a target in an increasingly strict Islamic envi­ronment. Waves of targeted violence, sometimes in response to the com­munity’s lobbying for more inclusive policies (for example, reserved seats in elections) have forced the Christian community to disperse and seek refuge in neighboring countries and across the world. In 2003, they num­bered between 800,000 and 1.4 million; by July 2011, that number had fallen to 500,000, according to USCIRF [the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom].

While presenting “ISIL in Iraq: A disease or just the symptoms?,” — via hard polling data — last Wednesday, June 25, 2014, at The Freedom House in Washington, D.C., Dr. Dagher warned even U.S. airstrikes, or any allegiances with the Iranian proxy Maliki government, let alone Iran itself, would only embolden ISIL and augment their recruitment. He further admonished the U.S.,

…not to send your sons to fight in Iraq but to let Iraqis and Sunnis fight and kick the devil, which is named ISIL from the territories.

Inchoate signs that this desired phenomenon has begun were reported yesterday (7/1/14) as the Naqshbandi (“Moderate Sufi”) Army Sunnis were clashing with their erstwhile ISIL Sunni allies in the northern Iraq town of Hawijah.

Regardless, we should heed Dagher’s sage advice and stay out of the bloody, internecine sectarian (and even intra-sect) Muslim carnage once again plaguing Iraq. We surged, they never merged, putting the lie to absurd, self-serving hagiographies about the grand Iraq band-aid “stategery,” as Diana West put it so aptly in 2008, “Surge till they Merge.” Nor is it likely the Sunnis and Shiites of “Iraq” ever will “merge.” Perhaps, at long last, an independent Kurdistan — a relative bastion of calm — may emerge from the Mesopotamian morass. Kurdistan may even prove to be a more reliable — such as is possible within Islamdom — “Western ally.”

Hope springs eternal!

Read bullet |

Guess Who’s Responsible for the Sunni-Shiite Carnage in Iraq? (Hint: Starts with a ‘J’)

Tuesday, June 17th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

The jihadist butchers (see here, here, here) of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—supported by a much broader Sunni insurgency (see here, here, and here) against the Shiite-dominated, U.S. mid-wived al-Maliki government—continue their Baghdad-bound carnage.

Predictably—confirming obvious trends I documented 8-years ago—Maliki’s longstanding patron (and puppet-master) Iran, has committed (and pledged even more) military assets against the Sunni assault. Eli Lake of the The Daily Beast reported today (6/17/2014):

The offer to help us with everything we need has been made from the highest levels of the Iranian government,” a senior Iraqi official told The Daily Beast.

Lake added,

This official stressed that Iran’s offer to assist Iraq’s fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS) [the Levant/ (ISIL)] was not conditional on Maliki making any immediate reforms or changes to his government.

An indelible, “unconditional” feature of the Iranian, and indeed the entire region’s “religiously” imbued Muslim mindset, which transcends the bitter, violent Shiite-Sunni divide, was simultaneously on display today: conspiratorial Islamic Jew-hatred. General Hassan Firouzabadi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, insisted Tuesday (6/17/14, in Tehran) Israel—i.e., in regional parlance, Jews/“Zionists”—had created and supported ISIL, while further claiming,

The ISIL is Israel’s cover up for distancing the revolutionary forces from Israeli borders and creating a margin of security for the Zionists, and the Zionist media have also admitted this fact

One year ago, a Sunni cleric also blamed the Jews—from his own Jew-hating Islamic sectarian perspective—for the internecine Sunni-Shiite bloodshed taking place in Syria. The good cleric, preaching at the renowned Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, invoked conspiratorial Jew-hating themes from the Koran and traditions of Muhammad—i.e., Jews as prophet-killers (which includes being murderers of Muhammad himself), who allegedly violated their agreements with Muslims, driving Muslims astray (from Islam), and sowing “corruption” throughout the world—before inculpating them directly for the carnage in Syria.

Below are relevant extracts from his sermon, which aired on Syrian TV on June 28, 2013.

Let us take a look at the history of mankind, which has recorded the true nature of the Jews, the slayers of prophets and violators of agreements. It shows how they have tried, since pre-Islamic times, to fragment, divide, and rip apart the Arab and Islamic nation. In an effort to gain influence in the world and to realize their desires, the Jews have set two basic goals. Listen, oh Muslims, and beware of what is happening in Syria – in that land with steadfast people and leadership. They have two basic goals. The first is to divide the nations of the world, to pit them one against the other, and to spark war and civil strife among them. The second goal is to rip apart the nations of the world, destroying their notions, moral values, and codes, and making them stray from the path of Allah. That is what they did throughout the ages all over the world. Oh nation of Islam, the Jews have been tearing this nation apart for many years. […]What is happening today in this steadfast fortress [Syria], and in the Middle East in general, is nothing new. It was premeditated. We are a nation in slumber, a nation that does not study the books of history, and has not studied what its enemies are plotting and devising against it. They kindled the spark of civil strife in Palestine and in Afghanistan, and then in Iraq, then in Egypt, and after that, in Syria. […]

Sunnis and Shiites alike, come together, perversely, in blaming a Jew (see here, here) for either Sunni-Shiite sectarianism (the Sunni claim), or “heresies” within Shiism (the Shiite allegation).

Associated with “the birth pangs” of Islam is an unabashedly conspiratorial Jew-hating theme occurring after the events recorded in the traditions of Muhammad (hadith and sira), put forth in early Sunni Muslim historiography (for example, by Tabari): the story of Abdullah Ibn Saba, an alleged renegade Yemenite Jew, and founder of the heterodox Shiite sect. Sean Anthony’s extensive modern analysis of Abdullah Ibn Saba adds another pejorative characteristic conferred upon this ostensible Yemenite Jew in the Muslim literature: his mother was black. Anthony notes that a “favorite derisive handle for him,” was “son of the Black woman.”

According to Sunni dogma, Abdullah Ibn Saba is held responsible — identified as a Jew (and black) — for promoting the Shiite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s “political innocence,” culminating in the assassination of the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, and the bitter, lasting legacy of Sunni-Shiite sectarian strife.

Here are key extracts from Tabari’s account:

Abd Allah b. Saba’ was a Yemenite Jew. . . . He later converted to Islam in the time of [Caliph] Uthman. Then he traveled through the lands of the Muslims trying to lead them into error. . . . [For example] in Egypt he promulgated to the people the [heterodox] doctrine of the Return [of Muhammad as Messiah]. So the Egyptians discussed this idea. Then, after that, he said that there were one thousand prophets, each of whom had an agent; and that Ali was Muhammad’s agent. Then he said, Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets and Ali was the Seal of the Agents. Also, he asked: “Who is more evil than those who denied Muhammad’s designation of Ali as his agent-successor, pounced upon this successor- designate of Ali’s messenger and seized (illegitimately) the rulership of the Muslim community?” [In answer to this question as it were,] he told the Egyptians that Uthman had seized power illegitimately while Ali was, in fact, the agent-successor of Allah’s messenger. “Rebel against this illegitimate rule, provoke it, and challenge your rulers . . .” [said ‘Abd Allah b. Saba’].

Over a millennium later, the momentous international gathering of Muslim religious authorities, sponsored by Sunni Islam’s Vatican, Al-Azhar University, the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, September, 1968, included Al-Azhar Professor Muhammad El-Sayyed Husein Al-Dahabi’s paper, which declared,

Among the leading figures of heresy and sectarianism was Abdullah ibn Saba the Jew, who feigned to be a Muslim, disguising his unbelief, making a show of supporting the Prophet’s offspring (Alu-l-Bait), so as to deceive Muslims and to propagate among them his heretical and noxious views… [T]he earliest heresiarch, Abdullah ibn Saba, who was the foremost leader of sedition and heterodoxy. He, with his adherents,… feigned to be devout Muslim, and went to all lengths in their deceitfulness, by simulating to be the most fervent supporters of the offspring of the Prophet, so as to corrupt the beliefs of Muslims.

Circa 2008, a Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom review of Saudi Arabian textbooks, (“Update: Saudi Arabia’s Curriculum of Intolerance”), demonstrated that this traditionalist, mainstream example of Sunni Islam’s conspiratorial Jew-hatred was still being inculcated amongst Muslim youth:

The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims). He was ‘Abd Allah b. Saba’ (from the Jews of Yemen) began spewing his malice and venom against the third of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, ‘Uthman (may God be pleased with him), and falsely accused him.” (Tawhid: Literature, Science, and Qur’an Memorization Section, Twelfth Grade. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ministry of Education. Education Development, 1428-1429; 2007-2008, p. 78.)

But what is the Shiite position on Abdullah Ibn Saba? Is this literature “silent” on the subject, for example, conceding the discussion to Sunni polemicists? In fact authoritative Shiite authors claimed he was guilty of perverting and warping the message of Caliph Ali’s true (Shiite) followers. Mainstream Shiites thus designated Abdullah Ibn Saba an archetypal avatar of extreme, heretical beliefs, notably, the profession of Ali’s divinity. This profession was an egregious heresy for which Caliph Ali purportedly had Ibn Saba burned alive, as described in a Shiite hadith:

Muhammad b. Qūlawayh al-Qummī—Sa‘d b. ‘Abd Allāh b. Abī Khalaf al-Qummī—Muhammad b. ‘Uthmān al-‘Abdī—Yūnus b. ‘Abd al-Rahmān—‘Abd Allāh b. Sinān—his father (Sinān b. T{arīf)—Abū Ja‘far (Muhammad al-Bāqir) said: “‘Abd Allāh b. Saba’ made a claim to prophecy while asserting that the Commander of the Faithful (‘Alī) is God. This reached the Commander of the Faithful, and he called for him and questioned him. (Ibn Saba’) reaffirmed this and said, ‘Yes, you are he! It was cast into my heart that you indeed are God, and I am a prophet.’ The Commander of the Faithful said to him, ‘Woe to you, for Satan mocks you! Turn away from this, lest your mother be bereaved of you, and repent!’ (Ibn Saba’) refused. (‘Alī) imprisoned him and urged him to repent for three days, but he did not repent. Then ‘Alī burned him alive with fire and said, ‘Satan led him astray with false imaginings He would come to him and cast such things into his heart.’”

Caliph Ali is also claimed to have denounced Ibn Saba’s blackness, allegedly declaring,

What do I have to do with the vile, black man?

Both Iraq and Syria were ethnically-cleansed of their indigenous, pre-Islamic Jewish populations during earlier convulsions of jihadism and Islamic Jew-hatred, which punctuated the initial 25-years after the creation of Israel, and the liberation of a portion of the Jews’ ancient homeland from 13-centuries of Sharia-imposed dhimm­itude. Iran’s vestigial remnant population of dhimmi Jews—reduced in number by over 93% since the end of World War II—still suffers grinding persecution under the revitalized theocracy of Khomeini and his currently ruling heirs. Such brutal “recompense” notwithstanding, the warped, mea culpa-free, and eternally bigoted Middle East Muslim “ethos” still blames Jews for Islamdom’s own horrific present day internecine Sunni-Shiite carnage.

Given Islamdom’s ugly history, even if the devoutly cherished jihad genocide of Israel and its Jewish population transpired, Sunnis and Shiites would continue to slaughter each other with gusto. Hence, to help preclude not only Israel’s destruction, but larger, global cataclysmic outcomes for non-Muslims, I concur with Mike Konrad’s wise, cultural relativism-free prescription, “Let Them Kill Each Other”:

Iraq’s president, Maliki has asked for US assistance. Oh really? Iraq insisted on setting up its country with an Islamic constitution; against our advice, and now he wants American help.  For what?  So Iraq’s Shia can continue to run arms to Syria and Hezb’allah in Lebanon? If our State Department had men and women with intelligence instead of a love of the Qur’an, they would tell Maliki that our help would be predicated on four conditions: 1) Get rid of the Islamic constitution, and set up a secular state; 2) Recognize Israel; 3) Naturalize the Palestinians in your state; 4) Break off ties with Iran

[T]ell the Jordanians (and Saudis, too) [i]f they want our help:1) Saudis and Jordanians have to start naturalizing Palestinians; 2) Set up truly secular states; 3) protect their women;

Of course, they won’t agree.  So let them shoot it out. Heaven has offered the administration one last chance to redeem itself by doing nothing.  If it does intervene, it will be clearly seen as an attempt to prop up Islam, once again. Let the Shia and Sunni kill each other.  In the words of the late Mayor Ed Koch, “root for whoever is losing.”

Konrad’s conclusion at least may well be shared by the vast preponderance of Americans, 74% of whom now “oppose sending combat troops to Iraq.”

 

 

Read bullet |

President Obama, More of an Islamic ‘Apostate’ Than Meriam Ibrahim, Must Demand Her Immediate Release From Sudan and Grant Her Asylum in The U.S.

Friday, May 30th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Last night, interviewed by Fox News’ Megyn Kelly (video embedded below), Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, drew attention to the organization’s petition on behalf of Sudanese Christian Meriam Ibrahim. I have described Meriam’s plight—a victim of the Sharia—previously (here, here, here, and here).

In brief, falsely accused of “apostasy” despite her lifelong Christian faith (see below), Meriam was convicted of this Sharia-based “crime” was well as “adultery”—her valid 2011 marriage to a Christian man—and naturalized U.S. citizen—having been “annulled.” Meriam, then near term pregnant, was sentenced to be hanged to death for apostasy, preceded by 100 lashes for adultery. The sentence was deferred until Meriam gave birth, which she did this week (albeit while apparently chained, and now appearing alarmingly thin), to a baby girl, Maya. Meriam and her toddler son Martin—almost certainly an American citizen by in-wedlock birth—have been imprisoned since February in a women’s penitentiary in Omdurman, and now Maya is incarcerated with them as well. Although Meriam’s execution may be deferred longer until Maya is weaned, crowded and unsanitary conditions in the prison acutely threaten the health of Meriam’s newborn and toddler—again, both children ostensibly U.S. citizens.

The Family Research Council (FRC) petition reads as follows:

We strongly urge the administration to take action in the case of Dr. Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese mother who with her toddler and newborn baby (who pending the proper documentation are American citizens) is languishing inside a prison in Khartoum. While Meriam awaits execution for the “crime” of converting to Christianity, her children are forced to be at her side in a prison that a 2008 U.N. document reported as having an infant mortality rate of one per day in the summer. No innocent child should be in this situation. We urge you to pressure the Sudanese government to release Meriam and her children so she can escape execution and possible death of her children and be rejoined with her husband in the U.S. Please grant her expedited safe haven in the U.S., where she could seek asylum.

Perkins, during last night’s interview, appealed directly to President Obama’s administration, specifically Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, to unilaterally grant Meriam and her children refugee status.

What Perkins’/FRC’s noble campaign has declined to highlight is that per Sharia, Islamic law “criteria,” and Muslim societal mores, Meriam Ibrahim’s formal identification with Islam is relatively tenuous compared to President Obama’s.

I described Meriam Ibrahim’s flimsy “Islamic identity,” along with the objectively unjust, if Sharia-based “legal” effort to invalidate her forthright claims, two weeks ago (5/14/14):

Ibrahim’s Sudanese Muslim father abandoned the family when she was 6 years old, leaving her to be raised by her Ethiopian Orthodox Christian mother. During a March 4, 2014 “hearing” Ibrahim testified before the Public Order Court that she is a Christian, showing her marriage certificate—which designates her as Christian—as formal proof of her religion. Moreover, three potential witnesses from Western Sudan who traveled to the hearing to validate Ibrahim’s lifelong adherence to Christianity were denied the opportunity to provide evidence. Indeed the refusal to accept such witness testimony, and denying a priori the validity of Ibrahim’s own claims, would be entirely consistent with a Sharia Court’s rejection (or dismissal) of non-Muslim testimony because infidels are deemed to be of a lower order of truthfulness.

Back in September, 2008, I reviewed the evidence of then Senator Obama’s childhood experience with Islam, which was considerably more involved and intimate than Meriam Ibrahim’s. As I then noted then,

Sober, independent analyses by academics, including published essays in The Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times, concur that Obama’s childhood experience of Islam—as perceived by Muslims from Islamic societies, in particular—has two critically important, and inter-related ramifications: his status as a Muslim; and more ominously, as an apostate from Islam.

These specific details emerged, in summary:

During his childhood years in Indonesia, Barack Obama was enrolled as a Muslim (see here, and here), at his primary schools (this is confirmed, conclusively, in a registration document–which the Associated Press photographed – made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, demonstrating that his Muslim step-father listed Obama’s boyhood religion as Islam [and later confirmed, in 2012, here]), and also attended the mosque during that period. 

Tine Hahiyary, a former teacher at one of these schools, claimed that the young Obama actively took part in “mengaji” classes (consistent with devout Islamic education), which instruct students to read the Koran in Arabic. And the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed Rony Amir, a Muslim classmate  of the young Obama, who characterized Obama as “…previously quite religious in Islam” While disputing Obama’s childhood Muslim religiosity, a subsequent Chicago Tribune report still concedes that the young Obama was at least an irregularly practicing Muslim, who occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque.

I added that regardless of Obama’s childhood Muslim piety,

one must also bear in mind how contemporary (and classical) Islamic Law views the offspring of any marriage between a Muslim man (Obama’s birth father and step-father were both Muslims), and a non-Muslim woman. Sheikh ‘Abdus-Sattar Fathallah As-Sa`eed, professor of Koranic Exegesis and Koranic Sciences at Al-Azhar University — for more a thousand years, the pre-eminent center of Sunni Islamic religious education — in a fatwa issued a June 20, 2002, reiterated plainly the Islamic principle that paternity determines (Muslim) religious identity for a child born of a Muslim father, and a non-Muslim wife:  “There is nothing wrong, as far as Islam is concerned, that a Muslim man marries a Christian woman, but he should stipulate (in the marriage contract) that any children from the marriage will be Muslims.”

Not surprisingly then, I concluded the predominant understanding about Obama in Islamic societies, as of late 2008 was that,

the Democratic Presidential nominee, at minimum, has “Muslim origins” (as stated explicitly for example in the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri al-Youm). Libyan dictator Mu‘ammar al-Qaddafi has referred to Obama as “…a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia.” Analyses by Al-Jazeera have called Obama a “non-Christian man,” made reference to his “Muslim Kenyan” father, and observed, tellingly, that “Obama may not want to be counted as a Muslim but Muslims are eager to count him as one of their own.”

Six years later the predicament of Meriam Ibrahim—whose husband, and likely two children as well, are bona fide U.S. citizens—should resonate in a profound and personal way with President Obama. What I admonished then Presidential candidate Senator Obama to do on September 11, 2008, is now more urgent, and should be tied to a formal grant of asylum to Meriam Ibrahim and her children by Mr. Obama as current U.S. President:

Mr. Obama has thus far squandered the unparalleled opportunity to highlight and extol a profoundly important virtue of this flawed, but still great country of ours, personified by his life story: America’s singular, unwavering support for true freedom of conscience.

Surely if Obama is to live up to his followers (and his own) pretensions of being a “transformative” figure, then he should be ready to elucidate, frankly, the utter lack of freedom of conscience in the Muslim world, relative to the US; why his own life trajectory demonstrates this difference; and how the fight against global jihadism is, at its core, about the protection of this most profoundly important Western ideal.

Meriam, with Martin to her right, holding new born baby girl Maya.

 meriam

 

Read bullet |

Bus-ted: Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s Canonical Islamic Jew-Hatred

Wednesday, May 28th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Kudos to Pamela Geller for her new bus advertisement campaign countering the relentless, defamatory propaganda jihad against Israel. Ms. Geller’s latest effort introduces the general public to the Islam in Islamic Jew-hatred via one of its major 20th century avatars: the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, prototype Palestinian Muslim jihadist, and longstanding Nazi collaborator, Hajj Amin el-Husseini (b. 1895-97; d. 1974).

ny-daily-news-afdi-ad1

Just 6-months earlier, in November 2013, I released the first detailed, textual analysis of el-Husseini’s canonical Islamic Jew-hatred, The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred: What the Nazis Learned from the “Muslim Pope”.

