Biden Solicitor General Inadvertently Admitted to Supreme Court That an Unborn Baby is a Baby
(CNSNews.com) - Elizabeth Prelogar, who serves as President Joe Biden’s solicitor general, inadvertently admitted in the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that an unborn baby is indeed a “baby.”
The case is reviewing the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that prohibits most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
It was argued before the Supreme Court on December 1 and has not been decided yet.
Prelogar participated in the oral arguments, representing the Biden Administration and presenting its argument against allowing states to prohibit abortions after 15 weeks.
During the oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas asked Prelogar to specifically state what “right” the administration was claiming was protected by the court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade and it was now seeking to defend in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health.
In response, Prelogar referred to it as “the right of a woman to be able to control…whether to carry that baby to term.”
She did not call it a fetus or any other technical term. She called the unborn baby simply a “baby.”
“General, would you specifically tell me, specifically state what the right is?” Justice Thomas asked her. “Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?”
“The right is grounded in the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Thomas, but I think that it promotes interest in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty, and equality,” Prelogar responded.
“And I do think that it is specifically the right to abortion here,” she continued, “the right of a woman to be able to control, without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term.”
What’s Wrong With Being Sworn In On The Qur’an?
Shillman Fellow Robert Spencer delivers a new, hard-hitting and eye-opening monograph.
9 comments
Introduction: It is now taken for granted that Muslim officials being sworn into office with their hand on the Qur’an is as American as apple pie, and only racist, bigoted Islamophobes oppose this practice. Leftists insist it is a manifestation of our multicultural mosaic, and that to deny Muslims this privilege would be to relegate them to second-class status in the U.S., unable to express publicly their reverence for their holy book in a way that Jews and Christians can.
However, there is a great deal more to this practice, left unexamined by an establishment media that is as superficial as it is Leftist. In this eye-opening monograph, Robert Spencer explains why this practice in unwise, both from the standpoint of America’s cultural cohesion and because of the contents of the Qur’an itself. The necessary national discussion on this issue has been drowned out, as in the case of so many other issues, by charges of “racism.” Spencer, by contrast, offers a sober, carefully considered argument that all people of good will should consider carefully.
Read Robert Spencer's new booklet below - or read the online PDF version: HERE.
And order your own personal copy today! Get one copy for $3 or buy 10 or more for our bulk special of $1.00 each: HERE.
*
What’s Wrong With Being Sworn In On The Qur’an?
A commonplace action
On January 15, 2022, Abdullah Hammoud was sworn in as mayor of Dearborn, Michigan. Far-Left “journalist” Niraj Warikoo led off his report for the Detroit Free Press by noting in an offhand manner that Hammoud was sworn in on the holy book of Islam: “Placing his left hand on a family Quran, Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud was sworn in Saturday in a historic moment for the city.”[1]
Warikoo did not make much Hammoud being sworn in on a Qur’an because by the time Hammoud became mayor of Dearborn, the practice had become commonplace. Over in Minnesota, every time a Muslim is elected to office, he or she is sworn in on a massive 14 x 20 Qur’an that a local imam, Imad Zaman, obtained in 2016 for the swearing-in of Ilhan Omar to the United States House of Representatives. Zaman noted that “this one Qur’an has been used by more than a dozen Muslim elected officials. Each time they take their oath of office from the Qur’an, they get to sign it.”[2] The list of signers now includes Omar, Minnesota attorney general and former U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison, and numerous Minnesota state officials.
Many, if not most, Americans today would see this as a success story, a vivid illustration of the Leftist mantra “diversity is our strength.” Many don’t see any problem with it at all, as the custom of having elected officials be sworn in on the Bible is just a custom, not a matter of law, so why shouldn’t people who aren’t Jews or Christians be able to be sworn in on the holy book of their choice? Opposition to this idea is routinely dismissed as bigotry: aging white Christian Americans desperately trying to maintain their cultural and political hegemony, futilely fight against the inexorable, relentless march of history.
It’s understandable that people would have this view. Since the September 11, 2001 jihad terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington, the Left and the national media have worked hand in glove to stigmatize those who would question the official U.S. government position that Islam is a religion of peace.
If Islam is a religion of peace, what could possibly be wrong with having Muslim elected officials be sworn in the Qur’an. Since virtually all Muslim elected officials at all levels are Democrats, many believe it’s solely a partisan controversy. Barack Obama even lamented in March 2016 that “the Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent.”[3] If Islam is not inherently violent, it must be pure chauvinism that leads people to object to the Qur’an being used to swear in elected officials. Some see the use of the Qur’an in swearing-in ceremonies as a necessary antidote to the “Islamophobia” that allegedly swept the nation in the wake of 9/11.
Why is it done?
In order to understand the issue of Muslim officials swearing on the Qur’an fully, however, we must examine the reason why people are sworn in on holy books in the first place.
The most obvious reason why the Bible has been used to swear in American officials is to underscore the solemn responsibility that the official is undertaking, and his or her commitment to execute it honestly and responsibly. The idea is that the official is promising before God to discharge his or her duties faithfully.
The Bible was used for this as a matter of course in the early years of the republic because virtually all of the citizens were Christians. There were of differing Christian denominations, but they were united in respect and reverence for the Bible, and consequently there was no controversy over using it for swearing-in ceremonies.
George Washington began the precedent of having the president sworn in with his hand on a Bible. He may have done so because of a belief he enunciated eight years later, in his farewell address: “Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”[4]
Washington’s sense of religious obligation led him to call for a Bible to be present for his swearing-in as president. “The president,” recounts historian Lorraine Boissoneault, “took his oath on a second floor balcony, in front of a cheering crowd. As Washington was a Freemason, it seems fitting that the Bible in use for the event was on loan from St. Johns Masonic Lodge No. 1, Ancient York Masons. He was sworn into office with his hand on the open pages displaying Chapters 49-50 of Genesis, a section chosen at random. While most presidents following Washington have continued the tradition of being sworn in on a Bible, several have deviated from that path. John Quincy Adams used a U.S. law book, and Theodore Roosevelt used nothing at all for his first inauguration.”[5]
Roosevelt’s action was likely more a matter of necessity than of conviction; he was sworn in as president on September 14, 1901 in Buffalo, New York, to which he had rushed when the death of President William McKinley, who had been shot on September 6, appeared imminent. It may have been that a Bible was not immediately available at the Ansley Wilcox House when Roosevelt was sworn in there. When he took the oath of office as president again on March 4, 1905, he placed his hand on a Bible.
Even with those exceptions, the use of the Bible in the swearing-in of the president was for the most part not questioned. This was because for most of its history, the United States of America was an overwhelmingly Christian nation. Neither John Quincy Adams and Theodore Roosevelt intended any statement of defiance or denial, or any rejection of the nation’s heritage. The use of the Bible to swear in officials was not only an affirmation of the officeholder’s acceptance of solemn duties, but of the Judeo-Christian character of the nation itself.
In recent years, several Jewish officials have been sworn in Hebrew, including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) and Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle. When Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin was sworn in back in 1985, she placed her hand on some old Jewish prayer books. Kunin explained her choice of books in a manner that demonstrated her respect for tradition: “The books had belonged to my mother, my grandparents and my great-grandfather. I wanted to place my hand on the weight of Jewish history and connect with the generations of men and women who helped bring me to this moment.”[6]
These swearings-in caused no controversy, likely because of the historical connection and close kinship between Judaism and Christianity, and the marginalization and near-disappearance of Christian anti-Semitism in recent decades.
Why swear on the Bible?
In recent years, however, as the Judeo-Christian cohesion of American society has begun to break down, the departures from using the Bible in swearing-in ceremonies have become more noteworthy. When she was sworn in as a United States Senator in 2019, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), the only member of the Senate to have no religious affiliation, held a volume containing copies of the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. And on August 13, 2019, Kelli Dunaway was sworn in as a county councilwoman for District 2 on the St. Louis County Council. She raised her right hand and placed her left hand on a copy of the children’s book Oh, The Places You’ll Go, by Dr. Seuss.
