From Europe News and English Defence league:
Posted on November 22, 2011, in News, with 21 Comments
Here are the facts: Islam has problems. Countless terrorists the world over have claimed that Islam was their motivation, and every day a new generation of remorseless mass murderers is manufactured by the hate-preachers and other radicals that continue to thrive within the mainstream Muslim community.
Efforts by reformist Muslims, genuine anti-fascist campaigners, protest groups (such as the EDL), and national governments have so far failed to turn the tide. In Britain it’s particularly bad, with Islamic extremists openly preaching their hatred, Islamists worming their way into Muslim associations, and political parties and ‘homegrown’ terrorists plotting violence at home and abroad.
But mention these problems and be prepared to be ignored, patronised or insulted. “Islam is a religion of peace”, we’re told. “The extremists don’t understand the real Islam, it’s a beautiful religion”. And so on.
Let’s imagine all that were true (there are plenty of decent enough Muslims of course) – why tell us? Shouldn’t the focus be on preventing the extremists from ‘misunderstanding’ the religion of peace, rather than getting irate when after another year of violence, terrorism, hatred and intolerance someone might so naively conclude that Islam’s claim to be a religion of peace might actually be a whole load of bollocks.
So what are we saying? That Islam is actually the religion of war? Well, looking at the history, that would probably be more appropriate. We’ll look at this in more detail later on, but first we must make clear what referring to Islam as the religion of war would actually mean: it would mean to claim that Islam is inclined towards violent conflict and not to peace. A controversial claim no doubt, but not one unsupported by evidence, nor, crucially, one which in any way necessitates treating any individual Muslims with any less respect than we would show to any other person.
Criticising Islam, or characterising it as a religion of war, would not, for example, mean that we would consider ourselves at war with every single Muslim. It would not mean that we would support unfair discrimination; it would not mean that we would support authoritarian measures that would limit the rights and freedoms of British Muslims. It would mean none of these things. It would mean simply one thing: that we see a strong correlation between Islamic teaching and conflict.
If we’re wrong, then it’s up to the Muslim community to correct us, or better yet, to prove us wrong. But stating that Islam is a religion of war, if that were to be what we concluded, would be no more offensive than claiming that it is a religion of peace in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. At least if we decided that it were inclined towards conflict we would know that the answer to defeating Islamic extremism is not to encourage the teaching of orthodox forms of Islam, but to support the reformist Muslims – those who acknowledge the big problems and are dedicated to make ‘radical’ changes.
The following altercation between Tommy Robinson of the EDL and Saif al-Islam should be seen in this context. It highlights the fact that there are people living amongst us who wish to completely destroy our country. It also demonstrates that they have become adept at sheltering behind the accusation of racism. Tommy’s question of how can it be racist to oppose a fascist ideology is a good one. What’s opposing fascism got to do with race? Isn’t it, ironically, a little racist to assume that race has anything to do with it?
Regardless of how unfounded accusations of racism may be, it remains the case that if anyone criticises any culture or any ideology that is essentially alien to these shores, then immediately there are plenty of voices in the media and the government who will jump to the conclusion that it must be all about race. As if any time anyone who happens to be of a different ethnic background says something that you may happen to find offensive, then the offence caused must be the result of your own prejudices and not the content of that persons’ speech.
Of course that’s not the case at all. We’re critical of the things said and done in the name of Islam because they are so often violent, oppressive and altogether intolerable. It’s not the other way around – we don’t find these things intolerable simply because they happen to be inspired by Islam. If extremism took root in any other community (including those of which our supporters are drawn) then of course we would condemn such extremism as well. But the fact remains that in the modern day although extremism may not be the exclusive reserve of Islam, it’s doing a pretty good job of dominating the headlines.
Preaching hatred, encouraging attacks on our soldiers, burning Remembrance Day poppies – these things are offensive regardless of who is responsible. But of course we all know who it is – it’s Muslims. Not all Muslims by any stretch of the imagination, but more than enough for the argument that they are just isolated cases that do not reflect any deeper problems to be completely laughable.
Saif al-Islam is himself no stranger to causing offense. As everyone’s favourite tabloid extremist Andy Choudary’s second in command, Saif al-Islam has proved himself to be a particularly nasty piece of work. Here we’re compiled a few of his greatest hits:
Of course, Saif al-Islam is not reflective of all of Islam, nor of all Muslims. But his example does show how potentially dangerous extremists are not being effectively combatted by the government: his confidence should itself be enough to demonstrate exactly that.
We are not so naïve as to think that the likes of Saif al-Islam are the most dangerous Islamists (proponents of political Islam and Sharia Law) in England – the greatest threat no doubt comes from the more intelligent extremists who have the good sense to keep their heads under the radar and work behind the scenes to undermine our laws, radicalise the Muslim community, ingratiate themselves into positions of power and influence, and demonstrate to fellow extremists that this is a place where the government will never take decisive action to combat radical Islam.
To determine whether Saif al-Islam really is on the extreme fringes of Islam, or whether his fiery rhetoric does indeed reflect the fact that Islam could never be regarded as a religion of peace, we must first of all examine the primary and secondary sources regarding the claims made by ‘moderate’ Muslims and by those we regard as extremists, the Islamists, the ones that have allegedly ‘hijacked’ the real Islam.