Prior assessments focusing on el-Husseini’s World War II era collaboration with the Nazis have argued that the Mufti’s murderous, Jew-hating ideology was simply another manifestation of Nazi evil, transplanted to a local “nationalistic struggle” in the Middle East. A more recent and “nuanced,” if parallel negationist trend, which is now widely prevalent, claims that el-Husseini’s canonical Islamic Jew-hatred somehow represented a sui generis “Nazification” of Islam, which has “persisted” into our era. My study demonstrated that neither of these conventional, pseudo-academic tropes withstands any serious, objective scrutiny.

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The Congressional record contains a statement of support from New York Rep. Walter Chandler which includes an observation, about “Turkish and Arab agitators . . . preaching a kind of holy war [jihad] against . . . the Jews” of Palestine.

During this same era within Palestine, a strong Arab Muslim irredentist current—epitomized by Hajj Amin el-Husseini—promulgated the forcible restoration of sharia-mandated dhimmitude for Jews via jihad. Indeed, two years before he orchestrated the murderous anti-Jewish riots of 1920, that is, in 1918, Hajj Amin el-Husseini stated plainly to a Jewish coworker (at the Jerusalem Governorate), I. A. Abbady, “This was and will remain an Arab land . . . the Zionists will be massacred to the last man. . . . Nothing but the sword will decide the future of this country.”

Despite his role in fomenting the1920 pogroms against Palestinian Jews, el-Husseini was pardoned and subsequently appointed mufti of Jerusalem by the British high commissioner, in May 1921, a title he retained, following the Ottoman practice, for the remainder of his life.

Throughout his public career, the mufti relied upon traditional Koranic anti-Jewish motifs to arouse the Arab street. For example, during the incitement which led to the 1929 Arab revolt in Palestine, he called for combating and slaughtering “the Jews.” not merely Zionists. In fact, most of the Jewish victims of the 1929 Arab revolt were Jews from the centuries-old dhimmi communities (for example, in Hebron), as opposed to recent settlers identified with the Zionist movement.

The mufti remained unrelenting in his espousal of a virulent, canonical Islamic Jew-hatred as the focal tenet of his ideology, before, during, and in the aftermath of World War II, and the creation of the State of Israel. He was also a committed supporter of global jihad movements, urging a “full struggle” against the Hindus of India (as well as the Jews of Israel) before delegates at the February 1951 World Muslim Congress: “We shall meet next with sword in hand on the soil of either Kashmir or Palestine.”

Declassified intelligence documents from 1942, 1947, 1952, and 1954 confirm the mufti’s own Caliphate desires in repeated references from contexts as diverse as Turkey, Egypt, Jerusalem, and Pakistan, and also include discussions of major Islamic conferences dominated by the mufti, which were attended by a broad spectrum of Muslim leaders literally representing the entire Islamic world (including Shia leaders from Iran), that is, in Karachi from February 16–19, 1952, and Jordanian-occupied Jerusalem, December 3–9, 1953. Viewed in their totality these data do not support the current standard assessment of the mufti as merely a Palestinian Arab nationalist, rife with a “transplanted” Jew-hatred.

Paul Berman articulated an unabashed formulation of the broadly held “Nazification of Islam” thesis, proclaiming, that abetted by the Nazis, el-Husseini “monstrously,” and “infernally,” “blurred Islam and Nazism,” achieving

A victory of Himmler’s Islam…A victory for the Islam of fanaticism and hatred over its arch-rival, the Islam of generosity and civilization.

During 1938, a booklet Muhammad Sabri edited, “Islam, Judentum, Bolschewismus (Islam, Jewry, Bolshevism)”, was published in Berlin by Junker-Duennhaupt [Dünnhaupt]. Sabri’s booklet included Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s 1937 declaration—also deemed by some as a “fatwa” (an Islamic religious ruling)—appealing to the worldwide Muslim umma. El-Husseini’s declaration was extracted and reprinted, separately, by the Nazi regime as “Islam und Judentum (Islam and Jewry),”and distributed to Muslim SS units in Bosnia, Croatia, and the Soviet Union.

bostom-1

Read bullet |

Sharia-Mandated Death For ‘Apostasy’ in Sudan…And North America?

Tuesday, May 20th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Yesterday, in an updated discussion of Sudanese Christian Meriam Ibrahim’s “apostasy” conviction and sentencing, I pointed out that notwithstanding the U.S. cultural jihadist Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)’s dissimulation, as acknowledged by the bona fide Professor of Islamic Law, Ahmet Akgündüz, in his authoritative 2011 tome, Islamic Public Law,

All fiqh [Sharia-based jurisprudence] clearly testify that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate’s execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the great Companions of the Prophet, their Followers, the leaders among the mujtahids [most learned Islamic theologians] and, following them, the experts on Sharia in every century are available on record. All these together will assure one that, from the time of the Prophet to the present day, one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that there is no room whatsoever to suggest that the punishment of the apostate is perhaps not execution.

The universality of these Islamic attitudes affects Muslim communities in the West, including North America. Syed Mumtaz Ali, the late architect of Canada’s Sharia (Islamic Law) tribunal, and law professor Ali Khan, for example both have openly advocated extending Islamic apostasy laws to the West. Mumtaz Ali, in a disturbing essay, affirmed the traditional Islamic legal viewpoint  that apostates must “choose between Islam and the sword,” arguing further that if Canada were to act in accord with its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian government must grant the country’s Islamic community authority to punish those Muslims who apostatize, or malign their faith.

Washburn (Topeka, Kansas) University Law Professor, Ali Khan, another practicing Muslim, provided a more original, but no less chilling rationale for Muslims in the West to violate, fatally, the basic freedom of conscience of their co-religionists. Khan argued in The Cumberland Law Review that apostasy from Islam is an “attack” upon “protected knowledge,” which if deemed (i.e., by some Islamic tribunal one must assume!) to be “open, hostile, and voiced contemptuously,” justified punishment by death. Ali Khan is convinced that traditional Islamic law precepts antipodean to freedom of conscience nevertheless trump this foundational Western freedom, because,

Islam is the truth beyond doubt. [And] [t] hese rules preserve the dignity of protected knowledge, discouraging an ‘easy in, easy out’  attitude toward Islam.

And in April, 2009 Harvard Muslim chaplain Taha Abdul-Basser explained approvingly to a Muslim student that the traditional Islamic practice of executing apostates from Islam, remained both venerable, and applicable:

There is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment), and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human-rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.

A mainstream, North American imam-training organization, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, consistent with modern fatwas published by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, president of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), and other prominent, mainstream Muslim clerics in Egypt (i.e., from the Vatican of Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University), Lebanon, Iran, and Malaysia, has also mandated lethal punishment for apostates from Islam.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, (AMJA) whose mission statement maintains the organization was, “…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities…”, issued these rulings, in 2006 and 2009:

Dr. Hatem al-Haj  2006-04-17 As for the Sharia ruling, it is the punishment of killing for the man with the grand Four Fiqh Sharia scholars, and the same with the woman with the major Shari`ah scholars, and she is jailed with Al-Hanafiyyah scholars, as the prophet, prayers and peace of Allah be upon him, said: “Whoever a Muslim changes his/her religion, kill him/her”, and his saying: “A Muslim`s blood, who testifies that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not made permissible except by three reasons: the life for the life; the married adulterer and the that who abandons his/her religion”.

Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah  2009-01-02 Under the authority of the Muslim state, the People of the Book have the right to stay on their belief without being compelled to embrace Islam. But if one of them has embraced Islam, it would not be acceptable from him to go back to his original religion. The same rule applies to those who are born into Muslim families. According to the Islamic Law, they cannot commit apostasy.

Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah  2009-04-10 As for the second one, the “people” in this hadith means either the apostates who had become Muslim and then retreated to disbelief thereafter, or the polytheists who do not attribute themselves to any divine religion. This second possible meaning has been mentioned in Imam Al-Nasa’i’s narration: “I have been commanded to fight against the polytheists until they…” In Islam, neither of these categories of people is allowed to remain on their religion. The fact that there is no compulsion in religion does not negate the other fact that someone who has embraced Islam cannot change his mind afterward and embrace polytheism.

The issuance of such “rulings” by a so-called council of Muslim jurists in North America antithetical to the protection of freedom of conscience enshrined in American law, is mirrored by the overwhelming refusal of mainstream Islamic organizations to sign a simple, unequivocal pledge composed and distributed (originally in October 2009, and again July 4, 2012) to a total of 359 prominent U.S. Muslim leaders) by ex-Muslims living in America. This “Freedom Pledge” merely asked such avatars of Islamic pluralism and ecumenism “…to repudiate the threat from authoritative Sharia to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims.”

Finally, the results of polling data collected by Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 US Muslims (over-represented by those with high socio-economic status), indicate widespread support among rank and file American votaries of Islam for fundamental rejection of freedom of expression, and conscience as guaranteed under the US Constitution. The first amendment states, plainly,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” while only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma. Indeed, oblivious to US constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and 17% were “unsure”.  Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.”

Also, consistent with such findings 43% of these US Muslims rejected the right of members of other faiths to proselytize to adherents of Islam, disagreeing, “…that U.S. citizens have a right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths.” Additional confirmatory data revealed that nearly two-fifths (39%) agreed “…that Shariah law should be considered when adjudicating cases that involve Muslims, ” while nearly one-third (32%) of this American Muslim sample believed “…Shariah law should be the supreme law of the land in the US.”

 

 

 

Read bullet |

MPAC’s Dissimulation About Sharia-Mandated Punishment For ‘Apostasy’

Monday, May 19th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

As I have discussed elsewhere, the circumstances of Sudanese Christian Meriam Ibrahim’s arrest and “conviction” for “apostasy” are eerily reminiscent of those almost 200 years earlier surrounding Moroccan Jewess Sol Hachuel’s brutally unjust plight, and ultimate martyrdom. These shared dynamics, which negate basic freedom of conscience, provide stark evidence of the Sharia’s depressing persistence as a force of religious oppression—regnant, unreformed, and unrepentant—into our era. For example, dismissing the international outcry over Meriam Ibrahim’s Sharia-compliant, if Western human rights repugnant, “conviction,” Sudan’s Minister of Information, Ahmed Bilal Osman, replied with candor and defiance:

It’s not only Sudan. In Saudi Arabia, in all the Muslim countries, it is not allowed at all for a Muslim to change his religion.

Ahmet Akgündüz, Full Professor of Islamic Law at Dumlupinar University, Turkey, has written extensively about the Sharia, including his most recent work on the subject, a 733 pp. tome, Islamic Public Law (2011). Akgündüz’s frank, authoritative discussion of the Sharia-mandated punishment for apostasy in Islamic Public Law, validates Sudan Minister of Information Bilal Osman’s candid observation, the actual treatment of Meriam Ibrahim’s case, and over 13 centuries of similar applications of the Sharia, vis-à-vis Muslim apostates, since the advent of Islam.

All fiqh [Sharia-based jurisprudence] clearly testify that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate’s execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the great Companions of the Prophet, their Followers, the leaders among the mujtahids [most learned Islamic theologians] and, following them, the experts on Sharia in every century are available on record. All these together will assure one that, from the time of the Prophet to the present day, one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that there is no room whatsoever to suggest that the punishment of the apostate is perhaps not execution.

Some [Islamic] law schools allow imprisonment instead of death for apostate women. The schools vary on the question if an apostate may be allowed or encouraged to repent as well as on the status of the apostate’s property after death or banishment. But they agree that the marriage of an apostate is void. Under Islamic law, an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again. If he does not the apostate is killed without reservations. There are differences among the four schools in the various details on how to deal with the various aspects of imposing the punishments with respect to the material property and holdings of the apostate and regarding the status and rights of the family of the apostate. A distinction is also made between a murtad fitri, an apostate who was born of Muslim parents, and a murtad milli, an apostate who had initially converted to Islam. Some additional punishments and considerations are mentioned: a divorce is automatic if either spouse apostatizes; an underage apostate is imprisoned until he reaches the age of majority and then he is killed, and the recommended execution is beheading with a sword.

The Ottoman state did not accept abolishing capital punishment for apostatesApostasy is punishable by death today in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Mauritania…Other punishments prescribed by Islamic law [at present] include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children, and the loss of all property and inheritance rights.

Notwithstanding this irrefragable, ugly living doctrinal and historical legacy, the U.S. cultural jihadist Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), issued a press release claiming,

The way Hudud [or “hadd, “i.e., mandatory Sharia prohibitions and punishments, such as apostasy, punished by death] is being implemented today does not adhere to the goals of sharia in its spirit and intention.

Recalling European Muslim Sharia supremacist Tariq Ramadan’s clumsy ploy when he invoked a “moratorium” on the hudud [hadd] punishment of stoning adulterers to death—not demanding such punishments be abrogated forever—MPAC opined that “Muslim-majority countries” should “implement a moratorium on so-called Hudud cases,” such as Meriam Ibrahim’s sentencing to death for “apostasy.”

MPAC’s disingenuous claim about lack of “adherence” to the Sharia, combined with its failure—ala Tariq Ramadan—to insist that hadd prohibitions and punishments be permanently eliminated—is consistent with a Sharia supremacist agenda. Indeed MPAC founding member Fathi Osman denounced Western societies who dared express concern, “about any movement or state which may commit itself to Islam and Islamic law.” These sentiments of MPAC’s Osman mirror Tariq Ramadan’s ultimate, guiding Islamic Weltanschauung:

anyone who opposes the Sharia, which is based on clear texts, deviates from the religion and is no longer a Muslim.

 

 

Read bullet |

Pregnant Sudanese Christian Sentenced to Death By Hanging for ‘Apostasy’

Thursday, May 15th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Yesterday, I summarized the relevant details about Meriam Ibrahim, convicted of alleged “apostasy,” and “adultery,” under The Sudan’s liberty-crushing Sharia “legal-code”:

Meriam Yahia Ibrahim, 27, is a graduate of the School of Medicine at Khartoum University and lifelong Christian. Meriam, met and married her naturalized American husband in Khartoum in 2012, and they have a 20-month old toddler son. Currently pregnant with their second child, Meriam was sentenced to death for apostasy and 100 lashes for adultery by the Public Order Court in El Haj Yousif, Khartoum, Sudan on May 11, 2014.

A year ago, a purported relative of Ibrahim opened a case against her (and her husband) in Halat Kuku Court of Khartoum North for alleged “adultery” under article 146 of the Sudan Criminal Code because of her marriage to a Christian. Ibrahim’s husband Daniel Wani was accused of proselytizing a Muslim, and eventually authorities added the apostasy charge to Ibrahim herself. She was arrested on February 17, 2014, and is currently detained in Omdurman Federal Women’s Prison along with her 20-month-old son, Martin Wani. Meriam Ibrahim was charged with the so-called Sharia “hadd offenses” under Sudan’s Penal Code of adultery (per article 146), and “apostasy’”(forsaking Islam, per article 126).

Ibrahim’s Sudanese Muslim father abandoned the family when she was 6 years old, leaving her to be raised by her Ethiopian Orthodox Christian mother. During a March 4, 2014 “hearing” Ibrahim testified before the Public Order Court that she is a Christian, showing her marriage certificate—which designates her as Christian—as formal proof of her religion. Moreover, three potential witnesses from Western Sudan who traveled to the hearing to validate Ibrahim’s lifelong adherence to Christianity were denied the opportunity to provide evidence.

Implying that her sentence might be annulled or reduced if she converted to Islam, the Public Order Court informed Mrs Ibrahim she had until tomorrow, Thursday, May 15, 2014 to pursue this option.

Dismissing the international outcry over Meriam Ibrahim’s Sharia-compliant, if Western human rights repugnant, “conviction,” Sudan’s Minister of Information, Ahmed Bilal Osman, replied with candor and defiance:

It’s not only Sudan. In Saudi Arabia, in all the Muslim countries, it is not allowed at all for a Muslim to change his religion.

Today (Thursday 5/15/14), Meriam stoically refused to forsake Christianity, her lifelong faith, and the religion of the mother who raised her. Agence France Presse (AFP) described how just prior to her sentencing, “an Islamic religious leader spoke with her in the caged dock for about 30 minutes,”— likely one last ditch effort to convince Meriam to renounce her Christian faith, and become a Muslim. But despite the possibility of having her sentenced reduced, perhaps even annulled by “accepting Islam,” Meriam refused this coercive conversion, and calmly told the presiding Sharia judge the objective truth:

I am a Christian and I never committed apostasy.

In response, Judge Abbas Mohammed Al-Khalifa, addressing Meriam by her father’s Muslim name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed Abdullah, rendered his Sharia-based punishment sentence:

We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam. I sentence you to be hanged.

Judge Khalifa also sentenced Meriam to 100 lashes for “adultery.”

Thus far, as I detailed yesterday, the Obama Administration State Department (notably the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum) has reacted with what can only be characterized as malevolent indifference to the plight of Meriam Ibrahim and her family — including her incarcerated 20 month old toddler son, Martin, a U.S. citizen.

Will this unconscionable U.S. behavior continue, or will the U.S. Department of State — under intense pressure from concerned Americans, and their elected Congressmen and Senators — demand the immediate release of Meriam and Martin, and expedite them and Ibrahim’s naturalized American citizen husband Daniel, to safety, and protection of their religious freedom, in the U.S.?

 

Read bullet |

U.S. Sacrificing U.S. Citizen Toddler to Sharia in The Sudan?

Wednesday, May 14th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Meriam Yahia Ibrahim, 27, is a graduate of the school of medicine at Khartoum University and a lifelong Christian. Meriam met and married her naturalized American husband in Khartoum in 2012, and they have a 20-month old toddler son. Currently pregnant with their second child, Meriam was sentenced to death for apostasy and 100 lashes for adultery by the Public Order Court in El Haj Yousif, Khartoum, Sudan on May 11, 2014. Meriam Ibrahim’s case illustrates starkly the liberty-crushing barbarity of Sharia, and the disgraceful, abject U.S. capitulation to the horror of this ubiquitous religious totalitarianism.

First there are the morally depraved Sharia “charges,” sham legal proceedings, and heinous “punishments”—all antithetical to Western conceptions of law and justice

A year ago, a purported relative of Ibrahim opened a case against her (and her husband) in Halat Kuku Court of Khartoum North for alleged “adultery” under article 146 of the Sudan Criminal Code because of her marriage to a Christian. Ibrahim’s husband, Daniel Wani, was accused of proselytizing a Muslim, and eventually authorities added the apostasy charge to Ibrahim herself. She was arrested on February 17, 2014, and is currently detained in Omdurman Federal Women’s Prison along with her 20-month-old son, Martin Wani. Meriam Ibrahim was charged with the so-called Sharia “hadd offenses” under Sudan’s Penal Code of adultery (per article 146), and “apostasy’”(forsaking Islam, per article 126).

Ibrahim’s Sudanese Muslim father abandoned the family when she was 6 years old, leaving her to be raised by her Ethiopian Orthodox Christian mother. During a March 4, 2014 “hearing” Ibrahim testified before the Public Order Court that she is a Christian, showing her marriage certificate—which designates her as Christian—as formal proof of her religion. Moreover, three potential witnesses from Western Sudan who traveled to the hearing to validate Ibrahim’s lifelong adherence to Christianity were denied the opportunity to provide evidence. Indeed the refusal to accept such witness testimony, and denying a priori the validity of Ibrahim’s own claims, would be entirely consistent with a Sharia Court’s rejection (or dismissal) of non-Muslim testimony because infidels are deemed to be of a lower order of truthfulness. Ibrahim’s naturalized American husband, Daniel Wani reports that since their incarceration a guard named Kawther Hassen has not allowed his wife and son to receive visits, including from him, or to access medical assistance. However, Mr Wani also notes that his wife has been allowed visits by Muslim scholars who have been pressuring her to ‘return’ to Islam, the religion of her father.

