The aftermath of the Reclaim Australia rallies.

After the Reclaim Australia rallies over the weekend of 18th & 19th of July which saw a very good turn out in Perth for the supporters of RAR. There was also a protest held at all of the RA rallies by those people of differing views but also violence. At the Melbourne, Sydney and Perth events as many are aware several members of the protesters were arrested by the fantastic Police turnout. It is also worth pointing out that the Police had their backs to the RA crowds. Now surely if the RA supporters were an issue then the Police would be looking at them and not the protesters, wouldn’t they?
So given that had happened and has gained considerable media attention which was pretty good for the RA crew and supporters as it showed the country who were indeed the intolerant violent bigots. Notably the rallies were mentioned on the Bolt Report and all the major TV networks which clearly show who the perpetrators of violence were with images of them rightfully being pepper sprayed.

Given the events on the weekend it has led to the Western Australian governments Minister for Multicultural Interests Mike Nahan to come out and give an interview on the matter. Have a read what the ABC had to say in the link at the bottom.

Now there is still a long way to go but pay particular attention to the words the minister is using when he is talking about the two groups. Okay it may not seem like a lot but it is something. What is it? It is the government no longer calling the people and supporters of Reclaim Australia as racists. Yes okay xenophobic is still not quite right but the language is heading in the right direction but still a long, long way to go. The government need to learn that Islam is not a “…..peace-loving religion.” Islam is far from that. Can Islam be anything other than that? Well the answer for that isn’t a simple no nor is it a straight forward yes either. There are many people, Muslims included that will tell you that Islam cannot be changed as it is the word of god.
Well to that I say look at the history of the Qur’an and see when it was put to paper, some almost 100 years after the Prophet Muhammad supposedly passed away. If this is indeed the case as per the history of Islam, not Muslims history alone but the historical evidence kind of history which is the one we all should be subscribing to, then this can indeed be changed. Taking that into consideration though it isn’t quite so simple.

Who reading this has ever been able to successfully unlearn something that has been a big, all encompassing part of your life. I don’t mean you read it a bit then put it down and get on with your life kind of following the religion but not really. I mean literally every part, every aspect of your life from when you wake in the morning until when you go to sleep and how to sleep if you are a true follower of the Qur’an as it was spoken by the Prophet. Don’t forget all the supporting literature needs to be addressed as well. Some Muslims will say the hadith needs to be followed along with the Qur’an as it is a literal recount of how the Prophet lived his life and how to therefore interpret the book. However others will say that as it isn’t the literal word of Allah then it is nothing but hearsay (now that is irony there people). There also are many books written by Muslims that Muslims learning about what it is to be Islamic and what you can’t do rather than what you can do. So as I say if you were born in to the religion it would be extremely hard to give that all up so quickly. If you are a convert it may or may not be slightly easier.
It would be a huge and long undertaking to suddenly expect all Muslims worldwide to give that all away over night. In fact it is a ridiculous thing to even suggest honestly. Who would police it and how strict do you be? So given that the WA state government has taken some notice there needs to be a movement to now get governments and the Muslim community to come out and finally start telling the full truth about Islam.

Now since these rallies I have personally spoken with many people on social media and it is more than evident that the majority of people defending Islam, not Muslims, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. To those that may not be aware Islam is not a person so what is there to defend? We are openly allowed to discuss any other religion but just not Islam. Why is that? So yes the WA state governments position of integrating the Muslims into the community better and bringing about better education is indeed a key point and is the only way to have any kind of success with this. The biggest issue with this though is if all parties aren’t going to be totally upfront and honest about it then nothing will ever come of it. There are many very well educated people in Australia that are not Muslim but they have much more knowledge of Islam than likely most Muslims in Australia, the United Kingdom, America and Europe do. Why do I say this? Purely because I have witnessed it with my own eyes and ears.