Islam is largely dependent on the recorded words and actions of Mohammed. Without Mohammed there would never have been an Islam. So it is only fair that we look first at Mohammed, his life and the example he set to Muslims through the centuries. The first question, then, must be ‘who was Mohammed?’
Mohammed was born in 570 AD in Mecca a city in the Arabian peninsula. He was orphaned very early on in his life and was left in the care of his uncle, Abu Talib. He worked mostly as a shepherd and later as a merchant. He married Khadija, an older women, at the age of 25. When he was 40 he retreated at the time of Ramadan, a pagan festival celebrated by the pagan Meccans, to a mountain cave where he experienced the first of his revelations.
His early career as a ‘prophet’ was unsuccessful, with only a handful of followers. In his time in Mecca, he managed to alienate his fellow tribesmen. It is at this time that his revelations were largely peaceful in nature, but his dire threats against the Meccans forced them to exile Mohammed and his followers from the city. This flight by the early Muslims is known as the Hijjra. Three years before the migration, Khadija died and soon after Mohammed married the 6 year old Aisha. In the town of Medina where the Muslims settled, Mohammed consummated his marriage with his child-bride who was now 9 years old.
Medina was a town populated largely by Jewish tribes who initially allowed Mohammed to help run the town affairs. But as his demands and claims grew, the Jews started to reject him. By now, Mohammed had many more followers and so started his life-long pogrom against the Jews.
From his new base, Mohammed launched raids on the Meccan trade caravans. He used the booty to bribe tribesmen to join him but always kept around 20% for himself. Over 70 such raids were launched with around 20 of them being led by Mohammed personally. Hardly the actions of a man who only used violence out of necessity.
It is also worth mentioning the fact that some of these raids were launched during what were known as the ‘sacred months’. This was a time which was sacred to Arabs and a time in which warfare, feuds and violence against opponents was suspended. Mohammed deliberately broke that tradition.
Tabari VII p. 17
Their Muslim brethren reproached them for what they had done, and the Quraysh said: “Muhammad and his companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood therein, taken booty and captured men.” The polytheists spread lying slander concerning him, saying, ‘Muhammad claims that he is following obedience to Allah, yet he is the first to violate the holy month and to kill our companion in Rajab.’
Quran 2:217
They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar). Say, “Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allâh is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allâh, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid Al-Harâm (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and‚ Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.
Mohammed was a man who hated being mocked or laughed at. He ordered or had killed many people who had done little wrong except to make up poetry that made fun of him.
Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, a Meccan story-teller, would follow Mohammad around telling stories about heroes and Persian kings. “By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I, and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied as I have.” – Ibn Ishaq, 364-69
Al-Harith had the misfortune to be in the Meccan army that was beaten by the Muslims at the battle of Badr in 624. Instead of being ransomed as other Meccans were, he was one of two prisoners executed by decapitation.
Uqbah bin Abu Muayt, like al-Harith, mocked Mohammad and made up satirical verses. He too was captured at the battle of Badr and he too was executed. As Mohammad was about to pronounce the sentence, Muayt cried out, “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell”, retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck. – Bukhari, vol. 4, no. 2934; Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4422, 4424
Even after victory Mohammad was not particularly magnanimous:
Ibn Ishaq, p. 306
…(t)he apostle’s companions heard him saying in the middle of the night, “O people of the pit: O Utbah, O Shayba, O Ummayya, O Abu Jahl,” enumerating all who had been thrown in the pit, “Have you found what God promises you is true? I have found that what my Lord promised me is true.” The Muslims said, “Are you calling to dead bodies?” He answered: “you cannot hear what I say better than they, but they cannot answer me.
This report is supported by Sahi Bukhari and the following hadith from his collection:
Bukhari
These were the battles of Allah’s Apostle (which he fought), and while mentioning (the Badr battle) he said, “While the corpses of the pagans were being thrown into the well, Allah’s Apostle said (to them), ‘Have you found what your Lord promised true?” ‘Abdullah said, “Some of the Prophet’s companions said, “O Allah’s Apostle! You are addressing dead people.’ Allah’s Apostle replied, ‘You do not hear what I am saying, better than they.‘
Asma bint Marwan was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans. She composed a poem blaming them for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. In March 624, when the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep. – Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76
Kab bin al-Ashraf was from a nomadic Arabic and had a Jewish mother from the al-Nadir tribe in Medina. He believed that Mohammad was a trouble-maker and after the battle of Badr he made his way to Mecca, stopping off to see the site of Badr and the aftermath. He was a gifted poet and he wrote a lament to the dead of Badr which upset Mohammad, who now, having military and political strength, ordered Kab’s death. In a scene reminiscent of Henry II’s outburst over Thomas a Beckett, Mohamed shouted ‘Who will rid me of Kab?’ Five Muslims volunteered and they told Mohammad, “O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.” He answered, “Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.” – Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4037; Muslim vol. 3, no. 4436. See also Ibn Ishaq 364-69 / 548-53; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari,
Needless to say they killed Kab the poet. They reported back to Mohammad with the severed head of their victim. Both Ishaq and Tabari (scribes of Islamic scripture) report his story.