Dunaway did this, she said, because she wanted to do something new. “I think we need to do so much of that in our politics and in our policy,” she explained. “Just because we’ve done things the way we’ve always done them is no reason to keep doing them that way.”[7] Many thought that Dunaway’s choice of books to be sworn in on made a mockery of the entire process, and they certainly had a point.
Some even thought that the first mockery in this regard came in January 2007, when former Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison became the first Muslim member of the House of Representatives, as well as the first high-profile official to be sworn in on a Qur’an. After Ellison announced his intentions in November 2006, radio host Dennis Prager wrote: “He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.”[8]
Prager explained that Ellison’s choice of book was a manifestation of the dissolution of national unity and atomization of American society, as unmistakably as Kelli Dunaway’s would be thirteen years later. “First,” Prager stated, “it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.”[9]
Prager argued that our national heritage should take precedence over an individual official’s preference: “Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf,’ the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?”[10]
Indeed, why not? If Dr. Seuss is acceptable, why not Hitler? What if someone chose a book with values radically different from the Judeo-Christian principles on which American law has largely been based, at least up until recent decades? In all the controversy over Ellison’s decision to be sworn in on a Qur’an, Prager was among the very few people who were even daring to ask such questions.
Prager took up the common objections to his case: “Of course, Ellison’s defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.”[11] That remains true, with the exceptions of Wasserman Schultz, Lingle, and Kunin. “Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible.”[12] That is also still generally true today, with the notable exceptions of Kyrsten Sinema and Kelli Dunaway.
It is noteworthy, however, that these are contemporary examples. Prager is correct that while we have had many non-Christian officials, including Jewish officials other than Wasserman Schultz, Lingle, and Kunin, the tradition of swearing in on the Christian Bible had been maintained until Ellison challenged it directly. “Nor has one Mormon official,” Prager noted, “demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon.” That is largely true, although Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon was sworn in on a Book of Mormon. “And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of ‘Dianetics’ by L. Ron Hubbard. So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?”[13]
Prager found the answer in the near-universal anxiety in America today to avoid offending Islam or Muslims: “The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).”[14]
This was, Prager argued, naïve in the extreme: “But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison’s doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.”[15]
Meanwhile, Prager argued that swearing in on the Bible was an instrument of societal cohesion: “When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.”[16]
Wasserman Schultz was among those who objected to Prager’s arguments against Ellison being sworn in on the Qur’an. “Each of us,” she declared, “has every right to lay our hand on the Bible that we were raised with; that’s what America is all about, diversity, understanding and tolerance. It doesn’t appear that Dennis Prager has learned anything from his time on the Holocaust commission.”[17]
National Public Radio (NPR) political editor Ken Rudin caricatured opposition to Ellison’s Qur’an swearing-in by mocking Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode for being among that opposition: “Virgil Goode, first of all, he’s a very conservative Democrat turned independent turned Republican who's a very strong opponent of illegal immigration, and he says that unless we curb illegal immigration, more Muslims will be coming to the country, more Muslims will be elected to Congress, and thus more Muslims will be taking the oath of office on the Quran, not the Bible, and that has to be stopped.”[18] NPR’s Melissa Block then pointed out: “Okay, now of course Keith Ellison is not an immigrant,” to which Rudin responded: “Well, he’s an immigrant from Detroit. Actually, he traces his American roots back to the 1700s.”[19]
Block then asked Rudin: “And what kind of reaction has there been back in his district, in Minneapolis, to his decision to use the Quran?” Rudin answered: “Well of course, members of the - voters of the 5th District knew before the election that he was a Muslim, that the Jewish community was overwhelmingly in favor of him. He won overwhelmingly in this big, white district. He says he has received some death threats since he said he would, you know, use the Quran instead of the Bible, but the popular - the vote, the support back home is very positive.”[20] Those who objected, Rudin said, were just right-wing chauvinists and malcontents: “Well, the conservatives have been on this theme for some time, since a Los Angeles radio host several weeks ago said this is un-American. But you know, Keith Ellison has said over and over again, this is part of America, part of the diversity that America represents.”[21]
What the Qur’an says
At a cursory glance, swearing in on the Qur’an doesn’t seem to present any problems, and is akin to John Quincy Adams being sworn in on a book of American law rather than a Bible, or a Jewish official being sworn in on a Jewish prayer book. The Islamic scholar Badruddin Ayni has explained: “In my opinion, if a person swears by the Qur’an or puts his hand on the Qur’an or says ‘By the right of this,’ it is regarded an oath. Especially in an age when making false statements and perjury have increased and swearing on the Qur’an has become popular.”[22]
This sounds fine, but one primary reason why many people object to American officials being sworn in on the Qur’an is because the Islamic holy book teaches values that are vastly different from American and Judeo-Christian values, particularly the necessity for Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and subjugate them under the hegemony of Islamic law. The Qur’an directs Muslims to “kill them wherever you find them” (2:191 and 4:89), and to “kill the idolaters wherever you find them.” (9:5) It quotes Allah saying “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve” (8:12) and tells Muslims to “make ready for them all that you can of force and of warhorses, so that by them you may strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” (8:60) It tells Muslims to fight non-Muslims until “persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.” (8:39)
The Qur’an tells Muslims to fight against “the People of the Book until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29). The “People of the Book” is the Qur’an’s designation for the two primary religious groups in the United States, Christians and Jews, as well as other monotheists such as Zoroastrians who have a book Muslims consider to be divine revelation in its original, unaltered form. In Islamic law, the People of the Book have a special status: while polytheists, atheists, and others who are not People of the Book must ultimately be compelled to convert to Islam or die, the People of the Book have a third option: submission to Islamic hegemony and acceptance of a second-class status marked by the payment of a tax (jizya) and various humiliating and discriminatory regulations designed to ensure that the People of the Book “feel themselves subdued.”
There is much more, including the justification for suicide bombing in the promise of Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (9:111) and for beheading: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike their necks” (47:4).
These and other verses give the clear impression that Muslims have an obligation to wage war against unbelievers. I’m frequently charged with cherry-picking violent passages out of the Qur’an and ignoring mitigating peaceful passages, but in reality, these verses of warfare have been interpreted by Islamic authorities throughout history as being normative for all time in a way that more peaceful passages are not.
Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, participated in battles and called upon his followers to wage war against unbelievers. In another hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds which, when deemed authentic, are normative for Islamic law), Muhammad says: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf…”[23] This means that one’s property and life is not guaranteed protection if one does not become Muslim: a prescription for endless warfare against unbelievers. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was the political leader of Medina, and claimed that even his political decrees were sanctioned by Allah — hence the Qur’an’s repeated calls to obey Allah and his messenger. The Qur’an at one point even goes so far as to say: “He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah” (4:80).[24]
Besides all that, there is the misogyny. The Qur’an calls for the beating of women “from whom you fear disobedience”: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has made one superior to the other, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those from whom you fear disobedience, warn them, banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.” (4:34)
Muhammad adds in a hadith that women are “deficient in religion and intellect,” and comprise the majority of those spending eternity in hellfire.[25] Women are essentially slaves of men; they will be curse by the angels for refusing their husbands sex: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” (Bukhari 4.54.460)
The Qur’an teaches that Infidel women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (33:59) The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified.
There is much, much more, including the draconian punishments the Qur’an specifies for the vague crime of a spreading “corruption” upon the earth: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and strive upon the earth corruption: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.” (5:33)
Is the Bible just as bad?
When confronted with material from the Qur’an that calls upon Muslims to wage war against unbelievers, Islamic apologists and their non-Muslim allies frequently claim that such passages from have been “cherry-picked” from a holy book that teaches peace, and that they only seem to incite to violence when ripped out of context. Usually accompanying such claims is the assertion that the Bible is just as violent, if not more so, than the Qur’an. Late in 2021 I debated a Muslim, Javad T. Hashmi, who is in the Saudi-funded Islamic Studies program at Harvard; Hashmi actually contended that both the Bible and Christian history are more violent than the Qur’an and Islam’s bloody fourteen-century history of jihad.
