What words best describe Islam? jehad? terrorism? pedophilia? sexual abusers? women haters?

Scott Kennedy with the Center for Non-violence in Santa Cruz, CA writes in The Sentinel 2-13-2011 that it is wrong for people to equate Islam with terrorism. What words come to mind when you think of Islam?

Not one of the examples Kennedy uses concern the middle east where despots routinely flog and beat their people and, until Tunisian and Egyptian people rose up, most middle eastern people have long accepted abject poverty and brutal treatment by their rulers.

Somehow it sticks in one’s throat that someone like Kennedy from a center for non-violence defends the political/ religion of Islam. In my view, Islam is probably the most brutal and repressive religion and political system in today’s world.

Should people equate Islam iwth terrorism? What words come to mind for you when thinking of Islam? One image that comes to mind is thousands of Islamic males reciting the Koran with their foreheads on the ground and their rear ends up.

See below for a well written book review about A God Who Hates.

Book Review: “A God Who Hates” by Wafa Sultan
From the desk of Fjordman on Wed, 2010-04-07 09:35

The book A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam was written by Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American ex-Muslim. Breaking with Islam takes tremendous courage, as the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam is still upheld today. The only good byproduct of Muslim immigration to the West is that it has allowed a handful of such former Muslims to publish their thoughts about leaving Islam. One of these titles is Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, edited by Ibn Warraq. Another is Understanding Muhammad by the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, the founder of Faith Freedom International. I have reviewed his book at Jihad Watch previously.
In her writing, Wafa Sultan draws extensively on her own personal experiences as well as those of friends and others in her society, especially the women, who suffer from an appalling level of brutality and repression. She manages in a very convincing manner to tie many of these problems directly to Islamic teachings, all the way back to Muhammad, his wives and companions. Far from representing a “perversion” of Islam, she shows us that the repression and violence that is endemic in Islamic societies represent the true essence of Islam.

In sharp contrast to the self-proclaimed “reformist” Irshad Manji, whose knowledge of Islamic doctrines is quite limited, Sultan shows us how Islam was born in the Arabian desert and is still shaped by this 1400 years later. The raids Muhammad and his companions carried out in his lifetime – which amounted to at least twenty-seven if you believe Islamic sources – occupy a major part of his biography. They were intended to acquire booty, but also to inflict physical and mental harm upon rival tribes in order to deprive them of their ability to resist.

Wafa Sultan, page 66: “For me, understanding the truth about the thought and behavior of Muslims can only be achieved through an in-depth understanding of this philosophy of raiding that has rooted itself firmly in the Muslim mind. Bedouins feared raiding on the one hand, and relied on it as a means of livelihood on the other. Then Islam came along and canonized it. Muslims in the twenty-first century still fear they may be raided by others and live every second of their lives preparing to raid someone else. The philosophy of raiding rules their lives, the way they behave, their relationships, and their decisions. When I immigrated to America I discovered right away that the local inhabitants were not proficient in raiding while the expatriate Muslims could not give it up.”

On the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding,” she states on page 69: “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”

A master-and-slave mentality dominates Arab-Islamic society, both in public and in private. A person can often be a master in one relationship and a slave in another, simultaneously.

Page 158: “When you speak calmly to a Muslim, he perceives you as being weak. The American saying ‘speak softly and carry a big stick,’ is, unfortunately, of no use when dealing with Muslims. It would be more appropriate to say (until we can change this way of thinking), ‘speak forcefully and carry a big stick’; otherwise you will be the weaker party and the loser. Democracy cannot spread in societies like these until the people who live in them have been reeducated, for they cannot function unless they are playing the role of the master or the slave.”

A deep structural flaw in Islamic culture is that nobody wants to take responsibility for his own shortcomings or mistakes, which are always blamed on somebody else or on God’s will. There is no clear distinction between truth and lie, between yes and no. Things happen or don’t happen inshallah (Allah willing), not because you take personal responsibility for them.

Page 215: “Never in my life have I heard or read of a Muslim man’s expressing feelings of guilt about something he has done, even in fiction. People feel guilty only when they feel a sense of responsibility and acknowledge that they have made a mistake. But Muslims are infallible: The mere fact that they are Muslim makes their every error pardonable. A man’s adherence to Islam is defined not by his actions and responsibilities, but only by the profession of faith he recites: ‘I testify that there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is the messenger of God.’ As long as he continues to repeat this profession of faith he will continue to be a Muslim, and no crime he may commit against others can diminish this. Saddam Hussein was one of the great tyrants of history, but most Sunni Muslims consider him a martyr. At his funeral they chanted: ‘To paradise, oh beloved of God.’”

Islam constitutes an extremely and arguably uniquely repressive belief system. Already in the first days of Islam, Muhammad linked obedience to himself with obedience to God.

A God Who Hates, page 159: “Muhammad understood that the ruler was the link between himself and the populace, and so concentrated on the need to obey the ruler, saying in a hadith: ‘Whosoever obeys me obeys God, and he who obeys my emir obeys me. Whosoever disobeys me disobeys God, and he who disobeys my emir disobeys me.’ In confirmation of this, a verse rolled down from the mountaintop, as follows: ‘Obey Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you’ (4:59). ‘Those in authority among you’ means, according to works of Koranic exegesis, ‘your rulers.’ In order to ensure that Muslims would obey their rulers implicitly and without reservation, Muhammad told them in a hadith: ‘Obey your emir even if he flogs you and takes your property.’ Fearing that some Muslims would rebel against such unquestioning obedience, he justified it by saying in another hadith: ‘If a ruler passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision is the right one, he is rewarded twice. If he passes judgment after profound consideration and his decision turns out to be the wrong one, he receives a single recompense.’”

Page 160-161: “Never in the history of Islam has a Muslim cleric protested against the actions of a Muslim ruler, because of the total belief that obedience to the ruler is an extension of obedience toward God and his Prophet. There is only one exception to this: A Muslim cleric of one denomination may protest against the actions of a ruler who belongs to a different one. How can a Muslim escape the grasp of his ruler when he is completely convinced of the necessity of obeying him? How can he protest against this obedience, which represents obedience to his Prophet and therefore also to his God? He cannot. Islam is indeed a despotic regime. It has been so since its inception, and remains so today. Is there a relationship more representative of the ugliest forms of slavery than that between a ruler and a populace whom he flogs and whose money he steals while they themselves have no right to protest against this behavior? The ruler acts by divine decree, and the people obey him by divine decree.”

Islam is totalitarian to such an extent that it is difficult to comprehend for outsiders. Critics often compare it to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Communism from the Western world, which is apt in many ways. Yet Islam is even more totalitarian than those creeds. Even the Nazis and the Communists didn’t ban wine and beer, all works of pictorial art, sculptures and most types of music. I can think of other religious denominations and groups who restrict the use of alcohol, but I cannot think of any other religious creed on this planet that bans wine, pictorial art and most forms of music at the same time. Islam is unique in this regard.

I have developed a beer hypothesis of civilization, which stipulates that any society that does not enjoy beer and wine cannot produce good science. I say this 80% as a joke and 20% seriously. The Middle East before Islam produced some scientific advances at a time when the ancient civilizations were great consumers of beer and wine. The Middle East after Islam did, for a while, produce a few scholars of medium rank, but these contributions steadily declined until they almost disappeared. This time period overlaps with the period when there were still sizeable non-Muslim communities and by extension sizeable production and consumption of wine in this area. The medieval Persian scholar Omar Khayyam was a good mathematician, but a bad Muslim who loved wine. The Ottoman Turks largely chased away what remained of wine culture in that region. Incidentally, the Turks also contributed next to nothing to science.

The one possible objection I can see to the consumption of beer and wine is that some men become alcoholics who proceed to beat their wives, and some women beat or abuse their children when they drink. This is unfortunately true sometimes and constitutes an issue that should not be ignored. Yet Islamic societies suffer from an extreme level of child abuse, domestic violence and general violence of all kinds, which means that the one really serious objection to alcoholic beverages carries no meaning there. The Koran 4:34 says quite explicitly that men are allowed to beat their women. They don’t need to get drunk to do so.