Implying that her sentence might be annulled or reduced if she converted to Islam, the Public Order Court informed Mrs Ibrahim she had until tomorrow, Thursday, May 15, 2014 to pursue this option. Without remedial intervention—including by the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum, and the U.S. State Department—the whipping and execution might be administered soon after giving birth to her second child, due next month, (as per Ibrahim being designated a bona fide “apostate” from Islam) according to a rights worker for the Justice Center Sudan in Khartoum.

How has the Obama Administration reacted to the grotesque (if Sharia-sanctioned) violation of Meriam Ibrahim’s basic human rights—including the incarceration of her 20-month old toddler son Martin, a U.S. citizen?

Daniel Wani described the unconscionable indifference to his wife and family’s plight. Re-affirming what is quite evident, “My wife was never a Muslim,” Wani—a U.S. citizen—pleaded with “the government of the USA to help me.” But Wani claims that when he called the U.S. Embassy on April 9, 2014 a representative in Khartoum informed him of their lack of interest in the case. Noting that the couple’s toddler boy, Martin, is a U.S. citizen by virtue of his father’s U.S. citizenship, Daniel Wani also declared that U.S. Embassy officials in Khartoum have not cooperated in granting the family travel papers to leave The Sudan, and further have told him he must prove he is the father with a DNA test prior to even offering any assistance!

I have tried to apply for papers to travel to the USA with my wife and child, but the American Embassy in Sudan did not help me. My son is an American citizen living in a difficult situation in prison. I will have to take a DNA sample in Khartoum, then send it to the USA for testing. I have provided wedding documents and the baby’s birth certificate, and doors were closed on [my] face.

The Obama administration State Department’s despicable behavior may mark a new nadir in our capitulation to Sharia which now includes coldly allowing a U.S. citizen toddler to be abused by Islam’s totalitarian “legal system.

Read bullet |

Sharia: Hiskett Diagnosed Nigeria’s—and the World’s—Islam Problem, in 1993

Friday, May 9th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

We want to reiterate that we are warriors who are carrying out Jihad (religious war) in Nigeria and our struggle is based on the traditions of the holy prophet. We will never accept any system of government apart from the one stipulated by Islam because that is the only way that the Muslims can be liberated. We do not believe in any system of government, be it traditional or orthodox, except the Islamic system which is why we will keep on fighting against democracy, capitalism, socialism and whatever. We will not allow the Nigerian Constitution to replace the laws that have been enshrined in the Holy Qur’an, we will not allow adulterated conventional education (Boko) to replace Islamic teachings. We will not respect the Nigerian government because it is illegal. We will continue to fight its military and the police because they are not protecting Islam. We do not believe in the Nigerian judicial system and we will fight anyone who assists the government in perpetrating illegalities.

—Boko Haram statement of “principles,” 2011

Boko Haram, whose Arabic nom du guerre translates as “Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad,” is merely a traditionalist Islamic restoration movement whose overriding ambition remains the enforcement of Sharia, as inspired by their early 19th century jihadist forbears under Us(u)man [Uthman] dan Fodio.

Mervyn Hiskett, the late (d. 1994), widely recognized authority on the history of jihad and Islamization in sub-Saharan Africa, wrote an updated Preface (dated September, 1993) to the 2nd edition of his biography of the early 19th century jihadist Usuman (Uthman) dan Fodio (d. 1817), The Sword of Truth.

Hiskett’s 1993 Preface included this remarkably forthright mea culpa:

The brutality and intolerance of all “jihad of the sword,” and especially that of nineteenth-century Western Sudan, has been veiled by an assumption of moral righteousness, based on the Muslim claim of divine revelation and a written law. That leaves no place for an approach from the viewpoint of the victims. The stark intransigence of this stance has not diminished over the generations. It is eloquently expressed by Shehu [sheikh; religious leader] Umar Abdullahi, a contemporary northern Nigerian author who has written, “We are directed by the Messenger of Allah to hit with this (sword of jihad) who deviates from this (Koran).” Similarly, Ibraheem Sulaiman, unconscious of the irony, asserts, “Yet jihad is not inhumane: despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace, which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law. Inasmuch as the original edition of The Sword of Truth, in its desire to present the reformers [i.e., jihadists’] point of view, seems to tacitly accept and even approve such a stance, it surely falls short of true objectivity. [emphasis added]

He goes on to acknowledge, with some understatement, the “downside” of this jihadist legacy, whose heritage of “Muslim absolutism” was now (i.e., circa 1993, but clearly also at present), “ a source of inspiration and an admired exemplar.” Hiskett added this further important insight:

This seems to apply whether the Muslims involved came to Islam as a result of nineteenth century reformist [i.e., jihadist!] ardor, or were drawn in less spectacularly by slower influences during the [British] colonial period.

But the crux of Hiskett’s mea culpa was his frank recognition of the ugly, Sharia-supremacist dynamic which continues to plague Nigeria, now in the guise of the “Boko Haram” jihadists, and their murderous depredations. He acknowledges the continuum of this legacy—rooted in jihad—from dan Fodio, to his contemporary Nigerian Muslim admirers.

One could hardly expect that African rulers, let alone their subjects, would be converted from their ancestral beliefs overnight by the bald assertion on the part of the Muslim ulama [clerics] that Islam was the will of a true god of whom these folk had as yet no knowledge or experience. Yet this was precisely what the Muslim reformers of the late 18th and early 19th century did expect and demand. Such immediate and unconditional cultural surrender was implicit in the message of Shehu Usuman dan Fodio to Bawa, the chief of Gobir [a city-state in what is now Nigeria] and his successors, as The Sword of Truth, plainly demonstrates. For, while these chiefs were at least nominally Muslims, many of the people they ruled over were not. For them to have bowed to the reformers’ demands would have been politically disastrous. The goal of the reformers is succinctly expressed by Sultan Bello (dan Fodio’s son, d. 1837; in his Infaq al-maysur) where he writes: “May Allah help us to pluck up the tents of the heathen from our lands, and set up the tents of the law.” The understandable resistance of the Gobirawa to the Muslim threat to their institutions and way of life was seen by the Muslims as sheer infidel perversity and an attack on Islam. The failure of the “Hausa [tribe] kings” [of Gobir, etc.] to respond to the “preaching jihad” was held to justify resort to “jihad of the sword.”  

Turning to the “Muslim reformers” in modern Nigeria, Hiskett noted that while they,

…condemn indigenous African social and religious systems as “barbaric,” “immoral,” or lacking in law, it is certainly not apparent to the non-Muslim observer that these societies were any less successful in terms of human contentment than those based on the rigorous Islamic model demanded by the Muslim reformers. [emphasis added]

Contemporary Muslim “reformers” in Nigeria, Hiskett observed, simultaneously condemned the British colonial legacy of Westernization, and its impact on the native “idolatrous infidels.” For example, Abubakr Mahmoud Gumi (d. 1992), Grand Kadi (chief Islamic legist) of Northern Nigeria, recipient of Nigeria’s highest award (i.e., the Commander of the Order of the Federal Republic), and translator of the Koran into Hausa, the language of millions of Northern Nigerians, and others across West Africa, opined (as recorded by Hiskett):

[T]hey [i.e., the British] built schools to teach destructive western culture and they began by teaching the children of the idolatrous infidels whose fathers walked around the land naked, unaware of what morals, manly virtue, and humanity might be. They placed them in sensitive government positions and they came to lord it over the Muslims whose brains had fallen asleep amid fantasies of superstition.

Hiskett went on to illustrate the concordant views of the sanctity and righteousness of jihad and Sharia supremacism expressed by other prominent Nigerian Muslim leaders—contemporaries of Abubakr Mahmoud Gumi—such as Umar Abdullahi, and Ibraheem Suleiman, the latter being (circa 1993), “a widely respected northern Nigerian academic who teaches at the Centre for Islamic Legal Studies in Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.” Sulaiman denigrated any cultural achievements produced by non-Muslim African societies, while adamantly justifying the principle of (murderous) jihad “purification,” and permanent implementation of the Sharia:

[T]he downfall of earlier generations was their persistent inclination to reprehensible and evil customs which they had inherited from their ancestors…Islam has been emphatic that any aspect of culture that is inconsistent with the Sacred Law [Sharia] has no legitimacy and should not be considered binding on society…Indeed, Islam does not accept that people should have customs or traditions other than religious ones; for if Allah’s way is a comprehensive way of life, what room is their for custom and tradition?

Thus, with great clarity, Hiskett notes, Sulaiman merely reiterated in the 1980s dan Fodio’s animating early 19th century jihadist ideology,

that the Sharia must replace indigenous customary systems, which Muslims, then as now, regard as sinful.

Such traditionalist attitudes toward jihad were (and remain) conjoined to a defiant rejection of secularism and pluralism, as demonstrated by the influential Northern Nigerian Muslim writer, Umar Abdullahi:

The concept of secularism…is totally alien to Islam. In the Islamic state there is no separation between religious and worldly affairs. The two in Islam are indivisible. Both religious and worldly affairs are ruled, controlled, and regulated by Islamic legislation. In other words, Islam enters into all facets of life of the Muslim and the state and determines what they should be and how they should be.  

Citing two prominent examples of Nigeria’s modern “Sharia imbroglio”—the establishment of Sharia court systems with ever broadening powers, and membership in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now “Islamic Cooperation,” which Hiskett aptly referred to as “an international organization for the promotion of Islam and the creation of Islamic states”; Nigeria joined the OIC in 1986 and re-affirmed its membership in 2009), Hiskett underscored the relentless drive to forcibly implement Sharia across two centuries, interrupted briefly (and without any lasting effect), by the British presence:

The jihads of 1804-1812 had been fought specifically to impose the Sharia from Borno [a state in northeast Nigeria] to the Niger [River] bend [the northernmost part of the river, in Mali]and beyond. There is thus a continuity between the reform [i.e., dan Fodio jihadist] movement of the nineteenth century and the Sharia debates (of 1976, 1986, and 1989), broken only by the interlude of British colonial government when the aspirations of the Muslims were muted and restrained.

Moreover, Hiskett emphasized how Nigerian Muslims overall

whether they were traditional ulama—influenced,  as so many of their class were, but what was already being called “Islamic fundamentalism”—or western academics working in the new universities of the north and typical of a class who might be expected to be “moderate,” were, with few exceptions, united in their support for the extension of the Sharia court system to the federal level. The same groups also strongly favored Nigeria’s membership in the OIC. At the height of these debates the Nigerian Christian constituency came up against a substantial phalanx of northern Muslim opinion that displayed little disposition to compromise. Muslims, for their part, found Christan opposition to a federal Sharia court of appeal a sign of anti-Islamic bigotry.

Hiskett added these rueful observations which cast grave doubts—now validated by events over the ensuing two decades—about reliance on so-called “Muslim moderates” to alter Nigeria’s Sharia supremacist trajectory:

[T]he view of jihad represented by Shehu Umar Abdullahi, Ibraheem Sulaiman, and the late Abubakr Gumi enjoys widespread support.

It is doubtful whether a serious and deliberate commitment to indigenous non-Muslim culture any longer exists in northern Nigeria, except in those areas of Jos and Plateau that the jihads failed to encompass. In fact these areas are now [per 1993] predominantly Christian…

We may therefore ask whether attempts to draw firm distinguishing lines between “fundamentalist” and “moderate” Muslims in northern Nigeria rests on anything more than the intensity of their respective brands of rhetoric, or on profound differences in aims and aspirations.

[T]here is (also) a remarkable solidarity between them [i.e., northern Nigerian Muslims] concerning such central Islamic issues as Sharia, membership of the OIC, and the necessity to create an Islamic order in Nigeria. This leads me to question whether there is, in fact, any significant distinction to be made between so-called “fundamentalists” and “moderates.”

Islamic radicalism in Nigeria is now too powerful to be countered even by the forces of secularism the non-Muslim constituency deploys—in fine that those who rely on Muslim “moderates” to carry the day are likely to be seriously disappointed.

Finally, Hiskett, with great prescience and candor, extended the Nigerian predicament to all of Islamdom’s interactions with non-Muslims, and Muslim secularists, from The Sudan and Algeria, to Britain and Bosnia:

It now becomes clear that as far as these northern Nigerian Muslim scholars are concerned, the absolutism of the jihadists has in no way diminished with the passage of time. In fact, the [dan Fodio] reform movement and the jihad have become for these Muslim activists an exemplary rehearsal for what today’s radicals would call “Islamic revolution.” It is interesting to note, for example how Ibraheem Sulaiman uses the term kufr (unbelief) to describe all non-Islamic administrations. In so doing he echoes the practice of such diverse present-day spokesmen of the radical Islamic ethic as Kalim Siddiqui, director of the Muslim Institute in London, or Alija Izetbegovic, the radical leader of the Bosnian Muslims.

As is already well known, opposition to secular, democratic pluralism, the universal adult franchise and the nation-state itself are all part of the platform of Islamic fundamentalists, whether they are Islamic Charterists of the Sudan, the Front Islamique de Salut of Algeria, or the British fundamentalists led by Kalim Siddiqui. All insist that Muslims may consent to be governed only within an Islamic state which is a constituent part of the worldwide Islamic umma. It is therefore not surprising to discover that Nigerian Muslim activists such as the late Shaykh Abubakr Gumi, Shehu Umar Abdullahi, and perhaps most effectively because of his undoubted scholarly skills, Ibraheem Sulaiman, all repeat this fundamentalist message in the Nigerian context.

Two decades later, having willfully ignored Mervyn Hiskett’s wisdom—a collective act of mindslaughter which continues apace in most quarters—we are confronted with an emboldened jihadist menace whose appetite to impose Sharia has grown even more voracious. Hard data from the prestigious Pew Center published in 2013 tell us that 77% of the world’s Muslims from the five largest Sunni Muslim populations (including, prominently, Nigerian Muslims) favored,

“making sharia law, or Islamic law, the official law of the land in our country.” Jihad-fomenting, and Sharia-promoting mosques, Islamic cultural centers, and formal Islamic jurists associations operate—and proliferate—unconstrained in non-Muslim societies across the globe. Just as Hiskett described for Nigeria, there is no evidence that “moderate Muslims” have done anything substantive to stem this liberty-crushing, Sharia supremacist wave which now washes across the shores of all the world’s major oceans.

The Islamic conundrum for Western societies, including the U.S., which Hiskett articulated with characteristic lucidity, in his Some to Mecca Turn To Pray (also published in 1993), is now upon us, and merits an urgent response if we still cherish individual liberty:

As is so often the case when considering Islam, one has to concede the power of certain of its ideas. But when it comes to having these ideas advocated within our own shores, and as alternatives to our own insti­tutions, one must then ask oneself: Which does one prefer? Western secular, pluralist institutions, imperfect as these are? Or the Islamic theo­cratic alternative? And if one decides in favor of one’s own institutions, warts and all, one then has to ask again: How far may the advocacy of Islamic alternatives go, before this becomes downright subversive? And at that point, what should be done about it? Finally, do liberal, demo­cratic politicians have the political and moral guts to do what is needed, or will they simply give way, bit by bit and point by point, to insistent and sustained pressure from the Muslim “Parliament” and other Muslim special-interest lobbies like it?

 

 

Read bullet |

Sharia Without, Or With, Camouflage? Sharia Vs. ‘Sharia-ism,’ Andrew Bostom Vs. ‘Joy Brighton’ (Pseud.)

Wednesday, May 7th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Back on November 9, 2012, I appeared with Lou Dobbs discussing my then newly published compendium, Sharia Versus Freedom—The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism. Joseph Schacht, the greatest modern scholar of the holistic Sharia, Islamic law, described it as is nothing less than Islam’s quintessence: “the Sharia is the most characteristic phenomenon of Islamic thought and forms the nucleus of Islam itself.”

Here are the key extracts from my candid discussion of the Sharia with Lou Dobbs during that November, 2012 interview, embedded in full, below, after the extracted text:

[Bostom] Sharia is really foundational in Islamic societies. It is derived from the canonical texts of Islam, the Koran, the Hadith—the traditions of Mohammed, and it has many ritual aspects that might be similar to other religions, but it’s also an entire political system, and here is where it runs afoul of modern human rights concepts like our Bill of Rights, like the Declaration of Universal Human Rights. It includes a timeless war doctrine, the doctrine of jihad, it also rejects basic human freedoms, like freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and it imposes discriminatory regulations, legal regulations against non-Muslim minorities, and women. It also includes dehumanizing punishments, what we would consider dehumanizing punishments, like, lashing for alcohol consumption, stoning to death for adultery, and mutilating punishment for theft.

[Lou Dobbs]: Is it your view then that, there is no way in which our American culture can accommodate sharia within a multicultural society for which would be Muslim?

[Bostom] Absolutely not. Certainly not for the overt, liberty crushing dehumanizing aspects of sharia. And unfortunately, it is an integrated whole. It has proven historically very, very difficult for Muslims to de-sacralize Sharia, to secularize it, and to eliminate the political and liberty crushing aspects from the simple religious aspects.


Fast forward 18-months to “Joy Brighton” (pseud.) and her interview last night (5/6/14) with Fox News host Megyn Kelly about what Brighton terms, “Sharia-ism.” Here is the crux of Brighton’s mendacious presentation (followed by the full interview, embedded, below), which categorically rejects the true, defining association between the holistic Sharia, in all its aspects, and Islam:

[Brighton] Sharia-ism is a political movement of control…controlling lots of things like free speech. And this has nothing to do with Islam. And this has nothing to do with religion. There’s lots of Sharia laws, and if you are following the laws of washing your hands and praying however you are supposed to pray, you are a Muslim following the faith of Islam. And if you are someone who wants to control women, who is out to control free speech, who wants your way of life to be someone else’s way of life, that’s control, you’re a “Sharia-ist,” under the umbrella of “Sharia-ism.”


Somewhat ironically, Megyn Kelly’s first guest last evening (5/6/14) was former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. McCarthy’s Foreword to my Sharia Versus Freedom,  was reproduced at The National Review Online, October 20, 2012. Let McCarthy’s words—reiterating and endorsing what I wrote in Sharia Versus Freedom—stand as another corrective to the willful mendacity of Brighton’s bowdlerized drivel about “Sharia-ism.”

Western elites, however, have abandoned the field — or, better, put it up for sale to Islamic activists and their apologists. Lushly endowed by the Wahhabist rulers of Saudi Arabia and schooled by the Salafist program of the Muslim Brotherhood, these partisans make little secret of their dedication to “the Islamization of knowledge.” That’s the stated mission of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Virginia-based think-tank founded by Brotherhood operatives in 1981. The goal is clear: to make Islam appear unthreatening, to limn its detractors as irrational and racist (“Islamophobes”), and thus to control the narrative about their doctrine even as they pursue its hegemonic ambitions. Dr. Bostom is one of the precious few who dare make the counter-case, based on nothing so noxious as bigotry or dreamy as hope. In the best Western tradition, Bostom’s quest for knowledge is rooted in reason, applied gimlet-eyed to an assemblage of evidence drawn painstakingly from the historical record.

The contributions of this approach have already been immense. Most notably, Bostom has edited two essential compendia: The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (2008). These collections, featuring accounts of Islam in word and deed for over a millennium, as well as the critiques of scholars of Islam — Muslim and non-Muslim — over the centuries, put the lie to conventional wisdom. Jihad, despite assiduous efforts to reinterpret its meaning and bleach away its history, originated as the mission to spread Islam by forcible conquest. Strains of Jew hatred inhere in Islamic scripture and tradition — neither were they inculcated in Muslims by shameful anti-Semitic chapters in the history of Christendom, nor are they strictly a byproduct of Israel’s modern establishment as a nation-state in the Promised Land inhabited by Jews for many centuries before the birth of Mohammed.

These treatises set the stage for Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism. The traditions of holy war and animus toward Jews are critical to our understanding of classical Islamic doctrine. Sharia, however, is the doctrine’s essence. It is Islam’s legal and political system. Its establishment is the necessary precondition for a society’s Islamization, and it is thus the objective of both violent jihad and stealthier methods of pressuring a society’s major institutions to bend to Islamic norms. Sharia is the animating force of classical Islam — its claim to ultimate truth. To the extent that doctrine, preponderant among the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims, is challenged by reformist movements within Islam, one cannot apprehend what those tensions are about, or assess how uphill is the reformer’s quest, absent an understanding of sharia and its doctrinal centrality.