This idea has been circulating for years. Just before the Ellison Qur’an controversy broke, the Lutheran theologian Martin E. Marty has written disdainfully of “people who selectively quote the Qur’an to show how it commits Muslims to killing ‘us’ infidels.” He then went on to enumerate numerous violent passages in the Bible, quipping: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor’s God or Book, nor witness at all until thou comest clean on what thy book portrays, a holy warrior God.”[26] Conservative commentator Ralph Peters, who appeared frequently on Fox News at that time, contended that “as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there’s nothing in the Koran as merciless as God’s behavior in the Book of Joshua.”[27]
While not going as far as Peters’ assertion that the Bible is actually more violent than the Qur’an, renowned conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza suggested that the Qur’an and the Bible were at least equivalent in their capacity to incite violence: “the Koran, like the Old Testament, has a number of passages recommending peace and others celebrating the massacre of the enemies of God.”[28] The problem was that some people focused on the wrong ones: “I realize that you can fish out this passage or that passage and make it sound like the Muslims want to convert or kill everybody. But that would be like taking passages out of the Old Testament to make Moses sound like Hitler.”[29]
D’Souza even claimed that Moses would have pursued an aggressive policy of religious imperialism, a la Islamic jihad, if he had had the chance: “Moses wasn’t exactly a believer in religious freedom. When he came down from the mountain and discovered the Israelites worshipping the golden calf he basically ordered a massacre. Don’t you think that if Moses could he would have imposed the laws of Yahweh on the whole world? Of course he would.”[30]
But was all this really true? This is an important question, for it goes to the heart of whether or not the actual teachings of either religion has anything to do with the violence committed in its name, and illuminates the issue of whether or not taking an oath on the Bible or the Qur’an is essentially equivalent.
Joshua: God mandates ethnic cleansing?
Was Peters correct that “there’s nothing in the Koran as merciless as God’s behavior in the Book of Joshua”? It certainly seems so at a glance. Besieging Jericho, Joshua announces that the city is “devoted to the LORD for destruction” (Joshua 6:17). When it falls, Joshua and his men “utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword” (6:21). And Joshua warned: “Cursed before the LORD be the man that rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho” (6:26).
Later God tells Joshua: “You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king,” except that this time they shouldn’t kill all the animals: “its spoil and its cattle you shall take as booty for yourselves” (8:2). Joshua complied: “When Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. And all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand, all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took as their booty, according to the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua” (8:24-27). Joshua similarly kills all the inhabitants of a number of other cities: Makkedah (10:28); Libnah (10:29-30); Lachish (10:31-2); Eglon (10:34-5); Hebron (10:36-7); and Debir (10:38-9); as well as Madon, Shimron, Achshaph, and Hazor (11:10-11).
Nowhere in all this is there a hint of any disapproval on the part of the writer or anyone in the book. Instead, we are told that in carrying out these massacres Joshua was just being obedient to God: “So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded” (10:40).
Not just Joshua
Nor is the Book of Joshua the only apparently morally problematic portion of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Leftist journalist and Presbyterian minister Chris Hedges said that many Christians “often fail to acknowledge that there are hateful passages in the Bible that give sacred authority to the rage, self-aggrandizement and intolerance of the Christian Right.”[31] The behavior of Joshua himself was rooted in earlier behavior, and other commands of the Lord. The Book of Numbers recounts that after the Israelites defeated the Midianites, they presented the captives and spoils of war to Moses. But the prophet “was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. Moses said to them, ‘Have you let all the women live?’” He reminded them that these women had earlier caused the Israelites to “act treacherously against the LORD.” Consequently, Moses told his men: “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (31:14-18).
Later this command was extended to other enemies of the Israelites: “When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them” (Deuteronomy 7:1-2). God also tells the Israelites: “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:10-17).
Besides passages apparently celebrating warfare and ethnic cleansing as sanctioned by almighty God, the books of Moses also contain other passages jarring to modern sensibilities. God commands, for example, that Sabbath-breakers be put to death: “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to the people of Israel, You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; every one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people’” (Exodus 31:12-14). So are idolaters. God tells Moses: “If there is found among you…a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones” (Deuteronomy 17:2-5).
There is more. The Book of Exodus contains some brief guidelines for occasions in which “a man sells his daughter as a slave” (Exodus 21:7). And there is more, here and there, that has raised eyebrows not only in modern times but throughout history.
“Kill them all,” says the Lord?
But is the Bible really enjoining violence, both against nonbelievers and believers who commit sins deemed worthy of capital punishment? Biblical scholars have posited several ways in which passages such as those in the Book of Joshua that appear to depict God transgressing against his own goodness can be understood by people of faith who believe that this material is divinely inspired. Some Biblical scholars have suggested that the Bible depicts a process of moral evolution – a gradual advance out of barbarism to the precepts of the Gospel. Others have adopted a posture of cultural relativism, arguing that what was acceptable for, or even incumbent upon, the Israelites in their particular time and place only applied to that time and place, not to all believers for all time.[32]
There are weaknesses in those and other such interpretations, but they reflect the fact that throughout history, rather than celebrating such biblical passages, Jews and Christians have regarded them as a problem to be solved. While interpretations of these passages differ widely among Jews and Christians, from the beginnings of rabbinic Judaism and Christianity one understanding has remained dominant among virtually all believers: these passages are not commands for all generations to follow, and if they have any applicability at all, it is only in a spiritualized, parabolic sense.
In short, the consensus view among Jews and Christians for many centuries is that unless you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite, these Biblical passages simply do not apply to you. The Scriptures records God’s commands to the Israelites to make war against particular people only. However this may be understood, and however jarring it may be to modern sensibilities, it does not amount to any kind of marching orders for believers. That’s one principal reason why Jews and Christians haven’t formed terror groups around the world that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilian non-combatants.
In Islam, however, the situation is quite different.
How jihadis understand the Qur’an
Any Muslim counterparts to Bernard of Clairvaux, in exhorting Muslims to wage jihad warfare, need not content themselves with interpreting in connection with actual warfare passages that refer to spiritual warfare. For in contrast to the Bible, the Qur’an exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction. Taking the texts at face value, the command to make war against unbelievers is open-ended and universal.
Osama bin Laden, who is only the most renowned and notorious exponent of a terror network that extends from Indonesia to Nigeria and into Western Europe and the Americas, quotes the Qur’an copiously in his communiqués. In his 1996, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” he quotes seven Qur’an verses: 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72; and the notorious “Verse of the Sword,” 9:5.[33] In 2003, on the first day of the Muslim holy day Eid al-Adha, the Feast of Sacrifice, he began a sermon: “Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood.”[34]
One pro-Osama website put it this way: “The truth is that a Muslim who reads the Qur’an with devotion is determined to reach the battlefield in order to attain the reality of Jihad. It is solely for this reason that the Kufaar [unbelievers] conspire to keep the Muslims far away from understanding the Qur’an, knowing that Muslims who understand the Qur’an will not distance themselves from Jihad.”[35]
Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, wrote: “Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.”[36]
Taliban jihadi Baitullah Mehsud said in 2007: “Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.”[37]
In 2009, the 9/11 plotters wrote an extended defense of their actions that included this: “Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.”[38]
When an Islamic jihadist beheaded Drummer Lee Rigby on a London street in 2013, he stopped before a nearby camera, still holding his bloody cleaver, and explained: “By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us.” Sura at-Tawba is the Qur’an’s ninth chapter, which contains its exhortation to fight Christians and Jews. In September 2021, a Muslim threatened the French author and politician Éric Zemmour on a Paris street, saying: “By the Qur’an of Mecca, I will smoke you out.”[39]
Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd has declared: “If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.”[40]
Over the last few years, many Muslim rapists have also referred to the Qur’an as justification for their actions. In France in 2013, a Muslim quoted the Qur’an while raping his victim.[41] A survivor of a Muslim rape gang in the UK has said that her rapists would quote the Qur’an to her, and believed their actions justified by Islam.[42] Thus it came as no surprise when Muslim migrants in France in 2019 raped a girl and videoed the rape while praising Allah and invoking the Qur’an.[43]
In India in 2004, a Muslim gave a Qur’an and a prayer rug to the woman he was holding captive and repeatedly raping.[44] And the victim of an Islamic State jihadi rapist recalled: “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God…He said that raping me is his prayer to God.”[45] In 2020 in India, a Muslim kidnapped and raped a 14-year-old Hindu girl, and forced her to read the Qur’an and Islamic prayers.[46] In Pakistan, another Christian woman recounted that her rapist was also religious: “He threw me on the bed and started to rape me. He demanded I marry him and convert to Islam. I refused. I am not willing to deny Jesus and he said that if I would not agree he would kill me.”[47] Rapists demanded in 2021 that another girl’s family turn her over to them, claiming that she had recited the Islamic profession of faith during the rape and thus could not live among infidels.[48]
The devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose, but it is clear that there are all too many Muslims today who see the Qur’an’s exhortation to violence and more as valid for our time. By contrast, when Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don’t understand the passages cited or others as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is the result of the influence of interpretative traditions that have for centuries moved away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam there is no comparable interpretative tradition. The jihad passages in the Qur’an are anything but a dead letter.