We demand that Muslims in Australia start admitting that there are many different sects within Islam and that each separate one of those calls itself the only true Islam. Islam as per the Qur’an and hadith was not supposed to be so divided yet it is. Muslims need to be accepting to themselves that even though they are all Muslims they all may well follow it in such a different way. Don’t believe me then go look at the fights between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims since almost the beginning of Islamic time. They have been killing each other over this very issue for centuries. So yes it is fair to say that some of the much more peaceful followers of Islam, the ones that consider only the 1st Meccan parts of the Qur’an where Muhammad was talking only peace as the only parts that need to be followed (Read the Qur’an though and it is a different story), have come here to Australia seeking genuine asylum from the warring Sunni and Shia Muslims. However we take all kinds of Muslims into Australia and the countries I listed above and none of them have to list which sect they belong to and how peaceful it is. Look at it this way, if they aren’t honest with us about the Qur’an and about Islam how are we the general public supposed to ever trust them when we see a much different picture throughout the world. We already have terrorist organisations here in Australia that will say they will bring the true Islam and Sharia Law down on us. Then other Muslims that their Islam is peaceful yet Sharia is good. Then other Muslims saying Sharia will never come here as they want to follow our laws. Who are we to believe?!
This is exactly why the government need to use language that is 100% completely honest. Get the likes of Dr Mark Durie to come and speak on these very issues so Australians can truly begin to understand what Islam is, by Australians I mean all those people that see themselves as only Australian and nothing else. We need all followers of all Islam to know that if they can speak out when things we non Muslims do offends them then they have to accept, not tolerate, that if they do things we are offended by then we too have the right to speak out without reprisal. Religion should be private and for in the house or in the place of worship and not out in public. Isn’t that the idea of living in a secular society where public lives, including government, aren’t affected by religious views. That goes for all religions. All we the general, concerned public want to see is open, honest and transparent policies put in place that benefit all equally or punish all equally and fairly within the laws of the land. There must not ever be any cultural sensitivities taken in to consideration when it comes to matters of the law. It really is simple, if you don’t want to live by our laws then you are free to leave. Australians, even those involved in the Reclaim Australia movement are happy for immigrants to come to Australia of all different ethnic traits . What we don’t want is some to be seen to be given preferential treatment over others. Honestly in the 21st century is that really too much to ask for?
It is time the Governments and the media plus the Muslim communities (don’t think it is just one) to step up and have an honest, open discussion group.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-20/wa-government-plans-islam-community-campaign/6634042

JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER

“Extremists…have given Islam a bad name, but…have no connection with the religion” Really?

It is extremely telling indeed when the media do not report on the many different sects within Islam even though there isn’t supposed to be any, lucky for us though that there are.

I am not against asylum seekers. I am against country shoppers. Those that come here genuinely with all the correct papers and so on then brilliant bring em on in.
I am not against Muslims. I am against Islamists that follow the true writings of their religion. Regardless if a lot of Muslims don’t want to admit any of this has something to do with their religion, it just does and accept that it does and work with us to stop those that want to affect even your lives.
I am against all religion but that is my  choice and it should remain my choice. I am against having the religious side of Christmas and for me it has a totally different meaning and Easter is just  a holiday. Do not shove any of it down my throat or others that think like me.
I am against the way government is run by what  seems to be corrupt politicians that struggle to even answer a question with a straight honest reply.
I am against big business believing they can intimidate or feel they can buy power in the form of government.
I am against aggression and see no need for it at all but there does come a time when that is the only avenue left but it must only ever be used sparingly and for the right reasons and never for profit financially. Is that naive of me, perhaps but if someone is going to kill me I am going to act in defense the best way I can and that is what I expect of any country.

So as can be seen I am against many things but for me my family and country come first and I see a clear and present danger within the Islamic community that is having a huge impact along with many other issues in my country. I was born here of no choice of my own. If I could have had a choice I would have been born in Ireland but we don’t get that choice do we. So don’t blame me for the mistakes of past generations as it isn’t my fault and I am standing up for what I see needs to be done. Are you prepared to do the same?

This is the kind of article that the mainstream media churns out by the pound after every jihad attack, and there is nothing striking or unusual about this one — which is precisely why I am posting it. Mark Hall of WHTM in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania doesn’t alert his readers to the fact that he is interviewing not mainstream Sunni Muslims, but Ahmadiyya, who preach peace and are despised and persecuted as heretics by Sunnis in Pakistan and Indonesia. In Pakistan, they’re even forbidden by law to identify themselves as Muslims. Thus their views, however soothing to American Infidels, are hardly mainstream in Islam, and Hall, wittingly or unwittingly, is misleading his readers into a dangerous complacency.

Note also that the Chattanooga jihadist, Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, was quite explicitly and self-consciously devout in his Islam. When therefore someone says, as here below, “unfortunately, there are a few extremists that have given Islam a bad name, but those people have no connection with the religion,” this doesn’t clear up anything. It only raises the question, left unpursued by Mark Hall, as to why and how people who so clearly wish to be devout and scrupulous in their observance of Islam, such as Abdulazeez, get their religion so wrong as to do something in its name that actually has no connection to the religion at all. This is the key question, and in the mainstream media it’s always left unanswered, and unasked.