As for our own challenge, preserving Western civilization and American constitutional republicanism, Bostom’s title is aptly succinct: “Sharia Versus Freedom.” To borrow again from Cardinal Ratzinger, by exhibiting their trademark “indifference as to the content of what is believed or not believed,” Islam’s Western apologists depict sharia as gnomic and aspirational. It is not a regulatory code, they assure us, but a mystic, private compass by which the believer comes uniquely to experience the divine. Of course, when a woman who has been sexually assaulted is sentenced by a sharia tribunal to death for extramarital fornication, or a homosexual is similarly condemned for consensual relations, or an apostate for renouncing Islam, the executioners don’t hurl aspirations; they hurl stones.

In point of fact, sharia is a manifestation of bedrock convictions: that there is no division of private belief and public conformity, no separation between mosque and state, between the demands of the sacred law and the governance of civil society. Sharia is authoritarian — unapologetically so. It is, to the believer, Allah’s gift to mankind, the path divinely prescribed for human flourishing. Consequently, it brooks no repeal or refinement by legislation — what right does man have to change or try to improve upon the writ of his Creator, to whom he is obliged to submit? And, as Bostom’s subtitle intimates, sharia is “totalitarian” in the sense that it really does endeavor to control everything — theological principles, economics and finance, domestic relations, social interaction, crime and punishment, the use of force, even hygiene.

Most significantly, sharia is juxtaposed to freedom because it strangles individual liberty, the catalyst of progress. Sharia, we have noted, eschews our fundamental premises that the people are sovereign; that they may control their own destiny irrespective of any predetermined code; and that, while civil society may be profoundly influenced by spirituality, it is governed by secular laws.

Equal protection under those laws is the glue of a free, pluralistic society — but sharia rejects it, elevating Muslims above non-Muslims and men above women. Our basic liberties fare no better — sharia rejects freedom of conscience (apostasy from Islam is not merely a crime but a capital offense), freedom of speech (expression that casts Islam in an unfavorable light or sows discord among Muslims is a transgression as grave as apostasy), freedom of association, privacy, economic freedom, humane punishments, and the social commitment to tolerate and even appreciate most of our differences — not extinguish them by violence and coercion.

Sharia-compliant Islam is ascendant. In the Middle East, about 80 percent of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan tell pollsters they desire to live under sharia strictures. Even in the Far East, in Indonesia, where the practice of Islam tends to be more moderate due to its syncretism with other traditions of worship, sharia is on the march — preferred by half the population . . . and rising. Throughout the West, including in the United States, governments are under pressure from their swelling, aggressive Muslim communities to accept and adopt sharia standards — legitimizing them in our law and our culture, even as their brute repression of speech degrades our capacity to assess the wages of conferring legitimacy.

The price will be high. The “spirit of Assisi” is a sweet-sounding invitation to abandon our defenses and our inconvenient knowledge that convictions matter — that liberty, equality, and the elevation of reason are not just another way of life but a better way of life. Supremacist Muslims are a grave threat to that better way of life because they make an unabashed claim to truth and they are acting on it.

We cannot defend ourselves from the threat unless we see it for what it is — unless, as Andrew Bostom puts it, we examine “sharia without camouflage.” We cannot defeat the threat until we once again revel in what makes us different, for it is also what makes us better.

 

Read bullet |

Christy Anastas Gives Three Examples of How Palestinian Sharia Negates The Freedom of Non-Muslims & Women

Wednesday, April 30th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

At PJ Media (4/29/14) I discussed John Kerry;s mental and moral cretinism vis-à-vis his “apartheid” calumny against Israel last Friday, while blithely ignoring the Sharia-based religious apartheid of the Hamas and/or Fatah-controlled areas of Gaza and Judea-Samara.

Below are three clips from a remarkable lecture by 24- (not 26-) year old Christy Anastas on how basic freedoms for non-Muslims and women are crushed by the Sharia, enshrined under Hamas/Fatah governance.

~ 3 minutes of clips showing: 

  • The forced payment of the Koranic poll-tax (per verse 9:29), or jizya (i.e., from the etymology of the word, per Edward Lane, the great 19th century Arabic-English lexicographer, “the tax paid in lieu of being slain”). Anastas explains, “if you are a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian, you have to pay protection money” (to those she aptly terms, “mafia”)…”My uncle had to pay this protection money.” Her uncle stopped making his jizya payments, whereupon he was accused of being a “traitor,” imprisoned, and then executed, right in front of his own home. 
  • The grotesque violations of women’s rights (Anastas proclaims, “women don’t have rights there [in Fatah-Hamas controlled areas];” “women are treated as possessions there”), resulting from application of the Sharia, including legally sanctioned polygamy and honor killings. 
  • The sheer absence of freedom of speech—another hallmark of the Sharia: “Israel doesn’t threaten to kill us (Christians) for sharing our views, Palestinians do!”
YouTube Preview Image

Read bullet |

John Kerry, Real Palestinian Sharia, and Imagined Israeli ‘Apartheid’

Tuesday, April 29th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Last Friday, during a closed-door meeting with a room of influential world leaders, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry opined that if Israel failed to accept his latest “peace formulation,” the country risked becoming an “apartheid state with second-class citizens.”

This statement was redolent with Kerry’s trademark mental and moral cretinism. For over a decade, the disputed territories in Gaza and Judea-Samaria under Fatah, and/or Hamas control have been under a real, not a theoretical system of Islamic Sharia-based religious apartheid.

After more than thirteen centuries of almost uninterrupted jihad in historical Palestine, it is not surprising that a finalized constitution proposed for a Palestinian Arab state declared all aspects of Palestinian state law to be subservient to the Sharia, in harmony with the popular will (i.e., 79.9 percent of Palestinians want the PA to follow the Sharia—Islamic religious law— including 68.6 percent who wanted the Sharia as the exclusive code of law, according to data published by the Palestinian Center for Research and Cultural Dialogue, March 3, 2005). Moreover, contemporary Palestinian Authority religious intelligentsia openly support restoration of the oppressive system of dhimmitude within a Muslim-dominated Israel as well.

During a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on PA TV, from the Sheik ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza, Palestinian Authority employee Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi reiterated these sentiments with regard to Jews:

We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a Dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as Dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as Dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah.

An assessment of such anachronistic, discriminatory views was provided by the Catholic archbishop of the Galilee, Butrus Al- Mu’alem, who, in a June 1999 statement, dismissed the notion of modern dhimmis submitting to Muslims:

It is strange to me that there remains such backwardness in our society; while humans have already reached space, the stars, and the moon . . . there are still those who amuse themselves with fossilized notions.

Eleven years ago (i.e., in 2003, prior to Hamas’ electoral victory in 2006), during a briefing for a visiting United States congressional delegation, then Vatican representative to Israel, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed US lawmakers that the Palestinian Authority’s new approved state constitution, funded by the US Agency for International Development, provided no juridical status for any religion other than Islam in the emerging Palestinian Arab entity. The Papal Nuncio warned, in addition, that the Palestinian Authority (PA) had adopted Sharia as the overarching guiding principle of their legal code, thus mandating the absolute supremacy of Muslims over non-Muslims as a matter of law. (Archbishop Sambi also initiated a study of the new PA textbooks, which the Vatican deemed to be brazenly Antisemitic.)

The Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem confirmed (as reported by Karby Legget in the December 23, 2005, edition of the Wall Street Journal, p. A1) the organizations plan to reinstitute the humiliating jizya, and such policies, even their threatened implementation, will likely exacerbate the ongoing Christian exodus from Arab-controlled Judea/Samaria, especially Bethlehem. An early April 2006 Reuters report indicated that one thousand Christians per year were leaving these areas due to Muslim depredations, including assaults on Christians, uprooting their olive trees, and scrawling graffiti that depicts nuns being raped. After Hamas issued a warning to the YMCA of Qalqilya to close its offices and leave town, as reported on April 21, 2006, a Qalqilya Christian leader lamented:

The face of the new Hamas government is coming to the forefront now that they finally took over and have a lot more confidence. They want to create a territory free of Christians and Jews.

Just over three weeks ago (April 8, 2014) speaking at Uppsala University, a remarkably intrepid 26 year old Palestinian woman, Christy Anastas gave a forthright lecture (video here) “update” about the ongoing human rights abuses (predictably) engendered by this Sharia-based system of “law” adopted by Fatah-Hamas, including:

  • The forced payment of the Koranic poll-tax (per verse 9:29), or jizya (i.e., from the etymology of the word, per Edward Lane, the great 19th century Arabic-English lexicographer, “the tax paid in lieu of being slain”). Anastas explains, “if you are a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian, you have to pay protection money” (to those she aptly terms, “mafia”)…”My uncle had to pay this protection money.” Her uncle stopped making his jizya payments, whereupon he was accused of being a “traitor,” imprisoned, and then executed, right in front of his own home.
  • The grotesque violations of women’s rights (Anastas proclaims, “women don’t have rights there [in Fatah-Hamas controlled areas];” “women are treated as possessions there”), resulting from application of the Sharia, including legally sanctioned polygamy and honor killings.
  • The sheer absence of freedom of speech—another hallmark of the Sharia: “Israel doesn’t threaten to kill us (Christians) for sharing our views, Palestinians do!”

John Kerry should have viewed Christy Anastas’ lecture before belching forth his latest calumny. But I doubt it would have chastened him.

Read bullet |

The 9/11 Museum Controversy and Sheikh Gameia: Recalling How Al-Azhar’s Then U.S. Emissary Reacted to the Jihad Carnage

Monday, April 28th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Controversy has erupted just weeks before the May 21, 2014 formal opening of the 9/11 Museum beneath the World Trade Center Plaza. The source of this imbroglio is a brief documentary film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” which apparently confirms that the mass murderous September 11, 2001 attacks were motivated by the ideology of jihad. As the New York Times’ Sharon Offerman observed on 4/23/14:

The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small part of the museum. But it has over the last few weeks suddenly become a flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims.

What Offerman alludes to as a “flash point” is actually a threadbare effort—linking the irrefragably jihadist organization Al-Qaeda, and Islam’s institution of jihad war—to push back against the relentless campaign of doctrinal and historical negationism waged by Muslim and non-Muslim apologists for Islam.

Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, who was interviewed by Offerman for her story, epitomizes this negationist trend in all its brazen hypocrisy. Ahmed opined,

The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did. But when you associate their religion with what they did, then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S. would not want to unnecessarily alienate.

The namesake for Ahmed’s American University “Chair,” Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), was a seminal Muslim historian, and jurist, who wrote the following about jihad, summarizing six centuries of prior, well-established Islamic jurisprudence:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Ahmed’s strident, pseudo-academic disingenuousness, and the documentary film kerfuffle, notwithstanding, the 9/11 Museum’s exhibit also obfuscates the nexus between Islam, and the cataclysmic jihad terror attacks nearly 13 years ago. This guiding mentality of pious cultural relativism was made explicit by Joseph C. Daniels, President and CEO of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum:

What helps me sleep at night is I believe that the average visitor who comes through this museum will in no way leave this museum with the belief that the religion of Islam is responsible for what happened on 9/11.

Mr. Daniels and the entire 9/11 Museum organization must be made aware, repeatedly, of the following:

  • How Sheik Muhammad al-Gameia (Gamei’a) —who on September 11, 2001, was an Egyptian imam at the Islamic Cultural Center of New York, and the American emissary from Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the pinnacle of religious authority, and education, in Sunni Islam—characterized the 9/11 attacks, during an October 4, 2001 interview, in Egypt. (Original Arabic interview here; Translated extracts here)
  • Frank analyses of the doctrine and history of jihad, a living Islamic institution.
  • Data on contemporary global jihad terrorism, which validates this doctrinal and historical legacy of jihad, and provides the ongoing, expansive “context” for the Al-Qaeda-orchestrated carnage of 9/11/2001.

Moreover, Daniels and the 9/11 Museum should be consistently encouraged to add this material (and other similar materials) to future “updates” of the exhibit.

Since its founding in 973 C.E., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented the apogee of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Al-Gameia, the Al-Azhar University representative in the U.S., and Imam of the Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque of New York City, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, was interviewed for an Al-Azhar University website, on October 4, 2001. Sheikh Gameia returned to Egypt after September 11, 2001 alleging, without any substantiation, that he was being “harassed.”

Gameia’s interview (original Arabic; extracts translated here) was rife with conspiratorial Islamic antisemitism, which riveted upon his invocation of the central Koranic motifs of Jew-hatred. Al-Azhar’s representative to the U.S. melded this sacralized anti-Jewish bigotry to virulent calumnies against Americans, and threats to the U.S.—witless “dupes” of the Zionist Jews.

Here are representative extracts of the interview:

Read bullet |

Cut the Clitoral Relativism: Islam, Sharia, and Female Genital Mutilation/“Circumcision”

Friday, April 11th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Despite their ongoing antagonisms—played out, prominently, on Fox News—a bizarre, shared apologetic has emerged which denies the irrefragable sanctioning of female genital mutilation/“circumcision” (FGM/C) by canonical Islamic tradition (“hadith”), and over 1100 years of authoritative, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. The strange bedfellow antagonists engaged in these overlapping apologetics about FGM/C are the Clarion Foundation and its film “Honor Diaries,” allied with the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Foundation (Ms. Ali is also listed as the film’s executive producer), “versus” the Hamas-linked cultural jihadist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Fox News has served as overseer of this “conflict” cum consensus, while also reinforcing the fallacy that FGM/C is simply a tragic manifestation of misogynistic patriarchal trends that are generic, and have “no basis” in Islam and the Sharia, Islamic law.

Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR issued the following statement (which Fox News host Megyn Kelly aired on her broadcast), that melds Islamic negationism (in bold, below), with vitriol against the Clarion Foundation-produced film:

American Muslims join people of conscience of all faiths in condemning female genital mutilation, forced marriages, “honor killings” and any other form of domestic violence or gender inequality as violations of Islamic beliefs. If anyone mistreats women, they should not seek refuge in Islam. The real concern in this case is that the producers of the film, who have a track record of promoting anti-Muslim bigotry, are hijacking a legitimate issue to push their hate-filled agenda.

Notwithstanding the obsessive focus on Hooper/CAIR’s predictably gratuitous attack against the producers of “Honor Diaries,” what has been deliberately obfuscated by conservative supporters of the film are mirror image statements denying the centrality of Islamic doctrine such as this blatantly false Ayaan Hirsi Ali Foundation website pronouncement:

FGM has no foundation in Islamic scripture or law.

Quanta Ahmed, a protagonist in “Honor Diaries,” appearing in one of Megyn Kelly’s Fox News segments on the “CAIR vs. bold filmmakers controversy,” made a Goebbel’s-like inversion of morality. Ahmed not only denied Islam’s sanctioning of FGM in “Honor Diaries,” claiming, falsely, “Female genital mutilation is not advocated in Islam in any way shape or form,” during her March 31, 2014 interview with Megyn Kelly she compounded her mendacity with the morally perverse observation that,

the most Islamic act is to expose this injustice

This shared mendacity by current antagonists CAIR, Clarion, the Ayaan Hirsi Foundation, and Dr. Quanta Ahmed, deliberately obfuscates, as but one salient example, the following canonical hadith (“tradition” of Muhammad) which sanctions FGM/C:

Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: “Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.” [Sunan Abu Dawud, Chapter 1888, “Circumcision of Girls”, Number 5251, from Sunan Abu Dawud, one of the six canonical hadith collections, English translation with Explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan, 2007, Volume III, p. 1451; this hadith is also available online here, as Book 41, Number 5251]

Professor Hasan’s note adds the following observations:

Some Shafii scholars hold that circumcision of girls is obligatory, but others think that it is recommended. Ahmad b. Hanbal and some Maliki jurists hold that it is obligatory. Abu Hanifah maintains that it is recommended and not obligatory. Mali holds that it is recommended and not obligatory.

The great Muslim theologian and polymath al-Jahiz (d. 869), citing the canonical tradition of Muhammad, noted that female circumcision was specifically employed as a means to reduce female “concupiscence,” unbridled lust—or mere sexual pleasure, derived from a fully intact clitoris:

A woman with a clitoris has more pleasure than a woman without a clitoris. The pleasure depends on the quantity which was cut from the clitoris. Muhammad said, “If you cut, cut the slightest part and do not exaggerate because it makes the face more beautiful and it is more pleasing for the husband.” It seems Muhammad wanted to reduce the concupiscence of the women to moderate it. If concupiscence is reduced, the pleasure is also reduced…The love of the husband is an impediment against debauchery. Judge Janab Al-Khaskhash contends that he counted in one village the number of women who were circumcised and those who were not, and he found that the circumcised were chaste and the majority of the debauched were uncircumcised. Indian, Byzantine, and Persian women often commit adultery and run after men because their concupiscence towards men is greater. For this reason, India created brothels. This happened because of the massive presence of their clitorises and their hoods. [Al-Jahiz, Kitab al-hayawan, Vol. 7, pp. 27-29]

This argument is repeatedly invoked by classical Muslim jurists, and remains at present the most commonly cited rationale for circumcision of Muslim women. For example, here are two opinions from respected Al-Azhar clerics/“Professors,” Al Azhar University and its mosque representing the pinnacle of Sunni Islamic religious education, the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. The first observation was by the late Jad al-Haq (d. 1996) who served as Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and as such was a Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent.

Al-Haq insisted the present era makes female circumcision requisite,

because of mixing of the sexes at public gatherings. If the girl is not circumcised, she subjects herself to multiple causes of excitation leading her to vice and perdition. [Jad al-Haq, 1983, Khitan al-banat, in: Al-fatawi al-islamiyyah min dar al-ifta al-masriyyah, Vol. 9, p. 3124, translated here]

Abd al-Rahman Al-Adawi, al-Azhar Professor, writing in 1989, noted that female circumcision is makrumah—a meritorious action. He further claimed the procedure helped the woman,

remain shy and virtuous. In the Orient, where the climate is hot, a girl gets easily aroused if she is not circumcised. It makes her shameless and prey to her sexual instincts except those to whom Allah shows compassion. [from Al-khitan, ra’y al-din wal-‘ilm fi khitan al-awlad wal-banat, 1989, pp 81-2, translated here]

The classical Iraqi jurist Ibn Mawdud al-Musili (d. 1284), in his major Islamic law treatise [Al-ikhtiyar, vol. 4, p. 167, translated here] declared,

If a region stops, of common agreement, to practice male and female circumcision, the chief of the state declares war [jihad] against that region because circumcision is a part of the rituals of Islam and its specificities

Former Al-Azhar Grand Imam Jad al-Haq also insisted repeatedly (twice in a 1981 fatwa, and three times in a fatwa published during 1994; [see Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, Male and Female Circumcision—Religious, medical, social, and legal debate, 2012, p. 173]) that the attempt to prevent female (or male) circumcision was grounds for waging jihad against those renouncing and abrogating the procedures. The October 1994 issue of the magazine Al-Azhar included a booklet distributed as a free appendix. The booklet contained Grand Imam al-Haq’s fatwa whose main elements had already been published in 1981. In this “updated” 1994 fatwa, al-Haq affirmed the call for jihad thrice, reiterating verbatim the opinion of the 13th century jurist al-Musili, and adding his own gloss about the obligatory nature of female and male circumcision (translation, p. 347),

If a region stops, of common agreement, to practice male and female circumcision, the chief of the state declares war [jihad] against that region because circumcision is a part of the rituals of Islam and its specificities. This means that male and female circumcisions are obligatory.

Given such authoritative and adamant Islamic endorsement, it is unsurprising that Egypt’s FGM/C rate persisted at 91% as reported in a July, 2013 UNICEF analysis. Indeed UNICEF’s own attempt to obfuscate the association between Islam and FGM/C was thwarted by the data adduced within the report which underscored the overwhelming predominance of this practice in Islamic societies (such as Somalia, FGM/C rate of 98%; Sudan FGM/C rate of 88%), and even Muslim minority populations within multi-religious societies. Moreover, the UNICEF survey curiously omitted the largest Muslim nation (and population) altogether: Indonesia.