How Muslims have understood the Qur’an’s violent passages
Muhammad’s earliest biographer, a pious Muslim named Muhammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Yasar (Ibn Ishaq, 704-773), explains that originally Muhammad “had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood.”[49] However, “when Quraysh [the pagan polytheists of Mecca] became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet, and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.[50] Finally came the command for offensive jihad against unbelievers: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”[51]
Many believe this in modern timesAccording to a twentieth-century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).”[52] (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to verses quoted above such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
All this means that warfare against unbelievers until they either become Muslim or “pay the jizya” — the special tax on non-Muslims in Islamic law — “with willing submission” (Qur’an 9:29) is the Qur’an’s last word on jihad. Mainstream Islamic tradition has interpreted this as Allah’s enduring marching orders to the human race: the Islamic umma (community) must exist in a state of perpetual war, punctuated only by temporary truces, with the non-Muslim world.
All four principal Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree on the importance of jihad. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared:
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”[53]
Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist:
Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”[54]
The Hanafi school sounds the same notes:
It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”[55]
And so does the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058), who echoes Muhammad’s instructions to invite the unbelievers to accept Islam or fight them if they refuse:
The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…[56]
While these are all extremely old authorities, these teachings have not changed. All Muslims do not live by them, but they are there for jihadis to invoke to justify their actions, and they do. Underscoring the fact that none of this is merely of historical interest is another Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.”[57] This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), spends a considerable amount of time explaining jihad as “war against non-Muslims.”[58] It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad’s instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions.”[59]
Lying in the Qur’an
Even more important for the concept of taking an oath to serve faithfully and honestly is the fact that the Qur’an sanctions lying to unbelievers under certain circumstances. In the two decades of Islamic jihad that the United States has experienced since 9/11, several Islamic terms have become widely known among non-Muslims, particularly among those concerned about jihad terror and the encroachments of Sharia supremacists in the West. One of these is taqiyya (literally “fear” or “caution”), which is generally taken to mean a blanket Islamic permission for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in order to further the goals of Islam.[60]
That definition is not actually all that far off from the truth. The concept of taqiyya as such is specifically Shi’ite, developed during the time of the sixth Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, in middle of the eighth century, when the Shi’ites were being persecuted by the Sunni caliph al-Mansur. Taqiyya allowed Shi’ites to pretend to be Sunnis in order to protect themselves from Sunnis who were killing Shi’ites. Taqiyya was an important element of Shi’ite survival, for Sunnis, in the majority almost everywhere, would not infrequently take it upon themselves to cleanse the land of those whom they referred to as Rafidites, that is, rejecters—those who rejected the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, the first four successors of Muhammad according to Islamic tradition, all of whom were chosen over Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali, whose supporters became known as the shiat Ali, party of Ali, or Shi’ites.
Some Shi’ite thinkers turned the secrecy that had become a necessity into a virtue. The medieval Shi’ite scholar Ali ibn Musa ibn Tawus, who died in 1266, taught that Allah had revealed Shi’ism secretly, and it was incumbent upon the believers to practice it in secret. At the end of days, Allah will admit them secretly into Paradise.[61] Some secrets were never to be revealed under any circumstances. The fifth imam, Muhammad al-Baqir, who died in 732, once gave a book to one of his disciples, telling him, “If you ever transmit any of it, my curse and the curse of my forefathers will fall upon you.”[62]
The sixth Imam, Jafar Al-Sadiq, who died in 765, had a servant who was suspected of having revealed some of the secrets of the faith. The Imam lectured, “Whoever propagates our tradition is like someone who denies it.…Conceal our doctrine and do not divulge it. God elevates in this world one who conceals our doctrine and does not divulge it and he turns it in the next world into a light between his eyes which will lead him to Paradise. God abases in this world one who divulges our tradition and our doctrine and does not conceal it, and in the next world he removes the light from between his eyes and turns it into darkness which will lead him to hell. Taqiyya is our religion and the religion of our fathers; he who has no taqiyya has no religion.”[63]
Other Imams also emphasized the cardinal importance of taqiyya, apparently not only because Shi’ites were under constant threat from Sunnis, but because Shi’ite Islam contained doctrines that must stay hidden from outsiders. Some sayings of the Imams include, “He who has no taqiyya has no faith”; “he who forsakes taqiyya is like him who forsakes prayer”; “he who does not adhere to taqiyya and does not protect us from the ignoble common people is not part of us”; “nine tenths of faith falls within taqiyya”; “taqiyya is the believer’s shield (junna), but for taqiyya, God would not have been worshipped.”[64]
Although they do not use the term taqiyya, Sunnis have doctrines of deception as well. The Qur’an teaches that deception is allowed, so this is not a solely Shi’ite concept: “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence.” (Qur’an 3:28). A Muslim is not to take Muslims as friends unless he has “a fear of them” and is only feigning friendship to protect himself.
The Sunni commentator on the Qur’an Ibn Kathir says that the phrase “unless that you but guard yourselves against them” means that “believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers” may “show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’ Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, ‘The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.”[65] Abu Ad-Darda’ was a companion of Muhammad.
Does it matter what the Qur’an says?
It is forbidden, on pain of charges of “Islamophobia,” to discuss the actual contents of the Qur’an and their possible relevance to the question of officials being sworn in on the Qur’an. Still, it is jarring to think of American officials pledging to uphold the U.S. Constitution on a book that calls for warfare against non-Muslims and allows lying to them. Several years ago, however, I was interviewed by an extremely hostile podcast host who claimed to be an ex-Muslim, and who contended that my opposition to swearing in on the Qur’an was simple bigotry. She insisted that offering this option to Muslims in America was a simple matter of equality, and supported her claim by insisting that many nominal Muslims did not know or care what was in the Qur’an.
That may be, but it is clear that knowledgeable, devout Muslims including Keith Ellison, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib do know what’s in the Qur’an. Other Muslims, including Islamic jihadis, do as well. Consequently it is not only a blow against our cultural unity and spiritual heritage, as Prager points out, to allow oaths on the Qur’an; it’s also unwise in the extreme for a non-Muslim polity that is directly threatened by Qur’anic imperatives to pretend that those imperatives do not exist or that no Muslims in the U.S. take them seriously.
For while Americans may ignore these unpleasant passages of the Qur’an, Islamic jihadis are not ignoring them at all. To allow such a book to be used by American officeholders is to imply that loyalty to this nation and its principles is meaningless, or that Islamic scripture is meaningless, or both. A wiser path would be to respect what the Qur’an says, and take it seriously, and accordingly disallow the use of the book for swearing in American officials.
Notes:
[1] Niraj Warikoo, “Abdullah Hammoud sworn in as new mayor of Dearborn: ‘We're on a mission,’” Detroit Free Press, January 16, 2022.
[2] Hibah Ansari, “A special Qur’an holds the signature of almost every Minnesota Muslim elected to office. At a historic swearing-in ceremony, three Minneapolis City Council members added their names to the list.” Sahan Journal, January 3, 2022.
[3] Jeffrey Goldberg, “Obama on What Trump and Cruz Get Wrong About Islam,” The Atlantic, March 29, 2016.
[4] Transcript of President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796), https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript
[5] Lorraine Boissoneault, “The Speech and Bible From George Washington’s First Inauguration Made History Many Times Over,” Smithsonian Magazine, January 11, 2017.
