Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Islamization of the World

The world becomes more and more "Islamic" as Sharia gains strength. It has been happening in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, in a phenomenon called as encroaching Sharia or creeping Sharia. The commitment with the concept of freedom of religion spoused by these 'countries' has made it difficult to come to grips with militant Islamism. The very concept of religious liberty that makes it difficult to define them in a way somehow linked to religious belief.

In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting the concept of religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding the constitutional systems. A few examples:
  • A premonition? Former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne, in a 1974 speech at the UN, said: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
  • A premonition? In 2006, Norway's most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar, told an Oslo newspaper on Monday that there's a war going on between "the West" and Islam. He said he's sure that Islam will win, and he also had praise for suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. He said: "“Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes,” Krekar said. “Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children.” “The wombs of our women will give us victory.” (Aftenposten
  • A warning from an Egyptian Coptic priest to Germans about Islam: you are next! From YouTube.
  • Australia, May 2011: Libyan student recently arrived in Australia as a scholarship student, who sexually attacked 6 women, and a 13 year old girl a month after arriving in Australia.The judge found that his sentence should be reduced because he was unable to cope with the way Australian women dress. Obviously, the implication is that Australian women should don abayas and burkas, if they want to avoid being attacked, because Muslim men just can't control themselves. (AT)
  • Russia, April 2011: Talgat Tadzhuddin, imam of the Central Spiritual Association of Muslims of Russia, called for the addition of the Islamic crescent moon symbol to the Russian emblem (FOX). 
  • UK, April 2011: A British veteran, former soldier Andrew Ryan, was sentenced to 70 days in prison for burning a Koran in the centre of Carslile. He did that in retaliation to the fact that Muslims burned poppies during Remembrance Day 2010. For those who do not know, Remembrance Day is observed in British Commonwealth countries commemorating World War I, and the poppy is a red flower that represents the terrible bloodshed during the war (AT). 
  • UK, April 2011: Hamas-affiliated International Solidarity Movement (ISM) successfully forced Israeli-owned cosmetics company AHAVA to close its London shop (AT).
  • US, Apr 2011: One copy of the Koran was burned by an obscure Pastor in the countryside of the US. The US government considered this action “hateful, intolerant, extremely disrespectful.” (WSJ).  It seems some religions are more equal than others because the US government wastes no time to burn Bibles (CNN) and even specifies how to handle the Koran (DOD). 
  • UK, Mar 2011: British government gave more than half a million pounds of taxpayers' cash to a controversial Islamic groups (24dash).
  • Egypt/US Feb 2011: US journalist Lara Logan was sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square in Cairo to chants of "Jew! Jew!" (CBS) The US media first ignored it, until CBS finally showed an edited versions of the attack, blotting out the faces of the attackers! It seems that Western media has as deliberate, coordinated effort to ignore, minimize, and even excuse the violent, primitive, barbaric, hateful and murderous behavior of muslim fanatics. Maybe this behaviour goes againts the  "celebration of diversity" or the "celebration of multiculturalism" mantra.
  • Gaza Feb 2011: Gaza's Islamist rulers hounding secular community (WP).
  • Germany: Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan Urges Turks Not to Assimilate (Spiegel).
  • UK, Nov 2010: During Remembrance Day ceremonies, as loyal Britons paused for the traditional two minutes of silence in honor of their fallen heroes, Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) agitators burned red poppies and shouted “British soldiers burn in hell.” (Sun)
  • UK, Oct 2010: Hundreds of girls are bring forced by British schools to wear the Islamic veil. Islamic schools have introduced uniform policies which force girls to wear the burka or a full headscarf and veil known as the niqab (Telegraph).
  • UK, Sept 2010:  A Daily Mail investigation shows that British citizens are involuntarily consuming meats ritually slaughtered and prayed over in good Islamic practice. (AT)
  • USA, Sept 2010: A video shows a sixth-grade class from a public school in Wellesley, MA dragged by their teachers to the Roxbury mosque in Boston for field trip to see "Islamic architecture." There they go through a brain washing process including Islamic prayer. The Islamic “Dawa Net,” one Islamic organization that instructs on how to use the schools to inculcate the young, explains that public schools in America are “fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed inside the hearts of non-Muslim students.”(NRO). See the video through PJM.
  • USA  March 2010: A Muslim student wants to remove the words "Our Lord" from the Trinity University diploma. Founded by Presbyterians in 1869, Trinity has been governed by an independent board of trustees since 1969 but maintains a "covenant relationship" with the church. (Hat Tip Political Islam)
  • CANADA 2009: Non-Muslim teachers, specially Jewish teachers, have decided to transfer away from schools where Muslim students harass everything that is anti-Jewish and anti-Western. The School Board does nothing afraid of hurting Muslim sensitivites.  As a consequence, French-Canadian students stop registering in those schools which are now virtually all-Muslim including the teachers and the principal (National Post).
  • USA March 2009: Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans. Troops at posts in war zones are required to burn their trash (CNN). Can you imagine what would have happened it Korans were burned? 
  • USA Jan 2003: US official Department of Defense memo specifies how Korans must be handled: 
  • Clean gloves will be put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling.
  • Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in manner signaling respect and reverence. Care should be used so that the right hand is the primary one used to manipulate any part of the Koran due to the cultural association with the left hand. Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art. (emphasis mine)

