Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,’ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816)
And so Maulavi Sidiqullah Fedayee is correct: “Islam has very clear rules,” and by them one can evaluate whether or not Najiba was put to death justly from an Islamic standpoint. This belies the smooth deceptions that Islamic supremacists, faced with growing opposition to Sharia in the U.S., peddle about Islamic law. Reza Aslan, for example, has claimed: “There’s really no such thing as just Sharia, it’s not one monolithic Continuum—Sharia is understood in thousands of different ways over the 1,500 years in which multiple and competing schools of law have tried to construct some kind of civic penal and family law code that would abide by Islamic values and principles, it’s understood in many different ways.”
Yet neither Reza Aslan nor any other Muslim spokesman in the U.S. can point to any version of Sharia that does not mandate stoning for adultery, or polygamy, or female genital mutilation, or the devaluation of a woman’s testimony in court and inheritance rights, or any number of other provisions that ultimately make it impossible for the Western powers, despite the best intentions of Bob Carr and William Hague, to succeed in “advancing the rights of Afghan women and girls.”
Even if Najiba was the victim of an extrajudicial murder that violated the tenets of Islamic law, those tenets are oppressive enough for women as to ensure that the “rights of Afghan women and girls” will continue to be contravened in numerous ways, whether or not the Taliban returns to power—as long as Islam remains the dominant political and religious ideology of the land. Even if Najiba was killed unjustly in a manner that does not accord with Islamic law, other women are treated unjustly on a regular basis in Afghanistan in ways that accord perfectly with Islamic law: denied a just inheritance, treated as a commodity in a polygamous arrangement with a much older man, silenced in court, beaten (in accord with Qur’an 4:34), and more.
Everywhere that Sharia has ever been implemented, women have been oppressed, and always in the very same ways. For Carr and Hague, and other Western spokesmen who have deplored the murder of Najiba, to treat that murder as an isolated incident betrays an astonishing naivete, particularly from career diplomats who hold the post of Foreign Minister in their respective nations. They should both know that untold numbers of women suffer injustices up to and including the loss of life in Afghanistan on a daily basis; Najiba’s case is singular only in that it was filmed.
If Australia and Britain had Foreign Ministers worth their salt, they would be denouncing Sharia and calling for equal justice for women and non-Muslims in Muslim countries.
We could use a Secretary of State who would do that here, too. But the chances of getting one are about as good as those of Mitt Romney winning the Kentucky Derby.
* * *
Become a Hyperink reader. Get a special surprise.
Like the book? Support our author and leave a comment!
II.
Jihad
White House, New York Times: Don’t FIght Jihad, It Will Only Provoke More Jihad
How many times do you think Scott Shane is going to smear me in The New York Times (my comment on the first time is here) without bothering to even try to create the appearance of journalism by contacting me for comment?
Answer: As many times as he wants, because he is accountable to no one except his hard-Left masters, and they don’t care how viciously biased he is, as long as he serves their agenda.
“To Fight Radical Islam, U.S. Wants Muslim Allies,” by Scott Shane in The New York Times, August 3, 2011 :
WASHINGTON—Rolling out a new strategy for combating radicalization, White House officials on Wednesday warned that casting broad suspicion on Muslim Americans is counterproductive and could backfire by alienating a religious minority and fueling extremism.
This is ridiculous on its face. We are not to cast “broad suspicion on Muslim Americans,” or else they will become alienated and this will fuel “extremism”—in other words, this inappropriate casting of suspicion will provoke some Muslims to turn to jihad. Yet by what criteria are we to distinguish between Muslims in the U.S. of whom we should be suspicious, and those of whom suspicion is unjustified, because that suspicion will provoke “extremism”? Wouldn’t a Muslim who would turn to violent jihad because he is unjustly suspected of an affinity for violent jihad be a justified object of suspicion?
And since no criteria are offered for non-Muslims to use to determine which Muslims are justifiably suspect and which aren’t, the implication is clear: no Muslims are justifiably suspect. There is no “extremism” among Muslims in the U.S., except that which is provoked by non-Muslim “suspicion.” Naser Abdo? Abdulhakim Muhammad? Naveed Haq? Nidal Hasan? Daniel Boyd? Faisal Shahzad? James Cromitie, David Williams and Onta Williams? Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh? Pshaw. It is only non-Muslim suspicion that provokes “extremism” among Muslims, not anything that is happening in mosques or anywhere among Muslims in the U.S.
The administration also promised to identify accurate educational materials about Islam for law enforcement officers, providing an alternative to biased and ill-informed literature in use in recent years, including by the F.B.I. Denis R. McDonough, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser, told reporters that Al Qaeda and those it inspired remained the biggest terrorist threat inside the United States. But he said the bombing and shootings in Norway last month, carried out by a right-wing, anti-Muslim extremist, were a reminder that the government could not focus exclusively on any single brand of radicalism.
