….Indeed, while many are now aware of the Koran’s and by extension Sharia’s justification for slaves, sexual or otherwise, fewer are willing to embrace the fact that the prophet of Islam himself kept and copulated with concubines conquered during the jihad.
One little-known story is especially eye-opening:
During Muhammad’s jihad on the Jews of Khaybar, he took for himself from among the spoils of war one young woman, a teenager, Safiya bint Huyay, after hearing of her beauty. (Earlier the prophet had bestowed her on another Muslim jihadi, but when rumor of her beauty reached him, the prophet reneged and took her for himself.)
Muhammad “married” Safiya hours after he had her husband, Kinana, tortured to death in order to reveal hidden treasure. And before this, the prophet’s jihadis slaughtered Safiya’s father and brothers.
While Islamic apologists have long tried to justify this account—often by saying that Muhammad gave her the honor of “marriage” as opposed to being a concubine and that she opted to convert to Islam—they habitually fail to cite what Islamic sources record, namely Baladhuri’s ninth centuryKitab Futuh al-Buldan (“Book of Conquests”).
According to this narrative, after the death of Muhammad, Safiya confessedthat “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” before “marrying” (or, less euphemistically, raping) her.
So there it is. Muhammad seized for himself as rightfully earned booty (orghanima) a young woman; he took her after killing everyone dear to her—husband, father, brothers, etc.
And, according to authoritative Islamic sources, she hated him for it.
If that is not rape, what is?…
by DANIEL GREENFIELD
….Even few apologists for Islam will defend Saudi Arabia for the simple reason that it is indefensible. The media will run the occasional story about the House of Saud’s commitment to reform, much as Charles Manson keeps committing to becoming a better person, but even they don’t really believe it. Yet even though Saudi Arabia is the heartland of Sunni Islam, and its fortunes shape and control mosques and teachings around the world, they insist on treating Islam and Saudi Arabia as two separate things.
It is brutally telling that the two centers of Islam, Saudi Arabia for the Sunnis and Iran for the Shiites, are genuinely horrifying places. Neither can remotely be associated with tolerance or human rights. It is simple common sense that the spread of Islam will make Western countries more like Saudi Arabia and Iran, rather than less like them.
If Saudi Arabia is not an example that we wish to emulate, then why must we bodily incorporate the religion of Mecca and Medina into London and Los Angeles? What other possible outcome do we imagine that there will be but fewer rights and more violence, dead women, abused children, bomb plots and polygamy?
There are two Islams. The real Islam of the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and an imaginary Islam that exists only in the mosques of air and card table Korans of academics apologists and political pundits who have decided that Islam cannot be bad, because no religion can be bad, not even one which kills and kills, it must just be misunderstood.
But then why not tell the Grand Mufti that he has misunderstood his own religion, the religion that he and his ancestors have dedicated themselves to purifying and reforming back to its roots? Telling him that would be a dangerous thing on his own turf, but it would also be foolish. The Grand Mufti’s controversial statements contain nothing that Mohammed had not said.
Can the founder of a religion misunderstand his own teachings?
Islam is savage, intolerant, cruel and expansionistic, not due to a misunderstanding, but an understanding of the worst aspects of human nature. It is what it is and no amount of wishing will make it otherwise.
We have opened the door to the desert and a hot wind blows through into the northern climes. Either we shut the door or get used to living in the Saudi desert.
BY RYAN MAURO
A shocking video has been posted online showing a Muslim-American in the Houston area pledging allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group in front of a police officer while being escorted away from a mosque.
The video was uploaded September 21 by a man who goes by the names of Abdul-Rahman Baghdadi or Houston Baghdadi.
Baghdadi describes himself as an “Islamic Chaliphate [sic] State Fact Reporter” and identifies his locations as Houston, Las Vegas and Chicago on Twitter. He sent out a tweet describing himself as an “early student,” indicating that he may be a recent convert to Islam.
The video shows Baghdadi wearing pro-Islamic State attire at a mosque with a friend. The mosque is not specifically identified but is referred to by the acronym of “ISGH,” presumably the Islamic Society of Greater Houston.
The footage shows a police officer arriving at the mosque and a Muslim man complaining about Baghdadi. As he is escorted away, Baghdadi turns to his partner and requests, “In front of the police officers, will you please record this?”
He then raises his hand and pledges allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State terrorist group (more commonly known by the acronyms of ISIS or ISIL). The officer responds, “I don’t know what that means.”
“He’s the caliph of the Islamic State,” Baghdadi explains as the police officer walks away.
Baghdadi writes that the Muslim man in the footage “kicks me out constantly for NO REASON Even when I didn’t wear what I was wearing [the logo of the Islamic State].”
Another incident at the ISGH mosque was also recorded and uploaded. It shows an enraged man telling Baghdadi to never return to the premise and that he will be charged with trespassing if he does.