A God Who Hates is easy to read, but at the same time deeply disturbing and packed with examples from everyday life of how Islamic doctrines ruin the lives of millions of people. Wafa Sultan’s book provides us with an insightful, but unpleasant look into a culture that damages the soul of its inhabitants. It paints a portrait of a society where women are mistreated daily and barely seen as human. They will in turn project their own traumas on their sons, daughters and daughters-in-law, creating an endless cycle of mental and physical abuse. It is very hard to see how this vicious cycle can be broken without repudiating Islam.

Share

Islamic radicals – comments by American Islamic Forum for Democracy

Islamic radicalization – why to watch out for it per the American Islamic Forum for
Democracy. I agree says Dr. Cameron Jackson of Monterey Bay Forum.

Share

The following comments make sense to me. What do you say? Dr. Cameron Jackson DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

As we look forward to 2011, we wanted to take this opportunity to reflect upon our organizational successes in 2010 at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). We can truly say that we have affected positive, lasting change in the national conversation about political Islam and Islamist radicalization. Issues such as the ‘Ground Zero mosque’, Major Nidal Hasan’s attack on Fort Hood, and an unprecedented number of homegrown terror plots from Muslims radicalized on our soil have finally begun to awaken America. AIFD has been a major catalyst in beginning to break down the blinders of political correctness that have prevented our nation from understanding the root cause of the ever-growing threat of Islamist radicalization-the ideology of political Islam. AIFD also exemplifies how solutions to that ideology may evolve– internal reform toward the separation of mosque and state from deep within the “House of Islam.”

AIFD’s mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom through the separation of mosque and state.

AIFD’s successes: Our work through interviews and contributions on television, radio and in print has had consistent penetration into increasing audiences. This year alone we have reached an estimated audience of over 150,000,000. AIFD has been featured on CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper 360. We have been carried on Fox News Channel’s America Live, The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity. CBS News’ The Early Show, MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, and nationally syndicated radio programs by Laura Ingraham, Fred Thompson, G. Gordon Liddy, and Dennis Miller have regularly featured AIFD. Our writings have been featured in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, The Dallas Morning News, the Washington Times, the Daily Caller, and the Hudson Institute. Our expertise has been called upon as a source by the National Journal, Newsmax, the Washington Post, and the USA Today to name a few.

Our expertise has been increasingly called upon for guidance by academe, foundations, government, and religious institutions (e.g. House and Senate congressional anti-terror caucuses, Joint Forces Staff College, Heritage Foundation, U.S. Navy, Oslo Freedom Forum, and many more).

AIFD continues to build the foundations for reform work within Muslim communities. In 2010, we successfully conducted numerous public forums targeting young Muslims at universities; helped launch a coalition of prominent American Muslim leaders that will serve as an alternative voice to that of the dominant Muslim Brotherhood movement in the United States; and we have been invited to engage and dialogue with prominent Muslim leaders and demonstrate the genuine diversity of opinions among American Muslims and the importance of Muslim groups who focus on solutions.

It is through your gifts and partnership that AIFD has become a prominent and credible resource on Islamic issues for the private and public sectors. For that, we thank you!

In 2011 our workload will continue to increase exponentially as public awareness grows for the concern of the challenges posed by political Islam to the core values of free societies and our national security. We will continue to seek every opportunity to engage leaders, non-Muslims and Muslims, to counter the obstacles that political correctness poses in preventing the development of long overdue strategies for internal Muslim reform against political Islam. In 2011 we hope to:

Engage young Muslims in developing Muslim led solutions toward a modern liberty-based paradigm of Islam. We hope to provide young Muslims alternative venues for conversations and ideas that empower opportunities for reform that addresses their faith-based challenges in a rapidly modernizing world. We will advocate for that reform through the separation of mosque and state and the importance of an American national identity based in universal freedom over one based in political Islam.

Build the capacity of a diverse group of Muslim leaders with a unified public Muslim voice to serve as an alternative to the global Muslim Brotherhood movement; additionally, to begin the long internal hard work of reform of those Islamic theologies that are incompatible with the principles of our U.S. Constitution.

Collaborate with intelligence and law enforcement to meet the growing request for education on Islamic issues.

Educate the private and public sectors about the ideology of political Islam and the urgency of related Islamic reform issues through writings, radio and media interviews, and public forum participation.

We rely on your generous financial support. Together we must preserve America’s commitment to freedom and national security for future generations. Your support and partnership are vital. Please consider making a gift today.

Sincerely,

M. Zuhdi Jasser,
Founder and President

Share

Aptos psychologist: What do muslim women think?

Monterey Bay Forum www.freedomOK.net welcomes musim women to post. What are your hopes and dreams? Talk about your life. Do you read the Koran? Send to DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
خليج مونتري www.freedomok.net يرحب منتدى النساء المسلمات فيما بعد عن حياتهم. *ما هي جهودكم الآمال والأحلام? هل قرأتم القرآن? ارسال البريد الالكتروني drcameronjackson@gmail.com

Share

Aptos psychologist: from the Koran/ Quran- “Women are your fields, go then, into your fields whence you please.” de-humanizes women into things to be used by Islamic men

Given that Islam treats women as less than human — as fields to be used as Islamic men choose — it’s no wonder that Islamic countries fare poorly.

The report below by Josh Sayles appears in today’s Jewish News of Greater Phoenix. It is a follow-up report to the original report (“Islam 101? BJE Course on radicalism labeled as Basics- July 30, 2010) in the Jewish News about the “Islam 101” course taught by Carl Goldberg and sponsored by the local chapter of the Bureau of Jewish Education. You may also recall the op-ed Dr. Jasser wrote, “A Course on Islam”, (July 30, 2010) special for the Jewish News on Goldberg’s course available at this link.

2] Dr. Jasser appeared on today’s Dennis Miller radio program to discuss recent revelations that the controversial “Ground Zero” Islamic Center project is seeking a $5 million grant for contruction from the 9/11 Lower Manhattan development fund, the new TSA screening kerfluffle, and the Oklahoma question 755 against sharia law. Listen to the interview at Dennis Miller’s homepage (subscribers only). — “Jasser on Chutzpah” – We will try to obtain the interview for posting at our site soon.

A Course on Islam reignites community concern
November 24, 2010
Jewish News of Greater Phoenix
by Josh Sayles, Staff Writer

Despite concerns expressed last summer by community leaders including Temple Kol Ami’s Rabbi B. Charles Herring and Anti-Defamation League Regional Director Bill Straus about Dr. Carl Goldberg’s views on Islam, the Bureau of Jewish Education brought Goldberg back this fall to teach about the religion.

“I obviously don’t make the decisions of how to manage the Bureau of Jewish Education, nor would I expect (BJE Director) Aaron (Scholar) to attempt to manage the affairs of the ADL,” said Straus. “I am disappointed, though. It’s been obvious to me for years that Carl made up his mind (about Islam) a long time ago and is unwilling to hear any side of this issue other than the one he insists on embracing.”

Goldberg, who is a Realtor, is Jewish and has a doctorate in Russian history, recently taught a six-part weekly course titled “Islam and the Quran” Oct. 13-Nov. 17 through the Bureau of Jewish Education in Scottsdale; this reporter attended four of the six classes. Goldberg taught a similar class at the bureau, “Islam 101,” last summer (“Islam 101? BJE course on radicalism labeled as basics,” Jewish News, July 30).

In both BJE courses, Goldberg highlighted dozens of controversial passages in the Quran, such as: “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward;” and, “Women are your fields; go then, into your fields whence you please.”

Goldberg emphasized to both his students and to Jewish News that the theories he presents are not his, and that he gets his information “from the most esteemed Muslim scholars of the 20th century,” such as Sayyid Qutb, Abul Maududi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi; he also frequently cites Robert Spencer. He said when he speaks of the dangers of Islam he is not talking about all Muslims, only those who follow Islamic doctrines.