Yeah, one nutcase who supposedly found incitement to violence in my (and others’) defense of human rights and freedom versus more than 17,000 jihad attacks since 9/11, carried out explicitly and proudly in the name of Islam and with reference to Islamic texts and teachings, and the government should change its focus. And don’t worry; it will.
Meanwhile, the “biased and ill-informed literature” in question includes my books, but neither Scott Shane or Denis R. McDonough nor anyone else can show any inaccuracy in any of them. It is noteworthy that in this torrent of abuse and scapegoating over the last couple of weeks, blaming me for the Norway shooting, no one has come up with any gotcha quote from me—no incitement to violence, no broad-brush demonization of all Muslims (although it is routinely alleged that I do this), and not even anything false. The windy “refutations” of my work that are available online are generally windy tu quoques that point the finger at the West and Christianity without ever genuinely showing that what I say is false. And the numerous jihad attacks that happen worldwide on a daily basis show that, lo and behold, for some reason many Muslims have misunderstood Islam in the same way I have. No one ever explains how they have so drastically misunderstood their peaceful religion in such large numbers, or why the misunderstanders themselves consistently claim for themselves the mantle of Islamic authenticity, and in that generally go unchallenged by their peaceful brethren in the West.
But the demonization continues apace, and the Big Lie that I am a racist and hate monger is repeated endlessly, despite the fact that I have consistently, over ten books, hundreds of articles, and 25,000+ blog posts, rejected racism and firmly advocated for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people. It may be that this campaign will succeed, and all counter-jihadists will be finally discredited. Then all will be well, eh? “Islamophobia” eradicated! And then the world will wake up the next day and find that the jihad continues and Islamic supremacism still advan
ces, and there will be no one to speak up for and defend freedom.
Don’t believe me? No problem. You’ll find out soon enough. But remember one thing also: in Hamas-linked CAIR’s recent report on “Islamophobia,” it made the unexpected admission that not all criticism of Islam constituted “Islamophobia.” But did it offer any examples of critics of Islam, or of jihad, or of Islamic supremacism, who were not “Islamophobes”? Why, no. It didn’t. And that’s because it couldn’t. Its assurance that not all criticism of Islam was “Islamophobia” was just window dressing for the leftist suckers who make up its audience, when in fact Hamas-linked CAIR and its allies defame as racist and bigoted anyone and everyone who dares to stand up against the jihad in any way. And sure, they can demonize us, marginalize us, and cut us off. And then make no mistake: if you resist them, your turn will be next.
Mr. McDonough said that Al Qaeda had a “bankrupt ideology,” but that accusing the entire Muslim community of complicity in terrorism could “feed the sense of disenchantment and disenfranchisement that may spur violent extremist radicalization.”
No one I know has ever accused the “entire Muslim community of complicity in terrorism.” I have never done that, and challenge Scott Shane or anyone else to show that I have. But here again, does McDonough’s mouth connect to his brain at all? He is saying that falsely accusing peaceful Muslims of “complicity in terrorism” could make them turn toward…terrorism? So then how peaceful were they in the first place?
See, I am being accused every day now of being complicit in mass murder and even of being a murderer myself. Yet there is no amount of this defamation that I could be subjected to that would ever make me become a murderer myself. There is no amount of lies and abuse they could throw at me that would ever make me turn to violent “extremism” myself. And I think this is true of most people—at least most who are sane. Yet McDonough and Shane seem to take it for granted that false accusations against Muslims will make them kill, and that instead of telling the Muslims in question to get hold of themselves and be reasonable, this means we have to tiptoe around them and avoid saying anything that even appears to be a false accusation—and we even have to stop telling truths, for fear they will fuel “extremism.” After all, the U.S. government and the media are engaged in a massive operation of denial of the obvious fact that Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism. And why? Because they are afraid of fueling “extremism” by appearing to associate Islam with terrorism. And so Islamic jihadists can associate Islam with terrorism all day, but we are not allowed to notice.
This is madness.
Instead, he said, Muslim Americans should be treated as a crucial ally of the government in combating extremism….
Fine. Such as who? Hamas-linked CAIR, with its “Don’t Talk to the FBI” poster? MPAC, with its hollow and deceptive condemnations of terror? Exactly which Muslim group in America has actually shown itself to be a “crucial ally of the government in combating extremism”? Can McDonough answer that? Can Shane?
Since the Fort Hood attacks, there have been a number of foiled plots by radicalized Muslims in the United States, as well as by extreme right-wing and white supremacist ideologues.
Far more of the former than of the latter, but Scott Shane will not tell you that.
Conservative critics of the Obama administration, including Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, have accused it of political correctness in avoiding applying the “Islamic” label to plots and attacks by Muslims. Mr. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has held a series of hearings focusing exclusively on the threat from Muslim extremists, drawing fire from Muslim groups. In March, on the eve of Mr. King’s first hearing, Mr. McDonough spoke at a Virginia Islamic center to reassure Muslim Americans that the government would fight extremism without practicing “guilt by association.”…
No reassurance was offered to non-Muslim Americans that the government would fight extremism by doing anything effective to call Muslim groups in the U.S. to account for their deceptive and empty support for anti-terror efforts.
