The Cairo Declaration

There are many ways to differentiate between the two sides currently playing out the Clash of Civilisations which has been going on for 1400 years but which has taken on new and more insidious forms in recent times.

One very telling one is to compare the Western and Islamic attitudes to human rights, as represented by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights with its Islamic equivalent the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam which was produced by the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference since renamed the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation).

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I am sure that few Westerners would argue with the selection of rights presented in the UDHR. Nor would I. Most of them should apply in any society which calls itself civilised.

Nevertheless I have to admit to feeling more than a little queasy about them because I do not recognise specifically human rights as rights at all, but merely wishes disguised by impressive sounding words like “fundamental” and “inalienable”. It has always seemed to me that most religions consist of the suggestion that people could be a bit nicer to each other, wrapped up in mumbo jumbo to to hide its obviousness. So it is with the modern secular religion of human rights.

As far as I can see, all rights are conferred on humans by other humans whether formally as in legal rights or informally as in customary rights. The kind which philosophers claim are inherent in humans simply by dint of being human are, I’m sorry to say, only imaginary rights. That’s the trouble with letting philosophers get involved with things like this, they tend to confuse their concepts with actual things – it’s called reification.

But don’t take my word for it. Here is Jeremy Bentham letting rip about Human Rights’ not too distant ancestor Natural Rights:

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible [in our modern terms “inalienable”] rights, rhetorical nonsense, — nonsense upon stilts.”

As an example, Article 26 states that everyone has the right to education. Well, no they don’t unless someone else – their parents, their tribe or the state – is prepared to provide it. Likewise with Article 24 which states that everyone has the right to paid holidays.

The idea that humans pop into the world with a list of entitlements which were only discovered 200 years ago after 200,000 years of going unnoticed is….well, see above.

There are problems with believing in things which do not exist. For one thing they can get out of hand. The number of stripes on a zebra are limited by reality. The number of stripes on a unicorn are limited only by the imagination of the believer in unicorns. Thus rapists can now avoid deportation because of their human right to a family life or because of their human right not to be subjected to human rights deficiencies in their homeland.

All that explains why I would feel more comfortable if it was called the Universal Declaration of Human Aspirations. That said, it was clearly written by people with their hearts in the right place. Three things we can say about it are that it is:

1) Universal in that it is intended to apply to every human being regardless of race, sex, religion etc.

2) Benign in its intentions.

3) Honest since (putting aside the well meaning self-deception about the nature of rights) there is no intent to deceive the reader with hidden or deceptive content.

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Firstly, we notice that the title does not include the word “Universal”. That is quite accurate since in Islam different categories of humans qualify for markedly different rights. However it does use the phrase “in Islam” which implies that the conception of human rights presented here applies only within Islam, ie only to Muslims, with no implications for non-Muslims. We will see that this is not the case.

Secondly, Article 24, as shown in the picture above, is of crucial significance because it underlies the whole Declaration:

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”

We should bear this in mind when examining selected excerpts from the Declaration. The excerpts are in italics with my highlights in bold like this, followed by comments in standard text.

PREAMBLE

“Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made as the best community….”

This comes from Koran 3:110:
“Ye are the best community sent forth unto mankind….”

The authors of the Declaration were too polite to include the matching verse regarding unbelievers (8:55):
“The vilest of moving creatures with Allah are those who disbelieve….”

“Believing that fundamental rights and freedoms according to Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one shall have the right as a matter of principle to abolish them either in whole or in part or to violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commands….”

This prepares us for the reality that the Cairo Declaration is more about proscriptions than rights. Note that this also applies to non-Muslims since the crucial section starts “no one shall have the right….” rather than “no Muslim shall have the right….”.

ARTICLE 1

“All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah….”

One thing the Cairo Declaration is not is universal. Rights for Muslims, non-Muslims, men and women are markedly different. The only universality in the Declaration is that which we find here in Article 1, that of universal subordination to Allah. That does not mean just Muslims but Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Atheists…and you too, Kafir. And it’s not optional.

“All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities,
without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations.”

Did the authors of the Declaration think no one would notice these bare faced lies?

Islam was founded on discrimination based on religion….Muslim good, infidel bad. Being a non-Muslim in Medina around 630 AD was a very bad idea, as it still is in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc today.

The same goes for discrimination based on sex….unless “basic human dignity” is characterised by near total domination by father then husband, and lesser legal rights over property, marriage, divorce, children, her own body and testimony in court.

ARTICLE 5

“Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from exercising this right.”

That’s nice but where is “religion” in that list? Nowhere, because in Islamic law (effectively equivalent to Sharia) Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women whereas Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men. Since the children in Muslim families have always automatically taken the religion of the father the Muslim population in any mixed society will always grow at the expense of the non-Muslim population.

ARTICLE 6

“Woman is equal to man in human dignity….”

See above.

ARTICLE 9

“The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee its diversity in the interest of the society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam.”

Sounds fine to start with doesn’t it, until it becomes clear what the point of the education is. And, of course, it is not just Muslims who are to become acquainted with Islam but “man”. Islam has always been a proselytising religion….by fair means (dawah) or foul (jihad).

ARTICLE 10

“Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.”

This of course means to change his Muslim religion to another religion or atheism.

ARTICLE 11

“Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to Allah the Almighty.”

Human beings are of course not born free into Islam. They are immediately slaves of Allah. That’s how he refers to his followers throughout the Koran. The popular name “Abdul” means “slave of Allah”. All that is recognised in the phrase “no subjugation but to Allah the Almighty”. The problem comes when humans take on subjugating duties on his behalf. Just as an example, what is likely to happen when a Muslim decides to reject Allah?

Come to think of it, aren’t the authors of the Declaration accusing Mohammed of being a human rights abuser? He certainly enslaved the women and children of the Banu Qurayza tribe (after executing the men) and the protection racket he instituted, known as jizyah, was specifically intended to humiliate, oppress and exploit subjugated non-Muslims:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” (Koran 9:29)

ARTICLE 19

“All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled.”

But plenty of distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims and between men and women.

“There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.”

This is interesting, and shows the predominance in the OIC of Saudi Arabia which really does adhere to Article 19. Only they and a few other countries do so. The majority of Muslim countries retained large parts of the European Colonists’ legal systems and yet they endorsed the Declaration. Can it be that all the 45 OIC signatory countries have a hankering for the old ways?

Article 22

“Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.”

In other words everyone is free to express any opinion as long as it does not criticise Allah, Mohammed or Islam. And remember the Sharia applies to you too.

“Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.”

But you see, jihad is good according to Sharia and freedom of conscience is wrong.

In any case, this is a toned down version of the Sharia based duty to “command the right and forbid the wrong” which goes a good deal further than mere advocating and warning. According to The Reliance of the Traveller, a handy guide to Islamic Law, sanctions against wrong-doing (which can be applied vigilante style) range from “explaining” to “force of arms”.

“Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.”

As with so many of the above articles this is not a right but a proscription. That’s Islam for you but, you know what, the same authoritarian mindset can be found in our own Western controllers of information today who shadow ban and close the accounts of offenders against prevailing left/liberal orthodoxies. Just change a few words….

“Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate politically correct sanctities and the dignity of favoured identity groups, undermine globalist Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm the Left’s cultural dominance or weaken the faith of the indoctrinated.”

ARTICLE 24

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”

Here we come to the nub of the matter. Throughout the Declaration we routinely find curtailments of what Westerners would regard as rights, as though the UDHR has been laid on the Procrustean bed of Sharia and found to be too long, which means too generous, too fair, too free. What the Cairo Declaration presents is not Human Rights at all but Sharia Rights – miserable, hobbling facsimiles of the originals.

