CAIR’s Muslim on Muslim Oppression

CAIR’s Muslim on Muslim Oppression

By Shireen Qudosi

“Even when CAIR is not successful in silencing critical Muslim voices, there are thousands of other Muslims who step back deeper into silence, afraid of being publicly harassed by CAIR.”

Published with The Forward 

In our quest for tolerance, religious spaces often take the lead in showcasing voices of change. But sometimes, those who claim to work for tolerance are themselves agents of hatred. Synagogues should never be bullied into hosting organizations that promote divisiveness and demonization — especially groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which slurs reformist as “Uncle Toms” and seeks to impose its intolerant views on the American Muslim community. That intolerance often takes the form of harassing reformers who advocate for liberalism within Islam, while only recognizing as legitimate representations of Islam those Muslims who represent Islamic Orthodoxy. While I may not agree with CAIR most of the time, I recognize they have a right to exist and are at times of value to the Muslim community. However, the organization and its leaders do not extend the same right to exist, so to speak, to Muslims they disagree with.

On June 8th, CAIR-NY legal director Albert Fox Cahn had been scheduled to speak at an interfaith Iftar dinner held at Temple Emanu-El in New York; but his speech was canceled after objections to his ties with CAIR, as shared by Cahn in his op-ed in Forward. Hurt by his cancellation, Cahn wrote a piece decrying his exclusion as a victory for intolerance. Yet CAIR itself, an ostensible civil-rights organization, often foments intolerance with its behavior and rhetoric.

Within subcultures of both liberal and conservative Muslims, CAIR is often discreetly seen as both arsonist and firefighter. Cahn’s idealism is admirable, and there is value in CAIR’s activism when they are legitimately defending the civil rights of all Muslims and aren’t attacking their own. But Cahn’s naiveté in devoting his idealism to the cause of CAIR is saddening.

Cahn writes that canceling his speech “empower[s] detractors who seek division and, yes, even hate.” Yet CAIR is a chief offender, engaging in Muslim-on-Muslim oppression through media campaigns and online harassment that demonizes Muslims who contradict them or attempt to engage in true dialogue. Islam is a rich and diverse religious tradition that has given rise to dozens of different sects and has embraced personalization, but CAIR and other Islamist groups deny that plurality and try to suppress all versions of Islam besides their own intolerant strain. In our generation, CAIR has contributed to dangerously politicizing Islam.

It appears that Cahn is dimly aware of CAIR’s faults and has managed to rationalize them away. He writes, “[Solidarity] requires us to welcome our neighbors as we find them, not to transform them into the partner we wish they were. True solidarity requires risks, finding agreement with even those we find disagreeable.”

While I agree with Cahn’s sentiment, solidarity and agreement requires conversation. Radically honest conversations are almost entirely absent when it comes to CAIR. Moreover, Muslims who who ask beautiful questions, such as those who produced a documentary on “honor” killings and female genital mutiliation, run the risk of being targeted by CAIR’s top executives. Rather than working to cultivate solidarity and finding agreement with those they feel are disagreeable, CAIR is vicious toward Muslims they disagree with. They don’t hide their behavior either, often tag-teaming as self-appointed heresy hunters against Muslims who want to have an open conversation on Islamic extremism. The Islamic faith has no organized leadership, and the caliphate of Islamic empires died long ago; today we have Muslim organizations with narrow focus that have gained the widest platform over the course of the last five decades, such as CAIR. These organizations have positioned them as representative of Muslims in America, all the while bullying and attempting to silencing Muslims who challenge an Islamic monolith that leans toward Islamic Orthodoxy. As co-reformer Asra Nomani explains, “Right now, the Council on American Islamic Relations represents the Muslim right. The represent the far right in our Muslim community. What we have happening is the Muslim right is aligning with the American left.”

Despite its imperialistic ambitions, CAIR does not (and should not) speak for the American Muslim community — and the “risks” that Cahn and others take actually make the problem worse. CAIR’s toxicity poisons the possibilities of more widespread dialogue between broader American society and the Muslim-American community. Treating CAIR as an authentic spokesman for American Muslims has the effect of squelching all the moderate Muslim voices who are striving for true, radically honest dialogue between communities.

Hints of this intolerance show through even within Cahn’s own words. He notes approvingly that “the rhetoric of resistance and unity have become more widespread.” Why “resistance”? Why seek a militarized vision of social relations, instead of a true coming together in dignity and mutual learning? People cannot be forced into sincere inclusion; that comes only through shared joyful life experience. But for CAIR, such true inclusion is the opposite of its goal. CAIR wants to exclude, and bully, and marginalize, frontline moderate leaders who are seeking to usher into the modern world a rich Islamic tradition of philosophy and scholarship. Even when CAIR is not successful in silencing critical Muslim voices, there are thousands of other Muslims who step back deeper into silence, afraid of being publicly harassed by CAIR.

Cahn closes by saying that “It is up to this generation to show that we can do better than those leaders of the past, to show that we have learned the lessons of history and the teachings of the Torah, to show that we are not doomed to wander the desert of intolerance.”

The Jewish faith is something I am becoming more intimate with through personal study. I don’t believe the Jewish tradition teaches its followers to submit in the face of oppression and call it “tolerance.” In fact, I have heard of a Jewish saying that “If you are kind to the cruel, you will end by being cruel to the kind.” And we see that playing out here. Champions of indiscriminate interfaith such as Cahn are actually harming moderate Muslim communities, by empowering CAIR’s bigotry and social oppression. I don’t believe that is Cahn’s intention, but that is the system he is defending.

I am sorry that Cahn, in seeking to do good, has found himself championing such a hateful organization. But he now has an opportunity to reexamine his work, and rededicate himself to true solidarity.

Islamic Relief UK does it have links with radical Islamic preachers?

Islamic Relief UK does it have links with radical Islamic preachers?

We ignore the activities of Islamic Relief UK at our peril

Here is a very interesting article by Sam Westrop and one we in the UK need to take note of.  I have to say that I remain very grateful that on the other side of the pond we see real research into the threats that we are facing in Europe.  I wonder why we do not have more voices in the UK concerning Islamic Relief UK and possible support of terrorism and links with radial Islamic preachers?

Islamic Relief is a Cog in a Dangerous Machine


On June 10, at a drab airport hotel outside the city of Albany in upstate New York, a crowd gathered to break their fast and listen to speakers from the international charitable franchise, Islamic Relief, explain its work in Yemen, Syria and Myanmar. This fundraiser was just one of a dozen events conducted by Islamic Relief across the US that week, and one of the many hundreds of events organised each year in mosques, community centres, schools and other hotels all across the West.

