France Learns about Islam’s 1,400 Year Assault
"Sword and Scimitar" reaches the French.
4 comments
Editor’s note: Raymond Ibrahim’s book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, was recently translated into French and published in France, where it is creating a stir. In response, Arnaud Imatz of the French magazine La Nef interviewed him about Islam (online version here). The full English version of that interview follows (a much shorter version appears here). Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
The American Raymond Ibrahim has just published a fascinating and erudite history of the centuries-old conflicts between Islam and Christianity: L'épée et le cimeterre (Jean-Cyrille Godefroy Editions). This book is the almost exhaustive account of the fourteen centuries of antagonisms and fights, major or minor, which took place since Yarmuk (636), until the end of the Barbaresque wars (1830), through the famous battles of Guadalete (711), Poitiers-Tours (732), Manzikert (1071), Hattin (1187), Las Navas de Tolosa (1212), Koulikovo (1380), Constantinople (1453), Malta (1565), Lepanto (1571) and Vienna (1683).
A historian, linguist and philologist, and a specialist in oriental languages, Ibrahim has methodically exploited first-hand sources, both Muslim and "Western", and has consulted numerous manuscripts from the Library of Congress in Washington. His book is not only a detailed chronicle of the battles, it is also and above all a rigorous analysis of the intentions and strategies of the various warring leaders. Ibrahim shows that the Muslim forces were essentially obeying a religious, messianic, expansionist, conquering logic, whereas the Christian armies wanted above all to recover territories that for centuries had been Roman, Greek and Christian. He also shows that the religious fervor of today's Islamists overlaps exactly with ancestral Islamic dogmas, that Western reactions are 1400-year-old self-defense mechanisms, and that current rivalries are the reflection of a very old existential struggle. We interviewed him for La Nef.
La Nef: Is the hostility between Islam and Christianity an accident of history or is it part of the continuity of Islamic history?
Ibrahim: It is most certainly part of a continuum. The problem is that modern historians tend to sideline this religious aspect, and focus instead on national identities. For example, we know that for centuries, a great array of “Eastern” peoples invaded and sometimes conquered portions of Christendom. Modern historians give them a variety of names—including Arabs, Moors, Berbers, Turks, and Tatars; other times they are called Umayyads, Abbasids, Seljuks, Ottomans, etc. What modern historians fail to do, however, is point out that all these groups relied on the same exact jihadist logic and rhetoric that contemporary terrorist groups such as the Islamic State do today. Whether it was the Arabs (or “Saracens”) who first invaded Christendom in the seventh century, or the Turks and Tatars who terrorized Eastern Europe into the eighteenth century—all of them justified their invasions by citing Islamic teaching, namely, that it is Islam’s “destiny” to rule the whole world through the means of jihad. They also followed the classical juridical injunctions of, for example, offering the “infidels” three choices before battle—conversion to Islam, acceptance of dhimmi status and payment of tribute (jizya), or death. And, once they conquered a Christian area, they immediately destroyed or transformed churches into mosques, and sold whichever Christians were not slaughtered into abject, and often sexual, slavery.
The degree to which the modern West fails to realize this is evident in its claim that groups like the Islamic State are not behaving according to Islamic teaching and doctrine. In fact, not only are they acting in strict accordance with Islam’s traditional worldview—hating, combating, killing and enslaving infidels—but they often intentionally emulate the great jihadists of history (such as Khalid bin al-Walid, the “Sword of Allah”) whom the West tends to know nothing about.
La Nef: In your opinion, the term "West" masks the real history because it suggests that the "Eastern" and North African lands conquered by Islam (Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, North Africa), that is to say two thirds of the original Christian territories, were not really part of the Greco-Roman Christian heritage, contrary to what is usually said of the Christian regions of the Balkans or Hispania. Why do we always refer to the Byzantine Empire and never to the Greek-Roman Christian Empire?
Ibrahim: Yes, just as post-Christian Europe and its offshoots (America, Australia, etc.) fail to understand Islam’s true history, so too do they fail to understand their own true history—especially as impacted by Islam. What is now referred to as “the West” was for centuries known and demarcated by the territorial extent of its religion (hence the older and historically more accurate term, “Christendom”). It included all the lands you mention and more; they had become Christian, many centuries before Islam arrived and were part of the same overarching civilization. Then Islam came and violently conquered the majority of those territories, some permanently (the Middle East, North Africa, Anatolia), some temporarily (Spain, the Balkans, the Mediterranean islands). During this time, most of Europe became the last and most redoubtable bastion of Christendom not to be conquered though constantly attacked by Islam. In this (forgotten) sense, the term “the West” becomes ironically accurate. For the West was actually and literally the westernmost remnant of what was a much more extensive civilizational block that Islam permanently severed. Overall, however, the term “the West” shortchanges its own history with and truncation by Islam. It further implies that all those “Eastern” lands conquered by Islam were never part of “Western civilization,” when in fact they were the original inheritors of its Greco-Roman and Christian heritage.
Which leads to the so-called “Byzantine Empire.” In 330, Roman emperor Constantine the Great built a new capital for the empire, which he named “New Rome” (though it was later dubbed Constantinople in his honor). Although it was profoundly Christian; although it was Old Rome’s direct successor and survived the former’s fall by a thousand years; although everyone, friend and foe, called it “Roman”; and although it was Christendom’s easternmost bulwark against Islam for centuries, since 1857 it has been known as “Byzantium”—another neologism that severs the continuity and significance of the post-Christian West’s own history and heritage.