Islamic doctrines are the principal foundations of the religion.

For the fourth session of “Islam and the Quran,” held Nov. 3, Scholar invited Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a local Muslim, to be guest lecturer. Goldberg and Jasser have fundamental differences in their approaches to Islam.

Scholar told Jewish News those differences were of little concern to him. “I don’t care whether people agree with each other,” he said. “(Jasser’s) was a viewpoint we needed to hear.”

Jasser, an internist, is the founder of American Islamic Forum for Democracy and believes that Islam needs severe reform. He advocates for the separation of “mosque and state” and calls for other moderate Muslims to speak out against Shariah (Islamic) law as a form of government. Jasser admitted that there are not many Muslims, local or otherwise, willing to publicly support his ideas.Goldberg rejects Jasser’s attempts at reform as “not viable” and says that pious Muslims must, at Allah’s orders, blindly follow the Quran – interpreted as the literal word of Allah – which is why passages like the aforementioned one are fuel for terrorism. Jasser agrees that there are problematic verses in the Quran, but rejects Goldberg’s views on Islam as “fossilized.”

Their differences were on display during Jasser’s talk. He began by telling the 17 students that he had an hour to deprogram them of everything they had been learning, and then promptly passed around handouts that read, “‘Carl Goldberg’s’ Islam is uni-dimensional.”

Meanwhile, Goldberg sat in the corner quietly taking notes and chuckling softly every time Jasser quipped a zinger in his direction. Goldberg spent much of the next class rebutting Jasser’s presentation.

“It’s just been beyond frustrating to see how the comments (Goldberg) makes today … about Islam and Muslims and the Quran are exactly the same type of ones he (said) in 2003,” Jasser told Jewish News. “There has been absolutely no progress … from his perspective of what the solution is.

“The only reason I (lectured in) this course is because … I think that his students deserve to hear a different perspective.”

“I’m not in the business of providing solutions,” Goldberg responded. “I’m in the business of providing the truth about Islam so that people can become educated and learn about it. The solutions will be left up to the American people in an open discussion.”

Jasser said Goldberg’s explanation was inadequate.

“For him to … say that it is appropriate, in a setting where America’s No. 1 fear currently is the security threat from radical Islam, to present these problems without solutions is just dangerous,” he said. “It’s like sitting down and talking to patients about cancer without giving them any hope of any solution or any treatment.”

Jasser went on to claim that Goldberg believed “that every Muslim that reads the Quran piously is a possible enemy of this country.”

“(The Quran) says that non-Muslims are the vilest of beasts, the lowest of animals, the worst of creatures, and that non-Muslims are your enemy,” Goldberg replied. “(When) you believe you’re reading the literal word of God, what do you do with it?”

Additionally, in his Nov. 10 class, Goldberg said of secular Muslims, “They may not read the Quran, they may not go to mosque, but they hate the Jews. That much they’ve been taught.”

“That statement is offensive and not true of the Muslims I know,” said Jasser. “He’s basically saying that the secular Muslims are like the Fatah, and the Islamists are like Hamas. That paradigm may be true in the West Bank and Gaza, but to apply that to 1.5 billion Muslims is absurd.”

Scholar, too, distanced himself from Goldberg’s statement about secular Islam. “That is not a view that I would support in any way,” he said.

Scholar said that the purpose of the class was intended to be “instructional, not indoctrinating. We really believe that (our students) are smart. … Let them make up their minds.”

“Give Carl some credit,” Scholar added later. “He may be overzealous sometimes, but he believes in what he’s doing.”

When Jewish News asked Scholar if Goldberg would be teaching about Islam for the BJE next semester, he said only, “Just watch our class offerings. That’s all. The bureau doesn’t have to deal in controversy, we don’t have to deal in negativism. We’re not indoctrinators, we’re teachers, and we want to teach.”

Goldberg said that if he had the choice of picking a guest lecturer, he would have invited Azra Hussain, co-founder and director of the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona. He said that she is more closely aligned than Jassser with mainstream Islam and would have a more difficult time refuting problem passages from the Quran.

Hussain, shocked Goldberg would want her to speak in his class, said that his claims were not wrong, “but he makes it sound as if I’m avoiding (discussing the Quran),” she said. “I’m not avoiding it. It’s just that’s not what I’ve been asked to do.

“When you go and talk about Christianity 101, nobody’s asking you to sit down and talk about the books of the Bible and the New Testament,” she said. “I don’t do presentations about the Quran ever. … I do an Islam 101 presentation, telling about practices, belief, holidays, terminology (and) demographics.”

Scholar said that for the second semester in a row, Goldberg received “very positive” marks from students.

“It’s a very necessary course to have because we are at war, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, with the radical extremists of Islam,” said Honey Levin, one of Goldberg’s students. “They have stated over and over as they (fly) into our buildings and as they try to kill us that it’s all done in the name of Allah.”

Levin, like several other students Jewish News spoke to, said that she respects Jasser greatly and was thrilled he came to speak, but disagrees with his views on Islam.

“I’d love to believe his interpretation of the Quran, but it doesn’t hold water with the people that are trying to kill us,” she said.

Dr. Lance Cohen, a student who said he knew nothing of Islam before attending the course, said he also falls “more in Goldberg’s camp.”

“(He) has his biases … but what Goldberg’s trying to sell, I’m buying,” he said. “One of the main themes that Carl kept hammering home is that (Islam) is more than just a religion, it’s an ideology. I think that’s absolutely crucial to understand. Islamic thought is all about controlling society, controlling the people that are in it, waging war against infidels and converting as many people to Islam as possible.”
Of several students Jewish News spoke to who lean toward Jasser, Barbara Davis was the only one willing to go on the record. She said she attended the class because she thought it was important to hear the other side, but “there’s no question (Goldberg) has an agenda. It’s a frightening agenda, and I think that most people in the class were on his wavelength.”

“His agenda was to ‘educate’ us – and I’m putting the word ‘educate’ in quotes – to the fact that there is a very large group of people, maybe one half of the (world’s) 1.5 billion Muslims, who are set on making the world into a place that (operates) on Shariah law, and that the rest of the Muslim world is either oblivious to it or doesn’t care,” she said.

“I know Dr. Goldberg feels that it is a very dangerous situation out there, and maybe he’s right. I’m not saying there aren’t elements that are dangerous. But … he keeps pointing to the fact that there’s this large group that wants to take over the world and you better look out. I felt like the whole course was, ‘You better look out.'”

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: A blogger in Palestine needs American support for freedom to express his religious views.

Why did a Muslim woman medical doctor, Wafa Sultsan, leave the Islamic faith?

Why people reject the god of Islam

Psychiatrist Dr. Sultan’s reasons why, laid out in A God Who Hates (2009), are similar to the reasons given recently by Palestinian blogger Waleed Al-Husseini. The blogger is currently in jail for his remarks. He has no right to an attorney or to see people.

Both Dr. Wafa Sultsan and Palestinian blogger Waleed Al-Shsseni reject the Islamic religion because of what it endorses: supremacy of Muslims over non-believers, supremacy of men over women, hatred, intolerance, brutality, violence, inequality, lack of logic and intolerance of science. The God of Islam is an angry, jealous, violent, tribal god of war.

In a recent Opinion piece (WSJ, 11-23-2010) Bret Stephens asks the question, why did Gaza become more violent internally, as well as towards Israel and Egypt the moment it was rid of Israeli? The author did not answer his question.

One answer: Violence in Gaza grew because the Islamic political-religious system took over. Hammas is theologically committed to the destruction of Israel. That mind set is difficult for Americans to wrap their arms around.

Bret Stephens writes at the end of his article:

“But if Palestinians cannot abide a singe free-thinker in their midst, they cannot be free in any meaningful sense of the word. And if the U.S. can’t speak up on his behalf, then neither in the long run can we. ” Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal 11-23-2010

So how can Americans support this blogger? Does he have a Defense Fund people can contribute to? What other ways to assist him?

