The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a 20th century landmark, was rejected by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which adopted their own "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam". The latter states that human rights should be subject to the Islamic Law (Sharia) without contradicting it. Sharia tremendously restricts women's and gay's rights, freedom of speech and affirmative actions. Sharia and Human Rights are opposing concepts.
Discussed in this essay are the laws and status of those persons in Islamic lands who are not Muslims. This group is mainly composed of Jews and Christians, called dhimmis. What is important about this topic is it communicates better than any other method the true historic beliefs of Muslims towards Westerners. Therefore, it indicates how a good Muslim should view a non-believer, especially if they ever achieve control of a formerly non-Islamic state, like America.
The problem in Muslim lands for dhimmis (protected non-Muslims) is summed up by Patrick Sookhdeo, in Freedom To Believe, where he explains that most Muslim countries have dual justice systems with Western civil courts, and also Muslim Shari’ah (Islamic Law) courts. Most of these countries have signed various world human rights agreements. So how do these Islamic states get away with categorizing Muslim and non-Muslim with different status in the Muslim courts? By subverting these agreements under the Shari’ah, according to Sookhdeo.
Every Islamic country has different application of Shari’ah law. Further, modernity has made great inroads against regimes attempting to use primitive Muslim law. But enough Shari’ah remains in various countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, to cause concern. Also, bear in mind America’s worst Muslim enemies call for pure Shari’ah. But the main lesson to take from this study is how Muslims see unbelievers and how they choose to treat them when no one is looking. This alone should help us better understand people like the Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and his secret aspirations.
I. World View of Islam
Islam is a survivor of the crucible of war. Muhammad’s society was quite warlike, and this ethos is fixed within the Islamic religion and societal norms. Thus we have the doctrine of jihad, which has been historically tied to battling the unbelieving world (jihad is best translated as “battle,” revealing the word can both mean “holy war” and “to struggle against” without any contradiction).
Also, strong is the Bedouintribal ethos in the Arab mind to this day, according to Raphael Patai, in The Arab Mind. And the Islamic worldview is steeped in religion in a way Westerners cannot fathom, but the religion itself is bent on subjugation of each individual in the society, not mere conversion. This is why the very term Islam means submission.
A. House of War v. House of God
Muslims believe that the world is composed of two entities—Non-believers in the House of War; and Muslims in the House of Allah. One website writes:
Islamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual conflict: The House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam (dar al-Islam) embraces territory where Islamic law (Sharia) is the law of the land, while the House of War (dar al- Harb) comprises the rest of the world. The House of Islam is enjoined by Allah to make war upon the House of War until the latter is permanently assimilated into the former.
B. Jihad: War as Mission
Jihad means to struggle or battle. While many Muslims and Western liberals insist the term is used primarily in a non-violent sense, this is misleading. The world view of Islam is based upon an us-versus-them model. Islam is doctrinally in a state of perpetual war against non-Muslims, even when a truce has been signed. This constant state of war-readiness of Islam is a key to understand their view of the world. Daniel Pipes explains:
Jihad is “holy war.” Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.
Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That’s how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632. It’s how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.
C: Muslims in Foreign Climes
One of the great questions in the history of Islam is whether a Muslim living in non-Islamic lands must still follow all the dictates of the Shari’ah. Writes Michael Mumisa, in Islamic Law, Theory & Application,
While a non-Muslim under the protection of an Islamic government [dhimmi] is expected to obey all the laws of the Islamic state, is a Muslim under the protection of a non-Muslimstate expected to obey all the laws of the host country most of which conflict with the Shari’ah law? These are questions whose answers are absent from classical or medieval Islamic literature or from a historical critical reading of the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Yet, another eminent Islamic legal scholar, Abdur Rahman I. Doi, says in Non-Muslims under Shariah (Islamic law), that since the Shari’ah is God’s perfect law for mankind representing his infallible will, it is imperative that all believers obey this at all times, regardless where they reside.
This then sums up a conundrum: Whether a Muslim believes he should follow the complete Shari’ah, there exists a problem for conscientious Muslims in foreign lands as to which law is preeminent. This problem was addressed for Christians by Jesus in Luke 20:25 when He taught, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Render unto God what is God’s.” So, an upstanding Christian can be both a good citizen of an earthly state and also of God’s Kingdom.
