Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Top Ten Rules in the Quran that Oppress Women

By James Arlandson

Islam in its purest form honors and elevates women, we are often told. But does it?

All too often, textual reality (the Quran) matches up with the historical reality of seventh—century Arabia. Gender inequality and oppression in the Quran reflect the culture of seventh century desert nomads. If Allah and Muhammad improved on this patriarchy, then they did not go far enough for a religion with a claim to universality.

Here are the top ten rules in the Quran that oppress and insult women.

10. A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:
Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

We should make no mistake about this verse. It includes sexual positions. In a footnote to this verse, Haleem says that Muslims in Medina heard from the Jews that 'a child born from a woman approached from behind would have a squint.'

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran. Two reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875). The hadith come only second in importance and sacredness among the vast majority of Muslims around the world. Since the hadith is explicit, the readers are invited to click here and read for themselves, at their own discretion: Muslim nos. 3363—3365. See these parallel hadith here and here.

We should have no doubt that the husband controlled their sex life. If a woman does not want to have sex, then angels curse her.
. . . 'If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.' (Bukhari)

Here is a back—up article, and another is here.

9. Husbands are a degree above their wives.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:
. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur'an, vol. 1, p. 165)

Gender inequality shows up in a theological context. This hadith shows that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women.
The Prophet said, 'I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.' (Bukhari, emphasis added; see also these parallel traditions here and here)
This parallel hadith explains that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women because they are ungrateful and harsh towards their husbands. There is no word about the husbands' ingratitude and harshness. See this article for details on women in Islamic hell.

Muhammad was also superstitious (see here and here for the evidence).This hadith says that women are part of an evil omen.
I heard the Prophet saying. 'Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house.' (Bukhari)
More detail can be found here. This article also supports this ninth point.

8. A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:
The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)
For how this religious law works out in early Islam, see hadith here, here and here.

Malik (d. 795) is a founder of a major school of law. He composed a law book that is also considered a collection of reliable hadith: Al—Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law (rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001). Malik writes:
The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us . . . about fixed shares of inheritance (fara'id) of children from the mother or father when one or the other dies is that if they leave male and female children, the male takes the portion of two females.
This Islamic law is regressive. In the US, for example, inheritance is divided equally among all siblings, regardless of the gender. No religious law prohibits this from happening. So American secular law fits into a modern context better, where women have more economic opportunities and freedom. This online booklet has a short explanation on women's inheritance 'rights.' Click on Chapter 15.

More information can be found here and here.

7. A woman's testimony counts half of a man's testimony.

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:
And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).
The foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may 'forget' something. This verse goes to the nature of womankind, and implies that a woman's mind is weak.

This hadith removes any ambiguity about women's abilities in Sura 2:282:
The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.' (Bukhari, emphasis added)
More information can be found here and here.

6. A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man, they have sex, and then this second man divorces her.

The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:
And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 165)
The finally and absolutely divorced couple is not permitted to remarry each other unless she marries another man, they have sex, and he divorces her. Sura 2:230 engenders a divorce on the road to a possible reconciliation. Why have the intervening step of a second marriage and divorce before the first couple can work out their differences and get back together?

To see this tragedy in real life, go to this question and answer feature at a traditional Muslim fatwa website. Apparently, a Muslim husband pronounced divorce three times, the divorce is final, and now he regrets his decision made in haste and anger. The cleric or scholar says that they are allowed to reconcile only if she follows the Quranic steps of her marrying someone else, consummating that marriage, and then his divorcing her. As for divorce generally,

This article analyzes the ethics behind Quranic divorce procedures and contrasts them with the New Testament. This very short article at a Muslim website shows concern for the divorce rate in Islam. This short page at a Muslim website explains divorce. This short article at a Muslim website also gives an overview on divorce, under the larger section on women.

This news report says that problems emerge in the modern world during the Islamic divorce proceedings. This news report says that Malaysia permits 'text messaging' divorce. At this Muslim website an Islamic scholar answers the question of a Muslim who wrote in about divorce. Here is a fatwa (legal decree) on divorce from a Muslim website.

These links can yield only one conclusion: Islamic divorce favors the man.