[6] “Keith Ellison: A Qur’anic Oath?,” BeliefNet, December 2006.
[7] Ella Torres, “Missouri councilwoman uses Dr. Seuss book to be sworn into office,” ABC News, August 21, 2019.
[8] Dennis Prager, “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on,” Townhall, November 28, 2006.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] “Keith Ellison: A Qur’anic Oath?,” op. cit.
[18] Melissa Block, “Sworn In with a Quran?,” National Public Radio, December 21, 2006.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] “Can a person swear by putting his hand on the Qur'an? Is this oath valid?,” QuestionsonIslam.com. https://questionsonislam.com/article/can-person-swear-putting-his-hand-quran-oath-valid
[23] Imam Muslim, Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, translator, Kitab Bhavan, revised edition 2000, no. 30.
[24] There are numerous exhortations in the Qur’an to obey not just Allah, but his messenger – Muhammad – as well: see Qur’an 3:32; 3:132; 4:13; 4:59; 4:69; 4:80; 5:92; 8:1; 8:20; 8:46; 9:71; 24:47; 24:51; 24:52; 24:54; 24:56; 33:33; 47:33; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12.
[25] Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, translated by Muhammad M. Khan, Darussalam, 1997, vol. 1, book 6, no. 304.
[26] Martin E. Marty, “Them and us,” Christian Century, October 3, 2006.
[27] Ralph Peters, “Islam-Haters: An Enemy Within,” New York Post, September 8, 2006.
[28] Dinesh D’Souza. “The Closing of the Conservative Mind, Part I: Blindsided from the Right,” National Review, March 12, 2007.
[29] “Eyeing the Enemy: Dinesh D’Souza looks left,” National Review, January 16, 2007.
[30] Jamie Glazov, “Did the Cultural Left Cause 9/11?,” Interview with Dinesh D’Souza,
FrontPageMagazine.com, January 25, 2007.
[31] Chris Hedges, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America, Free Press, 2006, 6.
[32] These and other approaches are discussed in Eryl W. Davies, “The Morally Dubious Passages of the Hebrew Bible: An Examination of Some Proposed Solutions,” Currents in Biblical Research 2005; 3; 197.
[33] Osama Bin Laden, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” 1996. http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm.
[34] Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), “Bin Laden’s Sermon for the Feast of the Sacrifice,” MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 476, March 5, 2003.
[35] “Jihad in the Qur’an and Ahadeeth,” www.waaqiah.com, 2002.
[36] Abdullah Azzam, Join the Caravan, Azzam Publications, 2001, 30.
[37] “Pakistan Taleban vow more violence,” BBC, January 29, 2007.
[38] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin ‘Attash, Ramzi bin As-Shibh, ‘Ali ‘Abd Al-’Aziz ‘Ali, and “Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi, “The Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations,” Jihad Watch, March 11, 2009.
[39] “Éric Zemmour menacé de mort en pleine rue à Paris, enquête ouverte,” Le Figaro, September 27, 2021.
[40] Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid, “Brutality and civilisation – violence and terrorism?”, in Jochen Hippler, War, Repression, Terrorism: Political Violence and Civilisation in Western and Muslim Societies (Stuttgart: Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen, 2006), 328.
[41] “Le “monstre” de Colombes,” Paris Match, August 22, 2013.
[42] Ella Hill, “As a Rotherham grooming gang survivor, I want people to know about the religious extremism which inspired my abusers,” Independent, March 18, 2018.
[43] Federico Giuliani, “La stuprano inneggiando Allah. Poi postano il video dell’abuso sui social,” Il Giornale, December 26, 2019.
[44] Nic White, “EXCLUSIVE: Australian surfer kidnapped and raped every night for two months on a squalid houseboat in India reveals how she escaped when her captor made one simple mistake – and why she fears there are other victims out there,” Daily Mail Australia, July 4, 2020.
[45] Rukmini Callimachi, “ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape,” New York Times, August 13, 2015.
[46] Swati Goel Sharma, “Forced To Read Namaz And Quran, Reveals Minor Hindu Girl Abducted By Married Muslim Man From Bengal,” Swarajya, November 16, 2020.
[47] John Pontifex, “PAKISTAN: Raped, punched, kicked and hit with a pistol – but undaunted,” Aid to the Church in Need, June 7, 2021.
[48] “Pakistan: Father of four abducts and marries 13-year-old Christian employee after forcefully converting her to Islam,” OpIndia, June 21, 2021.
[49] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume, translator, Oxford University Press, 1955, 212-213.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[52] ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “The Call to Jihad (Holy Fighting for Allah’s Cause) in the Qur’an,” Appendix III of Sahih Bukhari, vol. 9, 462.
[53] Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, La Risala (Epitre sur les elements du dogme et de la loi de l'Islam selon le rite malikite.) Translated from Arabic by Leon Bercher. 5th ed. Algiers, 1960, 165.
[54] Ibn Taymiyya, “Jihad,” in Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996. 49.
[55] From the Hidayah, vol. Ii. 140, quoted in Thomas P. Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam (W.H. Allen, 1895), “Jihad,” 243-248.
[56] Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (The Laws of Islamic Governance), Ta-Ha Publishers, 1996, 60.
[57] Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amana Publications, 1999, xx.
[58] Reliance of the Traveller, o9.0.
[59] Reliance of the Traveller, o9.8.
[60] Etan Kohlberg, “Taqiyya in Shi’i Theology and Religion,” in Hans Gerhard Kippenberg and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Secrecy and Concealment: Studies in the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions (Brill, 1995), 345.
[61] Ibid., 351.
[62] Ibid., 370.
[63] Ibid., 355–56.
[64] Ibid., 373.
[65] Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (abridged) (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000), II, 142.
Southeast ICNA Director Schooled in Al-Qaeda-Linked Mosque and Taliban-Linked Movement
Shamikh Sahadat thinks America is racist, police are “pigs,” and Israel should be destroyed.
1 comment
Joe Kaufman is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the Chairman of the Joe Kaufman Security Initiative. He was the 2014, 2016 and 2018 Republican Nominee for U.S. House of Representatives (Florida-CD23).
The latest issue of Al-Hikmat, the quarterly magazine put out by the Pembroke Pines, Florida-based Darul Uloom Institute (DUI), profiles the Southeast Director of ICNA Relief and DUI alum, Shamikh Sahadat. Being a part of just one of these entities would be a problem, as both have associations with terror. Sahadat’s involvement in the two (and at least one other dangerous group) should be seen as an even bigger concern, and he and his groups need to be exposed, investigated and shut down.
Sahadat is originally from the South American country of Guyana, where he was introduced to radical Islam at an early age. In August 1996, when he was 13, Sahadat received certificates of accomplishment from the Department of Education & Dawah of the Guyana-based New Amsterdam Muslim Youth Organization, a division of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). WAMY has been accused of being a front and financier for both al-Qaeda and Hamas. A 1991 book published by WAMY entitled Tawjihat Islamiya (Islamic Views) contains the line, “[T]each our children to love taking revenge on the Jews and the oppressors…”
Two years after his stint with WAMY, Sahadat began imam school at the Darul Uloom Institute, under the tutelage of the mosque/school’s founder, Shafayat Mohamed. DUI has been a haven for high-profile al-Qaeda-related terrorists. “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla, who plotted to set off a radiological bomb in the US, like Sahadat, was a student of Mohamed’s at DUI. Now-deceased al-Qaeda commander Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who conspired to blow up New York’s subway system, was a prayer leader there. Others at the mosque plotted to wreak havoc on Jewish businesses and South Florida’s power grid.
Sahadat also learned under English Quranic scholar Abdul Jaleel Khan. Both Mohamed and Khan have been affiliated with Darul Uloom Deoband, the institution where the hardline Sunni Deobandi movement arose and which produced the militant Taliban. Mohamed graduated from there, and Khan was a student and teacher there. And much like the Taliban, Mohamed has come under fire for his strong views against homosexuals. In fact, he has been thrown off a number of county boards for his anti-gay rhetoric, even suggesting that natural disasters, such as tsunamis, are caused by gay sex.