Baghdadi also uploaded a series of videos on October 12 showing a confrontation at the El-Farouq mosque in Houston. It begins when he approaches Muslim schoolchildren eating lunch and corrects them for eating with their left hand, a violation of sharia law. A man immediately intervenes and says he is calling the police. Baghdadi tells the cop that he was joking and meant no harm….
Christianity and Judaism have a great deal in common, not the least of which is compassion for their fellow man and the institutional capacity to take the steps required to express that compassion in daily life.
It is this reverence for the individual that led both traditions to reform themselves over the centuries, eliminating anachronistic practices while maintaining fidelity to their faith. It is an ongoing process, obviously, but it is a process to which both religions are fully committed – and have been for more than a thousand years.
Islam in this regard is an outlier. In the 1400-odd years of Islam, there has never been a “reformation.” The religion forbids it. It is no accident that the oft-touted contributions of Islam to the world mostly came before Islam demanded dominance in all things.
After the Mongol sacking of Baghdad, Islam reacted by retrenching inwardly. Science was no longer science, it was only Islamic science. Economics became Islamic economics, as rules proliferated for everything in order to demonstrate adherence to the faith and resistance to the infidel.
Truthfully, Islam was better off in practice in the 10th Century than it is today. It is clear that Islam, like cigarettes, stunts your growth….
….Throughout, Islam has held a fierce resistance to all things non-Islamic. Around the time of the Western Enlightenment, Muslims’ brutal practices had rendered them largely unwelcome anywhere in Europe (certainly not in any significant numbers), and their incessant raiding necessitated their subjugation by the more developed and cosmopolitan powers of the earth.
Islam now appears to have reached a point in history where it has been behind for so long adherents can’t bring themselves to admit it. Sort of like the guy who trips over his own feet, then tries to pass it off by saying, “I meant to do that.”
Islam needs a Vatican II. Actually, Islam needs a Council of Nicea (the 4thCentury meeting in what is now modern-day Turkey) that codified Christian doctrine. Islam has never convened anything like a Council of Nicea. Indeed, Muslims have never really admitted to having a problem, which we all know is the first step in finding a solution.
Whether the Islamists themselves or their mewling apologists among the liberal intelligentsia care to admit it, Islam must reform, or be subjugated yet again.
Instead of apologizing for Islam, it is time for our leaders to demand of Islam that which we ourselves have already done – aggiornamento – the adjustment of our religion according to the facts of the world in which it lives.
by Robert Spencer
…One irony (among many) of all this is that Islam is, in point of fact, one of the least diverse entities on the planet. A few years I came across a group photo of a summit meeting of Southeast Asian government officials. The Vietnamese, Thai, Laotian, Cambodian, Thai, Burmese and Chinese officials all had names indigenous to their nations; the Malaysian and Indonesian ministers had names like Muhammad and Abdullah – names indigenous to Arabia. Converts to Islam the world over give up a bit of their cultural diversity to take on Arabic names, and in many cases feel compelled to adopt the dress of a seventh-century Arab. This is not diversity, it’s homogeneity.
Nor is there, despite numerous claims to the contrary, significant diversity in the understanding of Islamic law, Sharia. Wherever Sharia is fully implemented around the world today, from Sudan to Saudi Arabia to Iran, it looks largely the same: freedom of speech is restricted, women and non-Muslims are denied basic rights, apostates from Islam are ostracized or even killed, “heretics” and “blasphemers” are hounded by legal authorities and/or lynch mobs. The four major Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree on 75% of all rulings, and those matters upon which they differ are not central to Islamic faith or practice.
Nonetheless, the diversity of Islam is a key number in the liberal hymnbook, and Kristof gives it a game rendition in last Wednesday’s Times. The goal, of course, is to buttress Affleck’s claim that it is “gross” and “racist” to suggest that there is anything particularly violent about Islam – well, there are those jihad terrorists, yes, but the whole thing is so diverse, you see.
Kristof attempts to illustrate this by asserting that “historically, Islam was not particularly intolerant, and it initially elevated the status of women.” This is a common myth; that Kristof would retail it indicates he is unaware of, or unwilling to confront, the unpleasant facts of the institutionalized oppression of dhimmitude that made for the violent oppression of religious minorities in the Islamic world until they were abolished in the mid-nineteenth century.
But what about tolerant, pluralistic al-Andalus? The philosopher Maimonides, a Jew who lived for a time in Muslim Spain and then fled that supposedly tolerant and pluralistic land, remarked,
You know, my brethren, that on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us….No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have….We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, and absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear.
Kristof follows up this wishful thinking with a frankly bizarre sentence: “Anybody looking at the history even of the 20th century would not single out Islam as the bloodthirsty religion; it was Christian/Nazi/Communist Europe and Buddhist/Taoist/Hindu/atheist Asia that set records for mass slaughter.” “Christian/Nazi/Communist”? “Buddhist/Taoist/Hindu/atheist”? These conflations render Kristof’s argument utterly incoherent. Islam is not “the bloodthirsty religion,” but “Christian/Nazi/Communist Europe” is? Is “Christian/Nazi/Communist Europe” a religion? Is it any single thing at all?…