More detail can be found here. This article replies to a Muslim polemicist. It analyzes the differences between Christianity and Islam on divorce.

5. Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:
And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).
Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place? No marriage should take place between prisoners of war and their captives, married or not. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords.

Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so. For more information on this Quran—inspired immorality, see this short article. See also Suras 4:3; 23:5—6; 33:50; 70:22—30, all of which permit male slave—owners to have sex with their slave—girls. Suras 23:5—6 and 70:22—230 allow men to have sex with them in the Meccan period, during times of peace before Muhammad initiated his skirmishes and wars in Medina.

The hadith demonstrate that Muslims jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following hadith passage, Khumus is one—fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, had just finished a relaxing bath. Why?
The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus [of the booty] and . . . Ali had taken a bath [after a sexual act with a slave—girl from the Khumus].
What was Muhammad's response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?
Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don't hate him, for he deserves more that that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)
This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave—girls.

Moreover, jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason that the reader may expect. While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists 'received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus.' They asked the Prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say. He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever. Rather, he invoked the murky, quirky doctrine of fate:
It is better for you not to do so [practice coitus interruptus]. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari; also go here and here)
That is, these enquiring Muslims should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born.

It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.

This article quotes the Quran and many hadith passages on sex with prisoners of war. It also analyzes modern Islamic scholars on the topic. They support this practice. In Appendix One, the author answers a Muslim charge that the Old Testament allows this practice. This article provides further details on Muhammad's encouragement to his soldiers to 'just do it.' In addition to the two previous links, more information can be found here and here.

4. A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:
And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)
The clause 'marry those who have fallen in your possession' means slave—girls who were captured after a war. Men may 'marry' them because slaves do not incur very much expense, not as much as free women do. This means that the limit on four wives is artificial. Men could have sex with as many slave—girls as they wanted.

Maududi paraphrases the verse: 'If you need more than one [wife] but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with less responsibilities' (note 6) (See Sura 4:24).
However, Muhammad would not allow polygamy for his son—in—law Ali, because an extra wife would hurt Muhammad's first daughter Fatima, by his first wife Khadija. Fatima was married to Ali.
I heard Allah's Apostle who was on the pulpit, saying, 'Banu Hisham bin Al—Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abu Talib, but I don't give permission, and will not give permission unless 'Ali bin Abi Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me.' (Bukhari)

Muhammad's special marriage privileges

Moreover, it seems that Allah gave Muhammad special permission to marry as many women as he desired or take them as slaves or concubines, just as in the pre—Islamic days of ignorance.

The Quran in Sura 33:50, a lengthy verse, grants Muhammad wide latitude in his marriages:
O Prophet, We have made lawful to you those of your wives, whose dowers you have paid, and those women who come into your possession out of the slave—girls granted by Allah, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with you, and the believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet may desire her. This privilege is for you only, not for the other believers . . . . (Maududi vol. 4, p. 111, emphasis added).
This verse says that besides those women whose dowery Muhammad paid, he may marry slave—girls—that is, he may have sex with them (see this article and this one for more information on this Quran—inspired immorality). Maududi references three slave—girls taken during raids, and Mary the Copt, a gift from an Egyptian ruler. Muhammad had sex with her, and there does not seem to be a political need for this. Second, Muhammad may marry his first cousins, and Maududi cites a case in which this happened. Third, if a believing woman offers herself to Muhammad, and he desires her, then he may marry her (Maududi vol. 4, note 88).

This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave—girls.

But the capstone of these 'special' marriages occurs when Muhammad also marries the ex—wife (Zainab) of his adopted son (Zaid). His son—in—law divorced her with the Prophet standing in the background. In fact, early Islamic sources say that Muhammad catches a glimpse of his daughter—in—law in a state of undress, so he desired her. Once the divorce is final, Allah conveniently reveals to him that this marriage between father—in—law and daughter—in—law is legal and moral in Sura 33:36—44.

This hadith says that Muhammad used to visit nine (or eleven) wives in one night. See the parallel hadith here, here, and here. This article explains why Christians do not accept polygamy. This page in an online index explains polygamy. For a more thorough analysis of polygamy in the Quran, go to this online booklet and click on Chapter 12.