D. Muslim States
Muslims have a different idea of what constitutes a “state,” as opposed to Western practice. Samuel Shahid, in The Myth of Islamic Tolerance cites how prominent Pakistani scholar Maududi explains this difference:
An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.
Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state “should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology.” Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.
An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law “Shari`a” guarantees to non-Muslims “certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology.” Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they “become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government.”
Categories of Acceptable Unbelievers
A. Dhimmi: Jew & Christian
A dhimmi is a member of the class of persons in an Islamic country not Muslim but who follow the Bible, being Jews and Christians (other can include Sabians and Zoroastrians). Dhimmis are given a kind of protection in an Islamic state which is neither complete in scope, nor equal in application, as the following will show.
Warrant for Dhimmi comes from the chapter the Cow in the Qur’an 2:62:
Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.
In accepting dhimmitude, the non-believers have to enter a pact called the Covenant of Umar, according to Bat Yeor in Dhimmi Peoples, Oppressed Nations. The Covenant dates from the 7th century, not long after Muhammad died, and outlines what dhimmis had to do then to stay in an Islamic state.
Jizyah: To have any status, whatsoever, a non-believer in a Muslim country must immediately enter into a treaty of war. This is essentially an agreement of a truce between the non-believer and the Islamic state. This only makes sense when considering that in Islam, there is a metaphorical House of War in which abide only enemy combatants, where non-Muslims reside. Then there is the House of Peace, or Allah, which is where all Muslims abide. Therefore, if a non-Muslim wants to reside in an Islamic state, he or she must officially renounce war through the Jizyah.
This is according to the Submission chapter in the Qur’an 9:29:
You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
Jizyah literally means “penalty,” according to Shahida. It is described as a “fixed poll tax” by Joseph Schacht in Introduction to Islamic Law. It is described as a 10% tax and meant to cover the costs of defending the dhimmi, etc. Yet the jizyah is also meant to humble the dhimmi. According to Ye’or, the Jizyah “...symbolizes the subjugation and humiliations of the vanquished.” Ye’or details another tax put, being the kharadj, a land tax placed on lands where indigenous dhimmis reside, meaning these are at a decided economic disadvantage to Muslims.
Legal Status: A position of Muslim Shari’ah law is that under it, all are equal. This proposition is highly misleading. Not everyone has access to these rules. For example, a Dhimmi is not the legal equal of a Muslim, but a “second-class citizen,” according to Patai. So a Dhimmi can only give testimony against another Dhimmi, but not against a Muslim. This embargo is much more damaging than it sounds because the only form of acceptable evidence allowed in Shari’ah courts is verbal testimony. It also acts to keep dhimmis from suing or taking Muslims to court.
Further, all laws are said to apply to dhimmis, but if a dhimmi were attacked and killed by a Muslim, the latter cannot be put to death, but only forced to pay a fine based on status, or “blood price.” Since Islamic law generally does not impose imprisonment, this leaves dhimmis in a highly precarious position as regards enemies and safety. Many more examples like this abound.
Religion: According to Islam, both Jews and Christians are characterized by disobedience and by refusing to accept the Last Prophet—Muhammad. This lack of religious integrity is damning and so these dhimmis cannot express their religious beliefs without poisoning the Muslim state.
A realistic view of Islam, in terms of civil and human rights, is within the Muslim state no person has these types of American constitutional rights. They are unimagined in the Qur’an. But if anyone had such rights, it certainly would not be dhimmis. Shahid explains the basic modern restrictions against dhimmis in an Islamic state, which takes much from the Covenant of Umar.
According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on dhimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:
Dhimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
Dhimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
Dhimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
Dhimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
Dhimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
Dhimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
Dhimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.
Other Dhimmi Restrictions: According to Ye’or, dhimmis were historically forbidden from raising a hand against a Muslim in self-defense, even if the aggressor is trying to kill them; to criticize Islam, the Prophet, or angels; to convert to any religion other than Islam; to marry a Muslim woman or concubine; to hold authority over a Muslim; to enter certain restricted towns; or have articles of clothing that were similar to Muslim styles.
Dhimmis also had to live in a separate part of town where their gates closed in the evening; have shorter houses than Muslims; to practice their religion only in secret; to bury their dead quickly and in silence in a non-Muslim style tomb; to wear special clothes not only indicating their dhimmihood, but also which sub-group they belonged to.