Despite the proclaimed charitable endeavours of Islamic Relief, however, many of these events feature speakers known to preach distinctly uncharitable ideas. In Albany, guests were treated to the musings of Suleiman Hani, who has previously promoted conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.

Founded in 1984 in the English city of Birmingham by students involved with Muslim Brotherhood groups, Islamic Relief is today the largest Islamic charity in the West, with branches in more than 20 countries. It has received at least $80 million of funding from Western governments and international bodies, including the United Nations and the European Union. Its officials are members of government advisory panels, while Western cabinet ministers, European royalty and even Trump administration officials regularly speak at its events. That this international charity regularly promotes extremist preachers has evidently not worried public officials too much. And yet there are plenty of other facts about which politicians should be deeply concerned.

In 2014, the United Arab Emirates designated Islamic Relief Worldwide as a terrorist organisation, because of its links to the global Muslim Brotherhood. In 2016, the banking giant HSBC shut down Islamic Relief’s accounts, following a similar decision made by UBS four years earlier. In 2017, the Bangladeshi government banned Islamic Relief from working directly with Rohingya refugees over reported fears about radicalisation. That same year, the UK Charity Commission started investigating Islamic Relief’s promotion of extremist preachers.


In 2017, the Bangladeshi government banned Islamic Relief from working directly with Rohingya refugees over reported fears about radicalisation.


Seemingly, however, the scale of Islamic Relief’s bona fide charitable work has been impressive enough for those in the West to turn a blind eye to its ties to global extremist networks, despite the pleas of moderate Muslim activists.

The Middle East Forum, a thinktank in Philadelphia, has now released a report looking extensively at Islamic Relief: its branches, its links to the Muslim Brotherhood, its connections to Hamas, its officials’ extremism and its promotion of preachers who incite hatred against both moderate Muslims and non-Muslims.

There is no doubt that Islamic Relief is a flagship Muslim Brotherhood institution. One of its founders, Essam El-Haddad, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau while also serving as an Islamic Relief board member. In 2012, El-Haddad joined Mohamed Morsi’s campaign team. Following the elections in Egypt, El-Haddad became Morsi’s senior foreign policy adviser. Following the military intervention to remove Morsi, El-Haddad was charged by Egyptian prosecutors with collaborating with Hamas and Hezbollah.

As our report shows in great detail, across the world, other Islamic Relief officials are tied to Muslim Brotherhood networks. In Sweden, for example, a recent government report concluded that Islamic Relief serves to provide “credibility” to the Muslim Brotherhood, and notes that Islamic Relief official Haytham Rahmeh is involved with providing weapons to Muslim Brotherhood fighters in Syria. Meanwhile, Swedish Islamic Relief official Abdallah Salah, is frequently pictured with Muslim Brotherhood insignia.

Islamic Relief collaborates with and funds several Hamas fronts. Islamic Relief UK has given money, for example, to the Al-Falah Benevolent Society, a Hamas da’wah organisation run by Ramadan Tamboura, described by journalists as a “well-known Hamas figure.” Islamic Relief Worldwide, meanwhile, remains financially linked with other organisations connected to terror, including Qatari regime fronts such as the Qatar Charity.

In 2014, the UAE’s decision to ban Islamic Relief was met with confusion and scepticism in the West. At the time, journalists (some, incidentally, since employed by Muslim Brotherhood media) attacked the UAE and deemed the designation “completely ludicrous and defamatory.” But as the Middle East Forum has discovered, the UAE understood what Western politicians have been unable to grasp – that a charity that has served for three decades as a key conduit for international aid efforts could also be the financial arm for an international movement dedicated to promoting extremism and instability, and to radicalising historically moderate Muslim communities.

Islamic Relief is a vital cog in a dangerous machine. Its duplicity may have won over credulous media and politicians, but now governments in Europe and America must follow the UAE’s lead, and restrict the influence and reach of this international Islamist franchise and its hundreds of millions of dollars. As our report concludes: there are plenty of charities that do not promote extremism and subsidise terrorism; why should taxpayers all over the world fund one that does?

Sam Westrop is the Director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum


Islamic Relief and Islamic terrorism

Islamic Relief and Islamic terrorism

The Three Stages of Jihad – David Wood

The Three Stages of Jihad – David Wood

In this video, David wood looks at the three stages of Jihad and once we digest the contents of the video we will recognise what is actually happening in the UK and Europe right now.  How long will radical Islam continue to kill Europeans (including British citizens) before we enter into stage three?  Is it too late to or can we arrest this trend?

By David Wood

Rights of Non-Muslims  in an Islamic State

Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State

By Samuel Shahid


Recently a few books have been written about the rights of non-Muslims who are subjugated to the rule of the Islamic law. Most of these books presented the Islamic view in a favorable fashion, without unveiling the negative facet inherited in these laws.

This brief study attempts to examine these laws as they are stated by the Four Schools of the Fiqh (jurisprudence). It aims at revealing to the reader the negative implications of these laws without ignoring the more tolerant views of modern reformers.

Our ardent hope that this study will reveal to our readers the bare truth in its both positive and negative facets.


Concept of “Islamic State”

“An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state.” This statement made by Mawdudi lays the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries which impose the Islamic law. This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:

1) An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.
2) Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state “should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology.” Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.
3) An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law “Shari`a” guarantees to non-Muslims “certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology.” Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they “become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government.”

The above view is the representative of the Hanifites, one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The other three schools are the Malikites, the Hanbilites (the strictest and the most fundamentalist of all), and the Shafi`ites. All four schools agree dogmatically on the basic creeds of Islam but differ in their interpretations of Islamic law which is derived from four sources:

a) Qur’an (read or recite): The sacred book of Muslim community containing direct quotes from Allah as allegedly dictated by Gabriel.
b) Hadith (narrative): The collections of Islamic traditions including sayings and deeds of Muhammad as heard by his contemporaries, first, second, and third hand.
c) Al-Qiyas (analogy or comparison): The legal decision drawn by Islamic Jurists based on precedent cases.
d) Ijma’ (consensus): The interpretations of Islamic laws handed down by the consensus of reputed Muslim scholars in a certain country.

Textual laws prescribed in the Qur’an are few. The door is left wide open for prominent scholars versed in the Qur’an, the Hadith, and other Islamic discipline to present their Fatwa (legal opinion) as we shall see later.