See this article on the number of wives and human sexual property Muhammad allowed himself. Here is yet another article. At the end, it links to more articles on the marriage and divorce of Zainab and Muhammad.

3. A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:
It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)
Maududi provides an interpretation of the verse (vol. 1, pp. 383—84, note 161). He writes:
Allah made it clear that the husband cannot literally keep equality between two or more wives because they themselves cannot be equal in all respects. It is too much to demand from a husband that he should mete out equal treatment to a beautiful wife and to an ugly wife, to a young wife and to an old wife, to a healthy wife and to an invalid wife, and to a good natured wife and to an ill—natured wife. These and like things naturally make a husband more inclined towards one wife than towards the other.
This means that wives are the source of a man's inability to treat all of them equally. One is beautiful, while another is ugly. How can Allah demand from a husband super—human strength under changing circumstances in his wives?

Maududi continues:
In such cases, the Islamic law does not demand equal treatment between them in affection and love. What it does demand is that a wife should not be neglected as to be practically reduced to the position of the woman who has no husband at all. If the husband does not divorce her for any reason or at her own request, she should at least be treated as a wife. It is true that under such circumstances the husband is naturally inclined towards a favorite wife, but he should not, so to say, keep the other in such a state of suspense as if she were not his wife.
Maududi says here that the wife should not be suspended between marriage and divorce. If the husband stays with the no—longer desirable wife, then he should treat her fairly and provide for her.

More detail can be found here. This article (see 'the unpleasant truth behind divorce in Sura 4:130') demonstrates that Muhammad wanted to divorce one of his wives because she was overweight and old. Instead of a divorce, she gave up her turn'in the 'rotation'with the Prophet, who gladly agreed with her proposal. See these three hadith here, here and here

2. Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded).

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!' (Bukhari, emphasis added)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right—hand Companion:
'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.' (Muslim no. 2127)
See this article for fuller details on wife—beating. It clarifies many translations of the verse. At the end, it has many links to modern interpretations of Sura 4:34 and to arguments for wife—beating today. This article is a shorter version. This article, though long, offers a clear analysis of wife—beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics.

This mid—length article answers a Muslim defense. This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of Sura 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses. Finally, this article is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics.

1. Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:
65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)
Maududi correctly interprets the plain meaning of verse 4, which appears in the context of divorce:
Therefore, making mention of the waiting—period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible. (Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)
Divorcing prepubescent girls implies marriage to them. So the fathers of prepubescent girls may give them away, and their new husbands may consummate their marriage with them. If Islam ever spread around the world, no one should be surprised if Quran—believing Muslims lowered the marriage age of girls to nine years old.

This is precisely what happened in Iran after the religious revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. A girl's marriage age was lowered to nine years.

Why should this surprise us? After all, Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and he consummated their union when she was only nine.

The hadith says:
. . . [T]hen he [Muhammad] wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [sic, consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari ; since this is a serious issue, see the parallel hadith here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)
This hadith demonstrates that Muhammad pursued Aisha when she was a little girl.
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said 'But I am your brother.' The Prophet said, 'You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.' (Bukhari; see this hadith that shows Muhammad's dream life in regards to his pursuit of little Aisha, and this one and this one)
This hadith recounts the fifty—plus—year—old Muhammad's and the nine—year—old Aisha's first sexual encounter. She was playing on her swing set with her girlfriends when she got the call.
. . . [M]y mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, 'Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck.' Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here)
This hadith describes Muhammad counseling a Muslim man to marry a young virgin for the extra thrill it gives him to fondle her, and she him.
When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, 'What type of lady have you married?' I replied, 'I have married a matron.' He said, 'Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?' Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, 'Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?' (Bukhari) See parallel hadith here and here.
This hadith describes Muhammad's and Aisha's ill—timed sexual encounters:

Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses). (Bukhari)
For more evidence on this most outlandish of Muhammad's domestic acts even for seventh—century Arabia, readers should refer to this article. This article responds to Muslim defenses of this indefensible Quranic permission. This summary of a news reports reveals Pakistan lowering the marriage age to twelve for a girl.


The nightmare must end for women in Islamic countries.