Dhimmis must walk humbly with lowered eyes and accept insults without answering back; to keep a humble and respectful attitude when encountering a Muslim; to leave Muslims the best seats; and to make haste when walking through Muslim town. When encountering a Muslim, these must pass on the (impure) left, while the anointed were encouraged to press them against the wall to rub in their loathsome status.
Dhimmis were not allowed to ride horses or camels, since this would create unjustified social status. Unbelievers could use donkeys, but only outside of town. These were often left the most socially debased professions such as grave-digger or garbage collector. Muslims were encouraged to not have social intercourse with dhimmis, but if this was necessary, to do so with utmost brevity while expressing unbridled contempt in the same breath.
Jews, in particular, are not to raise their voices in front of Muslims, practice the same trade as a Muslim; claim that Shari’ah Muslim law could be defective; rise an animal astraddle; mention religion to Muslims; squint to try and imagine Muslims in the nude; sound their ram-horn bugle the shofar; or lend money with interest—by which, it is warned, they could end up destroying the world, writes Ye’or.
Conclusion
The enormous difference between ideas of equality and fairness that separate the Islamic world and the West are so colossal it defies easy explanation. In fact, we must study Islam in pieces to really understand the whole. This matters, because—before long—each big US city will undoubtedly have Muslims similar to Rauf seeking to influence policies and get involved in political life, and put the imprint of Muhammad upon all they touch.
Unless we understand the grave differences between the two world views, representing not just rules, but also principles and values, we will be at severe disadvantage in defending our ancestral freedoms against incursion of foreign belief. This matters because Islam has always been a missionary religion, propagated by force and invasion. If we don’t understand its virulence and fatalistic determination, and that there is no alternative peaceful view in traditional Islam, great and quick may be our fall.
In an American Thinker article, Dr. Andrew Bostom quotes an essay by Bernard Lewis called "Communism and Islam." [International Affairs,Vol. 30, No. 1(Jan., 1954), pp. 1-12]. It reads:
I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition.... Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical-attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both. This sort of argument expresses a need of the up- rooted Muslim intellectual who is no longer satisfied with or capable of understanding traditional Islamic values, and who tries to justify, or rather, re-state, his inherited faith in terms of the fashionable ideology of the day. It is an example of the romantic and apologetic presentation of Islam that is a recognized phase in the reaction of Muslim thought to the impact of the West.... In point of fact, except for the early caliphate, when the anarchic individualism of tribal Arabia was still effective, the political history of Islam is one of almost unrelieved autocracy...[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law. In the great days of classical Islam this duty was only owed to the lawfully appointed caliph, as God's vicegerent on earth and head of the theocratic community, and then only for as long as he upheld the law; but with the decline of the caliphate and the growth of military dictatorship, Muslim jurists and theologians accommodated their teachings to the changed situation and extended the religious duty of obedience to any effective authority, however impious, however barbarous. For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as "tyranny is better than anarchy" and "whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent."
...Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as "There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet!" was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy-might well strike a responsive note.
Janet Levy wrote a very nice article The American Thinker. Its title is The Hijra and it discusses the Islamic concept of Hijra.
The Hijra (which I examined previously) replicates Mohamed's pilgrimage from Mecca to Medina. It is a Koran-sanctioned struggle for world domination by Islam, involving millions of Muslims who live outside of Muslim countries and are stealthily and gradually endeavoring to eradicate non-Muslim cultures and governments to institute Islamic shari'ah law. This demographic jihad, in which polygamous marriages and Koran-sanctioned liaisons produce countless offspring, gravely threatens the free world. It challenges the principles of free speech, freedom of religion, equal rights for women and other freedoms and human rights taken for granted by Western, Judeo-Christian societies.
The Left seems to more and more support Political Islam. This fact may result in the end of international socialism. At the end Islam will take over and "liberate" us all.
The Copts are the original Egyptians citizens before Egypt was conquered by the Arab Muslims in the 8th century AD. As Christians under Islam they became dhimmis, living under the grace of their Muslim masters, always paying the Jyzia tax. In the beginning of the Arab occupation, the Copts still maintained a certain autonomy. With the growth of Islamic fundamentalism the Copts turned from majority to minority, living under duress, as the Encyclopedia Coptica says:
The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the Jyzia tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship. For example, there were restrictions on repairing old Churches and building new ones, on testifying in court, on public behavior, on adoption, on inheritance, on public religious activities, and on dress codes. Slowly but steadily, by the end of the 12th century, the face of Egypt changed from a predominantly Christian to a predominantly Muslim country and the Coptic community occupied an inferior position and lived in some expectation of Muslim hostility, which periodically flared into violence. It is remarkable that the well-being of Copts was more or less related to the well-being of their rulers. In particular, the Copts suffered most in those periods when Arab dynasties were at their low.