Bad enough for those primarily affected, Muslims, but non-Muslims should be aware that Sharia has a place for them too, and it’s not a good place. In Sharia there is only one true religion and it is entitled to dominate all the others, which in effect means Muslims dominating infidels. Saps in the West cannot imagine that this is the reality of Islam but if they dared to examine how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim majority countries around the world they would understand. As it is, with demographic changes in the West showing no sign of doing anything but accelerating, they will soon enough have the chance to experience it for themselves.

ARTICLE 25

“The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

Islamic Sharia is invoked throughout the Declaration so you would need to know what it consists of before you can understand what the Declaration means. No source for the Islamic Sharia is referenced in the Declaration so anyone accepting it is buying a pig in a poke.

It is extraordinarily difficult to get a straight answer to the question “Where can I find the Sharia?” from any imam. It appears to consist in a massive, scattered collection of fatwas and legal rulings. Fortunately there are a few manuals of Islamic Law which have been translated into English and give the enquiring infidel a key to the Declaration. They all have things to say about relations between Muslims and non-Muslims which give the lie to many claims made in the Declaration, for instance the statement in Article 1 that:

“All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion…”

This is what the Hanafi manual of Islamic Law, the Hedaya (Book 9 p.140) has to say about discrimination against non-Muslims on the basis of religion:

“War must be carried on against the infidels, at all times, by some party of the Mussulmans. The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of the Mussulmans; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who has said, in the Koran ‘SLAY THE INFIDELS’; and also by a saying of the prophet, ‘war is permanently established until the day of judgment’.”

So how does the Cairo Declaration shape up on the 3 criteria above? It is:

1) Universal regarding the subordination of all humans to Allah but not so much for humans themselves.

2) Benign for Muslim males at least. Again not so much for anyone else.

3) Honest about the fact that that Islamic human rights equals Sharia but dishonest in kidding us about equal respect for non-Muslims and women, and dishonest in hiding from the reader what Sharia actually entails.

While Muslims routinely play Western human rights for all they are worth in that branch of jihad known as “lawfare”, the OIC have made it clear here what human rights we can expect when they are in a position to dictate them. We should be grateful to them at least for the warning.

Advertisements

A Proposal regarding Islamic Supremacism and Islamic Supremacists

NB This is a continuation of a discussion on the Gates of Vienna site about whether Islamisation can be rolled back without eroding civil liberties.

In 622 AD Mohammed and his followers arrived in Medina as refugees, supposedly fleeing religious persecution. He quickly established himself there by means of criminality (caravan raiding), violence (assassination) then open warfare (jihad) and within eight years he controlled the entire Mecca/Medina area having either converted, exiled, enslaved or slaughtered all the local population.

When we observe the growing control by Muslim immigrants of no-go zones across Europe and the effect on local populations of escalating levels of criminality, violence and jihadist attacks, it is clear that the perpetrators are simply following the example of Mohammed…today Rinkeby, tomorrow Malmo, in due course Sweden. Clear to those of us who have enquired into the teachings and history of Islam at least. For those who have not done so it is a mystery. As an example, just recently there were co-ordinated carbecues in several Swedish towns accounting for around a hundred Saabs and Volvos. The prime minister, Stefan Löfven, responded by saying “I’m getting pissed off – really! My question to these people is what the hell are you doing?”

Some time in the not too distant future one or more of the European countries which so foolishly opened their borders to mass Muslim immigration will have to decide whether they will throw off such wilful ignorance and do what is necessary to survive, or just go under. Most likely the first will be Sweden but the rest of us are not that far behind.

Who do we turn to for guidance in these absurd times? Clearly not our mainstream political leaders. They have turned against us and care more for their utopian dreams than the protection of their people. The same goes for mainstream journalists, academics and religious leaders.

But amongst all the froth they produce, assuring us that we are all the same and we can all get along fine if we just make a bit of effort, one dissenting message from a religious man to the inhabitants of Europe stands out as starkly realistic. That man is Amel Shimoun Nona, exiled Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul:

“Please, try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home”.

I believe this to be undeniably true. Democracy was never designed to cope with a sizeable, determined contingent of people who are intent on its destruction, using its liberties against it. At some point we will have to accept that it is necessary to suspend or limit our non-discriminatory ideals with regard to one particular ideology and its adherents, and discriminate against it and them as though our civilisation depended on it….because it does.

Agree with me or disagree, but that is the assumption the following Proposal is based on. So now we just have to sort out the details. First of all, what is the ideology in question and who are its adherents?

“What a dumb question” you may say, “obviously we are talking about Islam and Muslims”. True, but is that the whole of Islam and all Muslims? Many people think so. The view that the problem we face comes from an undifferentiated Islam and all Muslims is clearly put here by the author of the Hesperado blog in his farewell post.

I suggest that we can slice things quite a bit finer than that though and save ourselves some trouble. Or we could if there was the political will, but that deficit applies to all proposed solutions…at the current time.

I would hope that we can agree there are parts of Islam which present no more of a threat to us than Sikhism or Hinduism – all of the five pillars in fact; the declaration of faith, prayer, compulsory charity ie Zakat (apart from the proportion which Islamic Law stipulates must go to support jihad), fasting and the pilgrimage to Mecca.

So what is it about Islam which is such a danger and what should we call it? Is it Sharia or jihad or political Islam or Islamism or fundamentalism or any of the other similar terms? They all point to aspects of that which threatens us, and overlap to some extent, but I suggest the crucial element can best be identified as Islamic supremacism.

This definition by the Citizen Warrior site sums it up precisely:

“ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM is the belief that Islam is superior to other religions, cultures, and governmental systems, and the belief that Islam’s superiority entitles Muslims to dominate, control, and rule non-Muslims”.

I deplore the fact that Islamic texts justify the cruel oppression by Muslims of other Muslims, particularly females, but if it wasn’t for the implicit or explicit call for the subjugation of non-Muslims then I could happily ignore Islam, as I did until five years ago.

“So the Muslims we really need to worry about are those who can be designated Islamic supremacists?” That’s right. I don’t give a damn which foot Muslims enter the toilet with or even that their bugaboo god reckons to torture me forever for not believing in him. But I do object to those Muslims who think I should be under their control since they are Allah’s representatives on Earth. I have to regard them as my enemy, as they apparently regard me as Allah’s.

“Ah yes, but how to tell them apart from the others?” More of that later.

How should we respond to Islamic supremacism and what is currently its central project, the Islamisation of the West? There is no shortage of suggestions to be found on counterjihad sites about how to deal with the problem. Putting aside those involving pitchforks or nuclear weapons, I am concerned to try to identify one which seems to hold out the best chance of being effective while doing the least damage to our system of governance built on democracy, liberty, individuals’ rights and the rule of law.

It may be that there is no such solution and that we are headed ineluctably towards subjugation or civil war. But there is surely nothing to lose in attempting to sketch out a possible last ditch plan to deal with the problem democratically (or somewhat democratically) before armed militias confront each other on the streets.

Looking at the proposed solutions to be found on the internet we can see that they tend to fall into two camps, those involving the ideology of Islam and those involving its adherents, Muslims. [My brief comments on some of the solutions look like this]

Examples of solutions based on Islam itself:

1. We recently saw a petition from a collection of French notables, including an actor and an ex-president, demanding that verses of the Koran “calling for the murder and punishment of Jews, Christians and disbelievers” should be removed on the grounds that they are obsolete. Not surprisingly al-Azhar university, the guardian of Sunni orthodoxy, replied “Not bleeding likely” or words to that effect.

2. Geert Wilders has simply called for the Koran to be banned in the Netherlands. [How are you then going to show people just how awful it is?]

3. I myself, not entirely seriously, proposed a joint venture with Her Majesty’s Government to publish and distribute a Moderate Koran, that is one with the Medina suras removed.