But the political and legal hierarchies in the Islamic world do not seem ready to reform on women's rights. Here is a 1998 interview with Shirin Ebadi, one of the first female judges in Iran. She correctly sees abuses in Iranian law, which favors men. However, what has been done about these abuses?

Zohreh Arshadi 'was a practising lawyer in Iran prior to her forced exile to Europe. She is currently an advocate in France and is active in human rights and especially of the rights of women. She has been especially active in defence of the rights of women in Iran.' She reports on the inequities in Iranian law as it pertains to women:
The Islamic punishments have encouraged a culture of violence against women, especially within the family and has spilled into violence against children. This has been commented upon by many within the country . . . The fact that men receive a lighter punishment if they commit a violence against women undoubtedly encourages such violence. We saw how women could be killed with impunity during alleged adultery. Stoning to death for adultery, although technically admissible for both sexes, has also been carried out mainly against women.
Though these two examples come from Iran, they could multiply throughout the Islamic world. However, the legal hierarchies understand the cost of reform: abandoning many verses in the Quran and many passages in the hadith, and this they cannot do.

A sign of hope? The Iraqi Constitution, so far, says that 25% of the seats in the Parliament are specified for women. So maybe reform can be strongly encouraged in a fledgling democracy.

But if Islamic nations, especially those who follow sharia (Islamic law) closely, refuse to reform, then the second best strategy must be played out. Islam must never be allowed to impose its sharia system of 'justice' anywhere in the West and around the world. No sharia courts should be permitted outside of the Islamic world. The Quran—the ultimate source of sharia—oppresses women and people generally.

The Islamic holy book is too patriarchal and culture—bound to be relevant to the new millennium.

James M. Arlandson may be reached at

Supplemental Material

Readers may go to these three sites for other translations of the Quran: this one has multiple translations; this one has three; and this conservative translation is subsidized by the Saudi royal family.

Here is the website for the online hadith.

A good online resource for the historical context of a sura is here, where Maududi provides excellent background material.

If readers would like to see many links to women's issues, they should go to this article and scroll down to the end. It has modern views in the Islamic world on wife—beating. This webpage has a number of links to women's issues, as well. This is a superb overview of the Quran and hadith on women's inferior status in Islam. This online booklet explores the differing ideas in Islam and Christianity on the place of women.

This short article reviews Jesus' attitude towards women. This short chapter has an excellent overview on the differences between Islam and Christianity and women's role in each.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

On Islamic Violence: Forget the Koran, Look to History

By Raymond Ibrahim

The debate around Muslim violence all too often centers around doctrine—around what the Koran and Hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad) really mean and say. Forgotten in this debate is that Islamic scriptures are unnecessary in determining whether Islam teaches violence and war against non-Muslims.

History suffices.

Consider some facts, attested to by both Muslim and non-Muslim primary historic sources: A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia.  In just a few decades, Muslims had permanently conquered what was then two-thirds of the Christian world.  The heart of the Muslim world today—nations like Egypt, Syria, all of North Africa, Turkey and more—were, in the 7th century, the heart of Christendom.

Thereafter it was a continuous war on Christian Europe.  Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination throughout the centuries are (to give them their modern names and in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

Less than three decades after the traditional date of Islam’s founding (622), three of the five original Christian centers (“sees”) founded by the apostles—in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—were forever swallowed up by Islam; the fourth, Constantinople, valiantly resisted the Islamic onslaught for centuries, but was finally conquered in the name of Islam in 1453.  Though sacked and burned by Muslims as early as 846, only distant Rome—the Vatican, fifth of the ancient Christian sees—remained unconquered.

The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany.  That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” This was not mere paranoia; as late as 1627, Muslim corsairs raided the northern Christian island seizing four hundred captives and selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape.  A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs.  The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s right and duty to make war upon non-Muslims wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.

There was no mystery about Islam in those days.   As early as the 8th century, Byzantine chronicler Theophanes wrote in his Chronographia:
He [Muhammad] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy — or being slain by the enemy — entered into paradise [e.g., Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual — orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the woman were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.
Six hundred years later, in the 14th century, Byzantine emperor Paleologus II told a Muslim scholar: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman — such as the command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Such was the honesty of interfaith dialoguing in former times.