Below are the remarks the blogger wrote that got him tossed into jail. The people where he live have called to have him burned alive.

Why I Left Islam” by Waleed Al-Husseini on Proud Atheist website:

“Muslims often ask me why I left Islam. What strikes me is that Muslims can’t seem to understand that renouncing Islam is a choice offered to everyone and that anyone has the right to do so. They believe anyone who leaves Islam is an agent or a spy for a Western State, namely the Jewish State, and that they get paid bundles of money by the governments of these countries and their secret services. They actually don’t get that people are free to think and believe in whatever suits them.

Before we begin, I would like to emphasize that by writing this article, I did not mean to imply that Christianity or Judaism were better than Islam, and the reader should not fool himself into thinking that I only reject Islam among religions, all of which are to me a bunch of mind-blowing legends and a pile of nonsense that compete with each other in terms of stupidity.

First of all, I had to remove the sacred envelope the Charia (Islamic jurisdiction) was shrouded in, so as to question, challenge and study it with the sharp eye of a truth seeker, not that of the bearded sheikhs who proceed to a massive brainwashing of their audience, promoting Islam as a religion of peace, brotherhood, mercy, justice and equality; a religion that saved women from a sad fate and granted them a better status, in addition to applying social justice.

Here is a list of the reasons that led me to apostasy:

Is Islam a religion of tolerance?

Islam is an authoritarian religion that does not respect the individuals’ freedom of choice, which is easily noticeable from its barbaric verdicts such as stoning the adulterous, pushing the homosexuals off a cliff and killing the apostates for daring to express a different viewpoint. Then there is the plight of other religions’ followers in the Muslim State. Islam urges its followers to fight the infidels until they convert or agree to pay a tax known as “Jizya” per capita in total submission.The sacred texts in Islam also encourage blatant war and conquest of new territories to spread the religion of Muhammad, instead of using peaceful means to convey the message, relying only on a rational argumentative scheme; something that Islam, like any other religion for that matter, evidently lacks. It is simply a terrible insult to human values and a proof of unprecedented dementia

Is Islam a religion of human brotherhood?

I was flabbergasted when I learnt the commandments of Islam regarding the alliance and disavowal and the aberrant division of the world into believers and unbelievers, with all the outrageous provisions this implies for the “Dhimmis” and the” Jizya “!

Is Islam a religion of equality?

Islam presented the Quraysh tribe as “the chosen tribe” to rule over the human race. Muhammad did not grant a single political responsibility to a person that was not from his tribe. Islam has legitimized slavery, reinforced the gap between social classes and allowed stealing from the infidels, taking women in captivity (Sabaya) during wars and sexual abuse of women slaves (Ima’a). It has severely damaged the marital relationship with the laws of dowry (Mahr) and divorce, thus transforming the institution of marriage into a common transaction.

Is Islam a religion of social justice?

Some of the most outrageous principles Islam has legislated are looting and robbery as well as the exploitation of the people oppressed by the taxation system of Al-Jizya. It acknowledged the social inequality by imposing the Zakat, in accordance with the following saying: “a grateful rich man is better than a patient poor man”.

Has Islam been fair to women?

“A woman in Islam has less reason and faith. She interrupts the prayer, just like donkeys and black dogs and is considered to be impure during menstruation. She is only entitled to half the inheritance of a man and her testimony in the court of justice also counts for half of that of a man. Islam put her under the guardianship of her husband and predicated the approval of God on obeying her husband. A man also has the right to correct his wife by beating her and / or deserting the marital bed if she refuses to submit to his will. She has no choice when it comes to satisfying his sexual desire whenever he feels like it, with no regard whatsoever of her feelings and desires. I am not a feminist and I am not one of those who defend women passionately against the countless forms of injustice they have suffered for centuries because of religion, but I have a mother, a sister and a lover and I cannot stand for them to be humiliated and stigmatized in this bone-chilling way, because they are my dearest and I love them too much to treat them with this flawed and nauseating manner which debunks undoubtedly the claim that Islam is a religion of equality and freedom!

Islam and the human creativity

“All forms of artistic expressions are banned in Islam: music, singing, dancing, painting, sculpture, acting, but also literature, poetry, philosophy and the use of logic! If you find this too hard to believe, I invite you to refer to the reliable Islamic sources as well as Muhammad’s quotes to make sure I do not exaggerate and am only stating the strict truth.

Islam and Science

Islam is rich in allegories, starting with the myth of the Oracle (word of God communicated to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel), all the way through the so called Night Journey and Ascension ( Al-Isra’a & Al-Me’eraj) when Muhammad supposedly ascended into heaven on the back of a fantastic animal called “Burâaq” flying at the speed of light, to finish off with the dazzling tales of miracles that no one has witnessed and no civilization has enrolled in its historical archives nor mentioned facts that could back up these allegations.

“Islam is therefore based on blind faith that grows and takes over people’s minds where there is irrationality and ignorance. If this ideology had assets of persuasion by appeal to reason and logic and has tackled every aspect of the human life as we ex-Muslims have been told ever since we can remember, why would it resort to incredible wacky stories to prove its accuracy and support its ideas? Isn’t that worthy of liars and impostors? Do not forget the glaring contradictions between the sacred texts and the basic scientific truths, such as the fact that the earth is fixed and that the sky is raised above the ground and held without pillars, and that meteoroids were made for the purpose of stoning demons who spy on humans from up above.

The Scientific Miracles in the Quran

“We ex-Muslims all know the absurdity, the forgery and the swindling of the sheikhs who claim the existence of scientific miracles in the Quran, and I find it legitimate to ask why these people fabricate one colossal lie after another around religion. The answer is simple: only a web of lies is able to perpetuate another lie. Islam could not hold for long in front of science that reveals its myths and its undeniable weaknesses one after another, such as the assertion that the earth is flat and that two people breastfed by the same woman become biological brothers. These people protect Islam and prevent it from wearing off and perishing by desperately trying to reconcile it with science using deception and distortion. If Islam were a divine religion and a message sent from the creator of the universe, would it be the laughingstock of the scientific sphere and a target of endless criticism?

The Islamic God

He is a primitive, Bedouin and anthropomorphic God who draws his characters from the human world and experiences feelings of anger, revenge, resentment, superiority, etc. The image of God that has been depicted in the Islamic sacred texts pretty much reflect the human civilizations, like the majestic throne carried by the angels, on which he slumped when he finished the process of creation, which brings to mind the ritual of the Honga-Bonga perform with their head of their tribe. Worse still, some human actions, such as homosexual sex (in which even the Honga-Bonga do not meddle), can make this magnificent throne shake. Here is a transcendent hadith that caught my attention: “Any work done by the son of Adam concerns only himself, except fasting which is mine and I give its reward.”

The question that torments me is this: What pleasure the Almighty God may find in all these poor people worshipping him? What good would it do him?

The prophet of Islam and the Quran

Muhammad was no different than barbaric thugs who slaughtered, robbed and raped women, there are many proofs in the Sunnah, I invite you to do your homework before accusing me of lying for the sole purpose of damaging the image of the prophet of Islam. He was a sex maniac, and went around all the laws he has enacted to appease his voracious desire. He has torn humanity and imprisoned the nation with backward and outdated Bedouin laws. He accomplished no miracle that could prove his prophecy; all he had was a book showing strong similarities with the poetry of his contemporaries, full of scientific errors and philosophical dilemmas.

Conclusion: I probably need to write a whole book to talk thoroughly and sufficiently about the reasons that led me to renounce Islam as a religion, but these few items listed are the most important things that intrigued me and pushed me to rethink the essence this hollow faith which, just like any other religion, a mythical ideology put at the service of politics

Best Regards
Waleed Al-Husseini

Share

CAIR, part of the theo-political Islamic movement, applauds a leading cleric for supposedly opposing terrorism. This cleric OK’s girls age 10 to marry adult men and blames the West for poverty, disease and unemployment in the middle east.