“Local Muslims on Tennessee shootings: Islam does not teach hate,” by Mark Hall, WHTM, July 17, 2015:

HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) – Members of the Hadee Mosgue took part in a prayer service on the last day of the holy month of Ramadan. Many of those in attendance have been fasting to remember those who are less fortunate.

A lot of those in attendance said they always feel the pain of innocent people killed at the hands of Islamic extremists.

Aquil Sharif was born in York County and has been a Muslim since birth. He says violence is not the answer among the true followers of Islam, but he says it happens all the time.

“Unfortunately, there are a few extremists that have given Islam a bad name,” Sharif said, “but those people have no connection with the religion.”

Sharif says as soon as he heard about the shootings in Chattanooga, he expected an attack on Islam by those who call Islam a religion of hate.

Dr. Zarar Bajwa says true followers of Islam love all people, and those who were responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 also hijacked the religion.

“Islam does not teach hate,” Bajwa said. “There may be some radicals, but that does not make the religion bad.”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/extremists-have-given-islam-a-bad-name-but-have-no-connection-with-the-religion

JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER

Qur’an 9:29

This is quite a long read but do stay with it as it is very telling in today’s world.
Sura 9 is the 113th Sura in the Qur’an in its correct chronological order as supposedly told to Allah by the archangel Gabriel (not Allah himself, he must have been too busy. So let’s have a good look at this Sura broken down into what it really means.

http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/Quran/9-repentance.php

 

 

28. O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

30. The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

36. The number of months in the sight of Allah is twelve (in a year)- so ordained by Him the day He created the heavens and the earth; of them four are sacred: that is the straight usage. So wrong not yourselves therein, and fight the Pagans all together as they fight you all together. But know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.

And from another source.

http://chronquran.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/113th-sura-9.html

009.028
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Please take special not of this part in Robert Spencer’s explanation of this Sura:
‘ Ibn Juzayy notes that v. 5 abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). According to As-Suyuti, “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” — that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam.”
Ibn Kathir echoes this, directing that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view commonly put forward by Muslim spokesmen in the West today — that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” — that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with Qur’an 2:191. ‘

Kind of puts to rest anything the believers of Islam would want you to understand and deny. How can they given it is the true word of god (apparently)

Here is the full piece for you to read with the link at the end of it. So go on and read parts 2 through 8 in the link below.  No doubt many will completely deny it all however.

Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 9, “Repentance,” verses 1-5

November 12, 2007 8:07 am By Robert Spencer

Why do some Muslims consider it their responsibility before Allah to wage war against Jews and Christians? Because of this chapter of the Qur’an.

Sura 9, “Repentance,” is the only one of the Qur’an’s 114 chapters that does not begin with Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim — “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful.” Explanations for this vary. The caliph Uthman (and others, including the Islamic jurist Zamakhshari) explains that it was because some believed that sura 8 and sura 9 were actually one sura, and that “the holy prophet passed away without informing us whether Surah Bara’ah [sura 9] was part of Surah Anfal [sura 8] or not.” Ibn Kathir says that the omission is simply “because the Companions did not write it in the complete copy of the Qur’an (Mushaf) they collected.” Maududi asserts that the correct explanation was given by Imam Razi, who says that the Bismillah was left off because Muhammad himself didn’t recite it at the beginning of this sura. Al-Hakim says that Muhammad not only didn’t recite the Bismillah himself, but commanded that it not be recited at the beginning of this sura.

Why not? The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains Muhammad’s command by saying that the Bismillah “is security, and [sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword. One of Muhammad’s earliest followers, Ali ibn Abi Talib, agrees, saying that the Bismillah “conveys security while this sura was sent down with the sword. That is why it does not begin with security.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn adds that “Hudhayfa reports that they called it the Sura of Repentance, while it is, in fact, the Sura of Punishment.”

Punishment, that is, of the unbelievers.

The prohibition on saying the Bismillah at the beginning of this sura, in any case, remains. Scholars such as Jazari and Shatbi say that the Bismillah should not be recited at the beginning of this sura, although Bulandshahri says that if someone recites sura 9 starting from anywhere other than its beginning, he may recite the Bismillah if he chooses to do so.

According to a hadith recorded by Bukhari, sura 9 was the last to be revealed as a whole, although part of another sura came later. Another hadith says that sura 110 was actually the last, but in any case sura 9 is very late, among the last revelations Muhammad received. It came around the time, according to an Islamic tradition, of an inconclusive expedition Muhammad undertook against a Byzantine garrison at Tabuk in northern Arabia in 631, and much of its contents revolve around the events of that attempt to engage the army of the great Christian empire in battle.