4. In a novel twist on this approach the Pakistani scholar Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri had the cheek to slip additional notes into his translation of the eternal, uncreated book making all the jihad verses explicitly defensive and then used it as the basis for his fatwa condemning all terrorism as un-Islamic. As an example this is what he did to the infamous verse 9:29:

“(O Muslims!) Wage (also a defensive) war against those of the People of the Book (who infringed the peace treaty signed with you, and despite being in exile, provided full support to the disbelieving Meccan invaders who imposed the battle of al-Ahzab [the Confederates] on Medina, and have continued every possible conspiracy against you even now). They do not have faith in Allah and the Last Day…etc”.

Examples of solutions based on Muslims:

1. The author of the Hesperado blog mentioned above always maintained that nothing short of the deportation of all Muslims from western countries could save the West. [But he would never address the practicalities]

2. The commentator El Ingles here, here and here thinks the solution, or a large part of the solution, for Britain would be to deport all Pakistanis. [Why settle for a religious war when you can have a race war too?]

3. One of the policies of the now defunct political party Liberty GB was to prohibit Muslims from holding public office. [Taxation without representation didn’t turn out well for us last time, did it?]

4. We sometimes hear calls for legal or geographic partition in Europe. [They would only be beachheads, wouldn’t they?]

There is however a third group combining both Islam and Muslims:

1. In 2006 Sam Solomon, an ex-Muslim scholar, wrote a Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding which was endorsed by the current leader of UKIP, Gerard Batten. It detailed which parts of Islamic teachings should be rejected by Muslims living in the West, and groups claiming to represent Muslims were asked to sign it. As far as I am aware there have been no takers so far.

2. In Australia Harry Richardson has produced a Declaration of Peaceful Intent for individual Muslims to sign and has suggested that it could form the basis of a statutory declaration, giving it some legal force. [Needs refining – as it stands even a genuinely quietist Muslim would be likely to object to the phrase “unprovoked violence” believing that the Koran sanctions only provoked, ie defensive, violence]

3. Daniel Pipes proposed in-depth interviewing to, as he says, smoke out Islamists and produced 93 questions to ask based on Islamic beliefs and practices. [Who could be more of an Islamist than Mohammed?]

4. Newt Gingrich proposed the deportation of any Muslims who believe in Sharia. [Far too broad brush – Sharia includes how Muslims should wash their hands]

My Proposal falls into this third group.

The law of the land, properly enforced, should be sufficient to deal with the various unlovely, but not necessarily supremacist, features of Islam such as polygyny, forced and underage marriages, FGM, honour killings, vigilantism, punishment for apostasy and blasphemy etc.

Common sense policies on immigration, welfare and ejecting illegal immigrants would also help with community relations. Likewise insisting on Friday sermons being given in the language of the host country and banning foreign funding of mosques.

But European governments should also accept that an uncertain percentage of their Muslim populations subscribe to the world view of Islamic supremacism which presents a mortal threat to western civilisation. Those governments should therefore make it clear which beliefs and actions are acceptable and which are necessarily seditious, with the understanding that offending individuals must be removed one way or another from the host society and offending institutions closed down. That is my Proposal in a nutshell.

Offenders should be interned until such time as they can be returned to their ancestral homelands or any other country willing to take them. There are 57 OIC member states. Perhaps some of them would be amenable to financial or other inducements. If not, we should ask ourselves whether it is likely to be cheaper in the long run to intern committed Islamic supremacists or to allow them free movement in a continent full of high value jihad targets.

You might ask whether it is physically possible to isolate a large number of such people in crowded European countries. Well, to take just two examples, the British Isles comprise 6,000 islands (yes, who knew?) and Sweden has plenty of unspoilt tundra in the North.

Here are some examples of those unacceptable attitudes and actions:

Anyone believing that jihad is still required from Muslims, and not just a dead letter from 7th century Arabia would necessarily qualify as an Islamic supremacist.

That would include any imam using the Hilali Khan translation of the Koran. Here is verse 8:60 making the issue very clear:

“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know…etc”

The mosques or other Islamic institutions using it would qualify as centres of Islamic supremacism. Since the Hilali Khan translation (aka the Wahhabi Koran) is widely distributed in the West courtesy of Saudi funding, that means a lot of imams to be removed and a lot of mosques to be closed down. Those resisting such closures will have revealed themselves as supporters of the ideology in question and will also qualify for removal.

The same goes for mosques where the faithful pray for victory over the kuffar, apparently a not uncommon practice. Here is that nice Cat Stephens singing about it (at 2:00). He’s definitely one!

The Muslim Brotherhood is the primary font of Islamic supremacism in the world today. Its founder, Hassan Al-Banna, gave the organisation its ideological stamp when he said:

“It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet“.

It has spawned most of the well known jihadist groups around the world and has infiltrated western countries using a plethora of front organisations. It, and they, should be proscribed and their supporters removed. This, of course, goes for the many other Islamic supremacist groups which spring from other sources, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir or those organisations in the West taking their inspiration from the Pakistani scholar Abul Ala Maududi. Here he is making his position clear in his seminal book Jihad in Islam:

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it….Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet….”

What business does anyone holding such an ideological position have in non-Muslim European countries? Answer…none. And why would anyone own that book in the first place? Even now it is a crime in western countries to possess documents “likely to encourage or aid terrorism”. Jihad in Islam, and a great many similar books, could sensibly be added to the list.

Of course there are parts of Sharia which explicitly mandate Islamic supremacism. A well-thumbed Section O of the Shafi’i manual of Islamic Law, The Reliance of the Traveller would be highly suggestive of supremacist sympathies.

Attempts to take over symbolic public spaces such as Speakers Corner would also count since they have nothing to do with pluralistic engagement and everything to do with Islamic triumphalism. Blocking the traffic by praying in the street falls into the same category. Likewise expressions of contempt for non-Muslims, the vilest of creatures, such as anti-semitism or attacks on churches.

Successful attempts to impose Sharia on the indigenous population such as the exclusive provision of halal meat in hospitals, schools or prisons should be rescinded along with the de facto blasphemy law enshrined in hate speech legislation. But in truth you can’t blame Muslims for trying it on. The blame lies with the non-Muslim authorities who think they are being nice and decent rather than just weak.

If Sharia councils (not courts) are to survive they should be officially registered and closely monitored to be sure they are not going beyond their brief of providing guidance in family matters, and on a truly voluntary basis.

The niqab and burqa are not just a fashion statement or an expression of piety. They are a studied insult to western values and a declaration of permanent separation. As such they are likely precursors to Islamic supremacism. An Algerian apostate has related how those who eventually instigated the bloody civil war in Algeria in the 90’s started their campaign of differentiation and acquisition of power by first controlling the dress of their women before then going on to attempt to control everyone.

Islam is the Religion of Control – of the universe by Allah, of the Ummah by Mohammed, of women by men, and if given the chance, of infidels by Muslims. If we wish to survive as free societies we have to deny them that chance.

The above are just examples of supremacist attitudes and actions. No doubt an international committee, composed of people who understand the threat, could produce a comprehensive list and Muslims could be asked to sign a declaration rejecting them. Those refusing would save us the trouble of further investigation. As an added benefit, no doubt some useful-idiot SJW types would “convert” and refuse to sign out of solidarity with oppressed Muslims. Excellent – we should take them at their word.

Not surprisingly objections have been raised to this approach:

1. How to get the Proposal adopted and implemented.

Solutions to the problem of Islamisation are routinely proposed among the counterjihad community and are often met with the very reasonable objection “It’s no good just telling us what needs to be done. How do we get from here to there?”