The origins, rationale (i.e., notably a predominance of the Shafi’ite school of Sunni Islamic law—as in Egypt, with its 91% rate of FGM/C), and apparent near universal present extent of FGM/C among young Indonesian Muslim woman by age 18 is a case study which puts the lie to the apologetic—and corrosive—mindset that seeks to willfully dissociate FGM/C from Islam.

Returning to the Islamic law basis for FGM/C, al-Nawawi (d.1277), the seminal Shafi’ite Sunni legist, in his authoritative Al-majmu sharh al-muhadhdhab [translated here; and also here], maintained:

Circumcision is obligatory for our men and women.

Mohamad Atho Mudzhar’s 1990 PhD dissertation, “Fatwas of the Council of Indonesian Ulama: A study of Islamic legal thought in Indonesia, 1975-1988,” includes this relevant observation about his native country:

Indonesian Muslims have always claimed themselves to be Shafi’is…. At the theologico-doctrinal level, Indonesian Muslims are the followers of the Shafi’i school of Islamic law…most of them are aware of their adherence to the Shafi’i school of Islamic law.

The rigorous analyses of Dutch ethnographer G.A. Wilken (1847-1891), and Dutch historian B.J.O. Schrieke (writing in 1921/1922), concluded a century (or more) ago that female circumcision was introduced by Islam to the vast Indonesian archipelago, because the practice was present only in Islamized regions. They further noted female circumcision was absent in the regions not yet (i.e., as of the late 19th and early 20th centuries) penetrated by Islam or, at that time, only superficially Islamized.

Wilken’s article entitled : “De besnijdenis bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel,” (“Circumcision in the nations of the Indonesian Archipelago”) was first published in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch- Indie, (Contributions to Lingusitics, Lands, and Ethnology of the Dutch East Indies), 34 (1885), pp. 165-206. B. Schrieke, published a two-part essay on the subject, nearly four decades later, whose findings concurred: “Allerlei over de besnijdenis in den Indischen Archipel,” (“Miscellaneous circumcision in the Indonesian Archipelago,” in Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, (Journal of East Indian Linguistics, Lands, and Ethnology), 60 (1921), 373-578 ; 61 (1922), 1-94.)

Schrieke (1921, pp. 549-551). reported that when queried about the meaning of this circumcision, the Indonesian Muslim parents replied that it’s purpose was for their daughters to become Muslims (eerst Mohammedanen worden).

Just over eighty years, by 2003, a comprehensive survey “updated” and confirmed the Schrieke’s findings, adding critical data on the astonishing modern prevalence of FGM/C within Indonesia.

This broad-based Indonesian survey canvassed 1,694 households in eight different sites, representing eight different major ethnic groups of Indonesia, and including both rural and urban locations. Key background findings were as follows (verbatim):

  • Almost all mothers at all sites gave consent for the practice of FC [FGM/C] to be performed on their daughters. When asked whether FC [FGM/C] has beneficial effects on women, 69% responded “yes,” and mentioned benefits including successful completion of religious duty, health and hygiene. Only a very small proportion of mothers felt that there were no benefits of FC [FGM/C] and 26% said they “do not know”.
  • When mothers were asked about their view regarding the future of the practice of FC [FGM/C], the majority supported its continuation and objected to any proposed ban on FC [FGM/C]. Only small proportion of mothers (7%) said that they would support the ban. Even among those who would support the ban, they would support only if reasons for banning are rational, understandable, and not against religion.
  • A significant proportion of mothers (20%) even suggested social sanctions should be imposed on uncircumcised girls. Larger proportions of mothers with this view were found in Padang Pariaman and Gorontalo. Across the study sites, 30 to 96% of mothers held the opinion that FC [FGM/C] is “a must,” even for girls who have already reached the age of 10 or over.

Among all the children aged 15 to 18, 86-100% of the girls were already circumcised, with a mean overall rate of 97.5%. Thus the authors concluded aptly their survey had demonstrated,

that circumcision among girls is a universal practice in the study sites.

During March of 2010, the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Indonesia’s largest Muslim organization, issued an edict reinforcing its religious support for FGM/C, albeit with anappeal by a leading Islamic cleric to the NU’s estimated 40 million followers “not to cut too much.” By September of 2011 “medical guidelines” on how to perform female genital mutilation/cutting were issued by the Indonesian Ministry of Health, ostensibly to reduce of the extent of damage to the clitoris when the procedure was performed by traditional non-medical personnel. However an Indonesia-wide survey of FGM/C practices in 2009, revealed that when medical practitioners performed the procedure, there was a trend toward more extensive cutting of the clitoris!

Finally, here in the U.S. (and Canada), surely CAIR, The Clarion Project/The Ayaan Hirsi Ali Foundation, and Quanta Ahmed, who even in their rancor against each other, all oppose FGM/C, and claim it is has “no basis in Islam,” will confront the fatwas sanctioning FGM/C for North American Muslims by the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)?

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA’s) mission statement maintains the organization was,

founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities…

A report in The Muslim Observer published October 21, 2010 highlighting AMJA’s “seventh annual American conference of imams,” confirmed that the organization is accepted as such by the mainstream American Muslim community. AMJA and its “training” conference for American imams were described in these banal terms:

The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia’s Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities.  Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American–because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA’s American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield’s Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that “the event was the 7th annual imam workshop…”  Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is “a fiqh council basically,” with “scholars who live abroad and inside the US; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the US–fatawa are based on life in the US.”

AMJA rulings clearly support the practice of FGM/C (which, appropriately, the United Nations has called “a dangerous and potentially life-threatening procedure that causes unspeakable pain and suffering.”). Fatwa #1639 from Dr. Hatem al-Haj justified the horrific practice, by citing the canonical hadith in which Islam’s prophet Muhammad endorsed its practice, stating:

[…] Some extremists from the west and their devout followers in the Muslim world like to brand all circumcision as female genital mutilation (FGM). For those, we say, why is male circumcision not MGM? Male circumcision is widely practiced in the west. Yet it would be considered by the Chinese MGM (Male Genital Mutilation). The benefits of male circumcision are beginning to be more recognized in the medical societies, even though still contested by a few. Fifty years ago, no one knew that male circumcision has medical benefits. The same could be true with female circumcision. They may figure out the benefits of the practice in fifty or five hundred years. […]

Al-Haj then went on to implicitly sanction the practice of taking a Muslim female outside of her American milieu to have the procedure performed—in violation of the US “TRANSPORT FOR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION” act.

The question is not to ban female circumcision because of the position of certain nations, but How do we regulate it as Muslims? What should we -western Muslims- do? For Muslims who live in the west, since it is not mandatory and it is at the same time illegal in the west, and would bring about harm to the people who practice it, I wouldn`t advise having it done, as long as you are a resident/citizen of the west. We however should never doubt anything in our religion because of the bad publicity the media creates about it

A concordant fatwa issued in Arabic (translation by Al-Mutarjim) on the website of the Secretary-General of AMJA and the chief member of its Resident Fatwa Committee, Dr. Salah Al-Sawy, declares that FGM is “an honor” for women, Al-Sawy also acknowledges that the procedure—in accord with a continuum of Islamic rationale from al-Jahiz in the mid-9th century, to former Muslim Papal equivalent, i.e.,  Al-Azhar University Grand Imam Jad al-Haq through 1996—is explicitly implemented to reduce a woman’s otherwise unbridled “concupiscence,” i.e., lust:

But for the woman, the purpose [of circumcision] is the benefit that it has in lessening her lust, which is a wholesome request. There is no harm in removing it. In short, female circumcision is an honor (which) does not rise to the level of a duty, in clear language. Stated another way, it is neither forbidden nor required.

Having thus far refused to honestly acknowledge, let alone confront the clear, authoritative Islamic imprimatur for FGM-C—from Muhammad’s alleged utterance, to classical and modern jurists, across a millennium, till today—in Islamic societies, perhaps all these strange bedfellows, The Clarion Project/The Ayaan Hirsi Ali Foundation, Quanta Ahmed, and CAIR, will, pardon the reference, gird their loins within the security of the U.S., remonstrate against AMJA’s apparent “distortion” of Islam, and explain to AMJA’s clerics why they are wrong. Better still, invite all the parties—AMJA’s clerics and any of The Clarion Project/The Ayaan Hirsi Ali Foundation, Quanta Ahmed, and CAIR to debate whether Islam sanctions FGM/C on Fox News’ The Kelly File.

 

Read bullet |

Bipartisan Capitulation on Iranian Nukes

Friday, March 28th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

One of the major themes of my new book, Iran’s Final Solution for Israel, is the abject failure of imagination regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran, which transcends the political and ideological Republican/Democratic party, and Right/Left, divides.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the craven capitulation to Obama administration demands that Congress “butt out” of the “P5 +1” sham agreement process which has provided dangerous U.S. and international validation of Iran’s uranium enrichment program.

As reported by Al-Monitor yesterday (3/27/14), House lawmakers are crafting a “bipartisan” bill targeting Iran’s jihad-terror “proxy” Hezbollah, having acquiesced to the Obama administration’s demand not to address Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear capabilities, whose ultimate goal has long been acknowledged to be the production of nuclear weapons. The Hezbollah-limited focus, though allegedly “in the works for several months,” in reality represented bipartisan subservience to Obama administration wishes, gaining momentum,

after Democrats acceded to the Obama administration’s request that Congress butt out of the multiparty nuclear negotiations with Iran. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has blocked a vote on a bipartisan Iran sanctions bill that has garnered 59 cosponsors, and the Househas also lifted the pressure since passing its own sanctions bill on a 400-20 vote last summer.

Pressed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, during hearings on February 4, 2014, U.S. chief negotiator with Iran Wendy Sherman conceded that the P5 + 1 agreement, failed to “shut down” Iran’s continuing development of ballistic missiles. These weapons, which have long range capabilities, are the preferred devices for delivering a nuclear payload. Senator Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), the committee’s ranking member, raised the appropriate questions, interspersed with relevant commentary:

Why did you all not in this agreement in any way address the delivery mechanisms, the militarizing of nuclear arms, why was that left off since they [Iran] breached a threshold everyone acknowledges.? They can build a bomb. We know that. They know that. They have advanced centrifuges. We have a major loophole in the research and development area that everyone acknowledges. We are going to allow them over this next year to continue to perfect the other piece of this, which is the [nuclear] delivery mechanism. Why did we do that?

Within 2-weeks later, Ms. Sherman admitted that if Iran’s nuclear program was only for peaceful purposes, the Islamic Republic “does not need” the fortified, underground uranium enrichment center at Fordow, or its plutonium heavy-water reactor at Arak.

One would have hoped that Wendy Sherman’s candid February 2014 acknowledgments strengthened the resolve of those U.S. lawmakers who have questioned the sobriety of the P5 +1 interim deal with Iran. Those hopes have now been dashed by our Congressional “hollow men/

The stuffed men.”

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Deputy Commander Brigadier-General Hossein Salami made the following comments at a conference held in Tehran, which aired on Al-Alam TV on March 11, 2014:

Despite the geographical distance, we are attached to the hearts of the Palestinians. How is it that our slogans and goals are identical to the slogans and causes of the Palestinians? Why do we strive to become martyrs and risk our lives for the Palestinian cause? The answer is that the religion of Islam has designated this for us – this goal, this motivation, this belief, this energy – so that we, here, can muster all our energies in order to annihilate the Zionist entity, more than 1,400 kilometers away. We are ready for that moment in the future.

The Left says either the good general Salami doesn’t mean any of this, i.e., it is just “cultural bluster”—which of course shouldn’t be criticized at any rate, because that would be “racist.” The openly antisemitic hard Leftists admit they just don’t care if Israel is annihilated in a nuclear jihad.

Conservative “Iran shenasans”—(alleged) “Iran experts”—say he’s simply “distorting” Shiite Islam and we must be patient, support the Soylent Green Movement of Iranian Jeffersonian Democrats, and “regime replacement” will solve the Iranian nuke and all other such problems engendered by the  “distortion of Shiite Islam.” Ignore the hard data that show 83% support for Sharia in Iran—that too is “racist”—or if not racist, “Islamophobic”

Till now, those are your Iran policy options from the ones who control such discourse—and current or  planned actions—on the Left and Right.

 

Read bullet |

Obama’s SOTU Remarks and Iran’s Negotiations Jihad

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 - by Andrew G. Bostom

During last evening’s (January 28, 2014) State of the Union speech, President Obama not only claimed “American diplomacy” had somehow “halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program,” he peevishly threatened,

[L]et me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it.

His comments represented the apotheosis of a surreal tragicomedy of U.S. diplomatic failure that has unfolded over the past two months.

Less than three weeks after the November 24, 2013 announcement of an interim agreement between Iran, the U.S., and five other world powers, during an interview which aired December 11, 2013, Iranian Middle East analyst Mohammad Sadeq al-Hosseini, provided a candid assessment of the negotiations. El-Hosseini, a former political advisor to both Iran’s alleged reformist ex-President Khatami, and the Khatami regime’s erstwhile Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Ata’ollah Mohajerani (also deemed a “moderate”), underscored the ancient Islamic doctrinal bases for the contemporary Iranian theocracy’s geo-politics. Invoking the armistice “Treaty of Hudaybiyya” agreement between Muhammad and the 7th century pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, which Islam’s prophet-warrior unilaterally abrogated as soon Muhammad’s jihadist forces achieved the military superiority needed to vanquish his Meccan foes, el-Hosseini declared:

This is the Treaty of Hudaybiyya in Geneva, and it will be followed by a “conquest of Mecca.”

Consistent with Muhammad’s tactical formulation when waging jihad, “War is deceit” (from the canonical hadith “traditions” of the Muslim prophet), the Islamic doctrine of takiya, or kitman (“concealment”; “disguise”),and the modern parallel of Soviet Communist deceit and conspiracy (especially during arms control negotiations), el-Hosseini also noted,

Incidentally, for your information, when you conduct political negotiations with Iran, you lose even when you think you have won. The [Iranians] have raised the level of uranium enrichment far beyond the level they really needed, so that when the level would be lowered, they would emerge victorious.

El-Hosseini further insisted the Geneva deal augured America’s eventual jihad conquest during Iran’s ongoing “fierce war with Americans on all levels.” While this claim appears dubious, at present, El-Hosseini contended, appositely, that the agreement marked near-term U.S. capitulation to Iran’s oft-repeated threat to destroy Israel by jihad—including via nuclear weapons.

Obama had to make a great retreat. He was forced to accept a handshake from President Rohani [Rouhani], whom he considered a kind of Gorbachev or Sadat, so that the day would not come when he would be forced to kiss the hands of [Secretary General of Lebanese Hezbollah]Hassan Nasrallah and [Supreme Leader of Iran] Imam Khamenei, so that they would hold their fire in the great war that was prepared to annihilate Israel.

Thursday, December 9, 2013, Ali Akbar Salehi, current head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), and touted as a “pragmatist,” proclaimed triumphantly, “Our centrifuges are working full capacity.” Within a week later, Marzieh Afkham, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, projecting Tehran’s official narrative in reference to the Geneva accord, commented that there was in fact, “no treaty and no pact, only a statement of intent.” Echoing this line, the Iranian daily Kayhan, published by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s office, maintained in a Sunday, 12/15/13 editorial that the accord’s six month time frame meant nothing, and it could “even take 20 years to negotiate” a final agreement. 73 Khamenei’s mouthpiece Kayhan concluded bluntly,

If our centrifuges do not continue to turn, no other wheel shall turn for our dignity, independence, power and security.

These statements were representative of a host of other similar pronouncements made by Iranian diplomats, politicians, clerics, and other officials, since the Geneva accord was announced (1/24/13), through the end of December, 2013, and well into January, 2014. Such rhetorical Iranian interpretation of the recent agreement was accompanied by actions demonstrating Iran was tenaciously pursuing the full gamut of its nuclear aspirations, undaunted. Other salient examples of this consistent Iranian trend—both rhetoric and actions—are presented below, chronologically:

  • President Rouhani told the Financial Times, in an interview published 11/29/13, that dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities was a “red line” Iran would not cross, and that the nation would set its own concentration limits for uranium enrichment.
  • Mansour Haqiqatpour, Vice-Chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, told the Fars News Agency on 12/9/13, that “Iran’s enrichment right,” was “recognized,” and “the Americans can’t take this right away from us.” His declaration reiterated a prior statement made by Seyed Abbas Araqchi, a senior Iranian negotiator in the “P5 + 1” talks, who insisted Iran’s right to enrich uranium was a (another) “red line” sanctioned by the Geneva deal itself.
  • On December 12, 2013, AEOI chief Salehi re-affirmed his 12/9/03 statement about the pace of uranium enrichment continuing at “full capacity,” dismissing as “baseless and wrong” contentions that aspects of Iran’s nuclear activities had been slowed. Iran “will never cross its red lines or give up its…inalienable right” to enrich uranium, Saleh added. Saleh also insisted “there will be no more inspection” of Arak’s heavy-water plutonium reactor facilities.
  • December 16th and 17th, 2013, Iran’s Foreign Minister Muhammad Zarif, protested the move by the U.S. Congress to legislate a regimen of bolstered economic sanctions, while maintaining, defiantly,

It shows a lack of understanding of how to proceed in order to resolve the nuclear issue. Some people are wedded to the idea that pressure will produce results. They are wrong. Pressure has produced 18,000 centrifuges in Iran. So if they want to continue that road – it is open to them, but it doesn’t produce any results.

  • On December 27, 2013—capitalizing on an obvious loophole defect in the Geneva interim agreement—Salehi announced that Iran would be producing new, more sophisticated centrifuges, capable of enriching uranium faster.
  • By December 29, 2013, senior Iranian Parliamentarians announced they had obtained 200 co-sponsors from among their colleagues for a bill requiring Iran’s government to enrich uranium to 60%, complete the nuclear infrastructures at the Fordo and Natanz installations, and launch the Arak heavy water plutonium reactor. Saturday January 4, 2014, the Fars News Agency reported a claim by Seyed Mehdi Moussavinejad, a member of the parliament’s Energy Commission, that this “double-urgency bill, signed by 218 legislators,” was presented to the “Presiding Board,” and submitted to the parliament’s speaker, Ali Larijani. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and senior negotiator in the P5 +1 talks Araqchi further maintained that if the Iranian parliament approves the draft bill, it will be binding for the government.
  • Friday January 3, 2014, parliamentarian and cleric Muhammad Nabavian stated brazenly (as per Iranian press reports, independently reviewed and translated by The Washington Free Beacon) that Iran would be able to build a nuclear bomb in “two weeks” if it obtains “access to 270 kilograms of 20 percent [enriched uranium], 10 tons of 5 percent, and 20 thousand centrifuges.” Nabavian added, “We are not looking for a nuclear bomb, but having a nuclear bomb is necessary to put down Israel.”
  • By Tuesday, January 14, 2014, President Rouhani was brazen enough to gloat about the “P5 + 1” Geneva accord, via his twitter account (tweet reproduced below as text, and a screen shot). He crowed that the U.S. et al (at Geneva) had acquiesced to the “Iranian nation’s” own perceived nuclear goals:

rouhani-tweet

Our relationship w/ the world is based on Iranian nation’s interests. In #Geneva agreement world powers surrendered to Iranian nation’s will.

Read bullet |

Nuke Deal Fiasco Analyses Ignore Iran’s Genocidal Islamic Jew-Hatred

Monday, November 25th, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, Iran’s President Rouhani, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, all concur on this critical outcome of the interim agreement struck between Iran, the U.S. and five other world powers, announced early Sunday morning, 11/24/13: Iran’s nuclear enrichment program will continue apace.

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a not-for-profit, non-partisan, advocacy group which seeks to thwart Iran’s ambition to obtain nuclear weapons, issued a press release highlighting the fundamental strategic failures of the interim 6-month pact:

By not agreeing to dismantle a single centrifuge, Iran has not rolled back its nuclear infrastructure and with the many centrifuges that it is currently operating, Iran retains the ability to breakout and produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon in as little as 2 months. At the same time, the carefully constructed sanctions architecture developed over decades has been significantly rolled back.