These are just a few of the examples of what Mohammad had done to people who mocked or criticised him. There are many more, some quite horrific, which describe how dissenters were silenced. The means employed by Mohammed and his followers are reminiscent of those used by 20th century fascists. And just like these regimes, Mohammad didn’t just hate his critics, he also hated the Jews.
When he fled Mecca, he took refuge in the Jewish city of Medina. Three Jewish tribes lived there in a constant state of changing alliances. Mohammad took advantage of these shifting alliances to wage a war against all the Jewish tribes. By exploiting these divisions he eventually expelled two of the tribes and the third he exterminated. Let us be specific here because the full of horror of Mohammad’s morality is exposed in this one incident. He reduced his opposition to one tribe numbering no more than a mere 900 or so souls. Mohammad attacked the Quraiza because they remained neutral when they should have, according to Mohammad, been supporting him. They did not attack Mohammad, and had they done so in support of the Meccans, they would have in all probability have ended Mohammad’s career.
Mohammad allowed them to choose someone to judge them for their alleged crimes. (It’s important to point out here that, even in the Islamic sources, the crimes they were accused of were nothing more than an excuse to attack them). They chose a man they thought would be fair on them as he had pretended friendship. But, it turned out, he had converted to Islam. The Qur’an demands that a Muslim, if he does pretend friendship with a Jew or Christian, must curse them inwardly. True to those teachings, this man condemned the tribe to death.
Mohammad had a pit dug and had all the men and young boys lined up. He inspected the young boys for signs of puberty (the appearance of pubic hair) and if found the boy was declared to be a man and was executed with the rest of the males of the tribe. The women and children were taken into slavery. What makes this even more horrific is that Mohammad took a fancy to one of the females from the tribe, a Jewess who was exceptionally attractive and was a mere 17 years old. After bartering for her, he took her to his tent and that night raped her, despite having killed her father, husband and brothers. He then married her the next morning.
Before anyone might claim that she went willingly, let us point out that she was now a slave – that which their right hand possessed – she had just witnessed the death of her father, brothers and husband. Would any woman under those circumstances willingly go with their murderer and have sex with him? No amount of prevarication and excuse-making can change the fact that this recorded incident was clearly a rape.
In the Qur’an and hadith the term ‘what your right possess’ has a particular meaning:
Qur’an: Surah 04:24
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you.
Qur’an Surah 23:5-6
And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts); Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame
In the present day Islam still teaches that Mohammad was the perfect man; that he was the perfect example for Muslims to follow today. And when this belief is challenged; when, for example, Danish cartoonists mocked Mohammed, Muslims across the world were incensed. Mockery of the ‘prophet’ is not allowed. If Mohammad did not allow it, then nor should Muslims – that is simply how the reasoning goes. And, clearly, that can be a very dangerous creed.
It might be argued that many of Mohammed’s deeds are only stories, and that the requirement to follow his example is not taken literally. Stories, however rooted in fact they may or may not be, can be adapted for the times, and so it’s not difficult to believe that even someone whose life was as bloody as Mohammed’s could be portrayed as having positive attributes (ignoring a few of the facts perhaps!). Still, it is fair to say that we cannot look solely at the example of Mohammed, but must look also at what the Qur’an teaches. If its teachings are compatible with the Mohammad’s example, then we can say with confidence that these are the teachings of Islam as taught and practiced by its one and only prophet.
The Qur’an is a collection of Mohammad’s revelations over a 23 year period. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, it is not ordered chronologically, but is generally ordered by the size of the chapter: from the longest to the shortest. The Qur’an can be divided chronologically into two periods. There is the first period during the time of Mohammad’s time in Mecca and the second period after the Hijra, when Mohammad received more revelations in Medina. Generally the Meccan revelations are peaceful, whilst the Medinan revelations are more violent, more political and very much more hateful. The Medinan period really matches the time in which Mohammad grew in political, military and economic power and the number of followers grew faster than that during his time in Mecca.
Islamic scholars have devised a ‘science’ around the revelations. Many verses in the Qur’an contradict each other and to get around these apparent problems, the scholars have, with support from the Qur’an itself, devised the science of abrogation. Where a verse is in conflict with another, the earlier verse is cancelled, or ‘abrogated’, by the later verse. In this context, one verse of one of the last revealed Surah’s, or chapters, is Surah 9. In this Surah, one ayat, or verse, verse 5, cancels out almost all of the earlier peaceful verses. This verse is famously known as the verse of the Sword:
Surah 5:33 – Verse of the Sword
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.
Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected Islamic commentators of the Qur’an, said this of the verse:
The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.
`Wage war’ here means to oppose and contradict. It includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil. The Qur’an clearly teaches that ‘waging war’ on Islam can be anything from criticism, to physical opposition to Islam, and that those who are guilty of ‘waging war’ must be killed or mutilated.
The verse, despite what some Islamic apologists claim, is a call to wage war on non-believers. It’s not defensive, but offensive. Ibn Ishaq wrote about the events surrounding this revelation, and called it The Raid on Tabuk. It seems that Mohammad had heard that the Byzantine army had just been given a year’s wages – a huge amount of booty that tempted the ‘prophet’ to fight the Byzantines. So this may well have been the immediate inspiration, but the command itself is open-ended. This implies that the commandment is applicable for all time, not just in relation to this particular event.