Today, Sahadat is the Southeast Director of ICNA Relief, the social services division of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), where he works on such things as resettlement of Afghan refugees. ICNA has its roots in the South Asian Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. As a result, ICNA has links to organizations related to terror. ICNA has promoted and held events with a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai massacres, and for 30-plus years, ICNA has harbored a death squad leader, Ashrafuz Zaman Khan, who allegedly was responsible for the murders of 18 people during the 1971 Bangladesh genocide.
In his position as ICNA Relief director, Sahadat has been pushing his own troublesome rhetoric, riling up people by making the dangerous claim that racism is rampant throughout the US. In June 2020, he told a crowd, “We look around and we see a system of brutality… It’s not only about George Floyd [or] Ahmaud Arbery… It’s about a systemic racism that’s been going on for over 400 years.” Sahadat claims that he did not know what racism was, until after arriving in America. Yet, just as the US, Guyana had and profited from its own African slave trade for around 200 years, and racial tensions between ethnic groups in Guyana never ceased.
In May 2020, Sahadat posted video footage from an Atlanta anti-police protest, Sahadat offering the message “ATL RISE UP” with a graphic of a clenched fist. On the video, protesters are shown throwing bottles at police officers and repeatedly yelling “f**k the police” and “f**k you” to the police. Following the firing of two black Atlanta officers for using excessive force during the arrest of two college students, Sahadat used the offensive term “pigs” to describe police. He wrote, “And y’all wonder why everyone is mad at the police… I am just in awe how much these pigs can get away with.”
In May 2021, Sahadat participated in an anti-Israel rally held in Raleigh, North Carolina, where he repeated the Hamas-inspired chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” at least 30 times. Protest signs included maps of Israel covered completely in Palestinian flags. Other offensive signs compared the situation of Palestinians to the Holocaust and made then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu up to look like Adolf Hitler. One of the rally organizers was former President of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at the University of South Carolina (USC) Dana AlHasan. AlHasan has used social media to glorify convicted PFLP terrorists.
In April 2021, Sahadat praised deceased Pakistani Muslim leader Israr Ahmad. Ahmad was the founder of Tanzeem-e-Islami, an offshoot of Jamaat-e-Islami and a group whose activists have been linked to ISIS and al-Qaeda. In September 2015, the Islamic TV network, Peace TV Urdu, agreed to no longer air two inflammatory lectures made by Ahmad, where he referred to Jews as: “cancerous,” “evil,” “poisonous,” a “cursed people,” and a “cursed race.” Ahmad’s speech titled ‘How Jews Control the World’ is still found online. Regarding Ahmad’s last dua (prayer) prior to his death, Sahadat wrote, “What a Dua. The heart shakes and the eyes filled with tears.”
Shamikh Sahadat, an anti-America, anti-Israel, anti-police Islamist, who is affiliated with several radical Muslim institutions, is a danger to the security of both the local community and the nation in general. Given the persons and groups he has worked with and their links to terror, Sahadat should be investigated and removed from any action related to resettlement of Afghans or anything to do with foreign entities. We must ask ourselves why someone like this man is in the US and what measures can be taken to ensure he is not a threat. The proper course of action is to make certain he discontinues the spread of his toxic ideology to others and send him home.
Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.
So there’s plenty of suicidal hypocrisy to go around from London and Berlin to Moscow.
Vladimir Putin likes to play the defender of Christianity. A defender of Christianity wouldn’t send Muslim soldiers to invade a fellow Christian country. But then again the Europeans pretend to be defenders of tolerance and yet they’ve filled the continent with a religion of intolerance.
Islam is the Only Winner in the Ukraine War
A tough choice between Muslim Europe and Muslim Russia.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Russia, with a birth rate of 1.5 children per woman, has invaded Ukraine, where the birth rate is 1.2 children per woman, to determine which nation with below replacement birth rates will go extinct the fastest. In the long run the only winners of the war to determine whether Ukraine will belong to the 1.2 or 1.5 people will be the Chechen and other Muslim soldiers doing the fighting.
The Chechens have a birth rate of 2.5. Their religion and mosques are more likely to inherit the territories they are fighting over than either the Russian or Ukrainian Orthodox churches.
Medieval Europe was able to recover from devastating wars and plagues, and a life expectancy rate of around the age of a postmodern grad student, because of high birth rates. But just as the Europeans discovered how to fight truly catastrophic wars, birth rates declined. World War II broke Europe when the previous world war didn’t because the dead were never replaced.
The UK birth rate during WWI looked like the Chechen birth rate. By WWII, it dropped below replacement rate. Today, like so much of Europe, it's artificially bolstered by the British version of the Chechens, Pakistanis and other Muslim immigrants. Germany went into WWI fueled by an aggressive birth rate of 3.5. By the end, despite desperate Nazi eugenics, it had dropped below replacement rate. It looked like the Ukranian one until the Muslim birth rate kicked in.
Russia went into WWI with a birth rate of around 7, by the time the Soviet Union collapsed it had also fallen beyond replacement rates. Like the Europeans, its birth rate is artificially inflated by a growing Muslim population, legal or illegal, even in major cities like Moscow.
Every Ukrainian and Russian death is another loss that will never be demographically replaced.
Western Europe and Russia have dueling visions for Ukraine and the territories of the former Soviet Union. Europe would like them to join a wonderful union based around peace, tolerance, and importing millions of Muslims to balance out all the peaceful tolerant Europeans. Putin would like to induct them into Greater Russia which will unite Islam and Christianity.
Europeans claim that they can have a tolerant society built around the demographic growth of a religion that murders unbelievers. Putin claims that a new Christian Russian empire will be built on a multifaith alliance with a religion that has spent centuries destroying Christian empires.
Putin contends that, “we have Eastern Christianity and certain theoreticians say that it is much closer to Islam than Catholicism is.”. The Communist era left more “certain theoreticians” than dead dogs in Russia. Historians might point out that Islam destroyed far more of Eastern Christianity than of the Catholic world. But, much like the Europeans, a childless Russia has to turn to Islam to get the proles and the cannon fodder to keep the lights and the wars going.
Vladimir Putin likes to play the defender of Christianity. A defender of Christianity wouldn’t send Muslim soldiers to invade a fellow Christian country. But then again the Europeans pretend to be defenders of tolerance and yet they’ve filled the continent with a religion of intolerance.
So there’s plenty of suicidal hypocrisy to go around from London and Berlin to Moscow..
Putin argues that, “Russia was built up as a multi-national and multi-confessional state.” The European Union contends the same thing about its own goulash of nations. The problem is that the “multis” will ultimately give way to just one uni. Or, more accurately, one ummah.
Germany welcomes in a million Muslim migrants and Putin’s puppet in Belarus imports Iraqi migrants by the thousands and orders them to invade Poland. It’s as if the Gates of Vienna were being recreated by manics competing to burn their own civilization down the fastest.
Three years ago, the Chief Mufti of the Council of Muftis of Russia told a conference held in the Russian parliament on the subject of the "History of Islam in Russia: Understanding With a Look into the Future," that the Muslim ”population will increase to 30 percent in a decade and a half."
Dimitry Smirnov, Chairman of the Patriarchal Commission on Family Affairs, Protection of Motherhood and Childhood for the Russian Orthodox Church, agreed with the Chief Mufti. "Muslims have more children. Not Tatars, but Caucasians. The Chechens have eight children and the Ingush. The Russians will run out by 2050. Other nations will live here: Chechens, Ingush, Arabs.”
Asked if there was any hope, the archpriest said, it was "already too late."
Time to invade Ukraine then. And then the Europeans and the Russians can argue over which future Islamic bloc, Greater Muslim Russia or Greater Muslim Europe, should control Ukraine.
Whatever casualties the current war will bring, the Russians and Ukrainians are killing themselves much faster than each other with over 600,000 abortions per year in Russia and under 75,000 in Ukraine. Both countries also have some of the worst suicide rates in the world.
Russia has the third highest suicide rates in the world and Ukraine has the seventh highest suicide rate for men. These are not the characteristics of people who believe in the future.
Behind the dueling campaigns of propaganda, the total saturation of lies, are these grim realities of despair and death. The spurious nationalism is a facade for the hard realities that Ukrainian and Russian boys are dying in a pointless war whose only winners will be the migrant hordes flooding out of the ‘Stans’ and out of Asian and Muslim Middle Eastern nations to replace them.