UANI argued further that the Geneva agreement provided Iran disproportionate sanctions relief, which would enable the Iranian economy (as gauged by the value of its currency, the rial) to recover to an extent that Iran’s nuclear weapons development (i.e., nuclear enrichment, and plutonium generation) programs, would be abetted by this reduction in economic pressures.

Six months from now we believe that the Iranian rial will have regained significant lost value and there will be far less economic pressure on the Iranian economy. And accordingly there will be far less pressure for Iran to actually dismantle a material number of centrifuges, much less end its nuclear enrichment and plutonium programs for which it has no practical purpose except to produce a nuclear weapon. If Iran’s industrial-size nuclear program is not rolled back, Tehran will inherently maintain the breakout capacity to build such a weapon.

While a number of equally sobering assessments (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) have reiterated UANI’s tocsin of looming geo-strategic calamity regarding the so-called “P5 + 1” agreement just brokered with Iran, the ideology animating Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons—apocalyptic, annihilationist Islamic Jew-hatred—was uniformly ignored.

For the past decade, in essays (here, and in a three part series, 1, 2, & 3), and my lengthy compendium, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, I have elucidated Shiite Iran’s half millennial history of Jew-hatred—its canonical Islamic origins, and the brutally oppressive, intermittently murderous impact of this doctrine on Iranian Jewry.

E. G. Browne, a Persianophilic British scholar, wrote the following words in the 1920s about the entire period of Shiite theocratic rule, from the ascension of the first Safavid shah, Ismail I, at the outset of the 16th century, through Reza Shah Pahlavi’s installation in 1925, marking the end of the Qajar dynasty (and punctuated by dramatic secular reforms):

The Mujtahids [authoritative interpreters of Islamic law] and Mulla are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics.

These Shiite clerics emphasized the notion of the ritual uncleanliness (najis) of Jews in particular, but also of Christians, Zoroastrians, and others, as the cornerstone of relations toward non-Muslims. The impact of this najis conception was already apparent to European visitors to Persia during the reign Ismail I. The Portuguese traveler Tome Pires observed (between 1512 and 1515) that “Sheikh Ismail . . . never spares the life of any Jew,” while another European travelogue notes “the great hatred [Ismail I] bears against the Jews.”

Mohammad Baqer al-Majlisi (d. 1699) was perhaps the most influential cleric of the Safavid Shiite theocracy in Persia. For six years at the end of the 17th century, he functioned as the de facto ruler of Iran, making him the Ayatollah Khomeini of his era. By design, he wrote many works in Persian to disseminate key aspects of the Shia ethos among ordinary persons. In his Persian treatise “Lightning Bolts Against the Jews,” Al-Majlisi describes the standard humiliating requisites for non-Muslims living under sharia, first and foremost the blood-ransom jizya, or poll-tax, based on Koran 9:29.

He then enumerates six other restrictions relating to worship, housing, dress, transportation, and weapons, before outlining the unique Shiite impurity or najis regulations. It is these latter najis prohibitions which lead anthropology professor Laurence Loeb — who studied and lived within the Jewish community of Southern Iran in the early 1970s — to observe, “Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behavior by Muslims.” According to Al-Majlisi:

And, that they should not enter the pool while a Muslim is bathing at the public baths . . . If something can be purified, such as clothes, if they are dry, they can be accepted, they are clean. But if they [the dhimmis] had come into contact with those cloths in moisture they should be rinsed with water after being obtained. . . . It would also be better if the ruler of the Muslims would establish that all infidels could not move out of their homes on days when it rains or snows because they would make Muslims impure.

Walter Fischel, the preeminent modern historian of Iranian Jewry, has described, in addition, the severe hardships imposed upon Iranian Jews because of their image as sorcerers and practitioners of black magic, which was “as deeply embedded in the minds of the [Muslim] masses as it had been in medieval Europe” [emphasis added]. The consequences of these bigoted superstitions were predictable:

It was therefore easy to arouse their [the Muslim masses] fears and suspicions at the slightest provocation, and to accuse them [the Jews] of possessing cabalistic Hebrew writings, amulets, talismans, segulot, goralot, and refu’ot, which they [the Jews] were using against the Islamic authorities.

This hateful brew of dehumanizing “impurity” regulations, and the popular conception that Jews engaged in “sorcery,” fomented recurring Muslim anti-Jewish violence, including pogroms and forced conversions throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, which rendered areas of Iran Judenrein — free of Jews.

The so-called “Khomeini revolution,” which in 1979 deposed the secular, Western-oriented regime of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, was in reality a mere return in full (including najis regulations, etc.) to oppressive Shiite theocratic rule, the predominant form of Iranian governance during four centuries. Conditions for all non-Muslim religious minorities, particularly Jews, rapidly deteriorated. Although the demographic decline of Iranian Jewry after the creation of Israel was significant even before the revolution — from nearly 120,000 in 1948 to roughly 70,000 in 1978— the Jewish population dropped precipitously after Khomeini’s ascent to less than 9000 at present.

Read bullet |

Sunni Muslim Pope Sanctions Islamic Jew-Hatred Based Upon Koran 5:82

Thursday, November 21st, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Since its founding in 973 C.E., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented a pinnacle of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Unfortunately, during that same millennium, through the present era, Al Azhar and its leading clerics have represented and espoused the unreformed, unrepentant jihad bellicosity and infidel hatred at the core of mainstream, institutional Islam.

Al Azhar’s contemporary espousal of sacralized Islamic animosity has been directed, unsurprisingly, against Jews and Israel, dating back to the 20th century origins, and ultimate creation, of the modern Jewish State. Despite nearly universal willful blindness by media, academic, and policymaking elites, this critical issue of sacralized incitement of Muslim Jew-hatred by Islam’s Sunni Muslim Vatican, remains center stage.

Ahmad Al-Tayeb, as current Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, is the Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent. During an interview with Al-Tayeb, which recently aired on Channel 1, Egyptian TV, October 25, 2013, the Al-Azhar Grand Imam gave a brief explanation of the ongoing relevance of the Koranic verse 5:82 (sura, or chapter 5, verse 82) has been invoked—“successfully”—to inspire Muslim hatred of Jews since the advent of Islam:

A verse in the Koran explains the Muslims’ relations with the Jews and the polytheists. The second part of the verse describes the Muslims’ relations with the Christians, and the third part of the verse explains why the Christians are the closest and most friendly to the Muslims. This is an historical perspective, which has not changed to this day. See how we suffer today from global Zionism and Judaism, whereas our peaceful coexistence with the Christians has withstood the test of history. Since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago, we have been suffering from Jewish and Zionist interference in Muslim affairs. This is a cause of great distress for the Muslims. The Koran said it and history has proven it: “You shall find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers to be the Jews and the polytheists.” This is the first part. The second part is: “You shall find the closest in love to the believers to be those who say: ‘We are Christians’.” The third part explains why the Christians are “the closest in love to the believers,” while the Jews and the polytheists are the exact opposite.

Grand Imam Al-Tayaeb’s assessment is upheld by a continuum of authoritative Koranic exegeses that span over a thousand years, till now. The classical Koranic commentaries on Koran 5:82 by al-Tabari (d. 923), Zamakashari (d. 1143), Baydawi (d. 1316), and Ibn Kathir demonstrate a uniformity of opinion regarding the animus of the Jews toward the Muslims, which is repeatedly linked to the curse of Koran 2:61 (i.e., for killing prophets, and transgressing against the will of Allah, repeated at verses including 2:90-91, 3:112, 3:181, and 4:155):

[Tabari]: In my (Tabari’s) opinion, (the Christians) are not like the Jews who always scheme in order to murder the emissaries and the prophets, and who oppose Allah in his positive and negative commandments, and who corrupt His scripture which He revealed in His books.

[Zamakshari]: Here Allah portrays the Jews as being unyielding and as acknowledging the truth only grudgingly. . . . On account of their vehement enmity against the believers, Allah places the Jews together with the idolaters; indeed, going even further, he shows them to be at the head, since they are mentioned before the idolaters. Allah does the same in his words: “And thou shalt find them (the Jews) the eagerest of men for life—even more so than the idolaters. Each of them wishes he could be given a life of a thousand years; but the grant of life would not save him from chastisement—for God sees well all that they do!” (sura 2:96/90). The Jews are surely like this, and even worse! From the Prophet (the following is related): “If a Muslim is alone with two Jews, they will try to kill him.”. . . The Jews focused their hostility to the Muslims in the most overt and intense manner . . .

[Baydawi]: [B]ecause of [the Jews’] intense obstinacy, multifaceted disbelief, and their addiction to following their whims, their adherence to the blind following of their tradition, their distancing themselves from the truth, and their unrelenting denial of, and hostility toward, the prophets . . . [the Christians] . . . easiness to deal with, the softness of their hearts, their dismissal of gain in this world, and their serious concern with learning and good deeds . . .their acceptance of the truth as soon as they understand it; or, because of their humility as opposed to the arrogance of the Jews.

[Ibn Kathir]: Allah said, “Verily you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers the Jews and those who commit Shirk [i.e., the polytheists, or idolaters].” This describes the Jews, since their disbelief is that of rebellion, defiance, opposing the truth, belittling other people, and degrading the scholars. This is why the Jews—may Allah’s continued curses descend on them until the Day of Resurrection—killed many of their Prophets and tried to kill the Messenger of Allah several times, as well as performing magic spells against him and poisoning him. They also incited their likes among the polytheists against the Prophet.

Maulana Muhammad Shafi (1898-1976), a former grand mufti of India (prior to the August, 1947 partition), was the author of Maariful Qur’an, which remains the best-known Koranic commentary in Urdu. He also wrote more than three hundred books, and in addition to these literary works, broadcasted his Koranic commentary on Radio Pakistan for a number of years. Mufti Shafi’s modern gloss on Koran 5:82 in Maariful Qur’an confirms its classical exegesis, noting that the vast preponderance of Jews felt an unremitting malice toward the Muslims, and a lust for the “material pleasures of mortal life”—the rare exceptions to this rule (for example, Abdullah ibn Salam), became Muslims!

A remarkable essay by the polymath Arabic writer al-Jahiz (d. 869), composed in the mid 9th century C.E., illustrates how the anti-Jewish attitudes already prevalent within an important early Islamic society—the seat of the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate—were influenced by Koran 5:82, and its common understanding by the Muslim masses. Al-Jahiz’s essay—an anti-Christian polemic believed to have been commissioned by the Abbasid caliph al-Mutawakkil (d. 861), who inaugurated a literary campaign against the Christians—explores the reasons why the Muslim masses prefer the Christians to the Jews. This empirical preference (although decried by the author) is acknowledged by al-Jahiz from the outset:

I shall begin to enumerate the causes which made the Christians more liked by the masses than the Magians [Zoroastrians], and made men consider them more sincere than the Jews, more endeared, less treacherous, less unbelieving, and less deserving of punishment. For all this there are manifold and evident causes.

Al-Jahiz offers two primary explanations for this abiding hostility of the Muslim rank and file toward the Jews. First was the “rancorous” relationship between the early Muslim community, exiles from Mecca, and their Jewish neighbors in Medina:

When the [Muslim] Emigrants [from Mecca] became the neighbors of the Jews [in Medina] . . .the Jews began to envy the Muslims the blessings of their new faith, and the union which resulted after dissension. They proceeded to undermine the belief of our [i.e., the Muslim] masses, and to lead them astray. They aided our enemies and those envious of us. From mere misleading speech and stinging words they plunged into an open declaration of enmity, so that the Muslims mobilized their forces, exerting themselves morally and materially to banish the Jews and destroy them. Their strife became long-drawn and widespread, so that it worked itself up into a rage, and created yet greater animosity and more intensified rancor. The Christians, however, because of their remoteness from Mecca and Medina, did not have to put up with religious controversies, and did not have occasion to stir up trouble, and be involved in war. That was the first cause of our dislike of the Jews, and our partiality toward the Christians.

However, al-Jahiz then identifies as “the most potent cause” of this particular animus toward the Jews, Koran 5:82, and its interpretation by the contemporary (i.e., mid-ninth-century) Muslim masses.

The travelogue accounts of Edward William Lane (originally published in 1835), a great Arabic linguist, record Lane’s observations of Egyptian society, including his testimony on the difference between the attitude of Egyptian Muslims toward the Jews and the Christians. One thousand years after al-Jahiz, Lane re-affirms the prominent, ongoing influence of Koran 5:82:

They [the Jews] are held in the utmost contempt and abhorrence by the Muslims in general, and they are said to bear a more inveterate hatred than any other people to the Muslims and the Muslim religion. It is said, in the Koran [quoting 5:82] “Thou shalt surely find the most violent all men to those who have believed to be the Jews . . . ”

Lane further notes:

It is a common saying among the Muslims in this country, “Such one hates me with the hate of the Jews.” We cannot wonder, then, that the Jews are detested far more than are the Christians. Not long ago, they used often to be jostled in the streets of Cairo, and sometimes beaten for merely passing on the right hand of a Muslim. At present, they are less oppressed: but still they scarcely ever dare to utter a word of abuse when reviled or beaten unjustly by the meanest Arab or Turk; for many a Jew has been put to death upon a false and malicious accusation of uttering disrespectful words against the Koran or the Prophet. It is common to hear an Arab abuse his jaded ass, and, after applying to him various opprobrious epithets, end by calling the beast a Jew.

A century after Lane’s observations were published, the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, pre-eminent Muslim leader of his era, and founder of the jihadist Palestinian Muslim movement, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, issued a 1937 proclamation seeking to galvanize the global Muslim umma (community) for a jihad to annihilate Palestinian Jewry, and abort a modern re-establishment of the pre-Islamic nation of Israel on any portion of the Jews’ ancestral homeland. As I document in my newly released monograph, The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred, el-Husseini ends his own litany of Jew-hating motifs from the Koran in the 1937 proclamation with this same verse, Koran 5:82.

Current Al-Azhar Grand Imam al-Tayeb’s invocation of Koranic Jew-hatred (especially, 5:82) represents a modern historical continuum from Hajj Amin el-Husseini, and more directly his immediate predecessor, the late Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi—Grand Imam of Al-Azhar from 1996, till his death in March, 2010. My extensive and fully representative extracts in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism from Tantawi’s magnum opus—an utterly vile 700 pp. tract glorifying Islam’s incomparable output of doctrinal Jew-hatred from its core texts, i.e. the Koran, most important Koranic commentaries, and Sunna (i.e., alleged “traditions” of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the nascent Muslim community)—is irrefragable proof of his convictions. Here an extract that bears repeating (from p. 394):

the Jews always remain maleficent deniers….they should desist from their negative denial…some Jews went way overboard in their denying hostility, so gentle persuasion can do no good with them, so use force with them and treat them in the way you see as effective in ridding them of their evil. One may go so far as to ban their religion, their persons, their wealth, and their villages.

Tantawi also wrote these words in his 700 page treatise—originally, his Al-Azhar University Ph.D. thesis—rationalizing Muslim Jew-hatred:

[The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah [Koran 2:61/ 3:112], corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word…[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims [Koran 3:113], the bad ones do not.

Tantawi was apparently rewarded for this scholarly effort by subsequently being named Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University. These were the expressed, “carefully researched” views on Jews held by the nearest Muslim equivalent to a Pope—a man who for 14 years headed the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam, which represents some 85 to 90% of the world’s Muslims. And Sheikh Tantawi never mollified such hatemongering beliefs after becoming the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar as his statements on “dialogue” (January 1998) with Jews, the Jews as “enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs” (April 2002), and the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews (April 2002), made clear.

Tantawi’s statements on dialogue, which were issued shortly after he met with the Israel’s Chief Rabbi, Israel Meir Lau, in Cairo, on December 15, 1997, provided him another opportunity to re-affirm his ongoing commitment to the views expressed about Jews in his Ph.D. thesis:

anyone who avoids meeting with the enemies in order to counter their dubious claims and stick fingers into their eyes, is a coward.  My stance stems from Allah’s book [the Koran], more than one-third of which deals with the Jews…[I] wrote a dissertation dealing with them [the Jews], all their false claims and their punishment by Allah.  I still believe in everything written in that dissertation. [i.e., Jews in the Koran and the Traditions, cited above]

Sadly, Tantawi’s antisemitic formulations are well-grounded in classical, mainstream Islamic theology. However, understanding and acknowledging the Koranic origins of Islamic antisemitism is not a justification for the unreformed, unrepentant modern endorsement of these hateful motifs by Tantawi—with predictably murderous consequences. Within days of the Netanya homicide bombing massacre on a Passover seder night, March 27, 2002, for example, Sheikh Tantawi issued an abhorrent sanction (April 4, 2002) of so-called “martyrdom operations,” even when directed at Israeli civilians.

And during November, 2002 (“Tantawi: No Antisemitism” Associated Press 11/19/2002; also archived here), consistent with his triumphant denial, Sheikh Tantawi made the following statement in response to criticism over the virulently antisemitic Egyptian television series (“Horseman Without a Horse”), based on the Czarist Russia forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”:

Suppose that the series has some criticism or shows some of the Jews’ traits, this doesn’t necessitate an uproar…The accusation of antisemitism was invented by the Jews as a means to pressure Arabs and Muslims to implement their schemes in the Arab and Muslim countries, so don’t pay attention to them.

January 22, 2008, it was reported that Tantawi cancelled what would have been an historic visit to the Rome synagogue by the imam of Rome’s mosque (Ala Eldin Mohammed Ismail al-Ghobash). The putative excuse for this cancellation was Israel’s self-defensive stance—a blockade—in response to acts of jihad terrorism (rocket barrages; attempted armed incursions) emanating from Gaza. The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, commenting aptly about these events, observed that the cancellation proved, “…even so called Muslim moderates share the ideology of hate, violence and death towards the Jewish state.” Al Azhar, Corriere della Sera, further argued, which constituted a “Vatican of Sunni Islam,” had in effect issued “a kind of fatwah.” The paper concluded by noting that “What the Cairo statement really means is that Muslim dialogue with Jews in Italy is only possible once Israel has been eliminated.”

Both Tantawi’s and his successor Ahmad Al-Tayeb’s career trajectories to the pinnacle of Sunni Islamic religious education, despite their own public endorsements of virulent, if “sacralized” Islamic Jew-hatred, reflect the profound moral pathology at the very heart and soul of mainstream, institutional Islam.

 

 

Read bullet |

Ashura, Shi’ism,…and Yet Another ‘Jewish Conspiracy Against Islam’

Monday, November 18th, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Last week, marked the gruesome and bloody spectacle which punctuates the annual Shiite Muslim celebration of Ashura (the 10th day of the month of Muharram, the first month of the Islamic calendar). This date serves as a memorial for slain Shiite leader Hussein bin Ali, executed by order of Sunni Caliph Yazid bin Muawiyah in 680 C.E. Following his decapitation, Hussein’s head was brought to Damascus, the seat of the Umayyad Caliphate of Yazid and displayed for a month, culminating (temporarily) a furious period of internecine strife in early Islamic history, whose sanguinary and brutal sectarian legacy is still manifest today, most notably in Syria, and Iraq.