When you combine these verses with the commandments not to take Christians and Jews as friends or colleagues, a picture emerges of an ideology that is commanded not to integrate with others. It’s an ideology whose followers are commanded to wage war. Whether it’s physical, cultural, economic, social or political warfare, it’s incumbent upon all Muslims to follow the example of Mohammad.
This is the Islam of the 7th Century as practiced by Mohammad and his companions, and followed today by the likes of Anjem Choudhary, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudi religious establishment and many in Pakistan. It’s violent, misogynistic, homophobic and bigoted. It allows for child-brides and the rape and mutilation of little girls. It is an ideology that cannot tolerate criticism without reacting violently. It cannot stand up to study, criticism or mockery. In short, no civilisation in the world, past, present or future would be compatible with this form of Islam and its culture.
We have examined only a small portion of Islam and the problems with it. There are many areas we have not examined, such as the treatment of women, homosexuals, non-Muslims and so on. This article can only gloss over and highlight some of these problems. This may only be a comparatively brief summary, but it has shown that there is much in Islam that is far from peaceful. It is in fact a violent ideology that cannot stand scrutiny, cannot stand to be questioned, and above all cannot stand in the face of a moral and ethical society. If that’s not a religion of war, then what is?
Now it might be argued by some that, scripture can be misinterpreted. That might be true and if we examine the behaviour and actions of Islam and its followers since Mohammad conquered the Arabian peninsula, we will see if Islam is peaceful.
From the time of the Prophet’s death, the Islamic hordes swept out of Arabia and brought about the destruction of the Christian North Africa, Levant. North Africa was the centre of Christianity (not Rome or Constantinople as you might think), yet within a few decades, Christians had either been killed for refusing to convert, converted to Islam, or paid the Jizyah (a submission tax paid to the Muslim authorities).
Nearly all of the churches and cathedrals were destroyed. In the 12th Century the Muslim hordes brought about destruction of the three Sudanese Christian kingdoms. These three kingdoms were famed for their architecture, their trade, and were renowned centres of learning and Christian theology. The Islamic hordes invaded the peaceful land of India and inflicted the murder of 80 million Hindus. The Hindu Kush means the Hindu slaughter.
The piracy of the north African Muslims led to the US first paying Jizya and then forming the US Marine Corps to hunt down the Islamic pirates waging war in the 18th /19th century. When asked why they were committing these acts of piracy by the US ambassador, the Muslim leader said that it was commanded of them in the Qur’an.
More recently, we have the genocide of the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Kurds, and of course the Sudanese Christians and Animists (and some Muslims). Around the world today, Islamists are waging war against not just the Western world but against all of humanity. It has nothing to do with the fight in Afghanistan, or the fight in Iraq, or even with Israel. Islam is ordained by the Qur’an to inflict its beliefs on us all whether we want to believe or not.
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”
Everything we’ve examined throughout this article has come straight from the primary sources – the Qur’an, the hadith – the sayings of Muhammad – and the Sunnah, the example of Muhammad. This is the Islam that Muslim Against Crusades (thankfully now banned) and their supporters want to implement in the UK, Europe and the US. It’s a 7th century, barbaric political system with an element of religion thrown in. Its teachings are not only incompatible with those of Judaism and Christianity; they are not even compatible with a secular, liberal society.
This form of Islam has no placed anywhere in this world, in any civilisation, at any time in the past, present or the future.
We throw this challenge out to Saif Islam, Anjem Choudhary’s lieutenant. We will debate you on what the EDL is about, what it stands for and the 7th century brand of Islam you espouse. We are not afraid to confront your nasty, evil ideology and we are not afraid to confront you. If you can stomach the truth and are prepared to debate we will even debate you in Argyle Avenue.
Tommy Robinson, the leader of the EDL, calls Saif Islam out for a debate. These are his words:
If you want to debate what the EDL is all about, if you want to debate the finer points of your intolerant, barbaric, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, 7th century form of Islam, then we are happy to do so.
If it makes you more comfortable we will do so down Argyle Avenue.
We are not afraid or reluctant to confront sharia-driven scumbags hell-bent on turning our great country into some backward sharia-driven hellhole.
The days of tolerating the intolerable have come an abrupt end.
Islamist scum have no place in a liberal democratic Western society.
Your fascist plan will be confronted wherever it raises its ugly barbaric head.
No surrender to Islamofascists!
Can you bear to stomach the truth about the evil you are trying to spread Saif? We doubt it.
We have seen what Islamists stand for, but Saif also challenged Tommy as to what the EDL stand for. So, just for him:
The EDL stand for one nation, under one democratically elected government, with a universal single system of justice for all citizens of the United Kingdom. We stand for British culture as the dominant culture in Britain whilst welcoming other cultures to enrich our own. We stand for equality of the sexes, and basic human rights. We stand for fairness, liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness and the right to criticise any ideology that goes against those principles. We stand for an integrated multi-ethnic society. We stand for what is right and against what is evil. We stand for the right for each individual to be able to choose who or what they worship, but we stand against anyone who tries to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
We stand for what the vast majority of British people stand for. And that’s why we will win.
As Tommy has already said: No Surrender to Islamofascists!