The Encyclopedia Coptica reports that in the 19th century the Jyzia tax was lifted. Further Western influence forged modern Egypt. With the re-emergence of Islamic fundamentalism with the foundation of the Islamic Brotherhood in the 1920's, the Copts have been subject to persecution and terror.
Sep 2010 - Christian Copts Living As Slaves to Muslims in Egyptian Village - Bassem Shehata, 25, an IT graduate who attended the rally at the Patriarchate, said in an aired interview with Coptic activist Wagih Yacoub “We live in utter slavery. If Copts, some of whom are landowners, disobey orders of the big Muslim families, they are flogged.” Bassem said that last year his 14-year-old brother Shenouda was tied by members of a Muslim family to a pole, beaten and tortured in front of his father just because the father did not lend them his tractor. “Each time my father begged for mercy for his child, he was also beaten.” He said despite the family feeling “broken inside” his father refused to report the incident, fearing reprisals from the Muslim family (PERSECUTION).
Sep 2010 - AINA adds that "nearly 1000 Copts in the village of 3000 live in servitude to Muslim families, especially a large one called Al-Khawaimin, which includes the mayor, the village Shaikh, a large number of relatives and their friends. Copts are not allowed to sell their livestock on the market but have to sell it to Muslims in the village at a fraction of their fair price, and hire agricultural machinery only from village Muslims at the highest prices. "If Copts do not obey, they are subjected to harsh punishments," he said. "These include threats of killings, abduction of girls, destruction of crops, burning of houses and beatings."
(* text adapted from the Gathering Storm and from other sources elsewhere on the Internet, e.g., FrontPage)
Islam, in its fullest form, is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a facade to help the advancement for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
The following gives an idea on how this process is somehow connected with the percentage of Muslims in a country. The list of countries with the percentage of Muslim population serves just as illustration, for example, the level of action of political Islamic organizations in the US corresponds to a Muslim population level over to 5%.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world. This is occurring in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. In Russia, grade-schools were attacked. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, beheadings, stoning, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' - the Islamic House of Peace - there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim.
But that has never happened. Just look at Islamic History. Sects fighting each other to decide which holds the purest Islam.
There is a very informative short video on youtube called Three things you didn't know about Islam. Go and watch it. In case it has been removed (as happens to several short movies that talk about Islam -- YouTube's self-censorship?) I decided to transcribe it down below.
---
For every opinion or belief someone may hold there will be another party who just as strong opposes that idea. Both sides usually claim to sit with the best arguments, the real facts and the best world view, and (ironycally) both sides regard the other as being indoctrinated, blind to the obvious and outright stupid.
Most people only expose themselves to information that matches their own worldview. It is uncomfortable to do otherwise. Still, we would like to give to you some information surprising information about ISLAM. We also urge you to look further than mainstream media and, if you can find the time for it, read the Qur'an yourself.
To get started we would like to present you the three things you probably did not know about Islam.
1. Islam has not been hijacked.
That Islam has been hijacked is what non-Muslims naturally assume because they assume that all religions are the same.
The reason non-Muslims are so easlily confused is that most of us don't realize the difference between the Qur'an and every other religious book we are familiar with.
The Christian Bible is a collection of writings from various authorswritten sometimes hundreds of years apart, with parables, advice and dreams, collected together into one book. Same with the Jewish Torah.
Even those of us in the West, who are neither Christians nor Jews, are still familiar enough with these religions to know this much, and therefore we assume the same is true for the Qur'an.
But the Qur'an is only one book, written by one man, in his own lifetime. It is meant to be taken literally, and it is not full of symbolism or vague analogies.
It is mostly direct commands. Of course, the Qur'an contains contradictory statements just like other religious books, but the Qur'an itself provides the reader with a way to know what to do with the contradictions.
It is explained in the Qur'an that if you have two passages that contradict each other, the one written later supersedes the one written earlier. Most Westerners are unaware that the peaceful, tolerant passages were written early in Mohammed's prophetic career. According to the Qur'an those passages have been abrogated by later, more violent and less tolerant passages.