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Mohammed's 2nd wife: SAUDA BINT ZAM'AH

The text that follows relating to Sauda Bint Zam'ah, the second wife of Mohammed, is the appendix of the book Women in Islam, by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton. This book  is available on Answering Islam. (The list of Mohammed's women is here)

In a nutshell
After the death of his 1st wife, Kadija, the widower Mohammed married Sauda, herself also a widow. Mohammed ended up marring several other wives (the total number of them varies depending on the source), all younger than Sauda. When that happened, Mohammed wanted to divorce Sauda because she was too old and unattractive. Sauda asked Mohammed not to divorce her. In exchange to remain married to Mohammed, at least just nominally she gave away her day (to sleep with Mohammed) to Aisha (Mohammed's child-wife) who then would sleep with Mohammed twice during his rotation among his wives.

What is the problem with that? 
1. Mohammed is the example to the nation of Islam.
2. Mohammed set the precedent that a man can divorce a wife whenever he feels his wife has certain defects such as old age or lack of sex-appeal.
3. A woman has no such right. 
4. Not to mention that the whole account is just perverted. 
The text follows:

The following incident concerns a lady called Sauda bint Zam'ah. She was first married to one of the early Muslims, as-Sakran ibn 'Amr ibn 'Abd Shams, who took her and seven of his friends and emigrated to Ethiopia to escape persecution. In Ethiopia Sauda's husband died and she returned to her homeland.

At about the same time Muhammad lost his first wife Khadijah. Not long after, Muhammad married Sauda. No doubt because of their common experience, they could understand each other's pain and were able to comfort one another.
During the course of time Muhammad married other women. And before his death, he had nine wives.
Ibn Kathir, quoting Muslim, reported that Muhammad died leaving nine wives, but he used to apportion his days to only eight of the nine. This ninth wife was Sauda who gave her day to 'Aisha.

In spite of the long companionship Muhammad had with Sauda, the Hadith tells us that Sauda later on missed out on her privileges as a wife and a companion to Muhammad. Muhammad did not

only stop fulfilling his obligations as a husband to Sauda, but he even stopped visiting her.

The authenticity of this report is undeniable. For example Bukhari


Narrated 'Aisha that Sauda bint Zam'ah gave up her turn to 'Aisha, and so the prophet used to give 'Aisha both her day and the day of Sauda.173

But why would Sauda give up her privileges and the company of

the only man in her life to 'Aisha?

We find the answer in most commentaries on Q. 4:128:

If a woman fears rebelliousness or aversion in her husband, there is no fault in them if the couple set things right between them; right settlement is better; and souls are very prone to avarice.

Of the above verse Ibn Kathir said:

If the wife fears that her husband might reject her, or avoid her, she might give up all or some of her rights concerning financial support or clothing or housing or such other rights against him, and he can accept these concessions from her. There is no fault on her for giving up her rights and there is no fault on him if he accepts her concessions. This is why the Most High said: (there is no fault in them if the couple set things right between them) then He said: (right settlement is better) than separation... this is why, when Sauda bint Zam'ah became old, the Prophet of Allah decided to divorce her. She besought him to keep her in return of giving up her day to 'Aisha. So he accepted her offer and did not divorce her.

... on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who said: Sauda feared that the Prophet of Allah might divorce her, so she said to him: O Prophet of Allah, do not divorce me, and my day shall belong to 'Aisha. So he did and that verse Q. 4:128 was revealed.

Why did the Prophet of Allah want to divorce Sauda? And if he did not want to divorce her why did she fear him divorcing her so that she gave up her day to 'Aisha? What was her fault?

There was no fault on Sauda's part except that she became old according to Ibn Kathir. Some reports say that Muhammad did actually divorce Sauda but she negotiated a settlement with him which he accepted.