Islam: The Religion of Peace?
Posted on November 22, 2011, in News, with 21 Comments
Here are the facts: Islam has problems. Countless terrorists the world over have claimed that Islam was their motivation, and every day a new generation of remorseless mass murderers is manufactured by the hate-preachers and other radicals that continue to thrive within the mainstream Muslim community.
Efforts by reformist Muslims, genuine anti-fascist campaigners, protest groups (such as the EDL), and national governments have so far failed to turn the tide. In Britain it’s particularly bad, with Islamic extremists openly preaching their hatred, Islamists worming their way into Muslim associations, and political parties and ‘homegrown’ terrorists plotting violence at home and abroad.
But mention these problems and be prepared to be ignored, patronised or insulted. “Islam is a religion of peace”, we’re told. “The extremists don’t understand the real Islam, it’s a beautiful religion”. And so on.
Let’s imagine all that were true (there are plenty of decent enough Muslims of course) – why tell us? Shouldn’t the focus be on preventing the extremists from ‘misunderstanding’ the religion of peace, rather than getting irate when after another year of violence, terrorism, hatred and intolerance someone might so naively conclude that Islam’s claim to be a religion of peace might actually be a whole load of bollocks.
So what are we saying? That Islam is actually the religion of war? Well, looking at the history, that would probably be more appropriate. We’ll look at this in more detail later on, but first we must make clear what referring to Islam as the religion of war would actually mean: it would mean to claim that Islam is inclined towards violent conflict and not to peace. A controversial claim no doubt, but not one unsupported by evidence, nor, crucially, one which in any way necessitates treating any individual Muslims with any less respect than we would show to any other person.
Criticising Islam, or characterising it as a religion of war, would not, for example, mean that we would consider ourselves at war with every single Muslim. It would not mean that we would support unfair discrimination; it would not mean that we would support authoritarian measures that would limit the rights and freedoms of British Muslims. It would mean none of these things. It would mean simply one thing: that we see a strong correlation between Islamic teaching and conflict.
If we’re wrong, then it’s up to the Muslim community to correct us, or better yet, to prove us wrong. But stating that Islam is a religion of war, if that were to be what we concluded, would be no more offensive than claiming that it is a religion of peace in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. At least if we decided that it were inclined towards conflict we would know that the answer to defeating Islamic extremism is not to encourage the teaching of orthodox forms of Islam, but to support the reformist Muslims – those who acknowledge the big problems and are dedicated to make ‘radical’ changes.
The following altercation between Tommy Robinson of the EDL and Saif al-Islam should be seen in this context. It highlights the fact that there are people living amongst us who wish to completely destroy our country. It also demonstrates that they have become adept at sheltering behind the accusation of racism. Tommy’s question of how can it be racist to oppose a fascist ideology is a good one. What’s opposing fascism got to do with race? Isn’t it, ironically, a little racist to assume that race has anything to do with it?
Regardless of how unfounded accusations of racism may be, it remains the case that if anyone criticises any culture or any ideology that is essentially alien to these shores, then immediately there are plenty of voices in the media and the government who will jump to the conclusion that it must be all about race. As if any time anyone who happens to be of a different ethnic background says something that you may happen to find offensive, then the offence caused must be the result of your own prejudices and not the content of that persons’ speech.
Of course that’s not the case at all. We’re critical of the things said and done in the name of Islam because they are so often violent, oppressive and altogether intolerable. It’s not the other way around – we don’t find these things intolerable simply because they happen to be inspired by Islam. If extremism took root in any other community (including those of which our supporters are drawn) then of course we would condemn such extremism as well. But the fact remains that in the modern day although extremism may not be the exclusive reserve of Islam, it’s doing a pretty good job of dominating the headlines.
Preaching hatred, encouraging attacks on our soldiers, burning Remembrance Day poppies – these things are offensive regardless of who is responsible. But of course we all know who it is – it’s Muslims. Not all Muslims by any stretch of the imagination, but more than enough for the argument that they are just isolated cases that do not reflect any deeper problems to be completely laughable.
Saif al-Islam is himself no stranger to causing offense. As everyone’s favourite tabloid extremist Andy Choudary’s second in command, Saif al-Islam has proved himself to be a particularly nasty piece of work. Here we’re compiled a few of his greatest hits:
Of course, Saif al-Islam is not reflective of all of Islam, nor of all Muslims. But his example does show how potentially dangerous extremists are not being effectively combatted by the government: his confidence should itself be enough to demonstrate exactly that.
We are not so naïve as to think that the likes of Saif al-Islam are the most dangerous Islamists (proponents of political Islam and Sharia Law) in England – the greatest threat no doubt comes from the more intelligent extremists who have the good sense to keep their heads under the radar and work behind the scenes to undermine our laws, radicalise the Muslim community, ingratiate themselves into positions of power and influence, and demonstrate to fellow extremists that this is a place where the government will never take decisive action to combat radical Islam.
To determine whether Saif al-Islam really is on the extreme fringes of Islam, or whether his fiery rhetoric does indeed reflect the fact that Islam could never be regarded as a religion of peace, we must first of all examine the primary and secondary sources regarding the claims made by ‘moderate’ Muslims and by those we regard as extremists, the Islamists, the ones that have allegedly ‘hijacked’ the real Islam.