It deserves repeating, by the standards of historiography, the aforementioned historical outline is unassailable, and attested to by both Muslim and European sources, from the traditional beginning of Islam till the modern era.

In short, regardless of what the Koran and other Islamic scriptures really “mean,” for roughly one millennium—punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing—Muslims waged unrelenting war on the West. And they did and continue doing so in the name of Islam.


And therein lies the rub: Today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians.  (Watch my response to a Fox News host wondering why Christians have always persecuted Muslims.)

So here we are, paying the price of being an ahistorical society: A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11—merely the latest in the centuries-long, continents-wide jihad on the West—Americans elected (twice) a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president; a man who openly empowers the same Islamic ideology that Western warriors fought for centuries.

Surely the United States’ European forebears—who at one time or another either fought off or were conquered by Islam—must be turning in their graves.

But all this is history, you say? Why rehash it?  Why not let it be and move on, begin a new chapter of mutual tolerance and respect, even if history must be “touched up” a bit?

This would be a somewhat plausible position if not for the fact that, all around the globe, Muslims are still exhibiting the same imperial impulse and intolerant supremacism that their conquering forbears did.  The only difference is that the Muslim world is currently incapable of defeating the West through a conventional war.

Yet this may not even be necessary.  Thanks to the West’s ignorance of history, Muslims are allowed to flood Europe, so that hardly a day now passes without headlines of Muslim on non-Muslim violence.   Most recently—or at least as of this writing—Muslims invaded a church in France, forced the priest on his knees, and slit his throat.

All this leads to another, equally important point: If the true history of the West and Islam is being turned upside down, what other historical “truths” being peddled around today are equally false?  The narrative concerning Islam’s alleged peacefulness is only being questioned because the world sees Muslims committing violence on a daily basis.  But surely there are other nefarious and seditious forces that are intelligent enough not to expose themselves?

In the future (whatever one there may be) the histories written about our times will likely stress how our era, ironically called the “information age,” was not an age when people were so well informed, but rather an age when disinformation was so widespread and unquestioned that generations of people lived in bubbles of alternate realities—till they were finally popped.

Friday, August 26, 2016

Obama Provides Iran With $1.3 Billion, But Where Did The Money Go?

Why the Obama administration is refusing to say where the funds ended up

By Ari Lieberman

It appears that when it comes to its dealings with the Islamic Republic, the Obama administration’s miscues are boundless. The latest fiasco involves the recent transfer of $1.3 billion in taxpayer money to Iran’s mullahs. Both the White House and the State Department are shamefully unable or unwilling to provide the public with any pertinent information concerning the transfer.

At a State Department briefing, spokesman Mark Toner remained opaque and evasive about the transaction and said that he did not know who in Iran received the money. Nor was he able to confirm the method of payment -- check or cash, U.S. or foreign currency. All he was able to disclose was that the funds transferred reflected money -- principle and interest -- owed to Iran from a 1979 aborted arms deal.

An additional $400 million was transferred to Iran last month and was part of an overall payment of $1.7 billion. According to the administration, the monies paid reflected a settlement of Iran’s claims against the U.S. stemming from the 1979 aborted arms transaction. Ironically, the Iranians were not required to pay anything to the 52 American hostages they kidnapped in 1979. Those hostages were held in dungeon-like conditions for 444 days. Like all transactions conducted by the Obama administration, the benefits flow one way.

There are several troubling aspects to this story. Though the administration has issued strenuous denials, it is clear that the first installment of $400 million was a ransom payment made to secure the release of Americans held hostage in Iran.

At a briefing in early August, White House spokesman Josh Earnest refused to directly address the following question posed by a journalist; “would these prisoners have been released if this money had not been paid?” The question was posed on no less than three occasions and required a simple “yes” or “no” response. The shifty Earnest was evasive and refused to provide a direct response. Instead, he offered painfully convoluted explanations that shed light on nothing except for how disingenuous he is.