While such narrative accounts of Sunni-Shiite sectarian strife are routinely shared by non-Muslim pundits, these experts never reveal its dark theological underpinning: Islam’s most bitter and lasting internecine struggle is yet another “Jewish conspiracy.” As put forth in seminal early Muslim historiography (for example, by Tabari, d. 923), Abd Allah b. Saba, an alleged renegade Yemenite Jew is claimed to be the founder of the heterodox Shiite sect. He is held responsible—identified as a Jew—for promoting the Shiite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s “political innocence,” culminating in the assassination of the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, and the bitter, lasting legacy of Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian strife. Here are key extracts from Tabari’s account:

Abd Allah b. Saba’ was a Yemenite Jew. . . . He later converted to Islam in the time of [Caliph] Uthman. Then he traveled through the lands of the Muslims trying to lead them into error. . . . [For example] in Egypt he promulgated to the people the [heterodox] doctrine of the Return [of Muhammad as Messiah]. So the Egyptians discussed this idea. Then, after that, he said that there were one thousand prophets, each of whom had an agent; and that Ali was Muhammad’s agent. Then he said, Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets and Ali was the Seal of the Agents. Also, he asked: “Who is more evil than those who denied Muhammad’s designation of Ali as his agent-successor, pounced upon this successor- designate of Ali’s messenger and seized (illegitimately) the rulership of the Muslim community?” [In answer to this question as it were,] he told the Egyptians that Uthman had seized power illegitimately while Ali was, in fact, the agent-successor of Allah’s messenger. “Rebel against this illegitimate rule, provoke it, and challenge your rulers . . .” [said ‘Abd Allah b. Saba’].

Over a millennium later, at the momentous international gathering of Muslim religious authorities, sponsored by Sunni Islam’s Vatican, Al-Azhar University, the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, September, 1968, Al-Azhar Professor Muhammad El-Sayyed Husein Al-Dahabi, declared,

Among the leading figures of heresy and sectarianism was Abdullah ibn Saba the Jew, who feigned to be a Muslim, disguising his unbelief, making a show of supporting the Prophet’s offspring (Alu-l-Bait), so as to deceive Muslims and to propagate among them his heretical and noxious views… [T]he earliest heresiarch, Abdullah ibn Saba, who was the foremost leader of sedition and heterodoxy. He, with his adherents,… feigned to be devout Muslim, and went to all lengths in their deceitfulness, by simulating to be the most fervent supporters of the offspring of the Prophet, so as to corrupt the beliefs of Muslims.

Finally a Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom review of Saudi Arabian textbooks, circa 2008 (“Update: Saudi Arabia’s Curriculum of Intolerance”), demonstrated that this traditionalist, mainstream example of Sunni Islam’s conspiratorial Jew-hatred was still being inculcated amongst Muslim youth:

The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims). He was ‘Abd Allah b. Saba’ (from the Jews of Yemen). * began spewing his malice and venom against the third of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, ‘Uthman (may God be pleased with him), and falsely accused him.” (Tawhid: Literature, Science, and Qur’an Memorization Section, Twelfth Grade. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ministry of Education. Education Development, 1428-1429; 2007-2008, p. 78.)

Ignoring this mainstream Sunni Islamic narrative—redolent with conspiratorial Jew-hatred—is yet another salient example of the prevailing willful blindness to institutional Islam’s unreformed and unrepentant canonical antisemitism.

 

 

 

Read bullet |

A Poisonous Legacy: Palestinian Muslim Incitement From Islam’s Jew-Hating Canon

Wednesday, November 13th, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Yesterday (11/12/13) Palestinian Media Watch released video extracts of a November 8, 2013 sermon broadcast on the official Palestinian Authority (PA) TV network by PA Minister of Religious Affairs, al-Habbash. The good Minister insisted (despite expert forensic opinion to the contrary) Yasir Arafat was poisoned by Jews.

Validating my analysis of the founder of the modern Palestinian Arab Muslim jihadist movement, ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, in a monograph just published 11/9/13, al-Habbash invoked the alleged poisoning of Islam’s prophet Muhammad by a Khaybar Jewess. This salient example of  Islam’s ancient, Jew-hating canon (i.e., in the hadith and sira) was promulgated by el-Husseini, notably in a 1937 “fatwa,” which sought to galvanize the global Muslim umma to wage an annihilationist jihad for the destruction of Palestinian Jewry. El-Husseini’s accurate recapitulation of the canonical Muslim source narrative, in his 1937 proclamation, maintains:

The Muslims conquered Khaybar, drove out most of the Jews, while Muhammad concluded a treaty with the remaining Jews and assured the peace. Only after this devastating blow could the Islamic realm develop peacefully. It is, however, no wonder, considering Jewish character, that the Jews did not give up their dark plans in spite of the agreed treaty, and tried by all means to destroy Muhammad. They invited Muhammad to a banquet and he accepted the invitation without suspicion. Splendidly roasted lamb was set before him, which was served him by Zaynab, the Jewess, the wife of Sallam b. Mishkam. There was talk about the treaty and the good understanding which now prevailed, and nothing was further from Muhammad’s mind than to suspect treachery. Muhammad and his faithful follower Bishr b. al-Baraa each took a piece of the lamb, but Muhammad did not swallow his, because he noticed an odd flavor and said “The bone tells me that the lamb is poisoned.” Muhammad had Zaynab the Jewess summoned and asked whether this meat was in fact poisoned. She answered: “You know that I have a good reputation among the Jews, and I admit that I poisoned the lamb. I thought that, if you are only a king, I would be killing a king, but if you are a true prophet, you would know that the meat was poisoned.” Muhammad’s companion died as a result of the poison. The little bit of poison that Muhammad had on his tongue became more and more noticeable, and there are historians who attribute his death to the effects of this poison. They refer to a hadith passed on by Abu Huraira in which Muhammad shortly before his death said: “The meal of Khaybar makes itself noticed repeatedly until I die.” The Muslims must think again and again of the meal of Khaybar. If the Jews could be so treacherous to Muhammad, how treacherous will they be to them.

The verbatim canonical hadith which chronicle Muhammad’s alleged poisoning by a Khaybar Jewess (reproduced below, and referenced here), confirm el-Husseini’s paraphrase of these accounts. (However, el-Husseini did incorrectly attribute to Abu Huraira the hadith reports of Aisha and Anas which recorded the long-term, purportedly terminal effects of Muhammad’s poisoning. Abu Huraira did describe the poisoning, but not its ostensibly chronic, lethal impact.)

Ibn Abbas replied, “That indicated the death of Allah’s Apostle which Allah informed him of.” Umar said, “I do not understand of it except what you understand.” Narrated Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

Anas reported that a Jewess came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) with poisoned mutton and he took of that what had been brought to him (Allah’s Messenger). (When the effect of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: “I had determined to kill you.” Thereupon he said: “Allah will never give you the power to do it.” He (the narrator) said that they (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: “Should we not kill her?” Thereupon he said: “No.” He (Anas) said: “I felt (the affects of this poison) on the uvula of Allah’s Messenger.”

Narrated Abu Huraira: When Khaibar was conquered, a (cooked) sheep containing poison, was given as a present to Allah’s Apostle.

Narrated Abu Huraira: When Khaibar was conquered, Allah’s Apostle was presented with a poisoned (roasted) sheep. Allah’s Apostle said, “Collect for me all the Jews present in this area.” (When they were gathered) Allah’s Apostle said to them, “I am going to ask you about something; will you tell me the truth?” They replied, “Yes, O Abal-Qasim!” Allah’s Apostle said to them, “Who is your father?” They said, “Our father is so-and-so.” Allah’s Apostle said, “You have told a lie. for your father is so-and-so,” They said, “No doubt, you have said the truth and done the correct thing.” He again said to them, “If I ask you about something; will you tell me the truth?” They replied, “Yes, O Abal-Qasim! And if we should tell a lie you will know it as you have known it regarding our father,” Allah’s Apostle then asked, “Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?” They replied, “We will remain in the (Hell) Fire for a while and then you (Muslims) will replace us in it” Allah’s Apostle said to them. “You will abide in it with ignominy. By Allah, we shall never replace you in it at all.” Then he asked them again, “If I ask you something, will you tell me the truth?” They replied, “Yes.” He asked. “Have you put the poison in this roasted sheep?” They replied, “Yes,” He asked, “What made you do that?” They replied, “We intended to learn if you were a liar in which case we would be relieved from you, and if you were a prophet then it would not harm you.”

Additional confirmation of el-Husseini’s overall narrative regarding Muhammad’s poisoning is provided by the sira accounts of Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Sa’d. Ibn Ishaq’s report concludes that Muhammad ultimately died from this poisoning episode, and notes his death was considered an act of “martyrdom”:

When the apostle had rested Zaynab d. al-Harith, the wife of Sallam b. Mishkam prepared for him a roast lamb, having first inquired what joint he preferred. When she learned that it was the shoulder she put a lot of poison in it and poisoned the whole lamb. Then she brought it in and placed it before him. He took hold of the shoulder and chewed a morsel of it, but he did not swallow it. Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur who was with him took some of it as the apostle had done, but he swallowed it, while the apostle spat it out, saying, “This bone tells me that it is poisoned.” Then he called for the woman and she confessed, and when he asked her what had induced her to do this she answered: “You know what you have done to my people. I said to myself, If he is a king I shall ease myself of him and if he is a prophet he will be informed (of what I have done).” So the apostle let her off. Bishr died from what he had eaten. Marwan b. Uthman b. Abu Sa’id b. al-Mu’alla told me: “The apostle had said in his illness of which he was to die when Umm Bishr d. al-Bara’ came to visit him, ‘O Umm Bishr, this is the time in which I feel a deadly pain from what I ate with your brother at Khaybar.’ ” The Muslims considered that the apostle died as a martyr in addition to the prophetic office with which God had honored him.

Ibn Sa’d (in his Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al- Kabir) focuses on the putative Jewish conspiracy behind Muhammad’s poisoning, while insisting adamantly that the Khaybar Jewess perpetrator was put to death:

The Jews discussed about poisons and became united in one poison. She [a Khaybar Jewess, Zaynab Bint al-Harith] poisoned the goat putting more poison in the forelegs. . . . The Apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. . . . The Apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab Bint al-Harith [and] . . . handed her over to the heirs of Bishr Ibn al-Barra [who the Jewess had also poisoned, leading to his rapid death] who put her to death. This is the approved version [emphasis added]. . . . The Apostle of Allah lived after this three years, till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: “I did not cease to find the effect of the poisoned morsel I took at Khaybar.”

Read bullet |

Ignoring the Sharia Basis for Iran’s Persecution of Christians

Monday, October 28th, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

A confluence of news stories last week, including, prominently, the release of a report by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran, have highlighted the plight of Iranian Christians.

The salient findings from Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed’s report (issued online Tuesday 10/22/13), were as follows:

Sources communicate that at least 20 Christians were in custody in July 2013. In addition, violations of the rights of Christians, particularly those belonging to evangelical Protestant groups, many of whom are converts, who proselytize to and serve Iranian Christians of Muslim background, continue to be reported. Authorities continue to compel licensed Protestant churches to restrict Persian-speaking and Muslim-born Iranians from participating in services, and raids and forced closures of house churches are ongoing. According to sources, more than 300 Christians have been arrested since 2010, and dozens of church leaders and active community members have reportedly been convicted of national security crimes in connection with church activities, such as organizing prayer groups, proselytizing and attending Christian seminars abroad.

His report further noted allegations of additional abuses, including “various forms of legal discrimination…in employment and education,” as well as frequent cases of “arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment.”

Monday, 10/21/13, a day before the Special Rapporteur’s report was issued, Eddie Romero, a retired California pastor, who managed to enter Iran surreptitiously, staged a protest before Iran’s infamous Evin prison. Repeatedly proclaiming, “Let my people go,” in Farsi, Romero attempted to draw attention to the predicament of at least four Iranians, incarcerated for converting from Islam to Christianity—Farshid Fathi, Saeed Abedini, Mostafa Bordbar, and Alireza Seyyedian. (Detained for 24-hours in Iran, Romero was released and returned safely to the U.S. by mid-week.)

Shahrokh Afshar, a pastor for the Iranian Church On The Way in Los Angeles, maintained Christian converts in Iran were imprisoned simply because they practiced their new faith. “Their greatest sin was leaving Islam to follow Christ,” he stated. One of the four imprisoned Christians, whose plight Pastor Romero was protesting, is Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen who has been incarcerated for over a year in Iran. His wife, Naghmeh, wrote a poignant depiction (published 9/25/13) of her husband’s ordeal on the bitter one year anniversary of his imprisonment.

Without warning, members of the Revolutionary Guard pulled him off of a bus and put him under house arrest in his parents’ home in Tehran. On September 26, 2012, members of the Guard came to the home and took him away — in chains — to Evin Prison, where he has remained ever since.

The following day, Wednesday 9/23/13, Christian Solidarity International published a report about a “verdict” an Iranian court issued on October 6th, which the named defendants received October 20th. Four members of the Church of Iran—Behzad Taalipasand, Mehdi Reza Omidi (Youhan), Mehdi Dadkhah (Danial) and Amir Hatemi (Youhanna)—were charged with drinking alcohol during a communion service, and possession of a receiver and satellite antenna. The court sentenced them to receive 80 lashes each, for these alleged “offenses.” Two of the “suspects,” Behzad Taalipasand and Mehdi Reza Omidi (Youhan), had been detained December 31, 2012, during an Iranian government crackdown on house churches. Chief Executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Mervyn Thomas, declared forthrightly,

The sentences handed down to these members of the Church of Iran effectively criminalize the Christian sacrament of sharing in the Lord’s Supper and constitute an unacceptable infringement on the right to practice faith freely and peaceably. We urge the Iranian authorities to ensure that the nation’s legal practices and procedures do not contradict its international obligation under the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to guarantee the full enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief by all of its religious communities.

With depressing predictability, the Sharia (Islamic law)-based dynamic which underpins such blatant—and grotesque—religious persecution, was ignored by the mainstream media, including conservative outlets. Even the following specific (if merely allusive) statement contained within the Special Rapporteur’s analysis itself, did not get repeated.

the [Iranian] Government…states that its Constitution recognizes only Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Judaism as minority religions and that adherents to those religions are entitled to manifest their beliefs, “within the limits of the law”, which is governed by Islamic sharia. [emphasis added]

For example, neither Benjamin Weinthal’s blog at NRO (“Iran’s Continued War on Christians,” 10/25/13), nor his lengthier Fox News piece (“Iran gives Christians 80 lashes for communion wine as UN blasts human rights record,” 10/24/13)—despite the fact that both accounts referenced Special Rapporteur Shaheed’s report—mentioned, let alone honestly elaborated upon, Shaheed’s allusion to sharia. Although Weinthal should not be singled out, per se, the discussion which follows demonstrates why his omission—pathognomonic of this consistent lacuna in contemporary “reportage” on Iran’s abuse of its vulnerable non-Muslim minority populations—is egregious, and unacceptable.

At the outset of the sixteenth century, Iran’s Safavid rulers formally established Shiite Islam as the state religion, while permitting a clerical hierarchy nearly unlimited control and influence over all aspects of public life. The profound influence of the Shiite clerical elite continued for almost four centuries (interrupted, between 1722–1795, by a period of Sunni Afghan invasion and dominance), through the later Qajar period (1795–1925), as characterized by the Persianophilic scholar, E. G. Browne:

The Mujtahids and Mulla are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics.

These Shiite clerics emphasized the notion of the ritual uncleanliness (najas) of Jews in particular, but also Christians, Zoroastrians, and others as the cornerstone of inter-confessional relationships toward non-Muslims. The impact of this najas conception was already apparent to European visitors to Persia in the first century of Safavid rule. During the reign of Shah Tahmasp I (d. 1576), the British merchant and traveler Anthony Jenkinson (a Christian), when finally granted an audience with the shah,

was required to wear “basmackes” [a kind of overshoes], because being a giaour [infidel], it was thought he would contaminate the imperial precincts . . . when he was dismissed from the Shah’s presence, [Jenkinson stated] “after me followed a man with a basanet of sand, sifting all the way that I had gone within the said palace”—as though covering something unclean.

Muhammad Baqer al-Majlisi (d. 1699), the highest institutionalized clerical officer under both Shah Sulayman (1666–1694) and Shah Husayn (1694–1722), was perhaps the most influential cleric of the Safavid Shiite theocracy in Persia. The writings and career of al-Majlisi elucidate the imposition of Islamic law (Sharia) on non-Muslims in Shiite Iran. For six years at the end of the 17th century, he functioned as the de facto ruler of Iran, making him the Ayatollah Khomeini of his era. By design, he wrote many works in Persian to disseminate key aspects of the Shia ethos among ordinary persons. His treatise, “Lightning Bolts against the Jews,” was written in Persian, and, despite its title, was actually an overall guideline to anti-dhimmi regulations for all non-Muslims within the Shi’ite theocracy. Al-Majlisi, in this treatise, describes the standard humiliating requisites for non-Muslim, “dhimmis” living under the Sharia, first and foremost, the blood ransom jizya, a poll tax based on Koran 9:29 (the tax of submission, “paid in lieu of being slain.”) He then enumerates six other restrictions relating to worship, housing, dress, transportation, and weapons (specifically, to render the dhimmis defenseless), before outlining the unique Shiite impurity or “najas” regulations. According to Al- Majlisi,

And, that they should not enter the pool while a Muslim is bathing at the public baths. . . . It is also incumbent upon Muslims that they should not accept from them victuals with which they had come into contact, such as distillates, which cannot be purified. If something can be purified, such as clothes, if they are dry, they can be accepted, they are clean. But if they [the dhimmis] had come into contact with those clothes in moisture they should be rinsed with water after being obtained. As for hide, or that which has been made of hide such as shoes and boots, and meat, whose religious cleanliness and lawfulness are conditional on the animal’s being slaughtered [according to the Sharia], these may not be taken from them. Similarly, liquids that have been preserved in skins, such as oils, grape syrup, [fruit] juices, myrobalan [an astringent fruit extract used in tanning], and the like, if they have been put in skin containers or water skins, these should [also] not be accepted from them. . . . It would also be better if the ruler of the Muslims would establish that all infidels could not move out of their homes on days when it rains or snows because they would make Muslims impure [emphasis added].

Ignaz Goldziher, the renowned late 19th through early 20th century Orientalist, believed that Shiite Islam manifested this greater doctrinal intolerance toward non-Muslims, relative to Sunni Islam, because of the Shiites’ “literalist” conception of najas:

On examining the legal documents, we find that the Shi’i [Shiite] legal position toward other faiths is much harsher and stiffer than that taken by Sunni Muslims. Their law reveals a heightened intolerance to people of other beliefs. . . . Of the severe rule in the Koran (9:28) that “unbelievers are unclean,” Sunni Islam has accepted an interpretation that is as good as a repeal. Shi’i law, on the other hand, has maintained the literal sense of the rule; it declares the bodily substance of the unbeliever to be ritually unclean, and lists the touching of an unbeliever among the ten things that produce najasa, [najas] ritual impurity.

The enduring nature of the fanatical najas regulation prohibiting dhimmis from being outdoors during rain and/or snow, is well established. For example, this account provided by the missionary Napier Malcolm, who lived in the Yezd area at the close of the nineteenth century:

They [the strict Shi’as] make a distinction between wet and dry; only a few years ago it was dangerous for an Armenian Christian to leave his suburb and go into the bazaars in Isfahan on a wet [rainy] day. “A wet dog [Christian infidel] is worse than a dry dog.”

Reza Pahlavi’s spectacular rise to power in 1925 was accompanied by dramatic reforms, including secularization and Westernization efforts, as well as a revitalization of Iran’s pre-Islamic spiritual and cultural heritage. This profound sociopolitical transformation had very positive consequences for Iranian non-Muslims. Historian Walter Fischel’s analysis from the late 1940s (published in 1950), underscores the impact of Reza Shah’s reforms:

In breaking the power of the Shia clergy, which for centuries had stood in the way of progress, he [Reza Shah] shaped a modernized and secularized state, freed almost entirely from the fetters of a once fanatical and powerful clergy.

Despite the expected opposition of the irredentist Shiite clergy, Sir Clarmont Skrine would record in his World War in Iran, that  the announcement of Reza Shah’s abdication,

…was received with gloom by the governing class and the younger generation who feared a return to the medieval, mulla-ridden Persia they thought they had left behind for good and all. This fear received some confirmation from the fact that very soon, for the first time in years, women appeared in the streets of Meshed in the chador enjoined by religion but forbidden by the late Shah.