Islam is largely dependent on the recorded words and actions of Mohammed. Without Mohammed there would never have been an Islam. So it is only fair that we look first at Mohammed, his life and the example he set to Muslims through the centuries. The first question, then, must be ‘who was Mohammed?’
Mohammed was born in 570 AD in Mecca a city in the Arabian peninsula. He was orphaned very early on in his life and was left in the care of his uncle, Abu Talib. He worked mostly as a shepherd and later as a merchant. He married Khadija, an older women, at the age of 25. When he was 40 he retreated at the time of Ramadan, a pagan festival celebrated by the pagan Meccans, to a mountain cave where he experienced the first of his revelations.
His early career as a ‘prophet’ was unsuccessful, with only a handful of followers. In his time in Mecca, he managed to alienate his fellow tribesmen. It is at this time that his revelations were largely peaceful in nature, but his dire threats against the Meccans forced them to exile Mohammed and his followers from the city. This flight by the early Muslims is known as the Hijjra. Three years before the migration, Khadija died and soon after Mohammed married the 6 year old Aisha. In the town of Medina where the Muslims settled, Mohammed consummated his marriage with his child-bride who was now 9 years old.
Medina was a town populated largely by Jewish tribes who initially allowed Mohammed to help run the town affairs. But as his demands and claims grew, the Jews started to reject him. By now, Mohammed had many more followers and so started his life-long pogrom against the Jews.
From his new base, Mohammed launched raids on the Meccan trade caravans. He used the booty to bribe tribesmen to join him but always kept around 20% for himself. Over 70 such raids were launched with around 20 of them being led by Mohammed personally. Hardly the actions of a man who only used violence out of necessity.
It is also worth mentioning the fact that some of these raids were launched during what were known as the ‘sacred months’. This was a time which was sacred to Arabs and a time in which warfare, feuds and violence against opponents was suspended. Mohammed deliberately broke that tradition.
Tabari VII p. 17
Their Muslim brethren reproached them for what they had done, and the Quraysh said: “Muhammad and his companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood therein, taken booty and captured men.” The polytheists spread lying slander concerning him, saying, ‘Muhammad claims that he is following obedience to Allah, yet he is the first to violate the holy month and to kill our companion in Rajab.’
Quran 2:217
They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar). Say, “Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allâh is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allâh, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid Al-Harâm (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and‚ Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.
Mohammed was a man who hated being mocked or laughed at. He ordered or had killed many people who had done little wrong except to make up poetry that made fun of him.
Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, a Meccan story-teller, would follow Mohammad around telling stories about heroes and Persian kings. “By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I, and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied as I have.” – Ibn Ishaq, 364-69
Al-Harith had the misfortune to be in the Meccan army that was beaten by the Muslims at the battle of Badr in 624. Instead of being ransomed as other Meccans were, he was one of two prisoners executed by decapitation.
Uqbah bin Abu Muayt, like al-Harith, mocked Mohammad and made up satirical verses. He too was captured at the battle of Badr and he too was executed. As Mohammad was about to pronounce the sentence, Muayt cried out, “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell”, retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck. – Bukhari, vol. 4, no. 2934; Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4422, 4424
Even after victory Mohammad was not particularly magnanimous:
Ibn Ishaq, p. 306
…(t)he apostle’s companions heard him saying in the middle of the night, “O people of the pit: O Utbah, O Shayba, O Ummayya, O Abu Jahl,” enumerating all who had been thrown in the pit, “Have you found what God promises you is true? I have found that what my Lord promised me is true.” The Muslims said, “Are you calling to dead bodies?” He answered: “you cannot hear what I say better than they, but they cannot answer me.
This report is supported by Sahi Bukhari and the following hadith from his collection:
Bukhari
These were the battles of Allah’s Apostle (which he fought), and while mentioning (the Badr battle) he said, “While the corpses of the pagans were being thrown into the well, Allah’s Apostle said (to them), ‘Have you found what your Lord promised true?” ‘Abdullah said, “Some of the Prophet’s companions said, “O Allah’s Apostle! You are addressing dead people.’ Allah’s Apostle replied, ‘You do not hear what I am saying, better than they.‘
Asma bint Marwan was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans. She composed a poem blaming them for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. In March 624, when the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep. – Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76
Kab bin al-Ashraf was from a nomadic Arabic and had a Jewish mother from the al-Nadir tribe in Medina. He believed that Mohammad was a trouble-maker and after the battle of Badr he made his way to Mecca, stopping off to see the site of Badr and the aftermath. He was a gifted poet and he wrote a lament to the dead of Badr which upset Mohammad, who now, having military and political strength, ordered Kab’s death. In a scene reminiscent of Henry II’s outburst over Thomas a Beckett, Mohamed shouted ‘Who will rid me of Kab?’ Five Muslims volunteered and they told Mohammad, “O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.” He answered, “Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.” – Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4037; Muslim vol. 3, no. 4436. See also Ibn Ishaq 364-69 / 548-53; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari,
Needless to say they killed Kab the poet. They reported back to Mohammad with the severed head of their victim. Both Ishaq and Tabari (scribes of Islamic scripture) report his story.