Collectively, all these terms—“the West,” “Byzantium,” etc.—do one thing: they remove the “C” word—Christianity—from the consciousness of the descendants of those who fought and died for it. They are part of the same trend that has supplanted terms such as B.C. (Before Christ) with B.C.E. (Before the Common Era)—even as one wonders in vain what differentiates the so-called “common era” from what came before it, other than Christ.
La Nef: The battle of Manzikert, which was for the Turks what Yarmuz was for the Arabs, is celebrated as a great victory of Islam by Erdogan and Turkish dignitaries. On the other hand, the leaders of countries like France and Spain prefer to ignore or underestimate the historical importance of Tours-Poitiers or Las Navas de Tolosa. Many French scholars no longer consider the battle of Poitiers-Tour (732) as a "turning point" but rather as a "minor raid episode". Should we see in this attitude signs of the revival of fighting Islam and, conversely, of European pacifism and renunciation?
Ibrahim: Yes, you should most certainly see this, because that is precisely what these attitudes signify. But I would argue that, for the European elite, the matter is worse than merely “downplaying” their ancestors’ defensive victories against Islam. Some are actively condemning them. For a growing number of Spaniards, for example, the Reconquista—centuries of warfare to liberate Spain from Islam—is a source of shame, a reminder of how “intolerant” and “backwards” their forbears were, particularly vis-à-vis the supposedly “tolerant” and “advanced” Muslims of al-Andalus. In reality, the shame such elites have for their ancestors, and the praise they have for their ancestors’ enemies, is indicative of the degree to which they have been indoctrinated in a “history” that is antithetical to reality.
La Nef: You write that the Crusades had a decisive influence on subsequent events and that "even the voyages of Christopher Columbus were motivated by the desire to recapture Jerusalem". Why?
Ibrahim: Hostile Islam so overwhelmed and surrounded Europe that there were few aspects of life not to be impacted by it—including, for example, travel and trade. Because Islam (under the Ottomans and Mamelukes) dominated the eastern Mediterranean—killing or enslaving any Christian foolhardy enough to come near—Columbus opted to find another route to get to the East; others, like the Portuguese, sailed all around Africa to get to Asia. But even the motives for Columbus’s voyages are less “romantic” than depicted in schoolrooms: he was searching for potential allies to help in the long war against Islam, including by liberating Jerusalem. In this sense, even the voyager Columbus was a crusader against Islam—just as many other European travelers before him were, particularly in the context of the centuries-long search for Prester John, a fabulously strong Christian monarch living somewhere beyond the eastern borders of Islam. If they could only reach this legendary figure, it was believed, he would come and help the Europeans against Islam.
La Nef: Is the doctrine of taqiyya, which traditionally defines how Islam should function under non-Muslim rule, outdated today or still relevant?
Ibrahim: Taqiyya—which permits Muslims to fool non-Muslims by, for instance, pretending to disavow jihad, or even to apostatize from Islam and convert to Christianity—is still very much relevant today. As the late Dr. Sami Nassib Makarem, the foremost authority on taqiyya, wrote in his seminal book, Al-Taqiyya fi’l Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”): “Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era [emphasis added].”
La Nef: The feeling of Christian solidarity has disappeared nowadays not only among European politicians and chancelleries but more generally in public opinion. What about Muslims who know the history of Islam? Do they consider the concept of jihad against the infidels to be an integral part of Islam?
Ibrahim: Yes they do, certainly the ones learned in history—and the average Muslim is by far much more learned in Islamic history than the average European is in their own history. Worse and as mentioned, Europeans tend to be “learned”—that is, indoctrinated—in false histories, ones designed to demonize their past and heritage, while whitewashing the past and heritage of others, in this case, Muslims. Jihad against infidels is indeed an integral part of Islam, documented and validated everywhere—in the Koran, hadith (and subsequently Sunna), and the consensus of the umma. No authoritative Muslim cleric (or ‘alim, singular for ‘ulema—“they who know”) past or present, has ever denied this—except, of course, when speaking before “infidel” audiences and practicing taqiyya.
La Nef: Is the community of Muslims, the umma, nowadays totally divided or relatively united?
Ibrahim: They are, of course, physically divided into what some criticize as artificial nation states established by colonial powers. That said, many Muslims share a certain amount of “tribalism” with other Muslims—meaning they may prefer the company of another Muslim of whatever race, than the company of an infidel of even their own race (in keeping with the doctrine of al-wala’ w’al bara’ (or “loyalty and enmity”). Dreams of reunification under a caliphate are also common and regularly expressed by every segment of society—from the Islamic State, to the Turkish president, and of course among the average Muslim on the street. Whether such a reunification is realistic and realizable is another matter.
La Nef: Are the "militant", "extremist" or "Islamist" Muslims faithful to Islam or are they holding it hostage to their own political interests?
Ibrahim: The bottom line is this: there is hardly anything that these types of Muslims do that is not already part of their religion and heritage. For example, all the depravities the Islamic State engaged in—enslaving, selling, and buying infidel “sex slaves”; beheading, crucifying, and even burning infidels alive; destroying or turning churches into mosques—were committed countless times over the centuries by Muslims, always in the name of jihad. Such depravities are, moreover, defined as at least “permissible” (when not obligatory) in Islamic law. How then can we call such Muslims “militant” and “extreme”? Seems more logical to call Islam itself “militant” and “extreme,” no?
Moreover, the argument that these types of Muslims do such things because they are “holding Islam hostage to their own political interests” is irrelevant: From the very start, beginning with Muhammad himself, Islam was always used—and arguably “designed”—for political interests. As one example, after proclaiming that Allah had permitted Muslims four wives and unlimited concubines (Koran 4:3), Muhammad later declared that Allah had delivered a new revelation (Koran 33:50–52) offering him, the prophet alone, a dispensation to sleep with and marry as many women as he wanted—prompting his child-bride Aisha to quip, “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires” (narrated in Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311).