Allah begins this sura, however, by addressing the pagans of Mecca. He frees the unbelievers from all obligations they may have incurred in treaties they concluded with the Muslims, and all existing treaties are restricted to a period of four months (vv. 1-3).

This restriction comes with Allah’s warning that he “will cover with shame those who reject Him” (v. 2), which the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains as “humiliating them in this world by having them killed, and in the Hereafter, by [sending them to] the Fire.” The announcement is made during the Hajj that “Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans” and call them to repent and accept Islam (v. 3). This refers only to those pagans who have violated the terms of their treaties with the Muslims; the other treaties will be honored to the end of their term (v. 4). As-Sawi says that this is an exception to the four-month limit, giving to the Damra tribe, “who still had nine months of their treaty remaining.”

Then comes the notorious Verse of the Sword, containing the injunction to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them (v. 5). This is, understandably, a verse much beloved by present-day jihadists. In a 2003 sermon, Osama bin Laden rejoiced over this verse: “Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood.”

Ibn Juzayy notes that v. 5 abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). According to As-Suyuti, “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” — that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam.”

Ibn Kathir echoes this, directing that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view commonly put forward by Muslim spokesmen in the West today — that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” — that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with Qur’an 2:191.

If the unbelievers convert to Islam, the Muslims must stop killing them. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them.” Ibn Kathir: “These Ayat [verses] allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.” Qutb says that the termination of the treaties with a four-month grace period, combined with the call to kill the unbelievers, “was not meant as a campaign of vengeance or extermination, but rather as a warning which provided a motive for them to accept Islam.”

Asad, however, says that v. 5 “certainly does not imply an alternative of ‘conversion or death,’ as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume.” He says that “war is permissible only in self-defence,” in accord with 2:190, and that “the enemy’s conversion to Islam…is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their ‘desisting from hostility.’” He points the reader to verses 4 and 6 for further elucidation.

Finally, it is noteworthy that, according to As-Suyuti, the jurist Ash-Shafi’i took this as a proof for killing anyone who abandons the prayer and fighting anyone who refuses to pay zakat [alms]. “Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun [unbelievers].” Likewise Ibn Kathir: “Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah.” Thus even Muslims who do not fulfill Islamic obligations fall into the category of those who must be fought. This is a principle that latter-day Salafist movements apply broadly and use frequently in branding governments that do not rule according to strict Islamic law as unbelievers who must be fought by those who regard themselves as true Muslims. This is playing out now in the Islamic State’s declaration that those Muslims who do not accept its authority are unbelievers and can therefore lawfully be killed.

(Revised May 2015)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/11/blogging-the-quran-sura-9-repentance-verses-1-5
http://chronquran.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/113th-sura-9.html

JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER

Anatomy of an apologist: A double-act play

Nadeem Paracha captures the mindset of the Islamist apologist with biting satire here.

Anatomy of an apologist: A double-act play
Nadeem F. Paracha — Published Dec 20, 2014 05:22pm

But we planted the bomb, fool. No, you didn’t! —Credit: Freepik

Terrorist: We have just bombed a market to avenge the military’s operation against us.

Outraged Man: You are an animal!

Apologist: Gentlemen, gentlemen, please, this is serious.

Outraged Man: You animal, you slaughtered innocent people!

Apologist: No, he didn’t.

Terrorist: Yes, we did.

Outraged Man: You heard him. He said he did.

Apologist: Well, yes and no.

Outraged Man: What do you mean?

Terrorist: Yes, what do you mean?

Apologist: Well, yes the bombing they did was a condemnable act, but they didn’t do it.

Outraged Man: But he just said he did, and even you said ‘the bombing they did …’

Apologist: Okay, let me rephrase it. The bombing was a condemnable act done by the enemies of our faith and the country.

Terrorist: You calling me an enemy of faith?

Apologist: No, I’m calling those who planted the bomb, the enemy.

Terrorist: But we planted the bomb, fool.

Apologist: No, you didn’t.

Outraged Man: But he just said that he did.

Apologist: Well, yes and no.

Outraged Man: Are you deaf?

Terrorist: Don’t call him deaf, infidel.

Outraged Man: Oh, so now you agree with him?

Terrorist: I agree that he is not deaf.

Outraged Man: But he says you didn’t bomb that market.

Terrorist: Yes, we did. And we shall carry out more such attacks!