Classification of Non-Muslims:

In his article, “The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State,” Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah remarks that legists classify non-Muslims or infidels into two categories: Dar-ul-Harb or the household of War, which refers to non-Muslims who are not bound by a peace treaty, or covenant, and whose blood and property are not protected by the law of vendetta or retaliation; and Dar-us-Salam or the household of Peace, which refers to those who fall into three classifications:

1) Zimmis – or dhimmi – (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.
2) People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.
3) Musta’min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta’min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta’min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.

This study will focus on the laws pertaining to Zimmis.

Islamic Law and Zimmis

Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed.

The Jizya (tribute)

Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that “the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty.” Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.

Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. How can a Zimmi feel at home in his own land, among his own people, and with his own government, when he knows that the Jizya, which he pays, is a symbol of humiliation and submission? In his book The Islamic Law Pertaining to non-Muslims, Sheikh `Abdulla Mustafa Al-Muraghi indicates that the. Jizya can only be exempted from the Zimmi who becomes a Muslim or dies. The Shafi`i reiterates that the Jizya is not automatically put aside when the Zimmi embraces Islam. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:

“…to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country.” Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, “Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God’s religion. The Qur’anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.’ (Qur’an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority.”


Zimmis and Religious Practices

Muslims believe that the Zimmis are Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of shirk (polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi, Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment.

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

1) Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
2) Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
3) Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
4) Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
5) Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
6) Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
7) Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.

Mawdudi, who is a Hanifite, expresses a more generous opinion toward Christians. He said:

“In their own towns and cities they are allowed to do so (practice their religion) with the fullest freedom. In purely Muslim areas, however, an Islamic government has full discretion to put such restrictions on their practices as it deems necessary.”

Apostasy in Islam

Apostasy means rejection of the religion of Islam either by action or the word of the mouth. “The act of apostasy, thus, put an end to one’s adherence to Islam.” when one rejects the fundamental creeds of Islam, he rejects the faith, and this is an act of apostasy such an act is a grave sin in Islam. The Qur’an indicates,

“How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and the clear sign had come unto them. But Allah guides not the people of unjust of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all mankind in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot, except for those that repent after that and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-forging, Most Merciful (Qur’an 3:86-89).

Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Zimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: “It is reported by `Abaas … that the messenger of Allah … said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him.”

In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks, “The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence.”

A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. However, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment.

Civic Laws

Zimmis and Muslims are subject to the same civic laws. They are to be treated alike in matters of honor, theft, adultery, murder, and damaging property. They have to be punished in accordance with the Islamic law regardless of their religious affiliation. Zimmis and Muslims alike are subject to Islamic laws in matters of civic business, financial transactions such as sales, leases, firms, establishment of companies, farms, securities, mortgages, and contracts. For instance, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief’s hand whether he is a Muslim or a Christian. But when it comes to privileges, the Zimmis do not enjoy the same treatment. For instance, Zimmis are not issued licenses to carry weapons.

Marriage and Children

A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.

If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child. Some fundamentalist schools indicate that a Muslim husband has the right to confine his Zimmi wife to her home and restrain her from going to her own house of worship.

Capital Punishment

The Hanifites believe that both Zimmis and Muslims must suffer the same Penalty for similar crimes. If a Muslim kills a Zimmi intentionally, he must be killed in return. The same applies to a Christian who kills a Muslim. But other schools of Law have different interpretations of Islamic law. The Shafi`ites declare that a Muslim who assassinates a Zimmi must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a polytheist (Mushrik). In such a case, blood price must be paid. The penalty depends on the school of law adopted by the particular Islamic country where the crime or offense is committed. This illustrates the implication of different interpretations of the Islamic law based on the Hadith.

Each school attempts to document its legal opinion by referring to the Hadith or to an incident experienced by the Prophet or the “rightly guided” Caliphs.

The Witness of Zimmis

Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta’min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, “The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah – may He be exalted – said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers’.” A Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility. If a Zimmi has falsely accused another Zimmi and was once punished, his credibility and integrity is tarnished and his testimony is no longer acceptable. One serious implication of this is that if one Muslim has committed a serious offense against another, witnessed by Zimmis only, the court will have difficulty deciding the case since the testimonies of Zimmis are not acceptable. Yet, this same Zimmi whose integrity is blemished, if he converts to Islam, will have his testimony accepted against the Zimmis and Muslims alike, because according to the Shari`a“By embracing Islam he has gained a new credibility which would enable him to witness…” All he has to do is to utter the Islamic confession of faith before witnesses, and that will elevate him from being an outcast to being a respected Muslim enjoying all the privileges of a devout Muslim.

Personal Law

On personal matters of marriages, divorces, and inheritance, Zimmis are allowed to appeal to their own religious courts. Each Christian denomination has the right and authority to determine the outcome of each case. Zimmis are free to practice their own social and religious rites at home and in church without interference from the state, even in such matters as drinking wine, rearing pigs, and eating pork, as long as they do not sell them to Muslims. Zimmis are generally denied the right to appeal to an Islamic court in family matters, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. However, in the event a Muslim judge agrees to take such a case, the court must apply Islamic law.

Political Rights and Duties

The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur’an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.

Mawdudi, aware of the requirements of modern society, seems to be more tolerant toward Zimmis. He says,

“In regard to a parliament or a legislature of the modern type which is considerably different from the advisory council in its traditional sense, this rule could be relaxed to allow non-Muslims to be members provided that it has been fully ensured in the constitution that no law which is repugnant to the Qur’an and the Sunna should be enacted, that the Qur’an and the Sunna should be the chief source of public law, and that the head of the state should necessarily be a Muslim.”

Under these circumstances, the sphere of influence of non-Muslim minorities would be limited to matters relating to general problems of the country or to the interest of the minorities. Their participation should not damage the fundamental requirement of Islam. Mawdudi adds,

“It is possible to form a separate representative assembly for all non-Muslim groups in tbe capacity of a central agency. The membership and the voting rights of such an assembly will be confined to non-Muslims and they would be given the fullest freedom within its frame-work.”

These views do not receive the approval of most other schools of the Shari`a which hold that non-Muslims are not allowed to assume any position which might bestow on them any authority over any Muslim. A position of sovereignty demands the implementation of Islamic ideology. It is alleged that a non-Muslim (regardless of his ability, sincerity, and loyalty to his country) cannot and would not work faithfully to achieve the ideological and political goals of Islam.

Business World

The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter “if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).

In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:

Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:

Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: ‘Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 4:141}. For God – Glory be to Him – has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: ‘Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 63:8}.Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.

Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:

“entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim.”

In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers’ College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur’an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:

Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.

`Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. This is against the confirmed evidences. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a Zimmi as a treasurer, and remarked: “Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?” Then `Usaymi adds:

Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them… for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.

Does this mean that a Christian who owns a business cannot employ a Muslim to work for him? Even worse, does this mean that a Zimmi, regardless of his unequal qualification, cannot be appointed to the right position where he would serve his country the best? This question demands an answer.

Freedom of Expression

Mawdudi, who is more lenient than most Muslim scholars, presents a revolutionary opinion when he emphasizes that in an Islamic state:

“all non-Muslims will have the freedom of conscience, opinion, expression, and association as the one enjoyed by Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitations as are imposed by law on Muslims.”

Mawdudi’s views are not accepted by most Islamic schools of law, especially in regard to freedom of expression like criticism of Islam and the government. Even in a country like Pakistan, the homeland of Mawdudi, it is illegal to criticize the government or the head of state. Many political prisoners are confined to jails in Pakistan and most other Islamic countries. Through the course of history. except in rare cases, not even Muslims have been given freedom to criticize Islam without being persecuted or sentenced to death. It is far less likely for a Zimmi to get away with criticizing Islam.

In Mawdudi’s statement, the term “limitations” is vaguely defined. If it were explicitly defined, you would find, in the final analysis, that it curbs any type of criticism against the Islamic faith and government.

Moreover, how can the Zimmis express the positive aspects of their religion when they are not allowed to use the media or advertise them on radio or TV? Perhaps Mawdudi meant by his proposals to allow such freedom to Zimmisonly among themselves. Otherwise, they would be subject to penalty. Yet, Muslims are allowed, according to the Shari`a (law) to propagate their faith among all religious sects without any limitations.

Muslims and Zimmis

Relationships between Muslims and Zimmis are classified in two categories: what is forbidden and what is allowable.

I. The Forbidden:

A Muslim is not allowed to:

  1. emulate the Zimmis in their dress or behavior.
  2. attend Zimmi festivals or support them in any way which may give them any power over Muslims.
  3. lease his house or sell his land for the construction of a church, temple, liquor store, or anything that may benefit the Zimmi’s faith.
  4. work for Zimmis in any job that might promote their faith such as constructing a church.
  5. make any endowment to churches or temples.
  6. carry any vessel that contains wine, work in wine production, or transport pigs.
  7. address Zimmis with any title such as: “my master” or “my lord.”

II. The Allowable

A Muslim is allowed to:

  1. financially assist the Zimmis, provided the money is not used in violation of Islamic law like buying wine or pork.
  2. give the right of pre-emption (priority in buying property) to his Zimmi neighbor. The Hanbilites disapprove of this.
  3. eat food prepared by the People of the Book.
  4. console the Zimmis in an illness or in the loss of a loved one. It is also permissible for a Muslims to escort a funeral to the cemetery, but he has to walk in front of the coffin, not behind it, and he must depart before the deceased is buried.
  5. congratulate the Zimmis for a wedding, birth of a child, return from a long trip, or recovery from illness. However, Muslims are warned not to utter any word which may suggest approval of the Zimmis’ faith, such as: “May Allah exalt you,” “May Allah honor you,” or “May Allah give your religion victory.”


This study shows us that non-Muslims are not regarded as citizens by any Islamic state, even if they are original natives of the land. To say otherwise is to conceal the truth. Justice and equality require that any Christian Pakistani, Melanesian, Turk, or Arab be treated as any other citizen of his own country. He deserves to enjoy the same privileges of citizenship regardless of religious affiliation. To claim that Islam is the true religion and to accuse other religions of infidelity is a social, religious and legal offense against the People of the Book.

Christians believe that their religion is the true religion of God and Islam is not. Does that mean that Great Britain, which is headed by a Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, should treat its Muslim subjects as a second class? Moreover, why do Muslims in the West enjoy all freedoms allotted to all citizens of these lands, while Muslim countries do not allow native Christians the same freedom? Muslims in the West build mosques, schools, and educational centers and have access to the media without any restriction. They publicly advertise their activities and are allowed to distribute their Islamic materials freely, while native Christians of any Islamic country are not allowed to do so. Why are Christians in the West allowed to embrace any religion they wish without persecution while a person who chooses to convert to another religion in any Islamic country, is considered an apostate and must be killed if he persists in his apostasy? These questions and others are left for readers to ponder.



  1. Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin, The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Volume 945, June 5, 1988.
  2. Al Muslimun, Vol. 8; issue No, 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993.
  3. Doi, `Abdur Rahman I.; Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK; 1984.
  4. Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala’, The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan. 1982
  5. Muraghi, Abdullah Mustapha, Islamic Law Pertaining to Non-Muslims, Library of Letters. Egypt. Undated
Hugh Fitzgerald: “Learn Islam From Its Source” (Part I)

Hugh Fitzgerald: “Learn Islam From Its Source” (Part I)



Suddenly our country is full of all kinds of Interfaith Outreach Events, carefully staged by Muslims for unwary Infidels. There is Ask-A-Muslim!, there is Meet-Your-Muslim-Neighbors, there are Coffee, Cake, and Qur’an meetings. Whatever the name, they amount to essentially the same thing: a deeply sincere offer of friendship to any non-Muslims willing to take them up on the offer, and a just as sincere offer of candor on the subject of Islam, which the Muslims running these events are prepared to discuss from top to bottom, for those non-Muslims who want to understand what all the fuss and, alas, suspicion is all about. Usually these events come with a meal, provided by Muslim hosts for non-Muslim guests, designed to leave a feeling of contentment, physical as well as mental, from the evening, when Muslims open up fully — no holds barred — about Islam, and after their exposition, welcome any and all questions. These events can take place at a mosque, or at an Islamic Center, or sometimes even at the private home of a Muslim who has done well, living the American dream and therefore, it might be presumed from his financial success, fully integrated into American life. Never mind that Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri were both from the top socioeconomic strata of their respective societies, but did not feel at home in either Egypt or Saudi Arabia, respectively. Nor should we forget that among the first would-be terrorists arrested in this country was “Mike” Hawash, who as an Intel engineer earned $360,000 a year, had married an American with whom he had several children, and appeared to be completely assimilated.