La Nef: The communitization of French society is now a widely accepted fact. In spite of the warnings of prestigious "alarmists" such as Malraux, Ellul, Lévi-Strauss or more recently Houellebecq, to name but a few, the French elites have been betting for more than fifty years on the emergence of a "new Islam, modernized, reformed, open, contextualized, secularized, democratized", compatible with the Western model, which would make it possible to marginalize the "small fundamentalist minority that is the breeding ground of Islamist terrorism". Is such an Islam possible? Are lasting arrangements and compromises realistic or are they the result of angelism (naïve optimism)?
Ibrahim: Such a “Westernized” Islam, were it ever to come into being, would by necessity have so little to do with authentic Islam that it would be intellectually dishonest to associate it with—let alone call it—“Islam.” The bottom line is that the essential teachings of Islam were promulgated by a seventh century Arab—who thought and acted precisely as one would expect a seventh century Arab to think and act, meaning draconically and even barbarously. The teachings of Islam—including hating and when convenient warring on infidels, ostracizing or killing apostates, subjugating religious minorities, and a host of misogynistic measures—are inherently not “modernized, reformed, open, contextualized, secularized, or democratized.” In short, shari‘a, that sacred body of Islamic teachings, is by definition not only not “compatible with the Western model”; it is the antithesis of the Western model.
This, of course, is not to say that individual Muslims cannot be secular, reformed, etc. It is simply to say that, if they are—and good for them—that is because they are ignoring the teachings of Islam. For Islam to conform to the Western model is for it to become something entirely unrecognizable from itself.
Austria Becomes First European Country to Ban Islamist Muslim Brotherhood
Austria has become the first country in the European Union to ban the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood as part of a new anti-terrorism law.
The law bans the Egyptian-founded Muslim Brotherhood by adding it to a list of organisations linked to “religiously motivated crime”. It sets a punishment of a month in prison and a €4,000 (£3,407/$4,717) fine for those who propagate the group’s literature or disseminate its slogans. The law also allows the government to place electronic tags on convicted terrorists for monitoring, reports Spiegel Ausland.
The ban comes as part of an anti-terrorism package the Austrian parliament passed and which was created in response to the Vienna terror attack on November 2nd, where an Islamic radical murder four people and injured 23 others, Marianne reports.
According to the French magazine, the Muslim Brotherhood has a long history in Austria. It first opened an office in the city of Graz in the mid-1960s, which was used as the group’s financial hub before moving to Switzerland, where member Youssef Nada opened the al-Taqwa bank.
The al-Taqwa bank, in turn, was investigated by American and Swiss authorities shortly after 9/11 over accusations of helping to finance terrorism.
The Public Prosecutor of Graz and the Styrian Constitutional Protection Office launched a two-year investigation into the movement of funds in the city of Graz named “Operation Luxor” and drew up a list of 70 people suspected of terror links, money laundering, and financing terrorism.
A large-scale raid and arrest of suspects was scheduled for November 3rd of last year but took place on November 9th due to the Vienna terrorist attack and saw 60 addresses raided and millions of euros seized.
The new designation for the Muslim Brotherhood comes after the Austrian government has also banned the symbols of the ultranationalist Turkish Grey Wolves, the far-left Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Islamic State, and other extremist groups.
The move to ban the Muslim Brotherhood comes after Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, in the aftermath of the Vienna terrorist attack, promised to create a new criminal offence related to “political Islam”, saying it would allow the government to “take action against those who are not terrorists themselves, but who create the breeding ground for it”.
Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at ctomlinson(at)breitbart.com
Sweden: Authorities Are Punishing Me for Criticizing Islam
Will my once-beautiful country become the first caliphate in Europe?
8 comments
In 2017, I was reported by a snitch after comments I made in a closed Facebook group calling Islam a fascist ideology and Muhammed a pedophile. In Sweden, we have a law prohibiting incitement against an ethnic group; Islam is regarded as an ethnic group, but I was lucky and got acquitted, so the prosecutor appealed against this verdict to Court of Appeal, and I won again. Unfortunately, however, the matter did not end there.
This law dates from 1948, and its purpose was to stop antisemitism. It was also meant to protect homosexuals and other minority groups, so the law was completely justified. In 1999, the Swedish Social Democrats made a secret agreement with Islamic groups with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood to replace the support they had lost from Swedish working class with votes from Muslim immigrants. To get these votes, they promised to give Muslims positions in municipalities, county councils and parliament. After that, the law prohibiting incitement more or less became a Sharia law, used to stop criticism of Islam, particularly as the judiciary has become very left-leaning.
Many Muslim rapists and gang members get very soft sentences, and very few of them get deported, even if they don’t have Swedish citizenship. There is also a group called “Online Hate Reviewer,” which scans social media for “racist” comments about immigrants. Such comments are published mostly by retired people. Swedish people are very scared of being labeled racists, as they can lose jobs and friends, so young people are mostly quiet. This group gets taxpayer money from the government.
Shortly after I won the appeal, the same snitch reported me again for other comments on Facebook. The odd thing is that I made these comments in another country, but if comments are directed toward a Swedish audience, they fall under Swedish law, even if you write them in a closed group of people who share the same opinions. This time, in June 2018, I was questioned by a Turkish woman whom I suspected was a Muslim, but she refused to answer when I asked her. It was a very unfriendly hearing, and she had also spent a great deal of time going through my Facebook account, mapping my children with names and pictures. My youngest son was very upset by this.