American Islamic Forum for Democracy exposes CAIR as a propaganda arm for the Saudi Arabia when depicting a leading cleric as supposedly anti-terrorist. In fact, the Saudi cleric blames the West for all the ills of the middle east: poverty, unemployment, disease. This is the same cleric that thinks it fine for 10 year old girls to marry old men. CAIR is the organization that was behind the firing of Juan Williams for a comment about being nervous flying with lots of Muslims. Best to keep a sharp eye on CAIR.

Share

Grand Mufti, Islamic cleric, a wolf in sheep's clothing, OK's marriage of 10 year old girls with adult men
CAIR, a propaganda tool for Saudi Arabia, got Juan Williams fired from National Public Radio (NPR) for a remark Juan made that flying with Muslims makes him nervous.

Now CAIR hides an Islamic supremacist wolf — Saudi cleric Sheikh Abdhl Azia Al Sheikh – in sheep’s clothing.

Supposedly this leading cleric opposes terrorism. This is the cleric that thinks it is just fine for 10 year old girls to marry old men. And this is the Islamic cleric that promotes shariah law. The following is from the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

“Even Breitbart.com carried yesterday’s bizarrely ‘urgent’ press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which praised the leading Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, on the most significant Muslim holiday of the year- Eid al-Adha (Holiday of the Sacrifice).

No previous single press release or statement by CAIR more clearly reveals its ideological ties and service to the Saudis, and their Wahhabi ideologues – and its willingness to use word games, deception and moral equivalence to avoid revealing its true objectives.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh

First, let us look at the substance of CAIR’s release:

CAIR today welcomed an anti-terror statement by Saudi Arabia’s top religious leader made in a sermon at the peak of the Hajj, the most important event on Islam’s spiritual calendar. In his midday sermon Monday to millions of pilgrims gathered on the plain of Arafah, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh called for religious moderation and said Islam prohibits terrorism, extremism and injustice.

CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:
It is extremely significant that such a prominent Muslim leader would offer a clear statement condemning terrorism
and religious extremism during the largest Islamic gathering in the world and on the most important day on Islam’s spiritual calendar. The importance of the Grand Mufti’s statement is made even more significant given the fact that it was delivered in the same spot as the last sermon offered by the Prophet Muhammad. This statement from Islam’s spiritual capital should put to rest once and for all the false claim that Muslim leaders do not condemn terrorism.

Awad urged Muslim leaders in America and worldwide to incorporate the Grand Mufti’s statement in Eid al-Adha prayers being offered Tuesday to mark the end of Hajj.

As a devout Muslim, I find any comparison by CAIR of the leading radical Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, to the Prophet Muhammad to be deeply harmful to any attempt at true modern reforms. The Saudis have exploited the world’s Muslim populations with their billions in petrodollars that have given them the fuel to metastasize the cancers of their backward Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and dominate our communities. Many reformist, modern Muslims like me believe that if the Prophet was alive today, he would reject their backward, literalist interpretations for a more moral, humanitarian, modern westernized Islam. We are unable to have this debate because of the domination of the Saudi voice among Muslims in the west and globally.

The mere condemnation of terrorism in this CAIR promoted sermon means nothing – because the sermon is otherwise chock full of inflammatory Muslim supremacism (Islamism) and anti-Western hatred.CAIR’s assertion that this should “put to rest once and for all the false claim that Muslims leaders do not condemn terrorism” demonstrates, once and for all, that CAIR is part of the Saudi propaganda machine. Further, it should rather actually ‘put to rest’ any doubts that CAIR is, in fact, part of the theo-political global Islamist movement in the West and in the United States, hatched and nurtured by Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist groups from the Middle East.

Most revealingly, CAIR ignores the rest of the Grand Mufti’s sermon. The full transcript cannot yet be found online, but a number of reports discuss the other topics of this sermon. First, the Chief Sheikh did make headlines by “rejecting terrorism as a deplorable crime” but actually went on to say that “the problem is not just terrorism, but also poverty, unemployment, and diseases stemming from global crises.” True to his Islamist and Wahhabist creed, he ignores any need for Muslim reform, modernization, or separation of mosque and state. The reference to “stemming global crises” is based on the same old, tired Islamist propaganda: blame the West for all Muslims’ problems.

During this sermon, the Grand Mufti also “condemned Western occupation of foreign lands,” and went on to say:

Islam forbids the occupation of a country, and the unlawful shedding of civilian blood, and the destruction of crops and cattle…the rights of people in Third World nations is not as it is in other countries, and it is unacceptable that nations occupy these lands and rape them of their riches.

To a genuine American Muslim, this sounds more like a testimony toward radicalization and militancy, rather than any supposedly clear promotion of moderation and condemnation of terrorism, as CAIR would have us believe. Therein, lies a major indicator that the Grand Mufti is anything but moderate. CAIR not only voices no disagreement with this toxic anti-western narrative, but they use this sermon’s few lines condemning terrorism as a statement to “put to rest the claim that Muslims do not condemn terrorism.” Any wonder we are making no headway against radical Islam with these kind of vacuous Islamist condemnations of the tactic of terrorism couched in an anti-western, anti-American narrative?

On the subject of violence, his duplicity is also revealed in another statement the Grand Mufti made in the sermon:

Violence cannot be cured with violence and neither can terrorism be cured with force, but by lifting injustices levied on oppressed peoples.

This is again hardly a morally-clear condemnation of terrorism. Rather, it is a demagogic moral equivalency of barbaric acts committed by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other radical Islamists, which this radical sheikh insinuates are understandable by the acts of America and the West.

According to Geo News, the Grand Mufti also said in his sermon:

“God sent the last and final Prophet with the complete code of conduct (Shariah), which, is in complete harmony with human nature, owing to the fact that it caters to all natural and material needs.” He also added that, “the human inner being (nafs) drives man to do evil.”

CAIR voices no disagreement on their part with the Mufti, about his interpretation of shariah here or anywhere. In fact, CAIR is now also suing the state of Oklahoma to protect their fellow Islamists’ “right” to use that same shariah, without interference from the state. To the contrary, Oklahoma voters by 70 percent voted last week to prohibit shariah law from taking precedence over state or federal law. That would seem quite prescient, in light of an organization like CAIR that, this week, uses the Grand Mufti’s sermon – which elevates the most extreme, repressive form of shariah – which dictates all aspects of life and society – as an exemplar for moderation.

For example, CAIR apparently thought that Americans are unaware of, or would not remember that less than two years ago, this “moderate” Grand Mufti expressed his grand approval of marriage of adult men to 10 year old girls. In a lecture at the mosque of Imam Mohamed bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, he stated:

A girl becomes ready for marriage at 10 or 12 according to Islam and stressed that Islamic law is not by any means oppressive to women…Our mothers and grandmothers got married when they were barely 12. Good upbringing makes a girl ready to perform all marital duties at that age. (Al-Arabiya)

A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she’s too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.” (CNN)

This “moderate” Grand Mufti also disgracefully rebuked women for attending a conference without a veil stating, “I severely condemn this matter and warn of grave consequences,” and told Muslims at the Green Lane (U.K.) mosque that, “Muslim children should be hit if they don’t pray: ‘When he is seven, tell him to go and pray, and start hitting them when they are 10.’”

The Grand Mufti is one of the leading Wahhabi purveyors of Muslim supremacism (Islamism) around the world. Whether or not he condemns violence and the tactic of terrorism is of little consequence. Clearly, he believes in the Islamic state, and the domination of shariah law in governments where Muslims are a majority. As Alex Alexiev has noted, “the Saudi funding program is the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted-dwarfing the Soviets’ propaganda efforts at the height of the cold War.”