The first movement of the evening is the Meet-and-Greet. You are introduced by the presiding Muslim dignitary (it could be an imam, or a doctor, or a professor) to all those “Muslim neighbors” with whom you will find you have so much in common. They are, especially the women, full of bustling friendliness. The men are sober and deeply sincere of mien, but also very welcoming to their non-Muslim visitors. “And how nice that at long last we can all meet, just as people,” says the head host, “and you don’t have to think of us as that strange, sometimes forbidding group the media often refers to as ‘the Muslims.’”

As the head host will say, as everyone has settled back in their seats, “the more of these evenings I conduct, the more I realize that we are all basically the same. Here’s my day, which I suspect is a lot like yours: I wake up, help my wife get the kids ready for school, have breakfast, leave for work, endure the commute, listen to National Public Radio while driving, grab a lunch at my desk at noon, put in a solid day, endure the same commute home as you do, try to be home in time to have supper with the kids and hear about their school day, then another half-hour of work-related emails have to be answered, and then I help do the dishes, help put the kids to bed, and usually watch a little soothing television, the Turner Movie Channel, or BBC Mysteries. And then to bed. Isn’t that a lot like your lives? The only real difference for me, as a Muslim, is that Friday, not Sunday, is our holy day, but other than that, aside from the hijab our women like to wear as a sign of modesty, there really are very few differences. Like you, we are monotheists, and like you we revere Jesus. That deserves to be more widely known. Of course I don’t want to minimize the big problem we all have: there is no denying that the criminal element — yes, some people who call themselves Muslims have criminal mentalities, just the way some Jews and Christians do — in Islam has wreaked havoc all over the world, killing non-Muslims and Muslims alike. I think the number of Muslim victims of Islamic terrorists is considerably greater than the non-Muslims, not that it matters, because terrorism is terrorism, but it would perhaps bring a little needed perspective to the issue if we recognized how much we Muslims suffer too from these madmen. And along with our own victims, we suffer in another way — the damage to the image of Islam, which means ‘peace’ and has nothing to do with this terrorism, and damage, too, to our image as law-abiding Muslims — that’s what we find so sad, so lamentable. And we wanted to invite you here to undo some of that damage, to allow you to see us just as we are. And to ask questions, on any aspect of Islam, and to hear what Islam means to us. Why shouldn’t Muslims, instead of your being told half-truths by FOX or CNN, tell you what Islam is all about? You would expect us to ask Christians, not Muslims, to find out about Christianity. Why should Islam be any different?”

The second essential component to the evening is the shared meal, prepared by the Muslim hosts for their non-Muslim guests. This ordinarily comes at the end of the evening, after the discussion about Islam, and is usually offered as a buffet. It’s a kind of reward for the guests who have sat through the presentations. To show the full reach of Islamic civilization and cuisine (“Islam is not monolithic”), there will usually be a variety of foods from Arab lands, Iran, Pakistan-India, Turkey, even Indonesia. Curried chicken, lamb kabobs, hummus and baba ghannoush, stuffed grape leaves, pita and naan, even possibly a rudimentary rijstaafl if East Indians are among those in attendance. The smells have wafted from the kitchen to the room where the ask-a-muslim main event is taking place. These are a powerful sensory reminder of the pleasure to come, and that puts the visitors in a good and expectant mood as they offer their earnest questions, and uncritically accept whatever answers they receive.

And as they share that buffet, sitting at tables with at least one Muslim assigned to each table, to continue the Interfaith conversation, not just to explain the dishes to them, but to encourage their guests, in the friendliest possible fashion, to continue over dinner to ask them any questions they may have about their own lives as Muslims, or anything else about Islam that might be on their minds. But it’s seldom about anything worrisome. The food, the friendliness, the warm sense of fellow feeling, will overcome even the most suspicious of souls. And when the Infidels leave that evening, it will inevitably be with a sense that they have learned a great deal about Muslims, who are just people like themselves, and about Islam, too, which apparently is more or less like Christianity — with the same rituals of prayer, and pilgrimage, and fasting, and charitable giving — only with a different day of worship and a few incidental differences, as the hijab, the fruit juices instead of alcohol, the ban on pork.

The evening comes to an end, and the well-fed guests promise their Muslim hosts that they will spread the word about what they have learned. Indeed, they are true to their promise, calling in to talk shows, or writing letters to the editor, or merely putting in their two-bits if the subject of Islam comes up at work, or at a social gathering, whenever they feel that Islam, or Muslims, have been unfairly maligned, always prefacing their self-assured remarks with “I’ve visited mosques, I’ve taken part in question-and-answer sessions about Islam, I’ve broken bread with my Muslim neighbors, and I’ve learned that the real Muslims, not the crazies who simply use Islam as an excuse, are just like us.”

In Chicago, still another variant on these meet-your-muslim-neighbor events has just been announced. It’s called “Learn Islam From Its Source,” and it’s a program by which Muslims, using only the Qur’an, try to explain Islam.

The Muslims behind this program claim that because the Qur’an is the most important source for Islam, only it needs to be consulted. This is disingenuous. The Sunnah, that is the customs and mores of 7th-century Muslims, which is derived from both the Hadith (the records of what Muhammad said and did) and the Sira (the biography of Muhammad), has always been regarded as an essential source of Muslim practice that acts as a kind of gloss on the Qur’an itself. The hadith that are regarded as most reliable are identified as “Sahih” and of the six collections so designated, two of them, by Bukhari and Muslim, are regarded as the most authentic.

The standard view of Muslims is that the Qur’an cannot be properly understood in a vacuum, without the Sunnah, that is, the practice of Muhammad, his words and deeds. One Muslim website offers this:

In our day, too, some people reject the Sunnah of the Prophet (saas). “We read the Quran,” they say, “and interpret it for ourselves without the need for any clarification by the Prophet (saas).” They turn their backs on the Sunnah, the practical application and implementation of the Quran.

The fact is that these people who have abandoned the Sunnah in fact ignore the Quran`s commandments. That is because the Sunnah is an explanation of the Quran and more importantly, the Quran orders Muslims to follow it. Allah (swt) has not only made obeying the Quran obligatory, but also obeying the Prophet (saas).

For this reason, Islam can only be practiced together with the Sunnah and Muslims can only apply the Quran into real life with its help. The Sunnah, on the other hand, is the belief of the Ahl al-Sunnah [“the people of the Sunnah”], which is the totality of our Prophet`s (saas) authentic hadiths and their subsequent interpretations by the great Islamic scholars.

Similar comments can be found all over the most important Muslim sites on the Internet. Apparently a great many Muslims do not agree that you can “Learn Islam From Its Source” (that is, the Qur’an alone). The Sunnah of the Prophet is essential for the practice of Islam.