Two years ago, my Facebook account was erased after I got many strikes about my comments. The trial was scheduled for the end of January 2020, but since I was in Thailand and was being medicated for blood clots in my lungs and left leg, I asked if they could move it to June, when I was planning to visit my family in Sweden. I even sent a letter from a Thai doctor who told me that I should not fly for eleven hours, but the court didn’t listen to that, and I was fined 400 euros for not showing up.
The next trial was scheduled for the middle of September, and I booked a flight with Finnair, but as there were many problems with covid, the flight got cancelled. I therefore agreed that my lawyer could represent me in my absence. This time I got convicted, and my crime was regarded as so bad that they wanted to jail me, but they considered my old age and gave me a high fine instead. The fine is set in regard to your income, but they looked at the year 2015, when my income was three times higher than it was in September 2020. Today I have a pension of only 1200 euros per month, and my fine was for 2000 euros, instead of the usual 600 euros. When you lose, you also have to pay your lawyer, and he cost 1850 euros. I had two weeks to appeal, and I also contacted another lawyer who promised to pursue the appeal, but he had a heart attack and hade to go to the hospital. He resigned the case, so I missed the deadline. The Appeal Court said I had to go to Supreme Court with my case, but they didn’t change the verdict in my favor even when I sent them documents from my medical record showing that I have bipolar disorder and I was out of lithium when I posted on Facebook. One can be very aggressive in speech when manic and upset, but they didn’t take that into consideration.
The law they used against me was meant to stop people from criticizing the government for its disastrous open border policy, and to protect Islam. Our prime minister also said many years ago that he would never criticize Islam, and I’m sure he has never read the Qur’an. I’m worried that my once-beautiful country can become the first caliphate in Europe, and that a demographic jihad can give Muslims a majority within 30 years. Many people are also afraid of a civil war, since criminal Muslim gangs create more and more no-go zones that police don’t dare to enter. Swedish leaders have all attended Bilderberg meetings, and they are not loyal to my country. With this statement I want the rest of the world to know what’s going on in my country.
Here is a summary article from last year on my case:
“73-year-old pensioner too ill to fly – to be dragged to trial for incitement against ethnic group with threat of fine,” translated from “73-årig pensionär för sjuk för att flyga – ska släpas till rättegång om hets mot folkgrupp med hot om vite,” Samnytt, February 14, 2020:
Denny Abrahamsson, 73, is a resident of Stockholm, but lives in Thailand during the winter. After a defeat in the Court of Appeal, Näthatsgranskaren has reported him again – and now he will appear for the trial. Thai doctors advise him not to fly – but Stockholm District Court rejects the certificates and threatens the pensioner with a fine.
Samhällsnytt has previously reported on Denny Abrahamsson who, after a long battle with the judiciary, was finally acquitted in the Court of Appeal from the charge of incitement against ethnic groups. At the time, he was accused, among other things, of writing that Islam is a “fascist ideology”. However, it did not take long before he was reported again – by the same player as last time.
Samhällsnytt has taken part in a police interrogation with the man. According to the interrogation, he is suspected, among other things, of having written on Facebook that “low IQ cultures do not mix well with high IQ communities” and that “cousin marriage and inbreeding in Islamic culture cause malformations, low IQ and aggression”. He was reported to the police for this by the state-funded Näthatsgranskaren sometime in 2018.
Since then, the trial date has been moved several times – to finally end up on January 27 this year. Abrahamsson has sent two medical certificates from Thai doctors which show that his legs have swollen – probably as a result of blood clots. He is advised to take blood-thinning drugs to dissolve the clot. At the same time, he is advised against air travel for more than four hours – for the reason that blood clots that form after sitting still for too long can settle in the heart or lungs with a risk to life. Abrahamsson has also through his lawyer sent pictures of his swollen legs to the district court.
Despite the certificates, the pictures and the blood samples, the court in a special decision rejected the documentation. An expert council from the National Board of Health and Welfare has taken their help. According to the decision that Samhällsnytt has taken note of, the pensioner was fined four thousand kronor for having missed the trial without “legal due date” – that is, without a legitimate reason for it. In addition, he will be forced to pay SEK 8,000 if he does not show up by the next date – sometime in February.
In its opinion, the Judicial Council of the National Board of Health and Welfare writes that his “problems according to the diagnoses in the two Thai medical certificates are such that they can typically be treated with medicine.” Furthermore, it is believed that the risks of flying then will not be greater than for a healthy person.
In a comment to Samhällsnytt, Abrahamsson asks questions about the statement from the National Board of Health and Welfare:
– They want to drag me home for a new trial even though I have sent a medical certificate that advises me against long-haul flights while I am taking blood-thinning medicine. I also use support stockings as I still have blood clots in my legs and lungs. Strange that they question my doctor’s assessment.
At the same time, he wonders why the strained judiciary chooses to invest resources in having four experts from the National Board of Health and Welfare review his medical certificate. He does not regret the statements he has made before and says the following:
– Today I would write that Islam is worse than fascism as it legitimizes both pedophilia, rape and oppression of women. Unfortunately, I cannot write in my Facebook groups as I am suspended for life.
Despite the threats of fines, he does not plan to follow the district court’s decision:
– I think the trial is scheduled for the end of February, but I will not appear. I suggested the beginning of June when I would still go to Sweden. We have been advised not to fly too much.
– Maybe I can be picked up by Greta’s sailboat, he adds.
Earlier this week, Samhällsnytt was able to report that 2019 was a record year for Näthatsgranskaren’s operations.