The good news regarding the above Proposal is that we need do nothing at all. The conditions which may eventually induce the populace to support such decisive measures, and therefore governments to implement them, are being brought about as we speak. Not by us but by those Muslims closely following the example of Mohammed, enthusiastically demonstrating how incompatible they are with European civilisation. With greater numbers of Muslims come greater levels of criminality, jihad and actions which show the desire to dominate rather than to co-exist as equals. This pairing is automatic and invariable and so these conditions must only increase over time.

For the long-suffering indigenous Europeans the elastic is being stretched a little tauter with every stabbing to the cry of “Allahu akbar”, every rape of a kaffir girl, every desecration of a church and every small anti-social act toward the host population. It may of course just snap with us meekly accepting our subjugation or perhaps it will reach its limit and spring back, much to the surprise of those who have never heard the saying “Good fences make good neighbours”.

2. Is it even possible to implement without triggering the civil war we wish to avoid?

It all depends on the numbers. Attempting to deport all Muslims from Britain, or even just all Pakistanis, would almost certainly trigger civil war or something like it. There are (officially) about 4 million Muslims in Britain and the majority of those are of Pakistani descent.

Whatever the total, it would be an awful lot of people to round up and deport considering that the UK now has an army of only 60,000 soldiers, 10% of whom are considered unfit for duty. Factoring in an unknown number of non-Muslim allies who wish to see western civilisation brought down at any cost and true believers in the “poor Muslims persecuted by the evil West” myth, I suggest that the ensuing conflict would immediately go unofficial with militias fighting it out on the streets.

On the other hand, how many Islamic supremacists are there in Britain? Nobody knows. Estimates vary from a tiny minority, sometimes quantified as something like 0.001%, to all of them. Polls show variable figures, sometimes indicating percentages as high as 30% to 50%. At a guess, I would not be surprised to see Daniel Pipes’ finger-in-the-air figure of 10% to 15% borne out (he calls them Islamists).

There is only one way to find out, by making laws proscribing certain expressed attitudes and actions, and seeing who breaks them. If it turns out to be a tiny minority then there would be very little problem, in fact we could expect the great majority of Muslims to be glad to see the back of the trouble makers giving their religion a bad name. If it turns out to be 10% to 15% that would be manageable. If it turns out to be the opposite, 85% to 90%, then we have a problem but, as with any problem, it is at least a step in the right direction to know the real extent.

3. What might be the effects of this removal of Islamic supremacists?

Think of this Proposal as a gardener might. Applying a selective weedkiller will remove the ragwort in a lawn leaving the grass unharmed, even encouraged. Of course ragwort will always find its way back, requiring repeat applications, but that’s life.

The first application would remove the largest, most obvious clumps of noxious weed such as all those Muslim Brothers insidiously working to undermine our civilisation. Subsequent applications would account for ever decreasing hauls.

Let’s assume that this Proposal works and the first few applications remove most of the Islamic supremacists in our midst and a good many mosques are closed down. What would a Muslim community with the noxious weed of Islamic supremacism largely removed look like?

It seems reasonable to assume that those who wish to control non-Muslims are the same people who maintain such an effective control over other Muslims. Perhaps, with the coercive element gone, the remaining Muslims will give up the endless compulsion to dominate, and a truly moderate Islam will emerge, a quietist strain of Islam whose adherents really can get along with everyone else. Perhaps female Muslims will take control of their own fertility, join most other social groups in having no more children than they really want, and thereby put an end to the demographic trend which is the biggest threat of all to western societies.

Or perhaps we will discover that it is precisely the coercion which keeps Islam alive. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, effectively chaplain to the Muslim Brotherhood, once admitted that without capital punishment for apostasy Islam would have died out long ago. Perhaps when Muslims realise that they can leave Islam with impunity they will do so in numbers, leaving only a small remainder of non-threatening Muslims. This would take us back to the same happy condition which existed in Britain fifty years ago when Muslims dressed like the rest of us and words like “jihad”, “Allahu” and ”akbar” were never heard.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out?

4. There is no time, it’s too late.

The short answer is if it is too late for this Proposal then it is also too late for any others and we must reconcile ourselves to civil war or subjugation.

The long answer is as follows.

This is a quote from the discussion on the Gates of Vienna site mentioned at the top:

”….such policies should have been implemented a decade or so ago. We discussed similar things here back in those days, and the basic conclusion was that they needed to happen very soon, within a few years at most, or it would be too late….Well, those few years have come and gone, and nothing has changed. Or rather, things got worse….”

If events always took place in an orderly, linear way then it is true because things have got worse and if nothing happens it will be too late. But great changes generally do not occur like that. Actions lead to reactions; the pendulum swings too far in one direction and then swings back, sometimes catastrophically.

In the case of western acceptance of Islam the pendulum has been moving in only one direction for the last 20 or 30 years but now it is slowing drastically. Nationalist parties are not just springing up all over Europe but threaten to become the largest single party even in places like Sweden. Next stop is an outright majority, after which unthinkable things become not only thinkable but doable.

We see Brexit about to significantly weaken the EU’s power and finances, the Visegrad four defying Brussels, Italy turning back migrants and even France and Germany rowing back on Schengen. Surely these things, along with increasingly negative experiences with immigrants, herald the end of the EU, the prime mover of the pro-Islam pendulum, even though it may take a non-immigration issue such as a financial crisis in Italy to kick it off.

When the EU does implode it won’t be an orderly process but a sudden, dramatic collapse unpredicted by all the talking heads just as was the case with the end of communist rule in Eastern Europe in 1989 and the global financial crisis of 2007. The above events lead me to believe that it is not correct to say that it’s too late, rather only that things are coming to a head.

5. Civil and Human rights.

The lessening of civil rights for any section of society must cause pain to any civilised person but there is an obvious precedent. In time of war civil rights are always severely, but temporarily, restricted for the sake of security. In the Second World War Germans were interned in Britain and likewise Japanese in the US.

We just have to accept that we are also in a war – the war to make Islam supreme in the world. It has been going on for nearly 1400 years with a partial break of about 150 years thanks to European colonisation after which hostilities resumed as normal. And now the enemy is within the gates, hiding among co-religionists who are not, or appear not to be, our enemy. If we do not identify and remove our enemies ”even at the cost of contradicting our principles” there will only be one of two outcomes, subjugation or civil war.

As for human rights, this is an area in which we are subject to dangerous assymetry on two fronts.

The first is that of the European Court of Human Rights which routinely puts the rights of enemies of member states before their citizens’ right to protection. Hopefully it will implode along with the EU and save us the trouble of extricating ourselves from it.

The second is that of mainstream Muslim attitudes to human rights themselves. While Muslims routinely play western human rights for all they are worth the Islamic view of human rights is markedly different and clearly expressed in the OIC’s 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

The Declaration starts with this assertion:

Article 1 All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah…

and ends with this clarification:

Article 24 All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

In fact Islamic Sharia is invoked throughout the Declaration so you would need to know what it consists of before you can understand what the Declaration means. No source for the Islamic Sharia is referenced in the Declaration so anyone taking it seriously is buying a pig in a poke. Fortunately there are a few Manuals of Islamic Law (largely synonymous with Islamic Sharia) which have been translated into English and give the enquiring infidel a key to the Declaration. They all have things to say about relations between Muslims and non-Muslims which give the lie to many claims made in the Declaration, for instance the statement in Article 1 that:

“All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion…”

This is what the Hanafi manual of Islamic Law, the Hedaya (Book 9 p.140) has to say about discrimination against non-Muslims on the basis of religion:

“War must be carried on against the infidels, at all times, by some party of the Mussulmans. The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of the Mussulmans; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who has said, in the Koran ‘SLAY THE INFIDELS’; and also by a saying of the prophet, ‘war is permanently established until the day of judgment’.”