Apologist: Our brother is angry …

Outraged Man: He’s not my brother! How can you call him your brother?

Apologist: Because he is. We have misunderstood him. We need to guide him back from the wrong course he has taken …

Terrorist: The heck you do. You are the ones on the wrong course. We will destroy that course by bombing it out of existence, like we bombed that market.

Apologist: No, you didn’t.

Outraged Man: But he just said he did. You are deaf!

Terrorist: Don’t call him deaf. And yes, I said we bombed that market.

Apologist: Gentlemen, gentlemen, both of you are being used by our enemies.

Terrorist: You are our enemy!

Apologist (discreetly pointing at the Outraged Man and whispering): No, no, he … he is your enemy.

Outraged Man: I heard that! You hypocrite!

Terrorist: Don’t call him a hypocrite, you hypocrite. Only I can call him a hypocrite.

Outraged Man: You are the biggest hypocrite there is. A reptile …

Apologist: Gentlemen, gentlemen, can the both of you just sit together like two good patriots and talk things out? Let’s give peace a chance, shall we?

Outraged Man: How can one talk peace with people who are hell-bent on destroying everything in their path?

Terrorist: Yes, we do destroy, for the greater good of the faith and the …

Outraged Man: Oh, please, spare us your ill-informed and vile nonsense, you reptile!

Terrorist: You infidel and stooges of the West …!

Apologist: He has a point.

Outraged Man: What?

Apologist: We are fighting them on the behest of the West, aren’t we?

Outraged Man: So you are saying it is okay for them to slaughter our civilians, cops, politicians and soldiers?

Apologist: No, no, this is not what I am saying. I am saying that terrorism in our country is due to us trying to fight a war that is not our own.

Outraged Man: So thus it is okay to indulge in shameless bloodbaths?

Apologist: Our brothers are not responsible for this …

Terrorist: Yes, we are!

Apologist: No, you aren’t!

Outraged Man: He just said he is, you ostrich.

Terrorist: Don’t call him an ostrich, you dog!

Outraged Man: Dogs at least have emotions, unlike snakes …

Terrorist: You infidels, I’ll blow you all!

Apologist (discretely pointing towards the Outraged Man and whispering): Him, him … he’s the dog …

Outraged Man: I saw that! You both are one and the same.

Apologist: We don’t want war. We want peace. Right, misguided brother?

Terrorist: I want pieces. Pieces of those who are stopping our path towards attaining a pious state and …

Outraged Man: Oh, so you want to build your pious state with the innocent pieces of men, women and children?

Terrorist: They are not innocent. None of you are!

Apologist: Gentlemen, gentlemen …

Outraged Man: Oh, shut up!

Terrorist: Don’t tell him to shut up …

Outraged Man: I wasn’t. I was telling you to shut up.

Apologist: Don’t tell him to shut up …

Terrorist: Shut up! I’m wearing a suicide vest, infidel!

Apologist: No, no, you’re not.

Terrorist: Yes, I am. Here, see.

Apologist: No, you’re not.

Outraged Man: But he just said he was. Can’t you see it? Are you blind?

Terrorist: Don’t call him blind.

Apologist: He was forced to wear one.

Outraged Man: Oh, so you agree that he is wearing one …

Apologist: No, I said he was forced to.

Terrorist: No, I wasn’t. Nobody forced me to.

Apologist: Yes, you were …

Outraged Man: Oh, for heaven’s sake …

Terrorist: Yes, that’s it.

Outraged Man: What?

Apologist: Gentlemen, gentlemen …

Outrage Man: Oh, shut up …

Terrorist: I said do not tell him to shut up (Boom! He explodes himself).

Outraged Man: cough cough See … I … I … told you, he was … was … was wearing one …

Apologist: cough cough Well … I guess, he was … But … cough … I don’t think he was one of us … I think he was foreign …

Outraged Man: But you called him a brother. Are you mad?

Terrorist: cough … cough … don’t … don’t …. don’t call him mad … (Passes away).
Act 2 (A week later):

Apologist: He was a martyr.

Outraged Man: Oh, so now you are calling him a martyr. What about those he slaughtered?

Apologist: They are martyrs as well. At least some of them.

Outraged Man: How can that be?

Apologist: Well, you see …

(An army man comes in): We have decided to launch a full scale operation against the terrorists. (He leaves).

Apologist: Hmmm. Anyway, so as I was saying, you see, these terrorists are animals, reptiles, brutes, and we should support the army in crushing them!

Outraged Man: Oh, now they are animals?