Afghan Migrant Injures Four In Knife Attack in Hamburg
A 20-year-old Afghan migrant has been arrested by police in Hamburg after allegedly attacking four people in the outdoor area of a local restaurant with a knife.
The incident is said to have taken place on Sunday evening in the St. Goerg area of the city, well-known as a hotspot for the LGBT community, and saw the 20-year-old engage in a dispute with another man before pulling out a knife.
According to a report from the broadcaster RTL, the Afghan had previously had a dispute with the man prior to the incident at the Hansaplatz square and had followed the man to the restaurant before confronting him and attacking him with a penknife.
Three other people at the restaurant attempted to intervene and subdue the Afghan migrant and received minor injuries. The main victim, 29, was reportedly slightly wounded by the migrant and two of the four victims were taken to a local hospital to treat their injuries.
The knife attack comes just weeks after a migrant from Somalia went on a stabbing rampage in the city of Wurzburg, killing three women before being shot in the leg by police and taken into custody.
The 24-year-old Somali national is said to have come to Germany just prior to the height of the migrant crisis in 2015 and was given subsidiary protection, rather than refugee status.
Joachim Herrmann, Bavaria’s Interior Minister, stated that the cause of the attack was likely related to radical Islamic extremism and claimed the Somlai had talked about contributing to jihad when he was taken to the hospital after the attack.
Earlier this year in Sweden, another migrant was involved in a mass stabbing incident in the small town of Vetlanda. The 22-year-old, who also came from Afghanistan originally, stabbed seven people in the area of the town’s train station.
Testifying in court last month, the Afghan claimed he had been angered by another man earlier in the day who had told him God did not exist.
Last week, prosecutors demanded a life sentence for the 22-year-old after a medical examination that determined he was responsible for his own actions.
Gay men will be crushed to death by pushing a WALL onto them as part of nationwide return to Sharia law in Afghanistan under the Taliban, one of the Islamist group's judges reveals
- Gul Rahim, 38, Taliban judge, has given a glimpse of life under the Islamist group
- Spoke matter-of-factly about chopping off the hands and legs of thieves
- Said gays should be stoned to death or killed by having a wall toppled on them
- Women can leave the house, he insisted, though have to get a permit first
A Taliban judge has given a terrifying glimpse into life under the Islamist group and the fate that awaits Afghanis if the country falls back under their control.
Gul Rahim, 38, spoke matter-of-factly about cutting hands and legs off thieves, issuing permits for women to leave their homes and toppling walls on gay men as a form of execution in his Taliban-controlled district in central Afghanistan.
He added that his aim is to introduce the Sharia law punishments across the whole of the country if the Taliban can re-take control once America departs, saying: 'That was our goal and always will be.'
The Taliban claim they have already taken control of 80 per cent of Afghanistan since NATO withdrew its forces from the country, leaving local troops to deal with the Islamists. The threat of Sharia law is already very real for many.
A Taliban judge has given a terrifying vision of what life under the Islamist group would be like if it returns to power in Afghanistan, with public executions reminiscent of the 1990s (pictured, an alleged murderer is executed in Kabul in 1998)
Rahim's terrifying vision of 'justice' recalls the worst atrocities under ISIS, who routinely executed gay men by throwing them off buildings and posted the footage online (pictured)
Rahim revealed his vision of justice in an interview with German newspaper Bild, speaking to a reporter close to the central Afghan province where he has been based for several years.
Speaking about a recent case he adjudicated, he said a man was found to have stolen a ring from a house - so he ordered that his hand be cut off.
'I asked the owner of the ring if he would also ask that the thief's leg be hacked off because he not only stole the ring but broke in, which means that he had committed two crimes,' he added.
'But the owner of the house agreed that only the hand would be chopped off.'
In another recent judgement, he ordered that a gang caught kidnapping and smuggling people should be hanged.
'Depending on the crime, we can start with fingertips or fingers. For worse offenses, we cut the wrist, elbow, or upper arm. Death by stoning or hanging is the only option for the greatest crimes', he said.
Asked what punishments the Taliban considers for gay men, he replied that there are only two options.
'Either stoning or he has to stand behind a wall that falls on him. The wall must be 8ft to 10ft high,' he said.
As the Taliban quickly retakes territory amid America's departure from the country, many women are trying to leave - afraid of living life under the Islamist group.
Rahim did little to assuage those fears when he insisted that women will be allowed to leave the house under Taliban rule, though will have to obtain a permit first.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
General Kenneth McKenzie (left), the head of US Central Command, shakes hands with General Austin 'Scott' Miller, US top commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, during an official handover ceremony at the Resolute Support headquarters in Kabu ltoday
General Kenneth McKenzie salutes as he receives the flag of US-led Resolute Support mission from General Austin 'Scott' Miller
Judge Gul Rahim spoke matter-of-factly about executing gays and kidnappers while cutting hands and legs off thieves (pictured, a Taliban prisoner is executed in 2007)
A man accused of harassment in beaten by members of the Taliban as punishment for his crime in neighbouring Pakistan
Women will also be allowed to do to school, he said, though only if their teacher is female and they wear a compulsory hijab.
Rahim's bleak descriptions of Taliban 'justice' recall the worst years under the previous Islamist government that emerged in the 1990s and ruled until it was driven from power during the American invasion.
In one famous image that recalls the horrors of those years, a man accused of murder is seen sitting in the middle of the national football stadium behind a pickup truck where another man is holding an AK47 rifle.
Moments after the picture was taken, the man was shot dead as part of a day of executions watched by some 35,000 people.
Now, more than 20 years on from those images being taken and as America brings its 'forever war' to an end, there are fears the scenes could soon repeat themselves as the Taliban rapidly recaptures vast swathes of the country.