That being the case, is it not beyond question that extending every benefit of universal human rights to those who offer in return the very far from universal rights under Sharia is nothing short of suicidal in our current situation?

As a closing note, may I reiterate that the Proposal above is not put forward as something to be acted upon now but only to be borne in mind until such time as a critical mass of Europeans realise that the coming struggle for dominance is a question of “us or them” and start to look for solutions short of outright civil war.

All the Korans you will ever need

madrassa

I still come across people whose only source for the Koran is the paperback Yusuf Ali translation they bought in 1985, unaware that there are many presentations of the accursed book now available online which provide the opportunity to contrast and compare. So this post is intended to be a wander round some of the different online presentations for the benefit of the Luddites among us, ending in a shameless plug for one particular presentation with the admission that I might be biased since I had a hand in creating it.

First stop for the diligent enquirer must be the Muslim site Islam Awakened (lets hope they never find out how helpful they are to our side) which gives the literal word for word translation from the Arabic for each verse, plus fifty scholarly translations. The site shows how widely they differ, allowing readers to select their meaning according to taste. For instance, regarding the disputed concept of jihad, here is verse 47:31.

The word for word translation for the Arabic phrase “almujahideena minkum” is “those who strive among you”.

– Muhsin Khan and Muhammad al-Hilali (aka Hilali-Khan) translate it as “those who strive hard (for the Cause of Allah)”.
– Upping the bellicosity, Ali Quli Qura’i translates it as “those of you who wage jihad”.
– Aisha Bewley makes things plain with “the true fighters among you”.
– But Syed Vickar Ahamed avoids any hint of violence with the very anodyne ”those among you who do their very best”.

Two things we do know are that in the Koran the word “jihad” is overwhelmingly used in the context of war and never in the context of spiritual improvement. That idea of the greater jihad comes solely from a late and disputed hadith.

And here is verse 70:30, about who a Muslim man can have sex with, apart from his wives:

The word for word translation is “what they possess rightfully”.

– The Monotheist Group (2011 edition) translates it as ”those committed to by oath”.
– T B Irving translates it as ”those living under their control”.
– Kamal Omar translates it as ”the women who are given in guardianship of adult males as their wives under a document prepared by the Muslim state)”.
– Mohammed Sarwar, dispensing with the euphemisms, gives us simply ”slave girls”.
– And Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali gives us the familiar and chilling phrase “what their right hand possesses”.

The Hilali-Khan translation is an eye opener for anyone wishing to believe that Islam is just a religion like any other. Also known as the “Wahhabi Koran”, it was commissioned by the Saudi government and is widely disseminated throughout the western world courtesy of all those Saudi funded mosques.

Hilali and Khan make it clear that jihad was not restricted to Mohammed’s battles in the Mecca/Medina area circa 630 AD but is very much a duty for Muslims today:

“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.” (8:60)

And, putting the matter beyond doubt, here is a footnote to verse 2:190 to be found in the paper edition (you can download a PDF version here). Note the present tense throughout:

”Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established. Allah’s Word is made superior, (His Word being La ilaha illaliah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.”

At the other end of the spectrum is Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri’s comically deceptive version. In 2010 he produced a “no ifs or buts” fatwa condemning all terrorism as unIslamic. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch wondered why there was no attempt in it to explain why the so called terror verses do not mean what they appear to mean.

It turned out that there was no need because Tahir-ul-Qadri was working from his own translation of the Koran in which he simply interpolated comments magically taking the sting out of the jihad verses by making them always defensive. For instance, here is his version of the infamous 9:29:

(O Muslims!) Wage (also a defensive) war against those of the People of the Book (who infringed the peace treaty signed with you, and despite being in exile, provided full support to the disbelieving Meccan invaders who imposed the battle of al-Ahzab [the Confederates] on Medina, and have continued every possible conspiracy against you even now). They do not have faith in Allah and the Last Day…etc”.

Here is the excellent Skeptic’s Annotated Quran. It highlights verses according to 14 categories such as Injustice, Intolerance, Cruelty and Violence, Absurdity etc. It even has a sparsely populated category entitled Good Stuff.

A Koranic search facility like this one is useful too. As an example you could enter “fire” to find out about all the interesting things Allah intends to do to you once he gets you in Jahannam.

Some commentaries may be helpful too. Here Robert Spencer goes through the Koran highlighting what various mediaeval Islamic commmentators had to say about individual verses. Here is the most famous of those commentaries, the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir (but is is not exactly an easy read).

But to return to the Koran itself, the presentation I turn to first is Koran At A Glance. The translation used is that of Marmaduke Pickthall. Apart from being particularly quick and easy to navigate, Koran At A Glance has several useful features:

1. Four themes are highlighted by colour, Allah, Believers, Unbelievers and Jihad.

2. It is chronologically presented with the front page showing visually how Mohammed turned from being just a warner, as he called himself in Mecca, to a warlord in Medina, predominantly concerned with jihad.

3. All abrogated verses are highlighted, with popups of their abrogating verses.

4. It saves a hell of a lot of time by pointing out the parts which really concern non-Muslims.

Three or four years ago I came across the site of a Dutch blogger called Red Bee. He had two good ideas, firstly colour coding the text and secondly the likely effect on children of reciting the horrific content of the Koran. I suggested working together to produce a full working Koran site incorporating those two elements but we could not agree on how to proceed and went our separate ways.

Fortunately I found two other people interested in the project. I produced the colour-coded text and they did the clever stuff producing the thumbnail pictures and putting it all together in a website.

The themes chosen are not arbitrary. Unbelievers and Jihad are relevant to the concerns of non-Muslims but we believe all four are acutely relevant to children learning (ie being indoctrinated) about Islam.

As it says in the About section:

“Other themes could have been drawn out but the ones presented are arguably those likely to have the deepest impact on Muslim children who are made to recite the Koran from an early age. Adults may argue about scholarly interpretations but they mean nothing to a ten year old. Surely, all a child is likely to get out of the Koran is the message of terror of Allah who knows what he or she is thinking and who might decide to torture them forever, the lure of a distinctly sensual paradise, loathing for unbelievers and the requirement to “strive in Allah’s way”. Is this not why we see so many teenagers, particularly the more devout ones, run off to kill and die for ISIS?”

Ali Sina liked it. So did Citizen Warrior. WikiIslam suggested we spend some money on it.

An unknown person or group liked it too, using it as the basis for an extended version with notes and a couple more themes. Very sensible, but I cannot understand why they thought it an improvement to turn it back to front. There is no explanation in the PDF but if you can see the benefit then The Koran In Reverse Chronological Order is for you.

Looking toward the future, perhaps the idea of colour coding different themes could be extended further in more sophisticated presentations than ours, with an indexing system so that all examples of a particular theme could be brought up on screen together. And the idea of popups could be expanded by, for instance, bringing up commentaries for individual verses.

Good luck to anyone who might decide to take up the challenge.

[Update 20/06/2018 – Peter McLoughlin’s and Tommy Robinson’s recently published Mohammed’s Koran is also presented in reverse chronological order, with the reason given in the preface that “the latest – and most violent – commands spoken by Mohammed are the first thing the reader sees”.

It also says in the preface that Mohammed’s Koran “is also the only known attempt to visually indicate which parts of the Koran are known to have been cancelled by Mohammed’s later commands”. So there are now two presentations highlighting abrogation. Good. Let’s hope there will be others since it seems like it should be a useful feature for those struggling to understand a very confusing book.

For those who do not know, Peter McLoughlin wrote Easy Meat, exposing the full extent of the Muslim rape gang/Establishment cover up scandal. Tommy Robinson is currently a guest of Her Majesty, having been found guilty of contempt of court, in apparently dubious circumstances, while trying to publicise the same issue.) ]

Get the T-shirt!