A National Security Council expert on extremism who helped devise the new strategy, Quintan Wiktorowicz, said the administration was aware of “inaccurate training” on Islam for law enforcement officers. He said the administration would compile “gold standard” materials to be posted on the Web for officials to draw upon.
A January study by a liberal research group found a pattern of misleading and inflammatory training about Islam across the country, and a 2009 F.B.I. training document obtained recently by the American Civil Liberties Union gave a provocative account of Islam. That F.B.I. PowerPoint presentation was used for classes for law enforcement personnel at the bureau’s academy in Virginia, but it is no longer in use, according to the bureau.
The F.B.I. document recommended two books by Robert Spencer, an anti-Muslim blogger and author whose work was repeatedly cited in the online manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian accused of killing at least 76 people last month. Mr. Spencer, who operates the website “Jihad Watch,” has said he opposes violence and condemns Mr. Breivik’s actions.
Yep. But Scott Shane thinks it pertinent to drag Breivik into this piece anyway, since he can’t find anything actually “misleading and inflammatory” in what I write. Breivik will have to serve. And he will. Now at last the media and its Islamic supremacist allies have someone other than Tim McVeigh to cite as evidence of “right-wing extremism.” And they will ride it for all it’s worth.
What Would It Take for You to Go on Jihad?
What would it take for you to commit mass murder in the name of Allah?
Would you do it for money? For love? Out of a sense of justice? Out of a sense of religious duty?
Absurd as they may seem, these are serious questions, for as jihad mass-murder plots are being uncovered in the United States more frequently than ever, those are accused of perpetrating them and several Islamic groups are increasingly charging entrapment: that overzealous FBI agents pushed poor innocent Muslims into taking part in a jihad plot that otherwise would never have existed.
And so it was last Wednesday, when a young Muslim named Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis was arrested after trying to detonate what he thought was a 1,000-pound bomb in front of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City—which he wanted to do, he said, “for the Muslims,” to “make us one step closer to run the whole world.”
Almost immediately, Islamic supremacists claimed that Nafis was a victim of entrapment. Cyrus McGoldrick of the New York chapter of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tweeted: “FBI leads idiot in an #entrapment case. Thank God we give them so much money to manufacture crimes.” And Islamic supremacist journalist Mona Eltahawy, who demonstrated her fascist tendencies by spray-painting over the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s anti-jihad New York subway ad, claimed: “We’ve seen many other entrapments here in US.”
Indeed, the same claim has been made in connection with numerous other jihad cases in the U.S., including that of Mohamed Mohamud, a Muslim in Portland, Oregon, who tried to murder those who had gathered for the city’s Christmas tree lighting ceremony. Mohamud’s case is similar to Nafis’s, in that both involved Islamic jihadists attempt to explode bombs that they did not know were harmless decoys supplied to them by FBI agents, rather than the real thing. Islamic advocacy groups such as the Hamas-linked CAIR have also complained about law enforcement officials’ use of informants inside mosques, claiming in some cases that the jihad plots thereby thwarted would never even have existed in the first place if undercover agents hadn’t started meddling.
Yet charges of entrapment are silly for Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, Mohamed Mohamud or any Muslim caught in a jihad terror plot to try to pursue. For there is every indication that Nafis and Mohamud were more than willing to do whatever was necessary to enable them to murder large numbers of Americans. Nafis himself said
that he had come to America from Bangladesh to engage in jihad activity; his goal being to “destroy America.” Thus blowing up the Federal Reserve Bank was not something he had to be enticed into doing.
What’s more, the very fact that Nafis went ahead with his plots ought to be sufficient indication in itself that there was no entrapment. Think about it: what would it take to lead you to participate in a terrorist mass-murder plot? If undercover agents approached you and tried to entice you into working to kill large numbers of innocent people, how hard would it be to convince you to do it?
Speaking strictly for myself, I have absolutely no worries of ever being entrapped in this way; there is simply nothing, under any circumstances, that anyone could say to me to convince me to blow anyone up. And so if someone showed up and started trying to cajole me into doing so, I would find him irritating, but I wouldn’t even come close to doing anything that would enable anyone to portray me as guilty of anything. Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis and Mohamed Mohamud, in contrast, went ahead with their jihad mass-murder plots. Law enforcement agents were not to blame and cannot justly be held accountable for their choices.
These increasingly common charges of entrapment should be seen for what they are: yet another attempt to divert attention from the ugly reality of Islamic jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world, and to place the responsibility for jihadist misdeeds upon non-Muslims—specifically the ones who are trying to thwart the jihadists’ plans. After 9/11, we were assured again and again that the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. and worldwide were peaceful, and sincerely condemned such violence perpetrated in the name of their religion. Yet over nine years later, we still have yet to see a sincere and effective effort within mosques to expose and report those who hold to the beliefs that led to those attacks.
The Worldwide Jihad: The Truth About Islamic Terrorism Page 3