In fact, the Saudi’s own so-called “de-radicalization campaign” (Al-Sakeenah) has been prominently critiqued. For example Col. Jonathan Figuel writes:

It seems that the Sakeenah campaign is convenient to be presented by the Saudis as an external non-governmental independent initiative, rather than a governmental led operation. From past experience and analysis of the Saudi’s double game policy and conduct, one can assume that the Saudis on one hand use the campaign for propaganda purposes encouraging its existence for internal real threats, while on the other hand the campaign can be presented to the international political and the public opinion for political benefits without any formal or direct responsibility to the global aspects of the their radicalization influence and actions…The Saudi de radicalization campaign to “dry out the sources of terrorism thoughts” as declared by the minister of Islamic Affairs, corroborates the fact that the campaign is totally aimed to deal with domestic security threats on Islamic Wahhabi doctrine.

We must not be fooled by the “condemnation” of terrorism by the Saudi Wahhabi clerics and their tribal protectors in the Saudi royals. In reality, this further reveals the dangerous synergy and propaganda role of American Islamist groups like CAIR for Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalists like the Grand Mufti. Their ‘double game’ is manifested from their pulpits at the Grand Mosque in Mecca and from the press releases of their advocates like CAIR in the United States.

CAIR’s rush to highlight the radical Saudi cleric’s “condemnation” of terrorism was clearly based on its expectation, not without merit, that most Americans would not research how immoderate this cleric really is. A brief review of that sermon – in context, and in view of the Grand Mufti’s ‘other’ prominent radical ideas – reveals a dangerous, influential Islamist who uses Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and shariah to impose misogyny, child marriage, child abuse, Muslim supremacy, and spread hate-filled anti-American propaganda.

Shamefully, CAIR chose Islam’s holiest day of the year to spread this type of propaganda. We, modern reform-minded American Muslims and non-Muslims alike, must unite and speak with one voice against it.

Share

It’s OK for 10 year old girls to marry adult men according to Islamic law. These Islamic leaders are not joking. When is Islam going to get out of the Middle Ages?

It's just fine to marry girls age 10 says Islamic religious leader

There are some Muslim voices in America opposed to radical, Islamic, shariah law. But not many …. Let’s support the moderate voices… See the following…

[AIFD Commentary] “CAIR Spreads Propaganda for Radical Saudis on Islam’s Holiest Day” by M. Zuhdi Jasser, Big Peace.com, Wed. November 17, 2010

Reply |M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD to web_list
show details Nov 17 (2 days ago)
Images are not displayed.
Display images below – Always display images from zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org

The following column by M. Zuhdi Jasser appeared online today at Big Peace.com and can be found at this link.

CAIR Spreads Propaganda for Radical Saudis on Islam’s Holiest Daystrong>Posted by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser Nov 17th 2010 at 10:13 am in Featured Story, Islam, Islamic extremism, saudi arabia, sharia | Comments (14)

Even Breitbart.com carried yesterday’s bizarrely ‘urgent’ press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which praised the leading Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, on the most significant Muslim holiday of the year- Eid al-Adha (Holiday of the Sacrifice).

No previous single press release or statement by CAIR more clearly reveals its ideological ties and service to the Saudis, and their Wahhabi ideologues – and its willingness to use word games, deception and moral equivalence to avoid revealing its true objectives.

Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh
First, let us look at the substance of CAIR’s release:

CAIR today welcomed an anti-terror statement by Saudi Arabia’s top religious leader made in a sermon at the peak of the Hajj, the most important event on Islam’s spiritual calendar. In his midday sermon Monday to millions of pilgrims gathered on the plain of Arafah, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh called for religious moderation and said Islam prohibits terrorism, extremism and injustice.

CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:
It is extremely significant that such a prominent Muslim leader would offer a clear statement condemning terrorism and religious extremism during the largest Islamic gathering in the world and on the most important day on Islam’s spiritual calendar. The importance of the Grand Mufti’s statement is made even more significant given the fact that it was delivered in the same spot as the last sermon offered by the Prophet Muhammad. This statement from Islam’s spiritual capital should put to rest once and for all the false claim that Muslim leaders do not condemn terrorism.

Awad urged Muslim leaders in America and worldwide to incorporate the Grand Mufti’s statement in Eid al-Adha prayers being offered Tuesday to mark the end of Hajj.

As a devout Muslim, I
find any comparison by CAIR of the leading radical Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, to the Prophet Muhammad to be deeply harmful to any attempt at true modern reforms. The Saudis have exploited the world’s Muslim populations with their billions in petrodollars that have given them the fuel to metastasize the cancers of their backward Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and dominate our communities. Many reformist, modern Muslims like me believe that if the Prophet was alive today, he would reject their backward, literalist interpretations for a more moral, humanitarian, modern westernized Islam. We are unable to have this debate because of the domination of the Saudi voice among Muslims in the west and globally.The mere condemnation of terrorism in this CAIR promoted sermon means nothing – because the sermon is otherwise chock full of inflammatory Muslim supremacism (Islamism) and anti-Western hatred.

CAIR’s assertion that this should “put to rest once and for all the false claim that Muslims leaders do not condemn terrorism” demonstrates, once and for all, that CAIR is part of the Saudi propaganda machine. Further, it should rather actually ‘put to rest’ any doubts that CAIR is, in fact, part of the theo-political global Islamist movement in the West and in the United States, hatched and nurtured by Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist groups from the Middle East.

Most revealingly, CAIR ignores the rest of the Grand Mufti’s sermon. The full transcript cannot yet be found online, but a number of reports discuss the other topics of this sermon. First, the Chief Sheikh did make headlines by “rejecting terrorism as a deplorable crime” but actually went on to say that “the problem is not just terrorism, but also poverty, unemployment, and diseases stemming from global crises.” True to his Islamist and Wahhabist creed, he ignores any need for Muslim reform, modernization, or separation of mosque and state. The reference to “stemming global crises” is based on the same old, tired Islamist propaganda: blame the West for all Muslims’ problems.
During this sermon, the Grand Mufti also “condemned Western occupation of foreign lands,” and went on to say:
Islam forbids the occupation of a country, and the unlawful shedding of civilian blood, and the destruction of crops and cattle…the rights of people in Third World nations is not as it is in other countries, and it is unacceptable that nations occupy these lands and rape them of their riches.
To a genuine American Muslim, this sounds more like a testimony toward radicalization and militancy, rather than any supposedly clear promotion of moderation and condemnation of terrorism, as CAIR would have us believe. Therein, lies a major indicator that the Grand Mufti is anything but moderate. CAIR not only voices no disagreement with this toxic anti-western narrative, but they use this sermon’s few lines condemning terrorism as a statement to “put to rest the claim that Muslims do not condemn terrorism.” Any wonder we are making no headway against radical Islam with these kind of vacuous Islamist condemnations of the tactic of terrorism couched in an anti-western, anti-American narrative?

On the subject of violence, his duplicity is also revealed in another statement the Grand Mufti made in the sermon:
Violence cannot be cured with violence and neither can terrorism be cured with force, but by lifting injustices levied on oppressed peoples.
This is again hardly a morally-clear condemnation of terrorism. Rather, it is a demagogic moral equivalency of barbaric acts committed by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other radical Islamists, which this radical sheikh insinuates are understandable by the acts of America and the West.
According to Geo News, the Grand Mufti also said in his sermon:

“God sent the last and final Prophet with the complete code of conduct (Shariah), which, is in complete harmony with human nature, owing to the fact that it caters to all natural and material needs.” He also added that, “the human inner being (nafs) drives man to do evil.”
CAIR voices no disagreement on their part with the Mufti, about his interpretation of shariah here or anywhere. In fact, CAIR is now also suing the state of Oklahoma to protect their fellow Islamists’ “right” to use that same shariah, without interference from the state. To the contrary, Oklahoma voters by 70 percent voted last week to prohibit shariah law from taking precedence over state or federal law. That would seem quite prescient, in light of an organization like CAIR that, this week, uses the Grand Mufti’s sermon – which elevates the most extreme, repressive form of shariah – which dictates all aspects of life and society – as an exemplar for moderation.