ECAW’s blog is proud to present its new range of stylish T-shirt designs, all available at the special introductory price of zero pounds/euros/dollars.

All you have to do is find a printer who won’t report you to the Thought Police.

far-right

Printer’s link (minus the square brackets):
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/gxiklkbgj6yshnh/png-far%20right.png?dl=0]
 
 

dominate

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/72hdhdauru45xi5/png-dominate.png?dl=0]
 
 

al-wala

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/exfka80ig9xb830/png-al%20wala.png?dl=0]
 
 

mad

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/px0vdtu9uhfjvtq/png-mad.png?dl=0]
 
 

submit

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/dnx9p520g2vdrj8/png-submit.png?dl=0]
 
 

extremist

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/nsvti8uzamy6hrt/png-extremist.png?dl=0]
 
 

aggressor

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/fuknbbbugdgbfq6/png-aggressor.png?dl=0]
 
 

grandkids

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/aovw20p25loc3nf/png-grandkids.png?dl=0]
 

HEALTH WARNING: Due to state suppression of negative views regarding a certain religio-political ideology it may be hazardous to your livelihood or liberty to display these items openly in public. Therefore they are intended for use only behind closed doors among consenting adults, or to be worn under other clothing….but you’ll know it’s there.
 

The mysterious disappearing Reliance

reliance

This is a follow up to a recent blog post about Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s translation of the Reliance of the Traveller.

In it I gave a link to a copy of the PDF version of the Reliance on Archive.org which has since gone down, leaving an error message about missing metadata files. That sounds like a technical fault but Archiv.org have not responded to queries and some people who are familiar with the Reliance had predicted it would not last long.

Over the last two or three years I can think of at least three copies of the PDF which have disappeared from the internet. One hosting site left the explanation that the copyright holders were threatening legal action. It seems likely then that the Archiv.org copy, which was the last version left, has joined the list and will not be reappearing any time soon.

Moreover, an Islamic book site left a curious message against the entry for the book:

“Reliance of the Traveller (‘Umdaat Ul Salik)
TEMPORARILY REMOVED BY REQUEST OF NUH KELLER
until we provide a better translation than Nuh Keller’s”

What does he mean by a better translation? There certainly are those who question its accuracy. In his book The Third Choice Mark Durie gives examples of Keller putting a deceptively positive spin on items in the text, eg:

“Keller reports that a ‘non-Muslim may not enter the … Haram’ (the sacred precinct in Mecca). What the Arabic actually says is ‘idolater’ (mushrik) (o11.7), which is a more offensive term.”

Perhaps Keller regretted misleading Western readers by softening the text and wishes to put things right. Perhaps, but more likely he just realised that his book, giving such a clear view of the horrors of Islamic Law, is more useful to the counter jihad side than to the fellow Muslims he wrote it for, and simply wants to remove it from critical eyes. This could be a rare example of an Islamic apologist no-platforming himself.

IMHO the three most crucial books for helping non-Muslims get to the core of Islam are, in order:

1.  The Koran, of course. This presentation graphically shows Mohammed’s progress from disregarded prophet in Mecca to all-conquering warlord in Medina (Allah remains the same sadistic ogre throughout though).

2.  Alfred Guillaume’s The Life Of Muhammad, the translation of ibn Ishaq’s biography detailing Mohammed’s use of robbery, assassination, rape, torture and genocide in his drive toward power. And ibn Ishaq was a fan!

3.  The Reliance of the Traveller. According to the great scholar Joseph Schacht Islamic law is not merely one aspect of Muslim civilization but “the epitome of the Islamic spirit, the most typical manifestation of the Islamic way of life, the kernel of Islam itself.” There are translations of other manuals of Islamic law, such as the Hedaya and the Risala, but neither are as clear and so cannot take non-Arabic speakers into the kernel of Islam like the Reliance.

And now the familiar PDF, basically a scan of the book, has disappeared from the internet. This is a huge loss to the counter jihad community who quote it liberally.

Except….it’s not quite gone. Recently two different transcriptions have appeared:

one in PDF format again
and
one as a WordPress site.

[Oh no! Both of these have now gone too]

They both have their advantages. The PDF version allows the reader to jump from entries in the tables of contents to the relevant sections. The WordPress version is easier to copy text from.

Hopefully other presentations will appear on other platforms, constantly replacing those which are closed down…as they will be. Probably we can look forward to an indefinite game of whack-a-mole with Keller as the whacker and enterprising counter jihadists as the moles. Good luck to us all. Let us keep the Reliance out there for the benefit of those who have not yet discovered what Sharia Law really means, and remember to keep our heads down.

[UPDATE] Since this blog post was written two new copies of the original PDF have appeared:

https://archive.org/stream/RelianceOfTheTraveller1_201712/Reliance%20of%20the%20traveller1#page/n0/mode/2up
and
https://abudaniyal.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/reliance2_complete.pdf

[And both of these have also gone. If you come across any other versions please let me know.]

Converting to Islam

convert

When I look at Islam I see only a sadistic ogre who thinks the world is flat, a cynical or delusional warlord with big ambitions, and a cult which mandates death for anyone leaving or criticising it.

But other people see something entirely different, so different that they convert to it (or as Muslims prefer to say revert since all babies are born Muslim and it is just their Christian or Buddhist or atheist parents who lead them astray). Do they see something which most people are unable to appreciate, or is it more that they manage not to see things which are blindingly obvious to the rest of us?

Here are some conversion accounts displaying different aspects of the phenomenon.

Firstly the Intellectuals.

Arnold Yasin Mol is a Dutch convert, theologian and teacher of Islamic Studies. He says in this interview with historian Andrew Holt:

“It was at Leiden University where I fell in love with classical Islamic theology (ilm al-Kalam) and exegesis (tafsir)…The rational theologians (called the Ahl al-Kalam), philosophers, and legal scholars (especially of the Hanafi school), finally made me feel at home in the 1400 years of Islamic community and tradition.”

Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani was an important Hanafi legal scholar, presumably one of those Mol so admires. He wrote the highly influential Hanafi manual of Islamic law, the Hedaya.

The interview with Holt happens to be about homosexuality which Mol says is considered a crime in the Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence but not the Hanafi one. This is true since sodomy is not included in the section on Punishments (Hedaya Vol 2 Book 7 p.1). So the Hanafi school is more compatible with modern Western views on this issue.

But I am primarily concerned with Islamic attitudes towards infidels, specifically with regard to jihad. In Book 9 (p.140) it says:

“War must be carried on against the infidels, at all times, by some party of the Mussulmans. The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of the Mussulmans; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who has said, in the Koran ‘SLAY THE INFIDELS’; and also by a saying of the prophet, ‘war is permanently established until the day of judgment’.”

This passage is particularly interesting because it answers the question sometimes raised by Islamic apologists “If Islam commands jihad then why aren’t all Muslims doing it”?

But more importantly it shows the Hanafi school aligned with the other schools on this issue, as we see from The Reliance of the Traveller, the Shafi’i equivalent of the Hedaya:

o9.1 “Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.”
o9.8 “The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non Muslim poll tax [ie jizya].”
o9.9 “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.”

I wonder what Mol’s position is on the Hedaya passage. If he accepts it as valid then he is declaring himself my potential enemy. If he does not then I would be keen to know what has changed in the last 800 years to render it no longer of concern to non-Muslims. Perhaps I’ll ask him.

[ Update: I did ask him and he was good enough to send me this link to the Open Letter to Baghdadi, from a group of Islamic scholars, with his commentary.