At the State Department briefing, Toner came very close to acknowledging that the $400 million payment was in fact a ransom payment. He stated that while the payment was part of an overall commercial settlement, it was used as “leverage” to ensure that the Americans were released. The White House however, immediately repudiated the State Department’s characterization.

We thought that Obama could stoop no lower after he traded five hard-core Taliban terrorists held at Guantanamo for the deserter and traitor Bowe Bergdahl. We were wrong. The feckless White House is now in the business of disgracefully paying two-bit dictators protection money. Obama can issue all the denials he wants but if it walks like a ransom payment and talks like a ransom payment, it is most likely a ransom payment.

Even if we gave the administration the benefit of the doubt, the harm caused by the mere appearance of a ransom payment is incalculable and puts the safety of Americans throughout the world at risk. Somali pirates, Islamic terrorists, the North Koreans and others engaged in the kidnapping business are all watching.

Even more disconcerting is the second installment of $1.3 billion to the Iranians. One would think that with such a large transfer of taxpayer money, the recipients and method of payment could be verified. But the administration is being deliberately evasive on this issue because it is cognizant of the fact that the money was likely transferred to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the entity that pulls the strings in the Islamic Republic and is responsible for much of region’s turmoil.

Once in the coffers of the IRGC, the hefty sum was almost certainly used to further fuel regional mischief. The IRGC is the entity singularly responsible for propping up Bashar Assad of Syria. It is also a virtual certainty that some of the money was allocated to Iran’s Shia mercenary force in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and it could not have come at a more opportune for the group, which had been suffering from financial distress in recent years.

The Obama administration has turned into Iran’s White Knight, saving the Islamic Republic from financial ruin while providing it with a legal pathway to acquire nuclear weapons through the flawed Iran deal. Ironically, Obama, who claims that running the Guantanamo facility is too expensive and drains resources has no qualms whatsoever about transferring $1.7 billion in taxpayer money to America’s most implacable foe. But then again, judging by his foreign policies, it is unclear whether he even considers Iran an enemy.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Radical Islam: Wahhabism and Salafism

By Michael Curtis

In one of the great speeches of the 20th century, General Charles de Gaulle on BBC Radio on June 18,1940 spoke to the French people after the government of France had capitulated to Nazi Germany.  Optimistically, he argued that France would be able in the future to overcome the enemy by a "superior mechanical force."  The fate of the world depended on it.

Hope, de Gaulle said, must not disappear.

Today, the democratic world must respond to the enemy, radical Islam and Islamist terrorism, with the same force and in the same spirit that de Gaulle embodied.  The task has become increasingly difficult and complicated with the changing nature of the threat and the varied massacres and terrorist Islamist attacks.  The West has also now become aware of the sophisticated propaganda machine of the jihadist terrorist groups, especially ISIS, whose propaganda spreads on the internet, Skype, Facebook, YouTube, and satellite outlets.  Now revelations about one intelligence unit, EMNI, responsible for an external terrorist network, of the secret service of ISIS, is the latest cause for Western concern.  

The first organized attack on the West came from groups such as al-Qaeda that concentrated on important or symbolic targets.  Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and war on U.S., arguing that the U.S. had massacred Muslim people and supported Israel.  To this attack was added the fight against those regimes, including Saudi Arabia, that aided the U.S. 

Then terrorist groups in different countries attacked "soft targets" – train stations and hotels.  More recently, so-called lone wolf jihadists have attacked Jewish museums, night clubs, the promenade of a fashionable seaside resort, in European countries.

It is essential for all defending Western civilization to be aware of the ideology that drives all these different terrorist activities.  The rise of Islamist violence and terrorism has illustrated a clash of cultures in the world, not universal agreement on some hypothetical end of history.  Muslim societies accepting that "the Koran is our Constitution" are antithetical to Western democracies and the secular rule of law.  Glorification of terrorists is incompatible with a system of law and order, however imperfect.  The rise of jihadism stems from an extreme form of Islam, not the revenge of Muslim countries for Western colonialism.

The problem for the West started in the 18th century in the area of Najd in the Arabian Peninsula, when two men met.  One was a religious figure, Abd al-Wahhab, son of an Islamic cleric (juge) who wanted to stop Bedouins from being pagans.  The objective was to return to a "pure" Islam, that of the Prophet and his companions.  This was the extreme, puritanical, and rigid form of Islamist doctrine.  This overlaps with Salafism, which goes back to an even earlier period, the first three generations of Islam, the so-called "Pious  Predecessors."  