For example, CAIR apparently thought that Americans are unaware of, or would not remember that less than two years ago, this “moderate” Grand Mufti expressed his grand approval of marriage of adult men to 10 year old girls. In a lecture at the mosque of Imam Mohamed bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, he stated:
A girl becomes ready for marriage at 10 or 12 according to Islam and stressed that Islamic law is not by any means oppressive to women…Our mothers and grandmothers got married when they were barely 12. Good upbringing makes a girl ready to perform all marital duties at that age. (Al-Arabiya)
A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she’s too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.” (CNN)
This “moderate” Grand Mufti also disgracefully rebuked women for attending a conference without a veil stating, “I severely condemn this matter and warn of grave consequences,” and told Muslims at the Green Lane (U.K.) mosque that, “Muslim children should be hit if they don’t pray: ‘When he is seven, tell him to go and pray, and start hitting them when they are 10.'”
The Grand Mufti is one of the leading Wahhabi purveyors of Muslim supremacism (Islamism) around the world. Whether or not he condemns violence and the tactic of terrorism is of little consequence. Clearly, he believes in the Islamic state, and the domination of shariah law in governments where Muslims are a majority. As Alex Alexiev has noted, “the Saudi funding program is the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted-dwarfing the Soviets’ propaganda efforts at the height of the cold War.”
In fact, the Saudi’s own so-called “de-radicalization campaign” (Al-Sakeenah) has been prominently critiqued. For example Col. Jonathan Figuel writes:
It seems that the Sakeenah campaign is convenient to be presented by the Saudis as an external non-governmental independent initiative, rather than a governmental led operation. From past experience and analysis of the Saudi’s double game policy and conduct, one can assume that the Saudis on one hand use the campaign for propaganda purposes encouraging its existence for internal real threats, while on the other hand the campaign can be presented to the international political and the public opinion for political benefits without any formal or direct responsibility to the global aspects of the their radicalization influence and actions…The Saudi de radicalization campaign to “dry out the sources of terrorism thoughts” as declared by the minister of Islamic Affairs, corroborates the fact that the campaign is totally aimed to deal with domestic security threats on Islamic Wahhabi doctrine.

We must not be fooled by the “condemnation” of terrorism by the Saudi Wahhabi clerics and their tribal protectors in the Saudi royals. In reality, this further reveals the dangerous synergy and propaganda role of American Islamist groups like CAIR for Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalists like the Grand Mufti. Their ‘double game’ is manifested from their pulpits at the Grand Mosque in Mecca and from the press releases of their advocates like CAIR in the United States.
CAIR’s rush to highlight the radical Saudi cleric’s “condemnation” of terrorism was clearly based on its expectation, not without merit, that most Americans would not research how immoderate this cleric really is. A brief review of that sermon – in context, and in view of the Grand Mufti’s ‘other’ prominent radical ideas – reveals a dangerous, influential Islamist who uses Wahhabi interpretations of Islam and shariah to impose misogyny, child marriage, child abuse, Muslim supremacy, and spread hate-filled anti-American propaganda.
Shamefully, CAIR chose Islam’s holiest day of the year to spread this type of propaganda. We, modern reform-minded American Muslims and non-Muslims alike, must unite and speak with one voice against it.

Unsubscribe
http://www.aifdemocracy.orgChild-Marriage and Pedophilia in Muslim Societies: Will It Come To an End
In my previous article, I have mentioned that aged and wealthy Arabs from the Gulf countries come to India, mainly to Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, to prey on teenage girls, by paying fat cash as dowry to their parents. They generally enter into temporary marriage contracts (Mutah) and return home after a brief stay. In January, 2007, a 60 year old Arab married 3 girls, Afreen, Farheena and Sultana, at a single sitting (within ten minutes), in Hyderabad.

In another incident in May 2004, an old man called Muhammad Zafer Yaqub Hassan al-Jorani came from Sharjah to Hyderabad to undergo a cataract operation. On May 7, he married Haseena Begum, a 19 year old girl and after two days he divorced her. On May 24, he married another 16 year old girl Ruksana Begum. Haseena, ignoring even threat to her life, went to a local police station to narrate her story and within an hour police arrested Jorani. Police also arrested someone called Shamsuddin who was alleged to have played the role of a mediator and received a cash of Rs 40,000 from Jorani and handed over the money to the parents of Haseena as mehr. It is to be mentioned here that Jorani, at his Sharjah residence, had two wives and 11 children.

While commenting on these affairs, a reader wrote, “In child marriage of the other type, where young girl marries an old man, is prevalent in Muslim society in India. I am an ex-Muslim from India and such facts I have seen in my own eyes. I tried to alert police but was threatened by police themselves with dire consequences, even death, and so I kept quiet.

In various cities, where there are Muslim ghettos, this happens regularly. Muslims condemn prostitution but allow legal prostitution through temporary marriage or Mutah. Young girls of16-18-year-old are married to aged Arabs, for a stipulated period, simply for money. Mullahs make the old Arab and young girls sign nikahnama and talaknama at the same time.

Parents get money and send their daughter as a prostitute to the Arab to be raped. The Arab then divorces her after a stipulated time that may vary from a few hours to a few days. Things move fast because the next victim is waiting in the queue. Generally, beautiful girls are entered in the waiting list and many of them have to entertain their (temporary) rapist husbands every year. The month of Ramadan is busiest period of this business when many Indian girls are sent to Dubai and from Dubai to elsewhere, to be sexually assaulted by the Arabs, after Ramadan fasting.

Generally, the girls earns anywhere from Rs 15,000 to Rs 500,000, depending on the skill of the negotiator (middleman) and also on the beauty of the girl. If she happens to be a virgin, she earns a lot more, as Arabs are ready to spend fabulous money for a first time sex.

Now-a-days, there are plastic surgeons, I know, are earning lot from the pimps by turning the girls virgin again by attaching a layer of fresh skin to their private parts and thus making an artificial hymen. This happens repeatedly for many girls till she gets tired or fails to find a new (temporary) husband.

Local police, political leaders and NGOs get their share too and keep silence. I can even spell names of some people, who are involved in the racket. But my life is already under threat due to disclosing the truth about Islam. I also don’t want annoy the local police because they may just shoot me in a false encounter and get paid by the racket leaders. Such an incident happened earlier. This is, indeed, another horrible face of Islam.”

Another reader commented, “Dear old Muslims in the Middle East who are planning to marry a girl as young as 6 yrs old to be your bride, kindly let me have the honour to ask you a very simple question. Try imagining that the young 6-year-old bride whom you’re going to marry soon, is your daughter or granddaughter or great granddaughter or great-great granddaughter and that you are going to penetrate her very small vagina with your big xxxxx. Do you feel it nauseating or disgusting at the very thought of it? I believe that for those old Muslims who have some human conscience or fear of God will be kind enough to let all these young girls go.”

Another reader commented “I believe that for those old Muslims who have some human conscience or fear of God will be kind enough to let all these young girls go. As for those old Muslims who still can’t let all these young girls go because of their super strong sexual needs, may I suggest a much better option for you which could help satisfy all your sexual needs or cravings and that is, to go and buy a sex doll from any sex shop and sell all these erotic products. Don’t you think that your Allah will be pleased with my kind suggestion here which is better than destroying all those young innocent girls’ life? Thank you in advance for heeding my advice to give all these young innocent muslimahs a chance to live life to the fullest.”

In this context, it should be mentioned that, in Islam, there is no place for ethics, morality or conscience. Islamic morality is quite different and stands on two notions – Halal (permitted) and Haram (not permitted). To a sane non-Muslim individual, marrying a 6 or 8-year-old girl by an over 50 man, may appear to be highly immoral, unethical and vulgar. But to a Muslim, such an act is Halal, as Prophet Muhammad had done it. So, application of personal sense morality and ethics does not play any role. Whatever the Prophet did is Halal and every Muslim has the right to emulate the Prophet.