Unfortunately I could not find anything in the section on jihad which either specifically, or by extrapolation, answered my question about the Hedaya. It appears from Mol’s commentary that some scholars think jihad is only defensive and some think it can be offensive, some think jihad is historically limited and some think it is forever. Therefore you can pick and choose according to taste as Mol does from his Hanafi perspective, as the signatories of the letter do from their perspective and as ISIS do from theirs.

If you are really interested in the Open Letter I suggest reading Robert Spencer’s dissection of it here. ]

Nuh Ha Mim Keller is an American convert, and translater of the Shafi’i manual of Islamic Law, The Reliance of the Traveller mentioned above. He recounts his long journey from doubts about Christianity to certainty within Islam here.

In the process he visits Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Sartre and comes to the conclusions that the twentieth century “could no longer answer a single ethical question”, and that “without revealed religion no valid objection could be raised to the strong eating the weak”.

He found certainty but we might ask whether he found the morality he was looking for. Why? Because of the content of The Reliance of the Traveller which, elsewhere, he says he translated “out of personal need for a shari’a manual, to know and practice Islam in my own life”.

Here is a selection of rulings from it.

Just as examples, on what moral basis does it mandate the mutilation of young girls’ genitals (section e4.3) or the execution of believers who don’t keep up with their prayers (section f1.4)? None at all except that Mohammed reportedly once said something to that effect.

There was a time when Keller struggled with the moral relativism of the West. I suspect, or at least hope, that in those days he would have reacted with horror at such injunctions. But no longer. He has submitted to Allah and the arbitrary moral absolutism of “If Mohammed said it, it’s okay”. I do not call that morality at all but rather a complete abdication of moral responsibility, on a par with “I was only following orders”. What do you think?

Here is another conversion account, by Timothy Winter (aka Abdal Hakim Murad), a British convert and Islamic scholar at Cambridge University.

It consists of the familiar tale of teenage alienation and disenchantment with Christianity intermingled with a love letter to Islam, exemplified by this sort of sentiment “the Koran, that ‘shy bride’, would take years to unveil herself. At the outset, she seemed to dazzle me with her unworldly strangeness, and the purity of her ego-less diction”.

It is evident that all three of these intellectuals have fallen in love with various aspects of Islam; the (alleged) beauty of the language, the (supposed) profundity of the philosophy, the (apparently) beneficent effect on its adherents etc.

But it is also notable what they do not mention; Allah’s frankly disturbing habit of torturing forever anyone who doesn’t believe in him (enter the word “fire” into this Koranic search facility if you think I’m exaggerating), Mohammed’s career as a merciless warlord as shown here in the Sira and the vile rulings of Islamic Law as shown above from The Reliance of the Traveller.

How do they manage to overlook these rather obvious and very ugly things? Beats me, but there is the old saying “There’s no fool like a clever fool”.

Then the Captives:

Al Qaeda insurgents in Mali recently released two captives. Both Johan Gustafsson and Stephen McGown converted to Islam during their six years of captivity. Gustaffson was only pretending, in hopes of improving his situation, but it turned out that McGown meant it.

He told reporters that he entered Islam of his own accord (well there is no compulsion in religion is there?) after which he received better treatment.

He went on to say “I see many good things in Islam. It requires a very good character, a very strict character”. Naturally, it requires a very good character to kidnap and hold to ransom complete strangers, keeping them in constant fear for their lives for six years. Only racists and Islamophobes would quibble with that.

Once McGown has spent time readjusting with his friends and family, perhaps someone will explain Stockholm Syndrome to him, “the condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors as a survival strategy during captivity”.

Come to think of it, don’t ordinary Muslims, in particular Muslim children, have a lot in common with captives like Mcgown? At home and in the madrassah and the mosque they get the constant message from those they depend on that Allah has his eye on them, weighing them up for an eternity in paradise or hell depending on how sincerely they internalise the message. And in earthly terms they can choose between acceptance from an all encompassing culture or exclusion from it, or even worse, for rejecting Islam. As Dawkins says, this is child abuse.

Yes, we know the same happens in other religions but these days far less starkly. It was at Sunday school that my mother was first shown a picture of Jesus in agony on the cross and told it was on account of her sins. She said “I don’t like this” and her big sister shielded her and said “You don’t have to look”. Perhaps that is what made her a lifelong atheist. But even in those days when, as a teenager, she chose to have nothing more to do with the church, there was no comeback, no social exclusion, no family blackmail or worse.

But we all know that for young Muslims rejecting Islam means risking the loss of their family, their social network and possibly their lives. If they find support it will be from ex-Muslim groups made up of people like themselves, usually needing to maintain anonymity for obvious reasons. This is the sort of thing that our intellectuals above never touch on, and just one of the reasons I tend to regard their musings with less than admiration.

The Criminal:

We can piece together the story of Morten Storm from sources like this and this.

He grew up in Denmark, the product of a broken home with violence and drunkenness involved. As a teenager he joined a criminal gang. In prison he came into contact with a British Muslim who helped him establish himself in Britain after his release. Storm accepted Islam and quickly gravitated to the violently supremacist groups in London.

The ease with which gang members and criminals find a home in Islam, in prison or out of it, has been widely noted. And why wouldn’t they? Mohammed united the meanest tribes in Medina, the Aus and the Khazraj, to form the biggest, baddest gang in the area. When Storm read about the caravan raiding and dividing the booty he must have thought “That’s the prophet for me!”

He spent some years trying his best to “strive in Allah’s way” but he was balked in his desire to create mayhem in Somalia because Mogadishu airport was closed down. Recounting his frustration, he says:

“All my dreams about jihad were ruined. I was like, ‘that can’t happen, why?’ I was so hurt, and really, really upset and angry. I couldn’t comprehend.

“It made me sit up all night. I came back, opened the laptop and typed ‘contradictions in the Koran,’ something I had never dared ask before. If I had some doubts I had suppressed them. Then I picked up the Koran and confirmed it. It took a couple of days, and then I said: ‘F**k it. I spent ten years of my life and I was just about to get killed for this.’

“So I called the PET.” (PET is the Danish security service for which he subsequently worked, along with MI6 and the CIA, against Al Qaeda).

His conversion out of Islam is more interesting, to me at least, than his conversion into it because he did something both intelligent and unusual. He did some factual research! And not just the kind of research which will strengthen existing beliefs but the kind that risks disproving them.

He explains that it says in the Koran if you find contradictions in it then it is not from God (he is referring to verse 4:82 “Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions”).

He found plenty of contradictions, in particular one between free will and pre-destination, and concluded the Koran could not be from God. You may say that is a very simplistic understanding of Islam but Allah is himself a very simplistic deity. No one made him give such a hostage to fortune but like the pub know-it-all he could not resist bragging. Other gods have the sense to keep it vague about easily checkable claims but Allah, in his overconfidence, makes endless howlers, exhibiting all the scientific understanding of your average 7th century Arabian camel trader. There’s a coincidence.

These contradictions and absurdities are clearly and calmly exposed in Peter Townsend’s excellent book Questioning Islam.

The one which sticks in my mind is the inability of the supposed designer of quantum mechanics to master basic fractions, as shown in the Koranic rules of inheritance. They don’t add up, and had to be tidied up by later scholars with the Laws of Awl and Usbah.

Wouldn’t it be nice if more people, on both sides, were prepared to do a bit of factual research? Muslims dare not and infidels can’t be bothered, content to parrot the platitudes issued by the four P’s…Press, Politicians, Professors and Priests (courtesy of Daniel Pipes). If they did examine the texts then an ever increasing body of people would come to realise what nonsense Islam actually consists of, rendering it a worldwide laughing stock.