In the small town of Diriya, Wahhab in 1744 met Ibn Saud, ruler of the area, and agreed on an arrangement.  This was the pact that involved the lowering of taxes on agricultural products and the raising of revenue by a process of jihad and conquest of neighboring cities on one side and religious extremism on the other.

The alliance of the two men led to conquest of Arabia and the imposition of both centralized administration and the extreme religious point of view on it.  The area gradually changed from continual tribal wars in search of spoils to a political center and a dominant Saudi ruling family, and to Wahhabism, an extreme form of Islam, as the dominant form.

At first, Wahhabism was concerned with defense of Muslim countries against "impurity" within them.  This meant having a military force, a fanatical sect that included mercenaries.  Then grew the emphasis on jihad, the assault of Western systems, that became more urgent with the creation by Hassan al-Banna, a 22-year old teacher, in 1928 in Cairo of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It was the first important movement that tried to unite activist Muslims to affirm an Islamic identity in the face of British and French colonialism.  Therefore, a major objective of Banna was the restoration of the caliphate, a political system that had been abolished by Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924, to rule over Arab countries.  Moreover, that caliphate was to exercise political power, to become politically important, and to reform society.

Parenthetically, Banna was the grandfather of Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss-born academic, often a spokesperson for the Brotherhood and an extreme critic of Israel.  In 2013, he wrote that the overthrow of the Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, Brotherhood leader, was orchestrated by a conspiracy of the U.S. and Israel.

Inherent in the position of the Brotherhood is that the Muslim ruler should be destroyed if he contravenes the divine law.  The Brotherhood had tried to assassinate President Gamal Abdel Nasser in October 1954 and succeeded in assassinating President Anwar Sadat on October 6, 1981.

In the 1960s, the Brotherhood became even more extreme with the influence of Sayyid Qutb, who emphasized resort to violence and overthrow of bad Muslim governments.  It was the teaching of Qutb, who was executed in 1966, that led to Sadat's assassination and to continuing jihadism.

For the West, the threat of Salafist jihadist terrorism stems from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.  The opposition to that event was a combination of Saudi and American force, the employment of American money and the CIA, and the recruitment of local fighters by the U.S. and Pakistan.  Motives were different.  The U.S. was engaged in the Cold War with the Soviet Union.  The local fighters were liberating territory of an occupied Muslim country.  The Taliban was born.

Salafists are of various kinds.  Some insist on piety, education, and predication; others are more interested in political and nonviolent reforms.  The third group, advocates of global jihadism, is what affects the West and Muslim countries. 

Starting in the fight against regimes of Algeria and Egypt, jihadism spread to Albania and the Caucasus.  By late 1990s, global jihad against the West was basis of al-Qaeda.  The fall of Saddam Hussein led al-Qaeda to become influential in Iraq.  Organized jihadism then became nihilist, with the creation of ISIS in 2006 and the caliphate in 2013, both jihadist and a territorial state.

Like de Gaulle in 1940 fighting against Nazi Germany, Western leaders, together with Russia, must pluck up courage and fight the evil.  It helps to know who the enemy is.  The next president of the U.S. must fight from the front, not from behind.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Will Barack Obama Try To Stay In Office If Donald Trump Wins The Election?

By Michael Snyder

If Donald Trump wins in November, will Barack Obama leave office and hand over power in an orderly fashion? Normally we would not even have to ask such a question, but these are not normal times. This week, Obama publicly stated that Trump “is unfit to serve as President” and that he is “woefully unprepared to do this job“. In addition, he told the press that Trump “doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world.” If Obama really believes those things are true, would he really just stand aside and hand the keys to the White House to Trump?