Reza Shah’s abdication in 1941 (and death in 1944) was marked by a revival of Shiite Iranian clerical influence which reached its apogee during the premiership of Muhammad Mosaddeq (1951-1953). Allied to the clerics, who were also against external “domination,” Mossadeq’s regime, was punctuated, as F.R.C. Bagley notes, by

…sermons broadcast from loudspeakers in mosque-minarets [which] not infrequently denounced foreign manners, and many well-educated Iranian ladies resumed the veil…

Following the restoration of Iran’s own constitutional rule—suspended by Muhammad Mossadeq–Muhammad Reza Shah (Reza Shah’s son) was returned to his throne, and Mossadeq was replaced as Prime Minister. The Shah’s subsequent “White Revolution,” (which emphasized women’s suffrage), was in turn denounced by the Shiite clerical hierarchy (who felt women’s suffrage was “un-Islamic”).

The so-called Khomeini revolution, which deposed Mohammad Reza Shah, was in reality a mere return to oppressive Shiite theocratic rule, the predominant form of Persian/Iranian governance since 1502. Conditions for all non-Muslim religious minorities rapidly deteriorated.

The writings and speeches of the most influential religious ideologues of this restored Shiite theocracy—including Khomeini himself—make apparent their seamless connection to the oppressive doctrines of their forebears in the Safavid and Qajar dynasties. For example, Sultanhussein Tabandeh, the Iranian Shiite leader of the Ne’ematullahi Sultanalishahi Sufi Order, wrote an “Islamic perspective” on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to Professor Eliz Sanasarian’s important study of religious minorities in the contemporary Islamic Republic, Tabandeh’s tract became “the core ideological work upon which the Iranian government . . .based its non-Muslim policy.” Tabandeh begins his discussion by lauding as a champion “of the oppressed” Shah Ismail I (1502–1524), the repressive and bigoted founder of the Safavid dynasty who “bore hatred against the Jews and ordered their eyes to be gouged out if they happened to be found in his vicinity.” It is critical to understand that Tabandeh’s key views on non-Muslims, summarized below, were implemented “almost verbatim in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” In essence, Tabandeh simply reaffirms the sacralized inequality of non-Muslims relative to Muslims, under the Sharia:

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. Since the marriage of a Muslim woman to an infidel husband (in accordance with the verse quoted: ‘Men are guardians form women’) means her subordination to an infidel, that fact makes the marriage void, because it does not obey the conditions laid down to make a contract valid. As the Sura (“The Woman to be Examined,” [i.e., sura 60, specifically verse 60:10]) says: “Turn them not back to infidels: for they are not lawful unto infidels nor are infidels lawful unto them (i.e., in wedlock).”

Read bullet |

‘Sugary Drinks’ and Public Health Utopianism

Tuesday, October 15th, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Last year I became a Diplomate, American Board of Clinical Lipidology, having passed the rigorous certification exam by the National Lipid Association (NLA). This certification program was established for various specialists in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention treating, in particular, more complex disorders of lipid metabolism, whose most common manifestation is excessively high blood levels of cholesterol, and/or triglycerides. Untreated, or inadequately treated, such lipid disorders put patients at increased risk for de novo or recurrent clinical CVD (such as heart attacks, certain kinds of strokes, and diseases of the large arteries of the abdomen, and lower extremities), and in some instances, pancreatitis (dangerous, and potentially debilitating, or even fatal inflammation of the pancreas).

The NLA publishes a peer-reviewed academic medical journal, The Journal of Clinical Lipidology, to which I have contributed original research. “Lipid Spin,” is a clinically-oriented, non peer reviewed ancillary publication of the NLA. As part of my professional commitment to the NLA, I was assigned to write a short review and analysis of the opinion editorial, “Limiting ‘Sugary Drinks’ to Reduce Obesity — Who Decides?”, which originally appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on April 13, 2013. The clinically relevant tie-in, from NLA’s perspective, was that obesity, and obesity-related development of (type 2) diabetes (i.e., the most common adult form of the disease) are associated with increased risk for CVD, and the presence of mixed lipid disorders.

Having (willfully) ignored such NEJM “policy” op-eds in the past—the only NEJM “perspective” essays I read accompany the peer-reviewed, published results of major clinical trials, or epidemiological studies—this novel experience is related in some 500 words, below, which may (or may not) appear someday in “Lipid Spin.” These words should prove more broadly edifying (or just validating?) appearing herein. Suffice to say, the same doctrinaire Left claptrap that effortlessly pervades the rest of the academy, is also found in one of the medical academy’s “flagship” journals.

Res ipsa loquitur.

**

Mariner and Annas, in their April 3, 2013 NEJM “Perspective” essay, provide a generally informative legal discussion of the fate of The New York City Board of Health’s “sugary drinks” Portion Cap Rule, highlighting the grounds for its rejection in a March 11, 2013 ruling by New York County Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling. The Portion Cap Rule would have proscribed “sugary drinks,” defined as sugar (or another caloric sweetening agent) containing beverages with a caloric density of > 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces, and dispensed in volumes > 16 ounces.

Judge Tingling rendered his opinion based on four findings against the Rule: (1) he objected to the Rule being “laden” with arbitrary political and economic exceptions; (2) he denied the Board of Health’s authority to ostensibly “control” chronic disease by banning a legal product; (3) he claimed the Board of Health violated the separation-of-powers doctrine, exceeding its administrative purview, and acting like a legislative body; (4) he cited other arbitrary and capricious features of the Rule, such as excluding certain beverages with greater concentrations of sugar sweeteners, and the failure to impose limits on refills.

The authors emphasize that both the Board of Health and petitioners opposing the Rule accepted that “obesity is a serious problem.” But curiously, Mariner and Annas, failed to identify the petitioners by name—i.e., the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce (primary), The New York Korean-American Grocers Association, Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of Theatre Owners of New York State, and the American Beverage Association—and ignored the petitioners sound arguments challenging the epidemiological association between sugary drinks and obesity.

Perhaps these selective omissions foreshadow the authors transition from a sober discussion of the legal case, and ruling, to a muddled and preening avowal of their public health utopianism. As Mariner and Annas note, even the vacuous Jon Stewart (albeit via the words, assuredly, of one of his more astute writers) opined that the Portion Cap Rule epitomized a perverse melding of “draconian government overreach and probable lack of results.” Despite this candid acknowledgment, Mariner and Annas make a pitch for taxing our way to public health utopia, but seemingly relent because such a taxation scheme may not be “progressive” enough. They then proceed to denounce campaigns which purportedly “shame” the overweight, before concluding with an excoriation of “large corporations” for their alleged nefarious machinations to “derail public health measures that could reduce their profits.” This latter fulmination does not withstand the barest common sense scrutiny. “Large corporations” (and smaller ones too!), which employ hundreds of thousands of hard-working, decent Americans, produce a cornucopia of heavily advertised no calorie beverage alternatives (“Got diet soda?”; “Got seltzer?”; “Got bottled water?”, etc.)

Pace these irrefragable facts, in the moral universe of Mariner and Annas, such legal corporate enterprises are to be collectively “shamed.” Shaming the obese is not an ethical policy, nor will it likely curtail obesity. The same moral and policymaking logic applies to shaming corporations and their employees. It is a pity Mariner and Annas have ideological blinders to that reality.

 

Read bullet |

Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s Animating Ideology: Nazism, ‘Nazified Islam,’ — or Islam?

Thursday, October 10th, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

During his October 6, 2013 speech at Bar Ilan University, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alluded to the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin el-Husseini. Mr. Netanyahu characterized el-Husseini as, “the undisputed leader of the Palestinian national movement in the first half of the 20th century.” The Prime Minister highlighted the ex-Muft’s role in fomenting pogroms (dating back, in fact, to the so-called “Nabi Musa” riots of 1920) during the decades between the Balfour Declaration, and the eventual creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

Netanyahu’s address also focused on el-Husseini’s World War II era collaboration with the Nazis, the clear implication being that the Mufti’s murderous, Jew-hating ideology was simply another manifestation of Nazi evil, transplanted to a local “nationalistic struggle” in the Middle East. I have just published an extensive analysis (available as a downloadable pdf of 51 pp., and 120 references, embedded at the end of this blog) entitled, “A Salient Example of Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s Canonical Islamic Jew-Hatred—Introduction, Text, and Commentary” which demonstrates that Netanyahu’s rehashing of such conventional, pseudo-academic “wisdom,” does not withstand any serious, objective scrutiny.

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The Congressional record contains a statement of support from New York Rep. Walter Chandler which includes an observation, about “Turkish and Arab agitators . . . preaching a kind of holy war [jihad] against . . . the Jews” of Palestine. During this same era within Palestine, a strong Arab Muslim irredentist current—epitomized by Hajj Amin el-Husseini—promulgated the forcible restoration of sharia-mandated dhimm­itude for Jews via jihad. Indeed, two years before he orchestrated the murderous anti-Jewish riots of 1920, that is, in 1918, Hajj Amin el-Husseini stated plainly to a Jewish coworker (at the Jerusalem Governorate), I. A. Abbady, “This was and will remain an Arab land . . . the Zionists will be massacred to the last man. . . . Nothing but the sword will decide the future of this country.”

Despite his role in fomenting the1920 pogroms against Palestinian Jews, el-Husseini was pardoned and subsequently appointed mufti of Jerusalem by the British high commissioner, in May 1921, a title he retained, following the Ottoman practice, for the remainder of his life. Throughout his public career, the mufti relied upon traditional Koranic anti-Jewish motifs to arouse the Arab street. For example, during the incitement which led to the 1929 Arab revolt in Palestine, he called for combating and slaughtering “the Jews.” not merely Zionists. In fact, most of the Jewish victims of the 1929 Arab revolt were Jews from the centuries-old dhimmi communities (for example, in Hebron), as opposed to recent settlers identified with the Zionist movement.

The mufti remained unrelenting in his espousal of a virulent, canonical Islamic Jew-hatred as the focal tenet of his ideology, before, during, and in the aftermath of World War II, and the creation of the State of Israel. He was also a committed supporter of global jihad movements, urging a “full struggle” against the Hindus of India (as well as the Jews of Israel) before delegates at the February 1951 World Muslim Congress: “We shall meet next with sword in hand on the soil of either Kashmir or Palestine.” Declassified intelligence documents from 1942, 1947, 1952, and 1954 confirm the mufti’s own Caliphate desires in repeated references from con­texts as diverse as Turkey, Egypt, Jerusalem, and Pakistan, and also include discus­sions of major Islamic conferences dominated by the mufti, which were attended by a broad spectrum of Muslim leaders literally representing the entire Islamic world (including Shia leaders from Iran), that is, in Karachi from February 16–19, 1952, and Jordanian-occupied Jerusalem, December 3–9, 1953. Viewed in their totality these data do not support the current standard assessment of the mufti as merely a Palestinian Arab nationalist, rife with a “transplanted” Jew-hatred.

There is another parallel negationist trend, which is widely prevalent: the claim that el-Husseini’s canonical Islamic Jew-hatred somehow represented a suis generis “Nazification” of Islam, which has “persisted” into our era. Paul Berman articulated an unabashed formulation of this broadly held thesis, proclaiming, that abetted by the Nazis, el-Husseini “monstrously,” and “infernally,” “blurred Islam and Nazism,” achieving

A victory of Himmler’s Islam…A victory for the Islam of fanaticism and hatred over its arch-rival, the Islam of generosity and civilization.17

During 1938, a booklet Muhammad Sabri edited, Islam, Judentum, Bolschewismus (Islam, Jewry, Bolshevism), was published in Berlin by Junker-Duennhaupt [Dünnhaupt]. Sabri’s booklet included Hajj Amin el-Husseini’s 1937 declaration—also deemed by some as a “fatwa” (an Islamic religious ruling)—appealing to the worldwide Muslim umma. El-Husseini’s declaration was extracted and reprinted, separately, by the Nazi regime as Islam und Judentum (Islam and Jewry), and distributed to Muslim SS units in Bosnia, Croatia, and the Soviet Union.

As best as I can determine, the first complete, annotated translation of this pamphlet, directly from the German, was provided in my essay. Moreover, no scholar had ever identified, let alone comprehensively explicated, the antisemitic Islamic motifs which punctuate el-Husseini’s pronouncement, from beginning to end. Accordingly, the translation was followed by a detailed commentary which addressed this critical (and frankly, self-fulfilling) lacuna in the scholarship on el-Husseini’s Jew-hatred: identifying and analyzing its traditionalist Islamic origins.

What follows is the crux of my analysis, but to fully understand its arguments requires a careful reading of all the evidence adduced in the original essay.

Read bullet |

Video Report: U.S. Syrian Jihadist ‘Allies’ Establish Brutally Unjust Aleppo Sharia Courts

Friday, September 13th, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

N. J. Coulson, the renowned twentieth-century scholar of the Sharia, elaborated how “matters of procedure” under Islamic law were antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law. Coulson demonstrated the flimsy nature of Sharia-based “evidentiary proof,” while elucidating, under the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”), which grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, how arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants were permissible to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects.

Particularly harsh treatment is recommended for the individual of reputedly bad character whose guilt is suspected but cannot be proved in orthodox fashion. He [she] should be subjected to rigorous examination, with beating and imprisonment if necessary,

Clearly, Sharia “standards,” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to extract “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

This is the “legal system” being applied now by the Syrian anti-Assad Sharia-supremacist “rebels” in the 2/3 swath of Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city, under their control. A TF-1 (the private, national French TV channel) video report (with English subtitles) filmed by Solomon Kane and Luc Golfin at 5 minutes, 35 seconds through minute 6, demonstrates, explicitly, the application one such barbarous method of “extracting” a confession—beating a man on the souls of his bare feet with a wooden cudgel. Indeed, at just after the 6-minute mark, the head Sharia judge, “Al-Maz” enters the room where the “confession” is being “extracted,” and objects to the scene being filmed, exhorting his colleagues,

Do you want the people in Europe to think [emphasis added] we are barbarians?

Moreover, the documentary filmmakers also capture the good Sharia judge attempting to deny the very brutality their camera’s have in fact just recorded!

It is both morally unconscionable, and a looming geo-strategic disaster for the U.S. to be supporting with armaments, and potentially, missile strikes against the Assad regime, predatory, jihad-promoting “allies” who aggressively seek broad application of such a brutally unjust, Islamic Sharia totalitarian system.

Watch the French TV report below.

Many thanks for Translation to C.B.Sashenka, and subtitling to www.vladtepesblog.com.

Read bullet |

Educating John McCain on the Meaning of ‘Allahu-Akbar’

Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

During a Tuesday (9/3/13) morning appearance on Fox News Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) took umbrage (hat tip Ben Shapiro) at Fox News host Brian Kilmeade’s disgust with Syrian anti-Assad opposition groups shouting “Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!” when their rockets apparently shot down a Syrian jet.

To Kilmeade, appropriately, such outcries illustrated the predominant jihadist influence within the coalition of groups opposing the Assad regime. Kilmeade stated,

I have a problem helping those people screaming that [Allahu-Akbar!] after a hit.

A perturbed, if typically feckless McCain replied, without any basic linguistic understanding, or supportive evidence of the rocket launchers’ alleged “moderation,” by making an immoral equivalence to Christianity:

Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying “thank God? Thank God?” That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.

One of the English translators of the great 14th century Muslim jurist (d. 1350) Ibn Qayyim’s “The Way to Patience and Gratitude” opts for “Allah is Greater” as the specific translation of Allahu Akbar. On page 463, the following explanation is provided:

…I preferred using “the Greater” to “the Greatest”… Allahu Akbar literally means, “Allah is Greater” with the comparative mode. Yet, this does not mean that He (Glory be to Him) is not the Greatest, nor does it mean that there is anything that is put in comparison with Him. This is because when the Muslim says it, he means He is “Greater” than anything else, which, consequently, means He is the Greatest. This use gives more influence. This may be why it is used in Arabic this way, otherwise it should have been used as “Allahu al-Akbar”, in the superlative mode. Surely, Allah Knows best.

E. W. Lane’s classical 19th century Arabic English Lexicon, (p. 2587) elaborates on the preferred “elliptical” meaning:

[Allah] is the greatest great [being] or [Allah] is greater than every other great [being]

“Allahu Akbar” has been employed by Muslims as a jihadist war cry dating from its declaration by Islam’s prophet Muhammad when he made an aggressive proto-jihadist foray on the Jews of the Khaybar oasis. Here is how the phrase has been rendered into English by pious Muslims from the canonical hadith collection (Sahih Bukhari 4:52:195):

Narrated Anas: The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, “Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, “Allahu-Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaybar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.”

The willful intellectual and moral blindness of U.S. political and military leaders to the doctrine of jihad—epitomized by John McCain—continues to engender self-destructive “solutions” to global jihad depredations, in Syria, and across the globe.

Read bullet |

Why the Failure of Egypt’s ‘Secular’ Army to Protect Coptic Churches Matters

Wednesday, August 21st, 2013 - by Andrew G. Bostom

Expatriate Egyptian Coptic Christian writer Samuel Tadros has just observed how Egypt’s Copts—the country’s indigenous, pre-Arab Islamic jihad inhabitants—have been under siege by a recent spate of Muslim Brotherhood inspired and led church burnings, which punctuates the worst outbreak of anti-Coptic Muslim violence since the era of Muslim Mamluk rule (i.e., the 13th to 16th centuries).

Tadros was alluding to the effects of mainstream Islam upon its Egyptian Muslim votaries, resulting in the inexorable attrition of the Coptic population by the mid 14th century—the indigenous, pre-Islamic majority reduced to a permanent, vulnerable minority by the usual pattern of Islamization, via jihad: massacre, destruction and pillage of religious sites, forced or coerced conversion, and expropriation. This chronic process intensified and reached its apogee in a series of 14th century pogroms and persecutions, described by the great Muslim historian al-Maqrizi:

Many reports came from both Upper and Lower Egypt of Copts being converted to Islam, frequenting mosques, and memorizing the Quran, to the extent that some of them were able to establish their legal competence and sit with the legal witnesses. In all the provinces of Egypt, both north and south, no church remained that had not been razed; on many of those sites mosques were constructed. For when the Christians’ affliction grew great and their incomes small, they decided to embrace Islam.

Egyptian military strongman, and recent putschist, General al-Sisi issued an ecumenical sounding statement pledging that that army engineers would assist in the reconstruction of the devastated churches, as reported on August 16, 2013:

The Egyptian defense minister ordered the engineering department of the armed forces to swiftly repair all the affected churches, in recognition of the historical and national role played by our Coptic brothers.

But these noble-sounding words have rung hollow given the subsequent, ongoing lack of protection the Egyptian military has afforded its “Coptic brothers.” As reported on August 20th, Bishop General of Minya (in Upper Egypt, four hours from Cairo) Anba Macarius was critical of the army’s continued feeble response, claiming their lack of initiative in protecting churches and other Christian buildings engendered the ideal environment in which “crime and terrorism flourish.” Macarius declared:

First we must protect the Christians and the feelings of those who have suffered loss. Now we are calling on the state to protect the churches and the army to come onto the streets.

The morally reprehensible inaction of Egypt’s allegedly “secular” army—failing to protect its hapless and beleaguered Coptic minority—heightens concerns over the direction of this institution under a demonstrably anti-secular leader, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. In a detailed analysis of al-Sisi’s 2006 US Army War College mini-thesis—which had to be obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request—I demonstrated that he is vociferously opposed to the kind of Western secular consensus model of government Egypt so desperately requires. Moreover, al-Sisi’s mini-thesis also espoused ardent Sharia-supremacist views, highlighted by his lionization of the classical Islamic Caliphate system.

Why does this matter, in the immediate term, both morally and strategically? As my colleague David French wrote in a passionate denunciation of the Egyptian army’s current predilections, and concomitant U.S. moral and strategic blindness:

As churches burn, as nuns are paraded through the streets by the Muslim Brotherhood, and as Christians across Egypt fear for their lives in the face of the jihadist onslaught, American policy can and should get very simple, very fast: Not one scintilla of aid until the Egyptian military demonstrates — by deeds, not just words — that it is committed to stopping this wave of persecution in its tracks, protecting the most basic human rights of its Christian citizens, and utterly defeating the Muslim Brotherhood.

Read bullet |