But in jettisoning the Hadith and Sira, and sticking only to the Qur’an, the Muslims behind this “Learn It From the Source” campaign have achieved something important in their campaign to protect Islam. For it is in the Hadith, not the Qur’an, where we find so many of the most disturbing stories about Muhammad. His marriage to Aisha when she was six, and with whom he had sexual intercourse when she was nine, and he fifty-four, is found in the most authentic Hadith, such as Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234, and not the Qur’an. That is surely a story that non-Muslims might wish to learn about. And it is naturally one which Muslims prefer they never find out about. And they won’t, if they “learn Islam from its source,” meaning the Qur’an alone.

Then there are the many stories about Muhammad having those who criticized or mocked him murdered by his followers, who in some cases needed only a hint from Muhammad without an explicit command. There was the murder of Asma bint Marwan (following Muhammad’s exclamation “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?”), a poetess who mocked Muhammad, and criticized him, too, for killing a 120-year-old poet, Abu ‘Afak, and for her pains was murdered. Abu ‘Afak, too, was murdered by a follower of Muhammad who was fulfilling not a command but an express wish by Muhammad. And murdered too, was the Jewish poet Ka’b ibn Al-Ashraf, this time on the direct command of Muhammad. And there are another dozen accounts of similar assassinations of the perceived critics of Muhammad. But these stories are all to be found either in the hadith collections, especially those of Bukhari and Muslim, deemed the most trustworthy, or in the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, or both. But none of them are to be found in the Qur’an, to which these Chicago Muslims wish to limit the “education” of Infidels.

Those who will be taught only about the Qur’an will, similarly, learn nothing about the mass killing in Medina of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe who had surrendered to Muhammad. Muhammad is described as looking on as some 600-900 men were put to death in one long day of executions, but that information is to be found in the Sira (biography) of Muhammad, and not in the Qur’an.

As for the raid on the Khaybar Oasis, and the seizing by Muhammad of the beautiful Jewish girl Saafiya, whom he took as his sex slave on the very day he had had killed her husband, father, and brother, a story that non-Muslims might profit from learning, that story, too, is not to be found in the Qur’an, and so those who are going to learn about Islam, as they are told, only “from its source,” the Qur’an, will again be left bereft of any real understanding of the nature of Muhammad. And it’s not just his female sex slaves that will be kept from Infidel view if only the Qur’an is relied on, but also Muhammad’s dealing with male slaves, whom he bought, sold, and traded — as we know only from the Hadith and Sira.

That Muslim Group’s “‘Learn Islam From its Source” Campaign, is not, as it claims to be, in order “to Educate about True Islam.” It will do nothing of the sort. You cannot learn about Islam without studying the life of Muhammad. And much of that life, even most of it, can only be found in the Hadith and Sira, which will not be offered as part of the required reading.

The Muslims who claim that non-Muslims should learn from the Qur’an alone and “not from unreliable sources, social media, or fake news” are themselves an “unreliable source.” For only an “unreliable source” would claim that the Hadith, by which we mean those of the most reliable hadith-collectors, and the Sira are “unreliable sources.” The Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim, the biography by ibn Ishaq — from which all the information about Muhammad given above has been taken — are not considered by Muslims to be “unreliable sources,” but deemed nearly equal in reliability to the Qur’an. These Hadith, then, are not just reliable, but indispensable sources if we wish to have a comprehensive view of Muhammad.

The Muslims who thought up this “Learn Islam from its Source” campaign have stated that their desire is to “ease the fear of Islam, suspicion of Muslims and to clear up many misunderstandings of Islam.” They will certainly “ease that fear” by leaving out the Hadith and Sira, which means leaving out much of what makes Muhammad most terrifying. He will be the Muhammad of the Qur’an, the Messenger of God. He will not be the Muhammad who captures women and makes them his sex slaves, or buys and sells and trades male slaves; he will not be the Muhammad who has his followers kill those who have angered him; he will not be the Muhammad who watches with satisfaction as 600-900 bound prisoners of a defeated tribe are decapitated. What better way to “ease that fear” than simply make sure non-Muslims don’t find out about any of this. And what makes the gruesome details of Muhammad’s life still more disturbing is that despite them, Muhammad continues to be regarded by Believers as the Model of Conduct and the Perfect Man, and whatever he did was right. That’s the morality of Islam. Non-Muslims take quite a different view.

The main purpose of “Learn Islam From Its Source” is to keep information about Muhammad himself to a minimum. Hence no Hadith, no Sira.

But another aim is to present a skewed view of the Qur’an. It’s not hard to figure out what Muslims will choose to teach from that “source.” Undoubtedly they will focus first on the Five Pillars of Islam. These are duties that are comfortably familiar to Christians. The Five Pillars are: the shehada (the profession of faith), salat (the five canonical daily prayers), zakat (the giving of charity), sawm (the observance of the Ramadan fasting), and the Hajj. By focusing on these, reading out the Qur’anic verses where these rituals are commanded, the Muslims purporting to teach non-Muslims about Islam will be able to use up time and attention on rituals that are mostly inoffensive, and that appear to be similar to Christian duties (prayer, fasting, pilgrimages, giving of charity are also part of Christianity). What won’t be mentioned is this: that zakat, or charitable giving, is intended only for fellow Muslims or for those who, while not yet fully Muslim, are on the path of conversion and for whom the receipt of zakat might encourage them on this path. Zakat is thus given to further Islam and Muslims; it is quite different from the omnidirectional charity practiced by Christians. Nor will the non-Muslim “students” be told that the five daily prayers (salat) contain, within the Fatihah (the first verse of the Qur’an), a denunciation of Christians and Jews that is repeated, in the saying of those five prayers, seventeen times a day. (This is a point repeatedly made by Robert Spencer.) Neither the limitations on zakat, nor the kuffar-cursing in the five canonical prayers, are things of which any Infidel would normally have an inkling. So no questions about these matters will be asked, and no elucidation need be offered by the Muslims giving their “learn-Islam-from-its-source” lessons. Meanwhile, time is passing, and the more time that is devoted to the Five Pillars, and to a few seemingly innocuous Qur’anic verses (5:32, 2:256), the less time will be left to the last topic, those 109 Jihad verses, full of violence, that will somehow have to be explained away.