In the short term, European and Russian leaders and oligarchs expect to derive some temporary benefit from this latest episode in the death throes of our civilization.
In the long term, they are dooming us all.
Whatever the various sides claim to be fighting for, a Greater Russia, democracy, or nationalism, the only thing they’re really doing is accelerating their own defeat.
China and the Islamic Ummah need only watch and alternately cheer both sides on.
Much of Russia’s land, like America’s land, has already been leased out to China. While Putin chases Ukrainian territory, Russia proper is owned by China and colonized by Muslim migrants. Russia’s takeover of Crimea spurred Chinese investment in the area. Whatever Ukrainian territory Putin takes will ultimately benefit Chinese industries and their Russian middlemen.
But there’ll probably be a board seat in there somewhere for Hunter Biden or Neil Bush.
America, like Europe, Russia, and the rest of what once passed for the civilized world, have become profoundly unserious, crowded into social media echo chambers, shouting trending hashtags, and refusing to think in any terms longer than their attention deficit disorders.
There are always distractions to pass the time, to funnel away our outrage into the things that don’t matter to avoid thinking about the truly big things that do. Wars are wonderful distractions. Especially wars that don’t involve us and in which our only stake is a hashtag and a position.
But unless we start thinking seriously about the future, we won’t just lose, we will cease to exist.
HAVE LOOTED THE COUNTRY AS MUCH AS THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY!
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/12/bush-family-mourns-hw-bush-man-who-did.html
The perilous ramifications of the September 11 attacks on the United States are only now beginning to unfold. They will undoubtedly be felt for generations to come. This is one of many sad conclusions readers will draw from Craig Unger's exceptional book House of Bush House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties. As Unger claims in this incisive study, the seeds for the "Age of Terrorism" and September 11 were planted nearly 30 years ago in what, at the time, appeared to be savvy business transactions that subsequently translated into political currency and the union between the Saudi royal family and the extended political family of George H. W. Bush.
The Case Against George W. Bush Hardcover – November 10, 2020
by Steven C. Markoff (Author), Richard A. Clarke (Introduction)
chronicles the presidency of George W. Bush through almost 600 quotes from over ninety authors, including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and writers and journalists such as Steve Coll, Frank Rich, Craig Unger, and Bob Woodward. Steven C. Markoff presents sourced evidence of three crimes committed by George W. Bush during his presidency: his failure to take warnings of coming terror attacks on our country seriously; taking the United States, by deception, into an unnecessary and disastrous 2003 war with Iraq; costing the lives of more than 4,000 Americans and 500,000 others; and breaking domestic and international laws by approving the torture as means to extract information. While Markoff lays out his case of the crimes, he leaves it up to the reader to decide the probable guilt of George W. Bush and his actions regarding the alleged crimes.
Bush's sordid Saudi ties set template for Trump – he was just more subtle
President George HW Bush is greeted by King Fahd on his arrival in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in November 1990. Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
The former president has been widely praised for his command of foreign policy. The reality, writes the author of House of Bush, House of Saud, was much more complex – and dark
Craig Unger
Tue 4 Dec 2018 01.00 EST
Days after his death, reverent tributes continue to pour in for former president George HW Bush, celebrating his adroit handling of the end of the cold war and his victorious leadership in the 1991 Gulf war, all leavened with nostalgia for a bygone era in which an American leader could stand astride the world stage without causing the entire planet to titter in nervous laughter.
George HW Bush thought the world belonged to his family. How wrong he was
Ariel Dorfman
Read more
Refined, gracious and genteel, Bush, in many ways, was the polar opposite of the current resident of the White House. Nevertheless, his decorous manner often concealed objectives that were far darker than the “kinder, gentler” vision he promoted.
As head of the CIA under Gerald Ford, and later as vice-president, Bush was a consummate pragmatist capable of rapidly changing political positions as expediency demanded. Highly disciplined, he mastered the arts of compartmentalization and secrecy. Nobody in government was better at keeping secrets. With his posh pedigree and Ivy League credentials, Bush had the perfect résumé to be a spy, and an effective mask with which to disguise his real agendas.
As Murray Waas and I wrote in the New Yorker, that was precisely the case in the summer of 1986, when Bush received a call from William J Casey, the gruff, perpetually disheveled spymaster who succeeded Bush as CIA director. Casey wanted Bush, then vice-president under Ronald Reagan, to run a covert operation that was part of what became known as the Iran-Contra and Iraqgate scandals.
Obstinate Iranian leaders had declined Casey’s secret offer to exchange arms for hostages who were being held in Beirut by terrorists tied to Tehran. Casey decided he had to force Iran’s hand. In August, Vice-President Bush was scheduled to visit the Middle East to “advance the peace process”, as the New York Times reported.
Bush’s true objectives were exactly the opposite of his stated goals. He was there to escalate the war between Iran and Iraq. Specifically, he had been tasked with delivering strategic military intelligence to Saddam Hussein, so that Iraq would intensify its bombing inside Iran. After a series of brutal air attacks, Bush and Casey reasoned, Iran would be forced to turn to the US for missiles and other weapons of air defense.
'A different command': how George HW Bush's war shaped his work for peace
Read more
And they were right. Forty-eight hours after Bush executed his mission, Iraqis launched hundreds of strikes targeting oil facilities deep into Iran. Within a few weeks, Iran was back at the negotiating table. But that wasn’t the end of it. Every time hostages were released, new ones were seized.
As for the Iraqi side of ledger, Bush and Casey were far less wary of Saddam than one might expect. “He and Casey both had great naiveté, thinking you could be friends with Saddam Hussein,” said Howard Teicher, who served on Reagan’s National Security Council.
When Bush became president in 1989, his administration blithely ignored Saddam’s military buildup and human rights violations and proceeded to send funding, intelligence and hi-tech exports, some of which could potentially be used in Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. All of which left Saddam emboldened – and that paved the way for the Gulf war of 1991.
A key factor in Bush’s Middle East policies was his friendship with Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US. The two men were so close that Bandar was known to pop in unexpectedly at Bush’s summer retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine. They went on hunting trips together. Later, when Bush was out of the White House, he even tasked Bandar with teaching his eldest son – George W, then a presidential aspirant with no experience in international affairs – all about foreign policy.
After his presidency was over, Bush and a number of his former cabinet officers also began participating in the Carlyle Group, a giant private equity firm heavily funded by Saudi billionaires – including the Saudi family of Osama bin Laden. As I reported in House of Bush, House of Saud, in the end, nearly $1.5bn made its way from the Saudis to individuals and institutions tied to the extended family of Bush cabinet officials and associates.
President George W Bush speaks to Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar in Crawford, Texas in 2002. Photograph: Reuters Photographer / Reuters/REUTERS
Such ties were particularly noteworthy because of the House of Saud’s alliance with strident and puritanical Wahhabi fundamentalists, many of whom supported a violent jihad against the west. All of which raised disturbing questions after terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people on 11 September 2001 in attacks orchestrated by Bin Laden.
George HW Bush's presidential campaign was nothing to be proud of
Walter Shapiro
Read more
George HW Bush was long out of office and his son had become president. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks, when US air traffic was all but shut down, how is it that the White House approved the departure of more than 140 mostly Saudi passengers, many of whom were kin to Osama bin Laden? Why did Saudi Arabia – birthplace of 15 out of 19 hijackers – get preferential treatment from George W Bush’s White House at a time when Arab-Americans all over the country were being apprehended and interrogated? Had the Bushes’ close ties to the Saudis led them to look the other way – even after the worst terrorist attack in American history?
Seventeen years later, of course, a very different White House has turned a blind eye to a very different but equally horrifying Saudi atrocity – namely, the murder and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi after he was lured to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
In response, Trump, predictably, could not have more deeply insulted the intelligence services Bush once led. Just a few days after the CIA determined that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had approved the murder, Trump baldly defied CIA analysts and sided with the Saudis, asserting that Khashoggi’s murder might never be solved.