So, when most Westerners hear Jihadists quoting violent passages from the Qur'an, and then peaceful Muslims quoting peaceful passages they interpret that the way they would if someone was quoting the Bible or the Torah. They think to themselves, Oh, there must be many different and contradictory passages, like there are in other religious books, so Muslims can pick and choose what they like and justify whatever actions they want to take. But the Qur'an is nothing like that. There is no picking and choosing. It says very explicitly and in no uncertain terms that a Muslim must not alter or ignore any part of its very clear and direct message, or they will burn in a fiery torment forever.
2. Striving to institute worldwide Shari'a Law is a religious duty.
Many people don't realize how politically-oriented Islam is at its core. In fact, Islam is less of a religion than it is a "religious ideology." It includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for the whole society: Shari'a. There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam. Rather, Islam and Shari'a constitute a totalitarian means of ordering society at every level including: ritual worship, transactions and contracts, morals and manners, beliefs and punishments.
In the Qura'n Allah makes it clear that man-made governments, such as a democracy, and free speech, such as criticizing the Qura'n, are abominations, and must be eliminated.
The modern expression "Creeping Shari'a" is used to describe the slow, deliberate, and methodical advance of Islamic Law in non-Muslim countries. Official Shari'a courts already operate in the UK, handing cases raging from divorce and financial disputes to domestic violence. Attempts to introduce Shari'a in the legal system in Germany, Sweeden and other European countries are ongoing.
While Shari'a already has a foot in our door in the matter of minor disputes like inheritance and domestic violence, it should concern you that Shari'a commands that:
Drinkers and gamblers should be wipped.
Allows husbands to hit their wives allows and injured plaintif to exact legal revenge literally and eye for an eye.
Shari'a commands that a thief must have the hand cut off.
Commands that homosexuals must be executed.
Orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adultures to be stoned to death.
Orders death for both Muslim and non-Muslim critics of Muhammed, the Qura'n and even Shari'a itself.
Orders apostates to be killed.
Commands offensive, aggressive and unjust Jihad
As written in the Qura'n, Shari'a is the law of Allah. Any other form of government is a sin. It is the duty of every Muslim to keep striving until all governments have been converted to Shari'a Law.
3. Muslims are allowed to deceive non-Muslims if it helps Islam.
For non-Muslims, this principle, called Taqiyya, is another surprising concept of Islam.
While most other religions speak highly of truthfullness, the Qura'n instructs Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their beliefs and their political ambitions to protect and spread Islam.
There are many examples of today's Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the Western press and they saying something entirely different to their own followers in Arabic a few days latter. Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war and Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world until the whole world follows Shari'a Law.
All non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are therefore enemies. So, deceiving Westerners is totally acceptable -- even encouraged -- if it can forward the goals of the spread of Islam.
As a recent example, the Islamic American Relief Agency were seemingly raising money for orphans but in fact giving the money to terrorists. They deceived good-heartened Western infidels into giving money to organizations that were actively killing Western infidels.
Do the research yourself. This is not an isolated case.
Islam as a religion of peace
Muslims organizations worldwide often declare Islam as a religion of peace, but what does that really mean? It seems easy for a Muslim to quote a few peaceful verse from the early parts of the Qura'n while by following the principle of Taqiyya neglecting to mention the fact that it has been officially abrogated by later more violent verses.
According to the Qura'n the world will be at peace only when Islam and Shari'a reign in every country -- and never until then. This is why every Muslim can truthfully say that Islam is a religion of peace.
If any of these points took you by surprise - then there is surely much more you still don't know.
This subject will affect you in the near future. So, take the chance to inform yourself now -- before it does.
---
2:106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
16:101 When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.
17:86 And if We please, We should certainly take away that which We have revealed to you, then you would not find for it any protector against Us.
The Islamic prophet Mohamed had lots of women throughout his life, among wives, concubines and sex slaves. He married his first wife, Kadija, while he lived in Mecca before he started his ministry. After moving to Medina he had all the rest.
"Muhammad
declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion
against all the rest of mankind." – John Quincy Adams Churchill comment on Islam, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899): "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property'either as a child, a wife, or a concubine'must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science (the science against which it had vainly struggled) the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
Churchill could not foresee Europe's current voluntary submission to Islam - science or not.
"I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself." - Alexis de Tocqueville
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step." - Sir Winston Churchill - 1897.
“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism.”