The group now boasts that it is in control of some 80 per cent of Afghanistan after a lightning-fast offensive on rural areas - though observers say the true figure is somewhere around 30 per cent.
In many areas the fighting has been fierce and bloody, with the government fighting and losing on multiple battlefields.
In some places commanders have simply abandoned their posts or else negotiated surrender with the militants to be allowed to go home.
But in others, the government insists it has performed a tactical retreat in order to concentrate its forces in major town and cities where it expects to make its defensive last stand later this year in the face of a near-inevitable Taliban assault.
US Army General Austin Scott Miller stands beside British Army Brigadier Olly Brown as they take part in a flag-lowering ceremony in Afghanistan, as the 20-year war comes to an end
While western leaders hope that fighting will end with some form of power-sharing deal between the government and Taliban, many fear the Islamists will emerge victorious and seize back control over the country.
If that happens, then Rahim's grim vision of life could become a daily reality.
Commanders have already warned that several of Afghanistan's provincial capitals are surrounded by the Taliban, will militia groups recruited by the government to hold them off already complaining of a lack of weapons and ammunition.
Fighting is currently taking place around Kandahar, Ghazni, Lashkah Gar, Pul-e-Khumri and Taluqan, officers said.
Meanwhile a battle has raged for days in the western city of Qala-i-Naw, which was overrun by the Taliban last week before a counterattack by government forces.
'We ask the government to implement a proper plan for suppressing the Taliban,' Hasan Hakimi, a civil society activist in central Ghor province, told Tolo News after more districts fell to the insurgents yesterday.
Despite the risks, the US is pushing ahead with its withdrawal and expects to have all of its forces out of the country before the end of August.
On Monday, the top US general in Afghanistan relinquished command at an official ceremony in Kabul - bringing America's departure from the country a step closer.
General Austin 'Scott' Miller - the highest-ranked officer on the ground in Afghanistan - handed command to General Kenneth McKenzie.
Miller has been in Afghanistan since 2018, but in May was charged by commander-in-chief President Joe Biden with organising the final withdrawal of US troops, to be completed by the end of August.
Since May, most of the 2,500 American troops have left, and the US has also handed over to Afghan forces Bagram Air Base, from where coalition forces carried out operations against the Taliban and jihadist groups for the past two decades.
About 650 US troops are expected to be stationed in Kabul to guard Washington's sprawling diplomatic compound, where Monday's ceremony took place.
Top Afghan officials and military officers attended the ceremony inside the heavily fortified green zone.
Koranic Jew-Hatred: Preached in Jersey, Ignored By 'No Fear' Rally
Jewish "advocacy" groups ignore the overwhelmingly disproportionate source of contemporary anti-Semitism.
3 comments
This past Sunday, July 11, 2021, the usual gaggle of “Jewish advocacy groups” gathered in Washington, DC, posturing and prattling on, allegedly against anti-Semitism, “in solidarity with the Jewish people.” As is their collective wont, once again, these groups blithely ignored any honest discussion of the overwhelmingly disproportionate source of contemporary Jew-hatred: Muslim Jew-hatred, animated by mainstream, doctrinal Islam. Even the courageous Boston area Rabbi who addressed the rally after surviving a recent knifing attack by an Egyptian Muslim, refused to mention this taboo reality.
Barely over 2-weeks prior to this “No Fear Rally,” there was a brazen illustration of the Koranic Jew-hatred openly espoused in U.S. mosques during a June sermon at the Islamic Center of Union City, New Jersey, posted on YouTube on June 25, 2021.
New Jersey imam Mohammad Abbasi, currently a City University of New York faculty member, and previously on staff at Rutgers University, maintained the Jews [“Israelites”], despite their small population in the Arabian peninsula at the advent of Islam, are mentioned so many times in the Koran, because of the extensive corruption, mischief, and tumult they wrought. Abbasi intoned,
[The Koran said:] 'To the Children of Israel, in the Book,' in their book, so it is on ours now, 'you will certainly cause corruption in the land...' I wish I had enough time to explain to you how many ways the word 'cause corruption'… how it emphasizes the concept of fasad and corruption that they are going to enact in this one word…' 'You will cause corruption' – corruption, my brothers, is that you come to something that works and then you spoil it. That is what corruption is...So Allah said to the Israelites: 'You will certainly cause corruption in the land.' You are going to create mischief, tumult, corruption, in the earth – not in Arabia, where they were at the time, not in the Middle East – worldwide. I am not saying that, that is what God says. This is not political talk, this is not a conversation between the Prophet and his companions, that is a promise that came to pass...
And he concluded,
I don't want to leave you depressed; I want to give you the good news now. With the help of Allah they [the Muslims] will erase this filth called Israel.
Imam Abbasi is referencing, primarily, Koran 5:64, and his Koranic interpretation, or gloss, is not “radical.” Abbasi’s gloss on 5:64 comports fully with both the classical and contemporary mainstream understandings of this verse.
Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi (d. 2010), was one of the most renowned modern authorities on Koranic interpretation (or “exegesis”). He edited a magnum opus 15-volume contemporary Koranic commentary, and helped create the largest online website of such analyses. Tantawi served as Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University—Papal equivalent of Sunni Islam’s Vatican—from 1996 until his death. His 700 pp. Ph.D. thesis, (in English translation, Jews in the Koran and Traditions; completed 1966, published 1968), provided a summary gloss on the Koranic depiction of Jews, emphasizing its permanent relevance, while decrying Jews who rejected Islam as “maleficent deniers,” and granting Muslims license to extirpate Jewish “evil,” violently:
(The) Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah (see Koran 2:61/ 3:112 ], corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places (4:46) , consuming the people’s wealth frivolously (4:161), refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do (3:120; 5:79), and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted (lascivious) envy (2:109)…only a minority of the Jews keep their word…[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims (Koran 3:113), the bad ones do not…so use force with them and treat them in the way you see as effective in ridding them of their evil. One may go so far as to ban their religion, their persons, their wealth, and their villages.