“We may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr Jamal Khashoggi,” he said. “In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
With his understated style and his understanding of the diplomatic niceties, George HW Bush, of course, would have handled it very differently. But let us not forget that America’s mercenary relationships with brutal foreign powers began long before Donald Trump.
·
Craig Unger is the author of House of Bush, House of Saud and House of Trump, House of Putin: The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia. His Twitter handle is @craigunger
·
Saudi Crown Prince MbS says his human rights were violated by claims he ordered Khashoggi murder as he reveals love of Game of Thrones in extraordinary interview from family Covid 'bunker'
- Saudi crown prince gave revealing interview from 'bunker' near the Red Sea
- He described love for Game of Thrones and how he tries to limit his Twitter use
- MbS also told of how his human rights were violated over Khashoggi allegations
- Journalist would not be among top 1,000 targets if that was 'how we did things'
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has said his human rights were violated by claims he ordered the murder journalist Jamal Khashoggi as he reveals his love for Game of Thrones in an extraordinary interview from his family's Covid 'bunker'.
Khashoggi, a former member of the Saudi royal family turned dissident, was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 before being dismembered and disintegrated.
His murder sparked international outrage that continues to reverberate, with Western intelligence agencies accusing the kingdom's de-facto ruler, 36, of authorising the killing - tarnishing his reformist image.
However, the crown prince defended himself today, claiming it was 'obvious' that he had not ordered the killing and the allegations had 'hurt' him a great deal.
In an interview with The Atlantic, given from his Covid 'bunker' palace close to the Red Sea, he said: 'It hurt me and it hurt Saudi Arabia, from a feelings perspective.
'I understand the anger, especially among journalists. I respect their feelings. But we also have feelings here, pain here.'
He continued: 'I feel that human-rights law wasn’t applied to me. Article XI of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that any person is innocent until proven guilty.
MbS also defended himself by saying the journalist was not important enough for him to want to kill.
He added that he had 'never read a Khashoggi in his life', before stating that the journalist would not be among his top 1,000 targets to kill 'if that was how we did things'.
'Khashoggi would not even be among the top 1,000 people on the list. If you’re going to go for another operation like that, for another person, it’s got to be professional and it’s got to be one of the top 1,000', he said.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman speaks during the Gulf Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in December
Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was allegedly strangled and his body dismembered by Saudi agents
He said that the killing was a 'huge mistake' and hoped no more hit squads would be found.
MbS also told two close aides that the murder the 'worst thing ever to happen to me, because it could have ruined all of my plans' to reform the country.
Following the allegations, MbS says he now wants to return the focus to social and economic reforms that he has pushed through to open up Saudi Arabia and diversify its oil-dependent economy. The plans do not appear to include wide political reform.
The crown prince also gave an insight into his personal life during the interview, revealing how he tries to limit his Twitter usage and eats breakfast every day with his children.
Discussing what he does for enjoyment, MBS said he watches television, but avoids shows that remind him of work such as House of Cards.
However, he did admit to a love for Game of Thrones as it helps him to escape the reality of his job.
Mohammed Bin Salman revealed he has a love for Game of Thrones (pictured) and tried to limit his Twitter usage
MbS went onto discuss how he did not care whether US President Jo Biden misunderstood things about him, adding that he should be focusing on America's interests.
Prince Mohammed enjoyed close relations with Biden's predecessor Donald Trump.
But since Biden took office in January 2021, the long-standing strategic partnership between Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, and the US has come under strain over Riyadh's human rights record, especially with respect to the Yemen war and the Khashoggi murder.
And asked whether Saudi Arabia rule could transform into a constitutional monarchy, said no, before adding that the country is 'based on pure monarchy'.
Sunni-Shi’a Jihad Comes to the University of Connecticut
The wave of the future.
While all eyes are fixed on Ukraine and wondering if Dementia Joe is going to back our woke, distracted military into World War III, a telling incident at the University of Connecticut demonstrated a feature of our glorious multicultural mosaic that has not often been seen in America before: the jihad between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims.
UConn’s Daily Campus reported that on Monday, February 7, the university “distributed turbahs for Shia Muslim students to use at the Islamic Center of the University of Connecticut and the wellness and meditation space in Homer Babbidge Library, the two main prayer areas on campus for Muslim students.” Turbahs are pieces of dirt or clay from the sacred ground of Karbala that Shi’ite touch to their foreheads during the prostrations of Islamic prayer. These turbahs “were donations to the university and came directly from Iraq.” But “the next day, the Ahlul Bayt Student Association at UConn, an organization for Shia Muslim students, found out the turbahs distributed to ICUC had been vandalized and thrown out.”
For all we are told about the prevalence of “Islamophobia,” some might have assumed that “Islamophobes” disposed of the turbahs, but no, the culprits were actually Sunni Muslims. To make matters even worse, the paper also noted that “this is not the first anti-Shia incident to occur at UConn; according to members of the Ahlul Bayt Student Association, an organization for Shia Muslims at UConn, anti-Shia rhetoric has occurred for years. ABSA claims that ICUC has not been a welcoming environment for Shia Muslim students, with ICUC keeping anti-Shia books inside the mosque, and requiring approval for the placement of worshipping items such as turbahs in the space of worship.”
Meanwhile, according to the Daily Campus, the Sunni Muslim Students Association condemned the vandalism and claimed that it had nothing to do with the incident, but dodged a meeting with the Shi’a to discuss concerns, and the Shi’a, claim that the MSA’s apology was “neither direct nor official.” In response to the incident, the Muslim Student Association “released a statement condemning the vandalism, claiming that the ICUC executive board had no connection to the attackers. The MSA claimed the e-Board lacked any knowledge that turbahs would be placed in the mosque and reiterated that the placement of any religious items in the mosque requires ICUC approval.” Yet the MSA was less than cooperative and conciliatory: “While MSA claims ICUC apologized to ABSA for the incident and offered to pay for turbahs and discuss concerns, ABSA claims they could not schedule a meeting and that an apology from ICUC was neither direct nor official.”
The Daily Campus added that “given the anti-Shia Muslim hate and the divide between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, more events and educational opportunities should be made available to students to eliminate misconceptions regarding the Shia sect.” The Shi’ites were likewise unhappy about the response it got from the university about this incident: “Furthermore, this incident occurred on Feb. 8 and the UConn administration has yet to publicly condemn and oppose this hate. The UConn administration should address this incident, make it clear that such hate is unwelcome at the university and spare no resources investigating those responsible.”
We have heard this kind of thing before, in a slightly different but related context. The Shi’a demand for “more events and educational opportunities” for students, so as “to eliminate misconceptions regarding the Shia sect,” mirrors the longstanding and widespread claim that “Islamophobia” can be stamped out by seminars and outreach events that “eliminate misconceptions.”
Such efforts never actually stamp out “Islamophobia” understood as suspicion or distrust of Islam except among the credulous and ill-informed, because the suspicion and distrust of many people regarding Islam is not based on “misconceptions” at all, but on an actual awareness of Islamic texts and teachings. Likewise the Shi’ites at the University of Connecticut will realize eventually, if they don’t actually know already, that the Sunni hatred for them stems not from “misconceptions,” but on Sunni teachings regarding Shi’a Islam as a heretical, twisted form of Islam. No educational efforts will undo that conviction.
The Sunni-Shi’ite relationship has been characterized by 1,400 years of violence. We can be grateful that the UConn controversy didn’t involve any violence. But the smart money would be on that violence coming here eventually.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
Video: ‘The Worst Year of Christian Persecution’
The ignored pandemic.
Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, recently appeared on OAN’s Tipping Point to discuss “The Ignored Pandemic: 360 Million Christians Persecuted Worldwide” with Kara McKinney.
Don't miss this crucial short video below:
Raymond Ibrahim Video: Islam and Academic Myths
Why do Western academics present Islam as an enlightened force for progress?
Western academics routinely present Islam as an enlightened force for progress unfortunately stymied by Western bigotry and aggression. Where did this image come from and how did it become ensconced in universities? What truths and falsehoods does it contain? What implications does it have?
Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, was recently featured in a webinar hosted by the Middle East Forum, where he is the Judith Friedman Rosen Fellow. Ibrahim addressed these questions and more in a must-see video from the Middle East Forum. Check it out below:
No comments:
Post a Comment