Apologist: Yes … foreign funded … like you.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/news/1152078
JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER

No Room for Moderation or Liberalism in Islam

I think the main issue with “moderate” or “liberal” Muslims is that most of them are not well acquainted with the actual scriptures, but because they were born Muslim and it was passed down to them, they practice Islam more or less on a cultural and social level. As I continue to read the religious texts, I keep drawing the same conclusion: There really is no room for moderation or liberalism within Islam, should you actually follow the rules in the Qur’an and Hadith.

The Qur’an clearly states that you must believe in the entire scripture, otherwise you will go to hell.

“Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the reward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of Resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement. And Allah is not heedless of what you do.” Qur’an, Al-Baqra – 2:85

This statement in itself discredits the very argument that many moderate Muslims make: that you can “cherry pick” the aspects of the Qur’an that suit you and deny the parts that are violent, misogynistic and controversial. Firstly, the Qur’an does not grant you the right to selectively adhere to some of Allah’s guidelines while rejecting others; as a Muslim you are required to accept it in its entirety as the ultimate Truth. Secondly, if a moderate Muslim argues that it is perfectly viable to selectively apply some Qur’anic verses to their lives, while omitting others, how can we possibly condemn the fundamentalists, extremists and terrorists who do the very same thing? They selectively choose to put the controversial and violent verses into action – the concepts of misogyny, slavery, jihad, martyrdom, killing infidels and apostates are all promoted in the Qur’an and Hadith. So if the liberals can justify “cherry picking”, surely there should be no issue with the fundamentalists and extremists using the very same tactic of selectivity.

Therefore, according to this verse, a devout Muslim must accept that women are mentally deficient and inferior, can be beaten by their husbands, that gay people should be stoned, that one who insults Islam or chooses to leave the religion is an “apostate” subject to execution and the list goes on– and if you do not believe in all of that, then you are destined to hell, just like the infidels. Does that not suggest then, that moderation is the same as infidelity? I argue that this is an interpretation which fundamentalists use to kill other Muslims, because they are not devout enough, therefore they are one and the same with the kafirs (infidels). There simply is no such thing as moderate or liberal Islam.

I argue that a true, devout Muslim who is well versed in the Qur’an and Hadith, cannot be a liberal because Islam does not stand up for Liberal principles. Please see the examples below, which are also concrete examples of Qur’anic verses and verses from the Hadith, that are used to justify ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘extremism’. While the vast majority of Muslims believe that fundamentalism and extremism are un-Islamic, a closer look at the Qur’an itself, and the Hadith quickly proves otherwise; fundamentalism and extremism are at the core of Islam. In fact, the very idea that you must follow the book in it’s entirely in order to avoid hellfire, and you cannot leave the religion due to punishment by execution is harsh and extreme. It is no wonder, that those devoted Muslims, who adhere to this rule, carry out the Will of Allah by oppressing women, enslaving children, killing infidels and those who choose to question Islam; they are the true followers of Allah’s words, or at least some of them.

Free Speech or Freedom to Practice any religion or NO religion without discrimination or the threat of violence

Islam is the only Abrahamic religion, where insulting the Prophet, God, or leaving Islam is considered Apostasy and is punishable by death.

Qur’an (4:89) – “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

 

Qur’an (9:11-12) – “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.”   

Bukhari (83:37) – “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”

Bukhari (84:57) – [In the words of] “Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

Bukhari (89:271) – A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to “the verdict of Allah and his apostle.”

Bukhari (2794) The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “Whoever changes his religion, execute him”.

Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.” (Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)

Separation of Church and State

Islamic rule is supposed to be forced, according to both the Qur’an and Hadith. Moreover, those who are not Muslim must pay a Jizya tax, which translates to penalty tax for not being Muslim and are required to follow Islamic rule. This was done during the Ottoman Empire.

(Qur’an 9:29) “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…

Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

(Bukhari 53:386) Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: — “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”  (This is being recounted during the reign of Umar, Muhammad’s companion and the second caliph who sent conquering armies into non-Muslim Persian and Christian lands (after Muhammad’s death). 

Muslim (19:4294) If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.

Ishaq 956 & 962 – “He who withholds the Jizya is an enemy of Allah and His apostle.” 

Respect for minorities, including homosexuals
(Qur’an 7:80-84) … For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)” – An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom.  Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the “rain of stones” on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people’s destruction.  (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and 29).

 

Abu Dawud (4462) The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”. (Abu Dawud 4462)

 

Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 495 Narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As

The Messenger of Allah (saws) said:’Command your children to pray when they become seven years old, and enforce (beat) them for it (if they refuse to pray) when they become ten years old.’