There are a handful of Qur’anic verses that apologists for Islam never fail to quote. Pride of place is given to Quran 5:32, which appears to condemn killing (in a verse lifted from the Jewish Mishnah) and, as a consequence, has been a favorite of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Taken by itself, 5:32 means one thing, but if you read 5:32 in context, that is as followed and modified by 5:33, quite a different meaning emerges:

5:32: “We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

This seems to be a denunciation of killing, save in the case of punishing someone for murder or “for spreading mischief in the land” — but we still need to understand that last phrase, which is defined only in the next verse, 5:33, which reads:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.”

Who are those who “wage war against Allah and His messenger” if not the non-Muslims, of every kind? And what is to happen to them? They are deserving of execution, or crucifixion, or having their hands and feet cut off. 5:33 is the gloss that gives 5:32 its real meaning, which is not peace but a sword, and quite different from what both Barack Obama and George Bush apparently think it means.

But still more egregious is the attempt to make non-Muslims believe that Qur’an 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) is to be taken literally. And that requires us, in the next article, to examine what freedom of religious choice, in a Sharia state, non-Muslims and, for that matter, Muslims themselves have.


Red Alert! Protestant Couple ‘Security Threat’ to Turkey!

Red Alert! Protestant Couple ‘Security Threat’ to Turkey!

By Burak Bekdil

Over the past several years Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pressured Greece to construct a mosque in Athens. He has criticized the country which boasts the only European capital without a mosque. He does not hide his passion for mosques worldwide.

In 2015 Erdogan proposed the construction of a mosque in secular, Communist-ruled Cuba. Also in 2015, he went to Moscow for the inauguration of the biggest mosque in the Russian capital.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) demands tolerance for Muslims living in the West even as he moves to deport Pastor Andrew Craig Brunson and his wife (right) for carrying out “missionary activity and receiv[ing] money from sources abroad.”

Earlier this year Erdogan pleasantly announced his presence at the opening of the biggest mosque in Amsterdam. The mosque is called “Hagia Sophia,” named after a Greek Orthodox Christian basilica built in 537 AD in Constantinople, reflecting the typical Muslim extremist obsession with “conquest.” Recently Erdogan has also been eyeing Iraq.

As recently as April, Erdogan attended the opening ceremony of a culture center and mosque in Maryland, United States. The complex, the only one in the United States to feature two minarets, was constructed in the style of 16th century Ottoman architecture, with a central dome, half domes and cupolas, echoing Istanbul’s Suleymaniye Mosque. At the ceremony, Erdogan said: “Unfortunately, we are going through a rough time all around the world. Intolerance towards Muslims is on the rise not only here in the United States but also around the globe.” Intolerance toward Muslims?

Back in Turkey, an article published in the monthly magazine of the country’s powerful (and wealthy) Islamic Directorate for Religious Affairs (Diyanet in Turkish) warned of the spreading new “religion” of Jediism — the religion of the Jedi knights from the Star Wars film series. But not all “religious tolerance” stories in Turkey are equally off the wall.

Synagogues in Turkey have quietly tightened security. Scholar Rifat Bali, who has written several books on Turkey’s Jews, says that Christians and Jews are being targeted.

Indeed, threats against Christians and churches on social media by Islamists in Turkey have intensified. “Some people have sent death threats to the mobile phones of 15 pastors,” says Umut Sahin, the secretary-general of the Union of Protestant Churches, an umbrella organization for Protestant denominations in Turkey.

How do a few thousand Christians threaten a Muslim country of 80 million?

Andrew Craig Brunson, pastor at a protestant church in Izmir, on Turkey’s Aegean coast, survived an armed attack on April 11, 2011. The attacker, Mehmet Ali Eren, shouted: “Traitors! We’ll bomb your church!” Eren had just been acquitted in a trial on charges of being a member of al-Qaeda.

Brunson and his wife, Norine Lyn, have been living in Turkey for 20 years. On October 7, the couple was summoned to a police station. The police told them that they would be deported from Turkey because they “posed a national security threat” to the country. A two-member terror organization? Bombings and killings? Not exactly that, the police explained. The pastor and his wife were being expelled on grounds of posing a security threat because they had carried out “missionary activity and received money from sources abroad.”

There must be merely a few thousand Protestants in Turkey, a country of nearly 80 million people, where politicians often boast that 99% of the population is Muslim. Why do nearly 80 million people view a few thousand people as threats to their national security just because the few thousand belong to a different faith? This question probably falls not into the scope of theological discipline, nor political science, but social psychiatry.

But there is a more serious aspect of this limitless Islamic hypocrisy. Erdogan should explain why he persistently demands more and more tolerance for Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, including the building of mosques in every capital, while his government can deport two Protestants on the spurious grounds that they pose a security threat to his country. The Islamophobia that Erdogan never ceases to claim exists in the Western world may or may not be a real social malady, but non-Muslimphobia in Turkey is increasingly a contagious malady. Erdogan’s determined denials do not make him right; instead he further proves his religious-ideological incompatibility with Western democracies.

Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based columnist for the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Totalitarian Islam – Dr Bill Warner

Totalitarian Islam – Dr Bill Warner

The real nature of Islam

There is so much debate on the real nature of Islam with the political elite of the Western world telling us it is a religion and one that at its core is peaceful, tolerant and beneficial to mankind.  Yet this is as far away from the truth as one can get.

In this short five and a half minute video Dr. Bill Warner gives a concise explanation of the true nature of Islam.  The religious aspects of Islam is only a small part of what it  is as a whole.  Dr. Warner describes Islam as Political Islam and it is, in reality, a political system that has a religious aspect to it.  As he points out in this video, it is a totalitarian system that bodes no opposition or dissent and will not be satisfied until everyone bends the knee.

Totalitarianism is a political doctrine that seeks to control all aspects of a society, its economy, its laws and government, its culture.

Islam is a complete way of life, a total civilization, not just a religion. It is also a culture and a political system of Sharia laws which establish its supremacy. There is no aspect of personal and public life that is not included in the Sharia.

Not just Muslims but all people must submit to the Sharia. The very name, Islam, means to submit, submit to Mohammed and the Koran in all things: religious, political and cultural.

Mohammed practiced totalitarianism. All people around him had to submit to his demands. After Arabia submitted, Mohammed left Arabia and began his mission to have Sharia rule the world.

Both the Koran and Mohammed command the terror of jihad on non-Muslims or Kafirs until Islam dominates. After Mohammed died, the caliphs killed all apostates and conquered all the Middle East and northern Africa.

After Islam enters a society, over time, the society becomes totally Islamic. This is totalitarianism.