Tantawi’s mature, authoritative Koranic commentary glosses Koran 5:64 in a manner that elaborates upon Abbasi’s interpretation, and roots Abbasi’s Jew-hating vitriol firmly within Islam’s mainstream classical, and modern interpretations. Here are the key points:
The support and cooperation that the Jews had manifested during this age and which had helped them establish a country in Palestine is a temporary matter. This country [Israel] will not last long, but it will return to its Muslim people when they sincerely wage jihad and follow the precepts and teachings of their religion. Fakhir al-Din al-Razi [the great Koranic scholar] mentioned the connection between this verse and that one that has come before it: the Almighty showed that those Jews begrudge and reject Muhammad’s prophecy after providing evidence of its validity out of their envy, their love for money, prestige, and power. Then, the Almighty showed that after they preferred this world to eternity, it was no wonder that just as He- the Almighty-denied them the happiness of religion, He likewise denied them happiness in the world.
His saying “Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it” means that whenever they waged a war against the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers, and whenever they tried to sow the seeds of discord and animosity between them, Allah spoiled their plans, frustrated their cunningness, and cast horror in their hearts. The expression entailed in this honorable verse was driven from what was customary for Arabs at the time, namely, when they planned to wage a war on others, they would light a fire which they termed the fire of war. The expression is therefore a metaphor here. The Almighty likened wars to fire since wars entail devastation and human massacres and such calamities that are likely to ensue from a consuming, raging and devastating fire. His saying “And they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters” is an appendix to confirm what had preceded concerning the despicable characteristics with which the Almighty had stamped the Jews. The general meaning is: these Jews save no effort to plot against Islam and its people, they surreptitiously strive to cause corruption throughout the land by inciting sedition, and strife and evoking animosity and envy among people. Allah Almighty does not like corruptors; He hates even loathes them for they prefer perversity and going astray to the right and straight path, and they like evil more than they like good...The verse also revealed some aspects of their vices and stubbornness. Likewise, it showed that the Almighty hates them for they corrupt the land rather than ameliorate and make it better.
The late Grand Imam Tantawi, and local New Jersey imam Abbasi, epitomize countless other traditional Muslim theologians who continue to preach the same “sacralized” Islamic Jew-hatred the Muslim creed has inculcated over almost a 14-century continuum. The bitter fruit of their efforts is apparent. Extreme Antisemitism, as gauged by the Anti-Defamation League’s own validated survey instrument has remained ~3-times more common amongst Muslims than any other ethno-religious group worldwide, for the past two decades, ongoing.
Feckless, see-no-Islam Jewish advocacy groups, as demonstrated by their hollow preening at the risibly dubbed “No Fear Rally” in Washington this past Sunday, lack the courage to confront the global scourge of institutionalized, canonical Islamic Jew-hatred. Of what value are these organizations then, one might ask?
Sharia in the U.S. Judicial System?
U.S. Muslim federal judge Zahid Quraishi says he knows “nothing” about Sharia. Is it true? Does it matter?
The U.S. Senate’s recent confirmation of Zahid Quraishi as America’s first Muslim federal judge to a lifetime position on the District Court of New Jersey raises some concerning questions.
First and foremost, there is the question of his faith. Does it matter if Zahid Quraishi is a Muslim? The Left would, of course, maintain that raising the Muslim identity of Quraishi is racist, bigoted and “Islamophobic.” But those who understand the reality of Sharia – and the fact that Islam is not a race -- understand that this matter is more complicated than what might first meet the eye.
It may very well matter if Quraishi is not just a Muslim “by name” – or just a “secular Muslim” by birth heritage. Indeed, if, as an adult adherent to Islam, he devoutly recites the Shahada -- “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” – then Quraishi’s Muslimness could matter very much. That’s because it could indicate whether or not Quraishi would ever uphold aspects of Sharia – Islamic law – in his legal rulings.
As a survivor of Sharia law, I can tell you: Sharia matters -- and in the most horrendous and painful of ways.
It is vital to understand that in Islam, Allah’s Law is supreme for Muslims, above all other laws and legal systems. And that poses a problem for America when Islam resides on its territory, because Sharia is completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the foundations of a free society.
Quraishi’s relationship to Islam, therefore, matters a great deal -- seeing that his new position entails significant power and influence in America.
So let’s dig a little bit deeper on Quraishi.
The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) surprisingly did not come out and cheer Quraishi’s appointment -- as one might have expected them to do. Instead, the Muslim “civil rights” organization appeared to be quite furious about him. Zahra Billoo, head of CAIR’s San Francisco branch, issued a statement affirming that she “would much rather have a white Christian judge with progressive values... It’s not enough that he is Muslim. In fact, it’s insulting.”
It appears that the problem for Billoo and CAIR is that Quraishi is not a Muslim from an apparent “list” of “20 to 50 Muslims who have been in the fight” for “social justice.” One unnamed Muslim politician who complained to Slate magazine about Quraishi’s appointment echoed the same theme: “We don’t know what his stances are on civil rights because you can’t find one article or anything that he’s written publicly about the Muslim struggle in the last 20 years post-9/11.”