Another reader wrote, “These old wolfs who practice such disgusting acts by following their Prophet are wild animals. They don’t even deserve to live. These innocent young brides should be given some poison by their mothers which they can mix with some food and feed their wonderful husbands on the first night and finish them off. The Human Rights activists can defend them saying these children are minor and they do not know what they are doing. Even few years of jail sentence is much better than living with these animals. If more and more child-brides start rebelling by giving the due punishment to these animals, this cruel practice will vanish.”

Out of court settlement allows Saudi girl 8 to divorce 50 year old husband:
As mentioned in the previous article that a Saudi judge refused to terminate the marital bond between an 8-year-old girl and her 47-year-old husband. The girl’s father, according to the attorney, took US$13,000 from the man and arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with him, who is also a close friend of his. On the other hand, the girl’s mother expressed her determination to fight the case and continue to seek daughter’s divorce.

Share

Am I my brother’s keeper? How does the Muslim religion answer this question if posed by a woman?

From the perspective of a Muslim women, how much freedom can she have? Does the Islamic God hate women?

Share
Am I my brother's keeper? What about Muslim women - are they constrained like in a cage or what?

So if a Muslim woman tells her husband/ family that she wants to live a life apart from the Islamic faith, can she do so? Will she be 1) be “watched over” or ” 2) be “constrained”? Below are thoughts about what it means to be “my brother’s keeper….”

The Real Meaning of ‘My Brother’s Keeper’
By Matthew Eckel

“This is such an elementary point that I fear making it will seem silly. On the other hand, so many people seem so completely in the dark about it that it is worth stating the obvious. Claiming to be “my brother’s keeper,” as President Obama is so wont to spout, is an insult to the brother!

“I suppose the confusion is perfectly understandable since most of us encounter the phrase in its English translation and not the original Hebrew, and numerous otherwise-well-meaning organizations have taken it as their motto. See here, here, and here for examples.

“After all, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “to keep” as “to watch over and defend esp. from danger, harm, or loss.” But Webster’s also defines “to keep” as “to restrain from departure” and “to retain or continue to have in one’s possession or power.” So which meaning does “brother’s keeper” have in its original usage?

“The phrase comes, of course, from Genesis, chapter 4 — God’s devastating interrogation of Cain after Cain killed Abel out of rank jealousy. God asks Cain innocently, “Where is your brother, Abel? [i]” Cain replies, “I don’t know,” and asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Now, some of us grew up aping that catchy margarine slogan, “it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature,” so we can immediately recognize that it is probably not a great idea to try to deceive the Creator of heaven and earth, especially just after you did something He warned you not to do. God, of course, is not amused and curses Cain, who ends up lamenting, “My punishment is more than I can bear.”

But what was Cain actually saying when he uttered those words to God? The Hebrew word used here for “keeper” means more than “protector” or “defender”; it is more akin to “overseer” or “master,” as in “keeping” sheep (1 Samuel 17:20, 22); royal wardrobes (2 Kings 22:14); the king’s forest (Nehemiah 2:3, 3:29); gates (1 Chronicles 9:19); vineyards (Song of Solomon 1:6); and the temple threshold (Jeremiah 52:24) [ii]. Although these jobs are foreign to most of us, we can get the sense of them by thinking “zookeeper” or “doorkeeper.”

Now, if you think that treating your brother like a dumb animal, a clothes collection, a tree, a gate, a vine, or a doorway is charitable, then consider the context — Cain was wise-assing God! Cain wasn’t responsibly pondering, “Am I my brother’s noble defender?” He was saying, “How the hell do I know where he is? It’s not in my job description to keep track of him!” It was meant to shame God into replying, “On no, of course you aren’t. I’m so sorry I asked.” Simply put, Cain’s rhetorical sneer is not the query of a loving, responsible brother, but the bald bluster of a brutal murderer.

“Look, the pages of American Thinker are hardly the place to get into a theological debate about the meaning of obscure biblical phrases, but you need to know that when a die-hard leftist appropriates a wise-ass remark made by the archetypal murderer, he is really showing you more about himself than he would like. He’s really saying, “It’s my job (because I take it upon myself) to keep these people in line because they are unthinking, inanimate, and helpless objects which are frankly more like property than equals.” If that is what Obama really thinks of the American people, then we can only hope we escape his brotherly affections.

Back to Muslim women. How are Muslim women treated based on their religious writings? Are they in “a cage” or are they “free to go”?> How can American Christians, Jews and those interested in women’s rights assist Muslim women to be free?

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

——————————————————————————–

[i] All bible quotes are taken from the New International Version, copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, the International Bible Society.

[ii] W. O. Klopfenstein, Keeper, Keepers, III Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 781 (Merrill C. Tenney et al. eds., 1976).
13 Comments on “The Real Meaning of ‘My Brother’s Keeper’

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: The placebo effect is a healing effect based on suggestion. The effect is huge. This is mind affecting body. What we believe affects our bodies. How do atheists harness – use – the placebo effect?

How do young adults whose parents are atheists harness the placebo effect? The placebo effect accounts for about 1/3 of all healing per thousands of scientific studies. If you really believe — it will affect you.

Do atheists believe in the power of thought and how it can affect the body? What say you? What says the official site for atheists in the U.S.?

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units.

“This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in the public schools:

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

Question: What about the power of suggestion?? What is prayer but the hope and desire of help from without and within to help heal and make better ….?

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

“[An athiest] seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

“He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother’s keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: If you don’t like someone’s speech, correct it with more speech not suppression of speech. What about ad opposing Muslim honor killings?

Free speech OK about Muslim honor killings?

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Did any Muslim young women contact LeaveIslamSafely.com — the goal of the organization that paid for taxi cab ads opposed to Muslim honor killings? What says the group that paid for the ads: Stop Islamization of America?

Would Yellow Cab permit a more politically correct ad?

What about an ad showing the bruised, beaten face of an attractive young woman in Muslim clothing with hair covered that said “Stop Abuse!” contact ComeSafeHouse.com ? Would that be permissible by Yellow Cab?

How about an ad showing a Catholic priest with a young boy that says Stop Priest/BoyChild Abuse! Report & Help from KeepChildrenSafe.com Would that ad be OK in Chicago Yellow Cabs?

If you don’t like someone’s speech correct it with more speech – not by suppression of speech. See following article:

” Earlier this summer, the leader of the group “Stop the Islamization of America” took out ads on 25 Chicago taxi cabs–and as of Tuesday, all of them will be removed.

Pamela Geller, who has been dubbed the “Queen of Muslim Bashers” and leads the “Stop the Islamization of America” movement, claimed the ads were directed toward Muslim women wanting to leave Islam–but ended up offending both cab drivers and passengers.

Today, Yellow Cab CEO Michael Levine issued a statement announcing the removal of the ads:

“Recently, the head of the group ‘Stop the Islamization of America’ took out ads on Chicago-area taxis. The ads in question were carried by independent affiliates of Yellow Cab Affiliation. The fleet owner was contracted and paid by an independent advertising company specializing in taxi top advertising.”
“When Yellow Cab became aware of the ads three weeks ago, we immediately called the advertising company and asked to have the ads removed. We were told that they were taken down, but we found out today that three such ads were still running. They will be removed today. Yellow Cab does not regularly approve advertising content carried by our affiliates, but we do reserve the right to ask them to remove ads that offend either the drivers or the public.”

The ads, which denounced honor killings, showed pictures of young women who were allegedly killed by their Muslim fathers for “refusing an Islamic marriage, dating a non-Muslim or becoming ‘too Americanized,'” according to the Chicago Tribune. Below the photo, the ad reads “Is your family threatening you?” and is followed up with “LeaveIslamSafely.com.”

Those against the ads say they paint an ugly and misleading picture of Islam.

“People like Pam Geller have a horrendous record,” John Esposito, a professor of international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University told the Tribune. “It’s a track record of not distinguishing between forms of religious terrorism and Islam itself.”

Geller is also one of the leading voices against the building of an Islamic center and mosque near the site of the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City.

Share