– Sir Winston Churchill
"Historians have noticed, all down the centuries, one peculiarity of the English people, which has cost them dear. We have always thrown away after a victory the greater part of the advantages we had gained in the struggle. The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners; they come from a peculiar type of brainy people, always found in our country, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement, into which we have been cast, by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer, but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias? Nothing can save England if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told."
– Sir Winston Churchill, 1933
Speaking of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, Winston Churchill equated it to the Koran in his book the “The Gathering Storm:”
Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.
- Winston Churchill
Sam Adams in his 1772 Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, entitled "The Rights of the Colonists" said the following: In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.
Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, publicly read an Islamic poem including the lines: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…”
Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan: "The Term 'Moderate Islam' Is Ugly And Offensive; There Is No Moderate Islam; Islam Is Islam."
"They [Muslims] were, upon the whole, from the black day when they first entered Europe, the one great anti-human specimen of humanity. Wherever they went, a broad line of blood marked the track behind them, and, as far as their dominion reached, civilization disappeared from view. They represented everywhere government by forces opposed to government by law."
– William Gladstone – former British Prime Minister.
“The most successful lecherous man who used religion for his personal gain is Prophet Mohammed. Islam is a cult with its complete irrational belief in Allah created by Mohammed who was a liar, thief, murderer and rapist till his last breath.”
- DR. KHUSHWANT SINGH (PROFESSOR)
”Allah is a cruel tyrant, a barbaric killer and a violent despot. Islamic Umma is the biggest criminal gang on earth and Allah is leader and guide of that criminal gang and is trying to establish himself as the God of the world (not of the universe) with the help of the mujahidin through terror and bloodshed”.
- Dr. R. BRAHAMCHARI (PHYSICIST)
“Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was - and it remains - incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.”
– Andre Servier, 1922
"Today (1950), the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world Power."
- Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, 1950
"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."
- John Quincy Adams
"I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."
- Alexis de Tocqueville ~ 1850
"The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and the truth which the world has yet known."
- The eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905).
"Muslim society looks profoundly repulsive....It looks profoundly repulsive because it is repulsive....A Westerner who claims to admire Muslim society, whilst still adhering to Western values, is either a hypocrite or an ignoramus or a bit of both. At the heart of the matter is the Muslim family, an abominable institution."
- Conor Cruise O'Brien, in the London Times, May 1989:
"Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression. ‘The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword. "The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world...their reactions -- to anything -- have nothing to do with good sense. "They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat. "You can talk 'business' with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah..."This is what every grain in this country [eretz Israel] shouts. There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them -- even the Crusaders -- left signs of culture and blossoming. But on the path of Islam, even the flies have died. "We pile sin upon crime when we distort the picture and reduce the discussion to a conflict of border between Israel and her neighbors...The heart of the conflict is not the question of the borders; it is the question of Muslim psychology.....".
- A Carlebach, 1955.
"The true Islamic concept of peace goes something like this: "Peace comes through submission to Muhammad and his concept of Allah" (i.e. Islam). As such the Islamic concept of peace, meaning making the whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war. It was inevitable and unavoidable that the conflict would eventually reach our borders, and so it has."
– Vernon Richards
"Of course, there are distinguished precedents even for the bleakest and coarsest of these judgements. To Montesquieu in 1748, Islam’s ‘destructive spirit’ spoke ‘only by the sword’; to Schopenhauer in 1819, the Koran was a ‘wretched book’ in which he had ‘not been able to discover one single idea of value’; to De Tocqueville in 1843, Islam was ‘deadly’, ‘to be feared’ and a ‘form of decadence’."
– David Selbourne – The Losing Battle with Islam
''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...''Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them."
— Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1970.
“Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you. ” -- Hajj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, on German Nazi radio, March 1st, 1944.
“ [I] have nothing against Islam because it educates the men in this division for me and promises them heaven if they fight and are killed in action. A very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.” -- Heinrich Himmler, Head of Nazi SS troops
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
- Ayatollah Khomeini 1942
"Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind."
– John Wesley
“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men."
— John Quincy Adams
For a non-Muslim state to have more pomp and glory than a Muslim state itself is an obstacle, therefore to shatter this grandeur is among the greater objectives of jihad (from Islam and Modernism).
— Sheikh Usmani
Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered (from Islam and Modernism).
— Sheikh Usmani
We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah. — Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003.
Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth. — CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad, 1998 (denial noted and full story explained at link)
I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.— CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, 1993.
If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. — prominent American Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj, 2002.
On Islamophobia: ... it wants to silence all those Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and doctrinaire. …young girls are stigmatized for not wearing the veil, as are French, German or English citizens of Maghribi, Turkish, African or Algerian origin who demand the right to religious indifference, the right not to believe in God, the right not to fast during Ramadan…they are delivered up to the wrath of their religions communities in order to quash all hope of change among the followers of the Prophet. — Pascal Bruckner, French philosopher.
“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.” Former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne (1974)
Krekar claims Islam will win
“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.” Mullah Krekar (2006)
"The character attributed to Muhammad in the biography of Ibn Ishaq is exceedingly unfavorable. In order to gain his ends Muhammad recoils from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when exercised in his interest. He organizes assassinations and wholesale massacres. His career as the tyrant of Medina is that of a robber chief whose political economy consists of securing and dividing plunder. He is himself an unbridled libertine [morally or sexually unrestrained] and encourages the same passion in his followers. For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of his deity. It is, however, impossible to find any Islamic religious doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end. At different points in his career he abandons the unity of God and his claim to the title of Prophet. This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion, and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy." -- Islamic scholar D.S. Margoliouth (1905)
-----
From Pamela Geller: "The following passages were written in 1916 in Teddy Roosevelt’s book, "Fear God and Take Your Own Part", reproduced in "What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an" by William Federer.
These words are relevant today because the historical conflict between Islam and Christianity, which started nearly 1400 years ago, is still going on. The final outcome of this struggle is not clear."
Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight.
Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought.
If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.
Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.
From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor.
…..
The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century.
During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today, nobody can find in them any "social values" whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influences are concerned.
There are such "social values" today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do — that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.
Non-Muslims have for centuries been finding the question of achieving permanent peace with the Islamic world a vexatious problem. Professor of law James Lorimer (1818-90) succinctly stated the problem over a century ago:
So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem. … For an indefinite future, however reluctantly, we must confine our political recognition to the professors of those religions which … preach the doctrine of “live and let live” (The Institutes of the Law of Nations, p. 124).
In other words, political recognition — with all the attendant negotiations and diplomacy that come with it — should be granted to all major religions/civilizations except Islam, which does not recognize the notion of “live and let live,” as evinced by, among other stipulations, the Koran’s commands to its adherents to “enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong,” (e.g., Koran 3:110), that is, enforce Sharia law upon the earth.
There is a long list of honor killings and religious killings by Western Muslims who, until the crime, appear to be living peacefully and normally among us. We ignore this at our peril. The problem is widespread and growing, as pointed out by a recent report (The Independent).
PS. I am no longer updating this list. There are a series of very good articles by Phyllis Chesler that I recommend:
USA (ongoing) Rifqa Bary who ran away from home after converting to Christianity is fighting not to be returned to her Muslim family in Ohio for fear that her father will kill her as he has promised to do.
USA, Oct/2009, Arizona: Faleh Hassan Almaleki is being looked by the Arizona police after running down his 20-year-old daughter in a parking lot, Noor Faleh Almaleki . Her crime: she became too 'westernized' and ... not living according to their traditional Iraq values." Noor was taken to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries, police said. Another woman, Amal Edan Khalaf, 43, of Surprise also was struck and is in the hospital with non-life threatening injuries (Yourwestvalley). Noor passed away a few days later.
USA Jan/01/2008 Irving, TX. A Muslim immigrant shoots his two daughters to death on concerns about their 'Western' lifestyle.
USA, Sep/2008 - 22-year-old Mohammed Chowdhury of Sterling Heights, Michigan, was charged Tuesday afternoon with his wife's murder. He called 9-1-1 on Monday, saying a group broke into the apartment and killed his wife. Police say the story didn't add up (WJBK).
USA, September/2009: The mother of Sarah and AminaSaid finally described their January 1, 2008, shooting deaths as an “honor killing” carried out by their Muslim father (CBS11TV). The crime happened on New Year's Night 2008 (Human Events).
USA Jul/06/2008 Jonesboro, GA; 1 killed, 0 injured. A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing.
USA Oct/06/2006: Louisville, KY; 4 killed, 1 injured. In an 'honor' attack, a Muslim man rapes and beats his estranged wife, leaving her for dead, then savagely murders their four children.