Al-Qasim ibn Abi Beza said the prophet sent to Sauda a message divorcing her. So she waited for the prophet on his way to 'Aisha. When she saw him she said I implore you by Him who revealed His words to you and chose you above all his creation why did you divorce me. I have become old and have no need of men but I wish to be resurrected amongst your wives in the last day. So he changed his mind and she said I have given my day and night to ['Aisha] the prophet's beloved... (See Ibn Kathir on Q. 4:128)

Others say that he did not divorce her but only wanted to. What is certain though is that Sauda gave up her day to 'Aisha. But why would any woman give up her share of her only husband to another woman?

To get a fuller picture of the above incident let us look at what the commentators said about Q. 4:128.

Of Q. 4:128 Razi said:

Some said: '(Feared)' meaning 'knew', others said: '(feared)' meaning 'thought'. But all that is ignoring the obvious for no reason. What is meant (by feared) is fear itself But fear does not happen unless there are signs indicating fear. These signs here are that the man says to his wife you are ugly or you are old and I want to marry a beautiful youthful woman... the (rebelliousness or aversion) of the husband against the rights of the woman is to avoid her, looks angry when looking her in the face, deserts her sexually and mistreats her.

Did Muhammad treat Sauda as Razi commented? Sauda must have seen the writing on the wall so she decided to salvage some protection from Muhammad.

Ibn Kathir also said:

Concerning Q. 4:128 'Aisha said: 'It concerns the man who has two wives. One of them has become old or is ugly and he does not like her company much, so she says: "Do not divorce me, and you are free from your obligations towards me.'"" This Hadith is established in the Two Sahihs. What the verse seems to say is that their reconciliation, on the condition that she gives up some of her rights, and the acceptance of the husband of that, is better than complete separation, just as the Prophet kept Sauda on the condition that she gave her day to 'Aisha and did not divorce her but kept her amongst his wives. This was done in order that his nation might take him as their example and that this act is lawful and permissible.

Indeed the nation of Muhammad has imitated him. Razi informs us:

This verse was revealed first in Ibn abi as-Sa'ib who had a wife and children from her. When she became old he was about to divorce her, but she said: Do not divorce me, but let me look after my children and apportion a few nights for me every month. The husband said: If this is so, it is better for me. The second was that the Prophet wanted to divorce Sauda bint Zam'ah but she besought him to keep her on the condition that she would give up her day to 'Aisha, and he allowed that and did not divorce her. The third is reported by

'Aisha that it concerns the man who has a wife but he wants to replace her, so she says: Keep me and marry someone else and you are free from supporting me and apportioning your nights to me.

And here is what Ibn al-'Arabi, a great Muslim scholar has said:

... when Sauda bint Zam'ah became old, the Prophet of Allah wanted to divorce her. However, she preferred to remain amongst his wives, so she said, 'Keep me, and my day shall belong to 'Aisha', and he did, and thus she died as one of his wives. Ibn Abi Malikah declared that this verse was revealed regarding 'Aisha. And in this verse is the answer to those light headed fools who say that if a man took the youth of a woman and she became old he cannot replace her. So praise be to Allah who lifted such burden and made an escape from such dilemma.174

So the nation of Muhammad has innocently and completely imitated his action, and did not forget to give Allah the praise. Dr bint ash-Shati' the author of the book The Wives of the Prophet (nisaa' an-Nabi) described Sauda as an unattractive old widow and overweight.175 (Bukhari tells us that Sauda was a tall176, fat and very slow lady177)

Dr bint ash-Shati' described the matrimonial relationship between Muhammad and Sauda in the following words:

Sauda realised from the experience of her age that there is an insurmountable barrier between her and the heart of Muhammad ... and she realised without a doubt that her share of the prophet is one of mercy and kindness; not love, harmony and oneness.178

If there was no love, harmony and oneness why did Muhammad marry Sauda in the first place?
And if there was no love, harmony and oneness, where is the mercy?

Dr bint ash-Shati'said that Khola bint Hakim was the one who suggested to Muhammad marrying Sauda and 'Aisha who was seven years old at the time. "Muhammad commented on her suggestion saying: 'but who will look after the house and who will serve the daughters of the prophet?'" At this Khola suggested the marriage of Sauda... and the prophet agreed. "And Sauda was completely satisfied to take her place in the house of the prophet and to serve his daughters."179

Now the picture is clear; 'Aisha became the love of Muhammad, and Sauda became the servant of the daughters of the prophet. After so many years where Sauda cooked, washed, mended, served the prophet and his daughters and comforted the prophet in his sorrows after the death of his first wife, when Sauda became old Muhammad wanted to divorce her for no reason except that she became old and unattractive.