The problem with our political elites is that they do not recognise the true nature of Political Islam.  Thus they are ready to embrace it (in the sense of tolerating it and letting it grow within the host society), and by embracing it they doom their own societies to total submission to Islam.  Recognising this is vital to the survival of Western Civilisation.


Originally posted 2016-09-03 22:06:32. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Beyond ISIS: Europe’s Salafists Nurturing Jihad

Beyond ISIS: Europe’s Salafists Nurturing Jihad


Originally posted 2017-01-09 08:54:10. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

What Islamic Supremacism Really Is

What Islamic Supremacism Really Is

Our victory in this global conflict will only be assured when the majority of Americans (and all free people) truly understand the nature of the conflict. The common man is being willfully misled by the political and media elites about the religious imperative that is behind the Islamic war against the West. Most people have still never even heard of Islamic supremacism – or realize just how pervasive it is.

It starts with the Qur’an. In October 2011 I was on “Hannity” debating Muslim activist Michael Ghouse. On the show Ghouse presented me with an enormous Qur’an, courtesy of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): The Message of the Qur’an, Translated and Explained by Muhammad Asad. Ghouse is a “moderate,” and this is supposed to be a “moderate” translation.

In it, Allah says to the Jews who “profaned the Sabbath,” “Be as apes despicable!” (2:65). And as for “women whose ill-will you have reason to fear,” the Qur’an says: “admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them” (4:34; the bracketed word is in the book in this and all other quotes). This “moderate” Qur’an translation says that Allah has “disowned” the “hypocrites” — that is, people who pretend to be Muslim but aren’t really, or who were once Muslim but leave the religion. It says that if they “revert to [open] enmity,” the Muslims should “seize them and slay them wherever you may find them” (4:89).

Muslims should “fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, and do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors. And slay them wherever you find them” (2:190-191). Don’t commit aggression, but slay them wherever you find them.  Right. Muslims are supposed to fight against those who have “denied the truth” until “there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone” (8:39).  So now Muslims have to fight unbelievers until everyone worships only Allah.

Muslims are told to “fight against those who — despite having been vouchsafed revelation [aforetime] — do not [truly] believe either in God or the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon them], till they [agree to] pay the exemption tax with a willing hand, after having been humbled [in war]” (9:29).

Those who have been “vouchsafed revelation aforetime” are the Jews and Christians.  The “Apostle” is Muhammad. So Muslims must fight Jews and Christians until they have been “humbled” and pay a special tax.

So Muslims are supposed to beat women whose “ill-will” they “have reason to fear,” and kill those who wage war against them, and hypocrites who are in open enmity against them, wherever they find them. They must also fight against and subjugate Jews and Christians. Muslims who pray the required five daily prayers curse Christians and Jews no less than 17 times. Every day. It was no surprise, then, in May when, Breitbart News reported that “family members of Navy SEALs who died on duty in Afghanistan claim that an Islamic cleric ‘damned’ the servicemen’s bodies at their memorial ceremony.” They were, after all, non-Muslims.

That’s Islamic supremacism.

The history of Islam is the grim record of how this supremacist mentality has played out, and the brutal conflict it has caused. The Middle East was once a Christian region. Now, with the exception of Israel, it’s Islamic. Egypt, Syria, and other Christian lands were brutally conquered, and the non-Muslim populations subjugated. When the caliph Umar invaded Syria, he gave this order: “Summon the [conquered] people to Allah; those who respond unto your call, accept it [their conversion to Islam] from them, but those who refuse must pay the jizya out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”

The same pattern played out all over the world. The record of jihad in India is extremely and unimaginably bloody. The history of India is teeming with Muslim monsters such as Timur the Terrible, who paraphrased the Qur’an: “‘O prophet make war against the infidels and treat them severely.’ My great object in invading Hindustan (India) had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus.” And he did. Hundreds of thousands of Hindus were beheaded and towers were made of their skulls.  The warrior Babur was particularly fond of raising higher and higher towers of Hindu heads that the Muslims had cut off during and after every battle. He loved to sit in his royal tent and watch this spectacle. On one such occasion, according to The Koran and the Kafir by A. Ghosh, the ground flowed with so much blood “and became so filled with quivering carcasses that his tent had to be moved thrice to a higher level.”

Throughout Islamic history there have been as many as 270 million victims of jihadi wars, cultural annihilation, and enslavements.

The Muslim war against the infidel is monstrous, unremitting, and constant to the present day. And it is raging with increasing ferocity in the contemporary West, and everywhere non-Muslims live in proximity to Muslims. Just last week in Pakistan, Muslims attacked a Christian village and murdered a Christian teenager. In April in Egypt, Muslims burned Christians with Molotov cocktails. An Egyptian Muslim cleric explained, “I hate Christians and am disgusted by them.” In Indonesia on Christmas day, a savage Muslim mob pelted Christian worshippers with rotten eggs, bags of urine, and dung.

There are so many such incidents that this article would go on for a thousand pages if I listed them all. And they’re happening now in Europe and the United States as well. In my Breitbart piece last Saturday, I listed some recent Muslim attacks on Jews in Europe, including the recent attack in Sweden, where Muslims shot rockets and hurled pipe bombs at Jews and attacked Jews at a peaceful pro-Israel rally. In Germany, Muslims rioted, chanting “Jews out, Germans out, allahu akbar, f**k off Jews, kick the Jews out, burn the Jew.” A Hezbollah courier was found guilty of playing a role in a Cyprus jihad terror plot. Hezbollah was also behind the bombing of a bus full of Jewish tourists in Bulgaria. In Italy, a Muslim was jailed for a Milan synagogue bomb plot. There are now sweeping “no-go areas” for Jews in Europe.

Palestinian children are regularly taught that if they kill a Jew, they will go to heaven. And on Saturday, an Arab mob in Lyon, France attacked Jews who were walking to the synagogue.

All this is part of the same jihad – the jihad against the Jews, the jihad against the Christians, the jihad against Hindus, the jihad against all non-Muslims. Yet according to Pravoslavie, “the prime minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called the time of Christian emperors in Byzantium ‘a dark chapter’ in history. In Erdogan’s view, in the fifteenth century, after invasion of Constantinople by Muslims, began ‘the time of enlightenment.’” Talk about delusional.

Islamic supremacists don’t want to bring enlightenment. The Muslim Brotherhood, to which all the major Muslim groups in the U.S. are tied, is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within” so that “Allah’s religion is victorious over other religions.”

That’s Islamic supremacism.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of the new book Freedom or Submission: On the Dangers of Islamic Extremism & American Complacency, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here.

Pin It on Pinterest