These are just a few of the examples of what Mohammad had done to people who mocked or criticised him. There are many more, some quite horrific, which describe how dissenters were silenced. The means employed by Mohammed and his followers are reminiscent of those used by 20th century fascists. And just like these regimes, Mohammad didn’t just hate his critics, he also hated the Jews.
When he fled Mecca, he took refuge in the Jewish city of Medina. Three Jewish tribes lived there in a constant state of changing alliances. Mohammad took advantage of these shifting alliances to wage a war against all the Jewish tribes. By exploiting these divisions he eventually expelled two of the tribes and the third he exterminated. Let us be specific here because the full of horror of Mohammad’s morality is exposed in this one incident. He reduced his opposition to one tribe numbering no more than a mere 900 or so souls. Mohammad attacked the Quraiza because they remained neutral when they should have, according to Mohammad, been supporting him. They did not attack Mohammad, and had they done so in support of the Meccans, they would have in all probability have ended Mohammad’s career.
Mohammad allowed them to choose someone to judge them for their alleged crimes. (It’s important to point out here that, even in the Islamic sources, the crimes they were accused of were nothing more than an excuse to attack them). They chose a man they thought would be fair on them as he had pretended friendship. But, it turned out, he had converted to Islam. The Qur’an demands that a Muslim, if he does pretend friendship with a Jew or Christian, must curse them inwardly. True to those teachings, this man condemned the tribe to death.
Mohammad had a pit dug and had all the men and young boys lined up. He inspected the young boys for signs of puberty (the appearance of pubic hair) and if found the boy was declared to be a man and was executed with the rest of the males of the tribe. The women and children were taken into slavery. What makes this even more horrific is that Mohammad took a fancy to one of the females from the tribe, a Jewess who was exceptionally attractive and was a mere 17 years old. After bartering for her, he took her to his tent and that night raped her, despite having killed her father, husband and brothers. He then married her the next morning.
Before anyone might claim that she went willingly, let us point out that she was now a slave – that which their right hand possessed – she had just witnessed the death of her father, brothers and husband. Would any woman under those circumstances willingly go with their murderer and have sex with him? No amount of prevarication and excuse-making can change the fact that this recorded incident was clearly a rape.
In the Qur’an and hadith the term ‘what your right possess’ has a particular meaning:
Qur’an: Surah 04:24
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you.
Qur’an Surah 23:5-6
And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts); Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame
In the present day Islam still teaches that Mohammad was the perfect man; that he was the perfect example for Muslims to follow today. And when this belief is challenged; when, for example, Danish cartoonists mocked Mohammed, Muslims across the world were incensed. Mockery of the ‘prophet’ is not allowed. If Mohammad did not allow it, then nor should Muslims – that is simply how the reasoning goes. And, clearly, that can be a very dangerous creed.
It might be argued that many of Mohammed’s deeds are only stories, and that the requirement to follow his example is not taken literally. Stories, however rooted in fact they may or may not be, can be adapted for the times, and so it’s not difficult to believe that even someone whose life was as bloody as Mohammed’s could be portrayed as having positive attributes (ignoring a few of the facts perhaps!). Still, it is fair to say that we cannot look solely at the example of Mohammed, but must look also at what the Qur’an teaches. If its teachings are compatible with the Mohammad’s example, then we can say with confidence that these are the teachings of Islam as taught and practiced by its one and only prophet.
The Qur’an is a collection of Mohammad’s revelations over a 23 year period. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, it is not ordered chronologically, but is generally ordered by the size of the chapter: from the longest to the shortest. The Qur’an can be divided chronologically into two periods. There is the first period during the time of Mohammad’s time in Mecca and the second period after the Hijra, when Mohammad received more revelations in Medina. Generally the Meccan revelations are peaceful, whilst the Medinan revelations are more violent, more political and very much more hateful. The Medinan period really matches the time in which Mohammad grew in political, military and economic power and the number of followers grew faster than that during his time in Mecca.
Islamic scholars have devised a ‘science’ around the revelations. Many verses in the Qur’an contradict each other and to get around these apparent problems, the scholars have, with support from the Qur’an itself, devised the science of abrogation. Where a verse is in conflict with another, the earlier verse is cancelled, or ‘abrogated’, by the later verse. In this context, one verse of one of the last revealed Surah’s, or chapters, is Surah 9. In this Surah, one ayat, or verse, verse 5, cancels out almost all of the earlier peaceful verses. This verse is famously known as the verse of the Sword:
Surah 5:33 – Verse of the Sword
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.
Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected Islamic commentators of the Qur’an, said this of the verse:
The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.
`Wage war’ here means to oppose and contradict. It includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil. The Qur’an clearly teaches that ‘waging war’ on Islam can be anything from criticism, to physical opposition to Islam, and that those who are guilty of ‘waging war’ must be killed or mutilated.
The verse, despite what some Islamic apologists claim, is a call to wage war on non-believers. It’s not defensive, but offensive. Ibn Ishaq wrote about the events surrounding this revelation, and called it The Raid on Tabuk. It seems that Mohammad had heard that the Byzantine army had just been given a year’s wages – a huge amount of booty that tempted the ‘prophet’ to fight the Byzantines. So this may well have been the immediate inspiration, but the command itself is open-ended. This implies that the commandment is applicable for all time, not just in relation to this particular event.