The Quran speaks of love and tenderness between husbands and wives in the following words:

Of His signs it is that He has created mates for you of your own kind that you may find peace of mind through them, and He has put love and tenderness between you. (Q. 30:21)

The above incident gives us an idea about the meaning and the limitations of this love and tenderness spoken of by the Qur'an. Where is the love and the mercy spoken of by the Qur'an in the incident of Sauda? Should Muhammad be judged by the Qur'an or is Muhammad above the Quran?

The author of a standard text book on Islamic law wrote:

What some men of lust who have no moral values do, in divorcing their wives without a reason, is a thing that is not stated nor approved by Islam. And Allah must take vengeance on such men in this life and the next.180

The above statement sounds beautiful and reasonable until we read a few pages later the following words by the same author:

[Divorce is permissible] if the reason was the unsuitability of the woman for enjoyment due to certain defects in her or due to old age or such things.181

Divorcing one's wife because of old age is permissible and acceptable within the scope of being good to one's wife; even considered to be the best standard,  for Muhammad described himself as the best husband and the Qur'an says of Muhammad "Thou dost most surely posses high moral excellence. Q. 68:4. And on the other hand the "Qur'an was Muhammad's character" as one Hadith says.

But Dr bint ash-Shati's excuse for Muhammad's behavior is that he was a mere human being. So the Qur'an was his character and he also was a mere human being. The equation is clear enough for all to see. And the believers believe that he is the best husband and possessor of the highest moral excellence.


173  Bukhari, the Book of Nikah, Hadith No. 139.

l74  Ahkam al-Qur'an, Abi Bakr Ibn 'Abd Allah known as Ibn al-'Arabi, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, commenting on Q. 4:128.

175  Nisaa' 'an-Nabi, Dr. Bint ash-Shati', Dar al-Kitab al-'Arabi, 1985, p. 62, 67.

176  Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 4, Hadith No. 148.

177  Bukhari, Vol. 2, Book 26, Hadith No. 740.

178  Nisaa' 'an-Nabi, Dr. Bint ash-Shati', Dar al-Kitab al-'Arabi, 1985, p. 64.

179  Nisaa' 'an-Nabi, Dr. Bint ash-Shati', Dar al-Kitab al-'Arabi, 1985, p. 64.

180  'Abd ar-Rahman al-Gaziri, al-Fiqh 'ala al-Mazahib al-Arba'a, Dar al-Kutub al-'Elmeyah, 1990, vol. 4, p. 278.

181  'Abd ar-Rahman al-Gaziri, al-Fiqh 'ala al-Mazahib al-Arba'a, Dar al-Kutub al-'Elmeyah, 1990, vol. 4, p. 281.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Islam and Socialism, Comunism, Facism, and National Socialism (Nazism)

There is still hope
The Euston Manifesto: For a Renewal of Progressive Politics. Reading it gives me hope that we can still have a left more aligned to its roots, and not the pro-tyrant left we most commonly see today.

On the Pro-Tyrant Left
In an article with the title Idealism withouth Ilusion, in World Affairs, Allan Johnson discusses the "The Mind of the Pro-Tyrant Left." In this article he discusses why the Left tends to support tyrant regimes and idelogies. He maintains that the development of the older left-wing culture was rooted in the Enlightenment, the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century, and the ethical socialism of the mass European labor movements. He then explains how in its place was put power-worship, authoritarianism, and a cult of the transformative power of revolutionary violence, and how the rise of Stalinism, a reactionary but non-capitalist social system, disorientated the left—bar some fragments—more or less completely. As a consequence the left clung to the dogma that the only social system that could follow capitalism was socialism. It imagined itself involved in a duel between capitalism and socialism. It thought that state ownership equalled socialism. And so—with honorable exceptions—a pro-tyrant left emerged in the twentieth century. This pro-tyrant left became critical supporters of totalitarianism—notwithstanding their knowledge of mass killings, gulags, political-famines, and military aggression. The pro-tyrant left is based on twisted logic: This pro-tyrant left thinks it holds the key to the entire world in the palm of its hand. If America is opposed to a tyrant, then—there is some dubious logic here, but this really is the crucial move—the tyrant must be opposing America. And—this is the last stretch, stay with me—therefore the tyrant is an “anti-imperialist” and, objectively, “progressive.” The problem is that this line of (twisted) thought has become vastly influential on campuses and its ideas are trickling down into the wider culture.

Socialists-Muslim Brotherhood Alliance
Socialists explain how and why they worked with Muslim Brotherhood against ‘common enemies’: US, UK, Israel. Question: Do these lefties realize that they’re being played by the radicals, who will either discard them or destroy them once Islamism takes power? (PJM)

Communism and Islam

Aliance of Convenience: Osama Bin Laden: "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." (BBPublish PostC report)