You would think that Islam itself would wither and die in the 21st century. A civilisation that understands what shooting stars actually are against a god who tells us he made them as missiles to throw at devils? It should be no contest, but it isn’t. In fact, Islam is growing in strength; the strength of ignorance, fanaticism and violence (plus a fair bit of oil money) while Western civilisation is experiencing an absurd loss of confidence, wallowing in self-laceration over past wrongs, real and imagined, encouraged by those who wish to destroy us.

The Jihadi Wife:

This conversion account in ISIS’s in-house magazine Dabiq (p.36) is the story of a Finnish woman who goes by the name Umm Khalid al-Finlandiyyah. She started out noticing that her family and society only paid lip service to Christianity and ended up in Syria with her husband and children.

As usual, when converts get into the theology, it is the Christian trinity that bothers her most:

“The main thing that didn’t make sense to me about Christianity was the Trinity. I would wonder, how could the “son” of God be crucified? How could a “part” of God – according to the Trinity – be crucified? How could a human being be God, and then become humiliated and have a humiliating death?”

She marries a non-practising Muslim, has children with him then divorces:

“At that point, I really wanted to learn about Islam, and because of the blessed events of September 11th, I would always see Islam mocked in the media, but I was still curious and wanted to find out more about this religion.”

David Wood explains here the odd phenomenon of interest in Islam spiking after jihadist atrocities in the West, sometimes leading to conversions.

A Muslim friend lends her a copy of the Koran:

“What struck me most as I was reading the Quran were the verses about Hellfire and the punishment in the Hereafter.”

Most people are too polite to mention Allah’s torture chamber for unbelievers, as though they know grandpa gets up to some weird things in the attic but prefer not to put their head round the door. But an inclination to take hellfire seriously is something Umm Khalid and I share. The difference is that she was frightened by it whereas to me it is proof that Allah was just a figment of Mohammed’s imagination. How ridiculous would it be that the designer of galaxies would be so petty and spiteful, particularly since he tells us that he decided who would believe in him in the first place?

She capitulates to Allah’s threats:

“Not long afterwards, I knew that this religion really was the truth.”

She recites the shahada in her Muslim friends’ home and they teach her how to pray:

“It was a wonderful feeling. After continuously searching for the truth, finding it was just such a relief. I felt so much peace.”

She remarries, this time to a practising Muslim. Then:

“At one point, my husband started telling me about jihad and about having the sound creed.”

Her husband is arrested for terrorism but:

“it was probably the best thing that happened to me because it opened my eyes to the importance of hijrah I can’t even describe the feeling when you finally cross that border and enter the lands of the Caliphate.”

“Every day you’re thankful to Allah for allowing you to perform hijrah and to live under the Shari’ah. Life in the Islamic State is such a blessing”

“After four months of us being here, my son was martyred, and this was yet another blessing….what could be better than him being killed for the cause of Allah?”

“As for those people who cannot perform hijrah, I advise you to attack the Crusaders and their allies wherever you are, as that is something that you are able to do. Don’t be tricked by the apostate ‘scholars’. The truth is out there and it isn’t hard to find as long as you open your heart to it.”

A sad, sad story, I am sure you will agree. She was clearly a very impressionable young woman, one of nature’s cult members just waiting to be claimed by the right cult.

But in Islamic terms what did she do wrong? Muslims are enjoined to follow the example of Mohammed, and what do ISIS do that Mohammed and his companions did not do? Apart from the obvious differences of modern technology, you can tick off their shared activities: robbery, beheading, ransoming, crucifixion, amputation, sex slavery, forced conversion, jizya, stoning, the use of terror, takfir, immolation and throwing homosexuals off high buildings (further details here).

It seems to me that Mohammed’s religion is like a black hole around which believers orbit, more or less affected by its gravitational pull. There are those who maintain a stable orbit on the periphery, merely observing the five pillars. Some, closer in, support but don’t themselves engage in jihad, and some like this young woman get sucked right in to their doom, unprotected by any solid identity. Poor girl. I expect she’s dead now. Or perhaps back in Finland, free to continue Allah’s work like this hero of Islam who made the news just yesterday.

And finally the Churchmen:

Well, it’s the only explanation isn’t it, considering how assiduously they work to advance Islam at the expense of their own flock. Like the one below who said – can you believe it? – “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

The definitively fake Covenant with the Monks of Mt Sinai

covenants

A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post, Mohammed’s apocryphal Covenants, about John Andrew Morrow’s book The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, finding several reasons to doubt the covenants’ authenticity. Concentrating on the most famous and best documented one, the Covenant with the Monks of Mt Sinai, I found two startling anomalies arising from the timeline.

According to Dr Morrow the Covenant with the Monks of Mount Sinai was written in 623 AD but Sinai did not come under Muslim control until c.640 AD, several years after Mohammed’s death.

So:
Anomaly #1 Why would Mohammed grant a covenant of protection in 623 AD to a group who were not under his control and he was therefore not in a position to protect?

Anomaly #2 Why would he release them from the obligation to pay the Jizya tax which they were therefore not subject to?

But there is an even more glaring anomaly, one which I only just realised was staring me in the face.

According to Dr Morrow’s own translation, the Covenant with the Monks of Mt Sinai was written “on the third of Muharram in the second year of the Prophet’s Hegira”. Since Muharram is the first month of the Islamic calendar, that means it was written just one year after the Hijra, Mohammed’s migration to Medina. By that time Mohammed had not yet fallen out with the other religious and tribal groups in Medina. In fact the only substantive thing he is reported to have done in his first year was to set up the Constitution of Medina which gave equal rights and responsibilities to Muslims and non-Muslims.

Dr Morrow tells us “The Constitution of Medina decreed that the citizens of the Islamic State were one and indivisible regardless of religion. Be they heathen, People of the Book, or Muslims, all those who were subject to the Constitution belonged to the same ummah. In doing so, he created a tolerant, pluralistic government which protected religious freedom.”

Jizya, the discriminatory poll tax imposed on subjugated non-Muslims, only came later, during Mohammed’s wars with the neighbouring People of the Book and polytheists (the first reference to it in the Koran comes in verse 9:29, revealed c.630 AD). Not only that but on p.94 of Dr Morrow’s book he specifically states, in another context “…the jizyah did not exist in the early days of Islam”.

So:
Anomaly #3 The Jizya tax which the Covenant exempted the monks from paying did not yet exist, even in Medina.

To sum up, Mohammed’s Covenant with the Monks of Mt Sinai, supposedly written in 623 AD, promised protection to a group that Mohammed was in no position to protect, and exemption from paying a tax which they were not subject to, and which did not even yet exist.

I would say all that means that the Covenant could not possibly have been written in 623 AD and must therefore be a later forgery (presumably perpetrated by Christian monks hoping for relief from their Muslim overlords). If anyone can provide another explanation for these 3 anomalies, not involving time travel or precognition, I would be grateful to hear it. Dr Morrow certainly does not address any of them in his book. In the meantime I maintain that the claim of authenticity for the Covenant with the Monks of Mt Sinai is just plain nonsense.

Why does it matter? Because along with the book goes a Covenants Initiative, the aim of which is to spread the acceptance and influence of the Covenants in hopes of improving relations between Muslims and Christians. A laudable aim no doubt, but if its main foundation is a forgery then the Initiative amounts to no more than wishful thinking leading to an unrealistic assessment of the man who confronts us today just as he has for 1400 years.

I encourage readers to compare the picture we get of Mohammed from the Covenants, religiously tolerant and accepting, with the one we get from the Sira, a ruthless warlord by anyone’s standards. Unfortunately it is the Mohammed of the Sira, who is firmly embedded in Islamic tradition.

If the promoters of the Covenants Initiative can refute my objections then I will apologise and wish them well but, going by past experience, they won’t even try. The nearest thing I have been able to elicit has been some fairly inventive abuse from Dr Morrow. Perhaps you might have better luck.