For those concerned about Quraishi’s potential ties to Sharia, this negative disposition from the “Sharia camp” toward the Muslim judge might appear to be good news. But is it?
CAIR’s concern about Quraishi’s supposed lack of support for “progressive values” appears to be a good sign in light of CAIR’s own record of opposing counterterror measures and slandering opponents of jihad and Sharia tyranny. However, CAIR’s disposition toward Quraishi tells us little, if anything, about the key issue at stake: does the judge hold Islamic values or not?
The narrative takes another peculiar twist when we examine what transpired during Quraishi’s questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee: When asked by Committee Chair, Democrat Senator Dick Durbin: “What do you know about Sharia law?” Quraishi answered that he knew “nothing about Sharia.”
Really?
Quraishi knows “nothing” about Islam or Islamic Law?
Christine Douglass-Williams has commented on Quraishi’s dubious answer:
“Virtually everyone knows something about the Sharia. In his position, Quraishi is likely to know a lot, and was probably fibbing, and not in an intelligent way, either. It isn’t possible that a man of his standing, who ‘has served as a military prosecutor and Army captain in Iraq, as an assistant U.S. Attorney who has tried cases of public corruption, organized crime and financial fraud, and as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer’, would know ‘NOTHING’ about Sharia.”
True indeed.
What makes the matter even more peculiar is that when one pulls up Quraishi’s questionnaire answers for the Senate Judiciary Committee, one finds that he is mentioned as a “Muslim” many times in his “Honors and Awards” list. So Quraishi is praised, rewarded and held in acclaim by the Muslim community for his achievements in light of his Muslimness, but he personally doesn’t know anything about Islamic law at all?
Could it be that Quraishi might actually not be the incidental Muslim he postures as being? Could it be that he has been recognized and awarded by important prominent Muslim organizations because they gauged that, among other things, he actually is somewhat of an adherent Muslim after all?
Is it possible that CAIR might really not be as upset as it is claiming to be about Quraishi’s appointment? Or maybe it is upset, but not for the reasons it has given? Could it also be that certain players involved in this narrative are engaging in some form of taqiyya – the command in Islam for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims?
Would it also be out of bounds to ask: even if Quraishi is not an adherent Muslim, is it legitimate to be concerned that he one day could become one?
It is vital to stress at this point that Islam is not just a “religion” the way that Christianity and Judaism are religions. Islam is much more than a “faith.” For example, like Judaism, Islam has a legal system -- but Islamic Law extends far beyond any Judaic (or even secular) legal system. Sharia embodies all the commands of Allah and all the examples of Muhammad—as divine law that must be implemented in all areas of life.
Qur’an 33:21 is just one verse of many that confirms that Muhammad is “an excellent pattern” for Muslims to follow. It would do well for people to keep in mind that the “excellent” examples that Mohammed set for his followers included the following: marrying a six-year-old girl, A’ishah, and having sex with her when she was nine (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134); encouraging rape of female captives (Qur’an 4:24); stating that women are stupid (Qur’an 2:282) and that hell is comprised of mostly women (Bukhari 29); commanding men to beat their wives (Qur’an 4:34); and being merciless to a woman who had been beaten so brutally that her bruise was green (Bukhari 5825).
Muhammad also disparaged black people (Bukhari 7038). He murdered between 600 and 900 Jews in one battle, and then distributed the captive women as sex slaves (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 464, 511–512).
With some of these matters in mind, the question surfaces: would or could an American Muslim federal judge consider such material as a basis for his rulings? According to Islamic law, a Muslim judge must do so. Sharia mandates that no true Muslim is obligated to obey the laws of a non-Muslim country. Qur’an 33:1 commands to “not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites.” Qur’an 4:60 says that those who “refer legislation” to the non-Muslims are led “far astray.” And Qur’an 9:3 says that “Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger.” According to Islamic tradition, the revelation of that last verse allowed Muhammad to break the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyah.
Let us be clear: an American judge who follows Muhammad’s example can take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and not really mean it. In fact, Muhammad instructs such a judge exactly what to do in this situation: “if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” (Bukhari 5518)
The supremacy of Islamic Law over all other laws still applies today. The Islamic website International Shariah Movement is run by certified Islamic scholars. Its post “Obey the Law of the Land?” cites Qur’an 33:1.
Under Sharia, if a woman is raped, a Muslim judge must disregard any forensic or non-witness evidence, because Qur’an 24:13 requires “four male witnesses” for a rape conviction.
A beaten woman may also easily be denied divorce, because Qur’an 4:34 commands that “Men are in charge of women,” and so may “strike them.”
That is exactly what a Muslim judge in an Iranian Islamic court told me personally when I was a 15-year-old child bride, desperate for a divorce to escape the beatings. In fact, a beaten woman who leaves Islam must be hunted down and murdered, according to Islamic law, because Muhammad said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 6922)
With all these realities in mind, it is clear that if we cannot at least ask Judge Zahid Quraishi some questions regarding his adherence, or non-adherence, to Islamic law, or even understand that the issue of Quraishi’s Muslimness is an important one to address, then America is in deep trouble.
As an individual who suffered under Sharia, and was able to escape its monstrous clutches, I strongly encourage my fellow Americans to ask the right questions in this vital – and troubling – narrative about America’s new federal judge.
Aynaz Anni Cyrus is an Iranian-American human rights activist, founder of Live up to Freedom, producer of The Glazov Gang and National Director of American Truth Project. A former child bride in the Islamic Republic of Iran, she escaped and found freedom in America. Now an American citizen, she works to protect free societies from tyrannical systems and to liberate those human beings languishing under them.
No comments:
Post a Comment