USA, Living in Orchard Park, a suburb south of Buffalo, New York, 37 year-old Aasiya Z. Hassan got an order of protection against her husband after years of violent abuse in February of this year. He beheaded her for his honor. The irony — together they managed Bridges TV, a station whose mission was “to become a unifying force that can help people understand our diverse world through education and entertainment.”
USA, January 2005: an Egyptian family of Coptic Christians living in New Jersey was slaughtered by militant Islamic Americans. HossamArmanious, his wife AmalGaras and their daughters, MonicaSylvia (15) were brutally murdered for being outspoken critics of Islam. The family was bound and tortured, before their throats were slit in accord with the instructions for executing nonbelievers, as detailed in the Koran.
USA Apr/15/2004: Scottsville, NY; 1 killed, 2 injured. In an honor killing, a Muslim father kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.
USA: In August 2003, Saudi student Mohammed Ali Alayed and Morrocan Jewish student Ariel Sellouk were students at Houston Community College in Houston, Texas. One evening after they returned home from socializing together, Alayed slashed his friend’s throat, nearly decapitating him. Both young men were 23 years old.
USA, 1999: Dr. Lubaina Bhatti Ahmed was an accomplished, professional woman, in her late thirties, a wife, and a mother living in St. Clairsville, Ohio. In 1999, after suffering years of terrible beatings by her husband, she left him. He killed her for his honor.
UK, Dec 2010: A Harry Potter star was beaten, called a “slag” and threatened with death after she met a young man who was not a Muslim. She was assaulted and branded a “prostitute” after meeting a young Hindu man which outraged her father Abul Azad, 53, and brother, Ashraf, 28, Manchester Crown Court heard. She fled through her bedroom window. (WP, Daily Mail)
UK, Oct/2009: A honour killing case came to Court 10 years later. Tulay Goren, 15, a Kurdish Turk from north London, vanished in 1999 and her body has never been found, but it is assumed to have been an honor killing by her father, after him consulted with his brothers. (BBC)
UK, July/2009: A Danish-born Muslim man suffered stab wounds, was beaten with bricks, and had acid poured down his throat “for having a relationship with a married woman.” (Telegraph; Bare Naked Islam)
UK, Feb/2009: Police say 17,000 women are victims of honour crimes every year in Britain (Independent).
UK, Jan/2008: In Sep 2003, ShafileaAhmed disappeared after a trip to Pakistan during which her parents forced her into an arranged marriage. In an attempt to avoid that she drank bleach. After her return she disappeared. Her disappearance was communicated to the police not by family but by her school one week later. Her decomposed body was found in a river bank 5 months later. "Shafilea was the victim of a very vile murder." (Telegraph). Timeline.
UK, July/2007: BanazMahmod was raped and tortured for two hours before being garotted by an assassin hired by her father and her uncle. She was killed because she had walked out of an unhappy arranged marriage - which she was forced into at just 17 - and fallen in love with an Iranian Kurd (DailyMail). A later investigation ruled that Banaz Mahmod was failed by police when she turned to them for protection. The 20-year-old Muslim begged police for help four times before her brutal murder (Mail Online).
Canada, July/2009: Muslim parents, along with their son, were charged with premeditated murder after their three teenage daughters and the father’s first wife were discovered dead in a submerged car. The girls’ Westernization has been suggested as a motive. (The Canadian Press; Bare Naked Islam)
Germany, August/2009: A Muslim asylum seeker was found guilty of brutally killing his German-born wife because, in the words of the prosecutor, she was “too independent.” (Mail Online)
Italy, September/2009: A Moroccan confessed to stabbing his daughter to death for “dishonoring the family,” based on her relationship with a non-Muslim man (Adnkronos).
Elsewhere in Islamdom:
Turkey, Feb/2011: 19-Year-Old Turkish Girl Stabbed to Death by Family over 'Honor' (Daily News).
Pakistan, Feb/2011: Woman killed for refusing to divorce husband (Tribune).
Jordan, Oct/2009: A Jordanian man was charged on Sunday with premeditated murder after allegedly stabbing to death his 22-year-old daughter because she became pregnant outside wedlock, police said. Around 15-20 women are murdered each year in Jordan in the name of honour, despite government efforts to fight such crimes. So far this year, 17 cases have been reported (AFP).
The Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).
The Qur'an also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).
It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).
It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).
Worst of all, the Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4).