Equal Rights for Women

This one is tough because sadly, I could go on for days. Of course you know the obvious ones – men can marry four, women can marry one. Women have a different way of divorcing than man, which includes returning her dowry or something of equal amount – which essentially back then could leave a woman in a very compromising position.

Qur’an (2:282) And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.

 

Qur’an (4:34) If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

Quran: (4:34) Men are in charge of women by [right of] what [qualities] Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [in support] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.

Qur’an (65:1 and 4) O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . (4) And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden.

Qur’an (4:11) Allah enjoins you about [the share of inheritance of] your children: A male’s share shall equal that of two females — in case there are only daughters, more than two shall have two-thirds of what has been left behind. And if there be only one daughter, her share shall be half — and if the deceased has children, the parents shall inherit a sixth each, and if he has no children and the parents are his heirs then his mother shall receive a third, and if he has brothers and sisters then the mother’s share is the same one-sixth. [These shares shall be distributed] after carrying out any will made by the deceased or payment of any debt owed by him (the deceased). You know not who among your children and your parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of Allah. Indeed Allah is wise, all knowing.

Qur’an: (2:228) …And due to them [i.e., the wives] is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. And Allah is exalted in Might and Wise.

Bukhari (1:9:490) Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him.”

(Bukhari (304) “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) went out to the musalla (prayer place) on the day of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is deficient in our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.”

 

I think you would also find it interesting that the Qur’an promotes slavery as the will of God, and encourages sex with slaves numerous times.

Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee” 

Qur’an (23:5-6) – “..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” 

Qur’an (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.”  Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur’an (8:69) – “But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good” 

Qur’an (24:32) – “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…”

Qur’an (2:178) – “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” 

Qur’an (16:75) – “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah.”

Bukhari (3:765) Narrated Kuraib: the freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted (set free) a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, “Do you know, O Allah’s Apostle, that I have manumitted (set free) my slave-girl?” He said, “Have you really?” She replied in the affirmative. He said, “You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles.

To think that 1.5 billion people in the world are indoctrinated to think that these are the words of a God that is loving and merciful, baffles my mind. Although those numbers may not be entirely accurate, since the vast majority of Muslims who flee from the religion in Islamic countries remain in the “closet” in order to avoid the death penalty. Even in the West, Muslims who leave their faith have to fear being disowned, threatened or having their lives endangered.

The more I read Islamic scripture, the more I realize that it seems to have very little to do with faith, compassion or spirituality, but is otherwise rooted in controlling and oppressing its followers in the name of religion. A celestial dictator who promotes slavery, condones sex with prepubescent women, the beating of women, the stoning of homosexuals and the execution of people with different beliefs, seems neither spiritual nor merciful. It is unfortunate that the vast majority of “moderate” and “liberal” Muslims have not taken the time to read the Qur’an and Hadith, and blindly continue to identify themselves as Muslims, not knowing that the very religion they associate themselves with violates even the most basic of human rights. While almost all Muslims are taught to memorize and recite segments of the Qur’an at a very young age, I wonder how many of them actually understand the meaning of what they are saying? …Apparently not enough! I urge all Muslims, particularly those with moderate and progressive views to read both the Qur’an and Hadith in order to draw their own conclusions regarding Islam. If you opt to simply listen to your parents, or the Imam at your Masjid, they will likely fail to mention the countless amounts of offensive and atrocious verses within the texts, either due to their own ignorance or in order to avoid controversy. Contrary to what many Muslims will attest to, The Qur’an and Hadith are easy to read, simple to understand and contain very little complexity — I promise you don’t need an Imam to hold your hand along the way…so start reading and make up your own mind! Ignorance is not bliss, liberation is, and the only way you can truly liberate yourself is by actively seeking the truth, not having it dictated to you.

A common argument from those liberal Muslims, who neither want to accept nor research the information I have presented to you, is “Then why are 1.5 billion Muslims following Islam?” The argument that the size of an organization is evidence of its legitimacy is weak and should be dismissed because we could also use this argument to justify the legitimacy of organized crime and cults. Simply because a set of people choose to adhere to a certain ideology or lifestyle, does not mean that the lifestyle or ideology to which they follow is good, it can also be very bad. Similarly, the fact that most Germans (nearly 67 million) were either silent or supported Hitler in carrying out the Holocaust cannot be used to justify the legitimacy of the Holocaust; it is disturbing and horrific no matter which way you look at it.