Never before have I ever heard a sitting president claim that one of the major party candidates could not function as president. But that is what Obama has just done. The following is an excerpt from a transcript of remarks made by Obama earlier this week that comes directly from the official White House website. I have highlighted certain phrases in bold text, because I want you to truly consider the implications of what he is saying here…

But there have been Republican Presidents with whom I disagreed with, but I didn’t have a doubt that they could function as President. I think I was right, and Mitt Romney and John McCain were wrong on certain policy issues, but I never thought that they couldn’t do the job. And had they won, I would have been disappointed, but I would have said to all Americans they are — this is our President, and I know they’re going to abide by certain norms and rules and common sense, will observe basic decency, will have enough knowledge about economic policy and foreign policy and our constitutional traditions and rule of law that our government will work, and then we’ll compete four years from now to try to win an election.
But that’s not the situation here. And that’s not just my opinion; that is the opinion of many prominent Republicans.There has to come a point at which you say, enough.

Earlier today, I came across an outstanding article by Joseph Farah of WND in which he summarized the claims that Obama was making against Trump…

  • He said Trump would not abide by “norms and rules and common sense.”
  • He questioned whether he would “observe basic decency” should he reach the Oval Office.
  • He said he would have been disappointed to lose the elections of 2008 and 2012, but never doubted whether his rivals in those elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney, could function as president or had the knowledge to make government work. “That’s not the situation here,” he added.
  • He added Trump “doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding, to occupy the most powerful position in the world.”
  • He said he was “woefully unprepared to do this job.”
  • Obama said Trump lacked knowledge about Europe, the Middle East and other parts of Asia.

This is some extremely strong language, and I truly wish one of the reporters at the press conference would have asked one incredibly important follow up question.

Will Barack Obama try to stay in office if Donald Trump wins the election?

In his article, Joseph Farah raised the same issue

If no one else will ask the question, I will: “Mr. President, if Donald Trump wins the election to become the next president of the United States, will you willingly and peacefully leave office and cooperate fully with the transition of power the way all of your predecessors in the White House have done in the past?”
It’s a simple question that needs to be asked and answered – given Obama’s highly inflammatory rhetoric over the last week.

Like Farah, I believe that it is a fair question.

If Barack Obama truly believes all of the things he said about Donald Trump, does he also believe that he has a responsibility to keep Donald Trump from taking office?

Absent a major national emergency of some sort, this would be very difficult for Obama to do. But if there were some sort of enormous national crisis between now and next January, Barack Obama could potentially employ some of the extraordinary emergency powers that have been endowed on the office of the president over the past several decades.

There is not a single statute, regulation, executive order or presidential directive that contains all of the powers that a president would possess during a major national emergency. Rather, these powers have been layered on top of one another for a very long period of time, and they come from literally dozens of different laws, regulations, court decisions, executive orders and presidential directives.

One document that I would refer you to is National Security Presidential Directive 51 which was put into effect during the Bush administration. It is all about “national continuity policy” and it defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions”.

In such a scenario, the president would have almost unlimited power, and he would wield enormously powerful executive orders such as this one. If there was a big enough emergency, the president would potentially be able to declare martial law, suspend elections and essentially become a dictator.

Let us hope that we never see such a thing play out in the United States of America.

For the moment, there is not much of a threat that Obama will try to stop Trump from taking office because Hillary Clinton has jumped out to a huge lead in the latest McClatchy-Marist poll

The former secretary of State gained ground in the McClatchy-Marist poll, and Trump lost support. Clinton had the support of 48% of those surveyed, and Trump had 33%. Last month, Clinton had 42% while Trump had 33%.
When third-party candidates are included, Clinton’s lead held strong. She had 45%, and Trump had 31%, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson had 10% and Green Party candidate Jill Stein had 6%.

And the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that Clinton is leading Trump by a 47 percent to 38 percent margin.

One thing that I found interesting about both of these polls is that they show two third party candidates gaining ground. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had Gary Johnson with 10 percent support and Jill Stein at five percent.

Jill Stein is still behind Johnson at this point, but she is potentially the much stronger candidate. If she starts to catch fire with Bernie Sanders supporters, she could possibly even hit the 15 percent threshold for being invited to participate in the upcoming presidential debates.

And Donald Trump certainly needs something to change about this race, because right now he is really struggling.

But there is a long way to go until November, and as we have seen, anything is likely to happen in this election cycle.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...