When you combine these verses with the commandments not to take Christians and Jews as friends or colleagues, a picture emerges of an ideology that is commanded not to integrate with others. It’s an ideology whose followers are commanded to wage war. Whether it’s physical, cultural, economic, social or political warfare, it’s incumbent upon all Muslims to follow the example of Mohammad.
This is the Islam of the 7th Century as practiced by Mohammad and his companions, and followed today by the likes of Anjem Choudhary, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudi religious establishment and many in Pakistan. It’s violent, misogynistic, homophobic and bigoted. It allows for child-brides and the rape and mutilation of little girls. It is an ideology that cannot tolerate criticism without reacting violently. It cannot stand up to study, criticism or mockery. In short, no civilisation in the world, past, present or future would be compatible with this form of Islam and its culture.
We have examined only a small portion of Islam and the problems with it. There are many areas we have not examined, such as the treatment of women, homosexuals, non-Muslims and so on. This article can only gloss over and highlight some of these problems. This may only be a comparatively brief summary, but it has shown that there is much in Islam that is far from peaceful. It is in fact a violent ideology that cannot stand scrutiny, cannot stand to be questioned, and above all cannot stand in the face of a moral and ethical society. If that’s not a religion of war, then what is?
Now it might be argued by some that, scripture can be misinterpreted. That might be true and if we examine the behaviour and actions of Islam and its followers since Mohammad conquered the Arabian peninsula, we will see if Islam is peaceful.
From the time of the Prophet’s death, the Islamic hordes swept out of Arabia and brought about the destruction of the Christian North Africa, Levant. North Africa was the centre of Christianity (not Rome or Constantinople as you might think), yet within a few decades, Christians had either been killed for refusing to convert, converted to Islam, or paid the Jizyah (a submission tax paid to the Muslim authorities).
Nearly all of the churches and cathedrals were destroyed. In the 12th Century the Muslim hordes brought about destruction of the three Sudanese Christian kingdoms. These three kingdoms were famed for their architecture, their trade, and were renowned centres of learning and Christian theology. The Islamic hordes invaded the peaceful land of India and inflicted the murder of 80 million Hindus. The Hindu Kush means the Hindu slaughter.
The piracy of the north African Muslims led to the US first paying Jizya and then forming the US Marine Corps to hunt down the Islamic pirates waging war in the 18th /19th century. When asked why they were committing these acts of piracy by the US ambassador, the Muslim leader said that it was commanded of them in the Qur’an.
More recently, we have the genocide of the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Kurds, and of course the Sudanese Christians and Animists (and some Muslims). Around the world today, Islamists are waging war against not just the Western world but against all of humanity. It has nothing to do with the fight in Afghanistan, or the fight in Iraq, or even with Israel. Islam is ordained by the Qur’an to inflict its beliefs on us all whether we want to believe or not.
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”
Everything we’ve examined throughout this article has come straight from the primary sources – the Qur’an, the hadith – the sayings of Muhammad – and the Sunnah, the example of Muhammad. This is the Islam that Muslim Against Crusades (thankfully now banned) and their supporters want to implement in the UK, Europe and the US. It’s a 7th century, barbaric political system with an element of religion thrown in. Its teachings are not only incompatible with those of Judaism and Christianity; they are not even compatible with a secular, liberal society.
This form of Islam has no placed anywhere in this world, in any civilisation, at any time in the past, present or the future.
We throw this challenge out to Saif Islam, Anjem Choudhary’s lieutenant. We will debate you on what the EDL is about, what it stands for and the 7th century brand of Islam you espouse. We are not afraid to confront your nasty, evil ideology and we are not afraid to confront you. If you can stomach the truth and are prepared to debate we will even debate you in Argyle Avenue.
Tommy Robinson, the leader of the EDL, calls Saif Islam out for a debate. These are his words:
If you want to debate what the EDL is all about, if you want to debate the finer points of your intolerant, barbaric, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, 7th century form of Islam, then we are happy to do so.
If it makes you more comfortable we will do so down Argyle Avenue.
We are not afraid or reluctant to confront sharia-driven scumbags hell-bent on turning our great country into some backward sharia-driven hellhole.
The days of tolerating the intolerable have come an abrupt end.
Islamist scum have no place in a liberal democratic Western society.
Your fascist plan will be confronted wherever it raises its ugly barbaric head.
No surrender to Islamofascists!
Can you bear to stomach the truth about the evil you are trying to spread Saif? We doubt it.
We have seen what Islamists stand for, but Saif also challenged Tommy as to what the EDL stand for. So, just for him:
The EDL stand for one nation, under one democratically elected government, with a universal single system of justice for all citizens of the United Kingdom. We stand for British culture as the dominant culture in Britain whilst welcoming other cultures to enrich our own. We stand for equality of the sexes, and basic human rights. We stand for fairness, liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness and the right to criticise any ideology that goes against those principles. We stand for an integrated multi-ethnic society. We stand for what is right and against what is evil. We stand for the right for each individual to be able to choose who or what they worship, but we stand against anyone who tries to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
We stand for what the vast majority of British people stand for. And that’s why we will win.
As Tommy has already said: No Surrender to Islamofascists!
No comments:
Post a Comment