Furthermore, if numbers are a reflection of legitimacy, one could also ask why there was only one Freud, one Einstein, one Voltaire and one Stephen Hawkins? Throughout history, the most intelligent and ground-breaking individuals in both Science and Philosophy have denounced the concept of an Omnipotent, All-Knowing, Celestial Dictator – is that a coincidence? Is it also a coincidence that the vast majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world will neither read the Qur’an nor the Hadith (in a language they understand) in their lifetime? Surveys suggest that 80-90% of Muslims do not speak Arabic and must be willing to read a translation, however the vast majority consider it enough to read the Qur’an in Arabic for its “due reward”. This suggests that the vast majority of Muslims are living in ignorance – a lack of knowledge and information to support their Islamic belief. I would then argue that while there is undoubtedly a large number of Muslims around the world, it is not a reflection of Islam being true; it is merely a reflection of ignorance, blind faith and other socio-economic factors, which have resulted in Islam growing in overwhelming numbers. Poverty, illiteracy, high birth rate, lack of birth control and execution for Apostasy are all serious factors in Muslim countries, which contribute to the growing number of Muslims as well. And what about converts? I get this argument all the time too. Ask yourself how many conversions you’ve witnessed that weren’t merely because a Muslim and a non-Muslim wanted to get married and in order to do so, the non-Muslim had to embrace Islam? I’ve seen it a dozen times, and in each case, the convert had an ulterior motive and was not well read in Islam. Recent polls suggest that 75% of converts to Islam in the United States leave the religion within their first three years after conversion and according to the Quilliam Foundation, over 50% percent of converts in Britain leave Islam within the first two years, post-conversion.

JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER

ISLAM AND THE RADICAL MINORITY MYTH

Radicalism, we are continuously told, is a small minority within the endless, confusing depths of Islam. The vast majority, if not all, Muslims are peaceful, because Islam is peace, right? The first red light with these statements that the politicians, media and apologists alike are quick to ram down the throat of anyone who dares to discuss the never ending atrocities happening worldwide in the name of religion, is the blind and all encompassing claim that Islam is peace. Islam is no peace; Islam is submission. Total, deliberately blind, irrevocable submission to Allah through the message passed down to Muhammad and recorded in the Qur’an. The second red light is the application of common sense to the claims that radicalism is a minority; how is such a tiny, almost insignificant minority having such fatal and devastating effects on human life across half of the globe? Why has the surely overpowering, vast majority not squashed out the unwanted, unsupported radical minority destroying the image of peace they claim Islam is? And if radical actions carried out with blood in the name of this “peaceful” Islam, why is there always a deafening silence in the wake of innocent, non Muslim people being slaughtered by Muslims, in the name of Islam?

So is radicalism a small minority in Islam, or is this simply a politically correct pacifier fed to the blissfully unaware masses?

When looking at the concept of radical Muslims, it does not mean jihadists/terrorists only. A radical is not always a jihadist, and a jihadist is not always a radical. In fact, the vast majority of radicals never engage in jihad – they just support it. In this article I am addressing the every day, average Muslim, many of whom claim or are claimed to be moderate Muslims.

For the purpose of this article, in the interest of looking at the radical element of Islam, radicalism is defined as; support of implementation of strict sharia law, terrorists and terrorist acts, honour killings, female genital mutilation, and so on and so forth. By researching online, and collecting information from various sources and statistical data research, I found the following.

In this video by Ben Shapiro, survey data from the following certainly does not support the theory that radicalism is a minority, side show feature of Islam. All data presented is from PEW research, and defines radical as outline above.
Indonesia -which has the largest population of Muslims at approximately 205 million Muslims, of which 143 million hold radical beliefs

Egypt – 80 million Muslims of which 55.2 million hold radical beliefs

Pakistan – 179 million Muslims of which 135.4 million hold radical beliefs

Bangladesh – 149 million Muslims of which 121.9 million hold radical beliefs

Nigeria – 75.7 million Muslims of which 53.7 million hold radical beliefs

Iran – 74.8 million Muslims of which 62.1 million hold radical beliefs

Turkey – 74.7 million Muslims of which 23.9 million hold radical beliefs

Morocco – 32.4 million Muslims of which 24.6 million hold radical beliefs

Iraq – 31.9 million Muslims of which 24.3 million hold radical beliefs

Afghanistan – 24 million Muslims of which 24 million radicals hold radical beliefs

Jordan – 6.4 million muslims of which 3.8 million hold radical beliefs

Palestinian areas – 4.3 million Muslims of which 3.83 million hold radical beliefs

Research also shows that in non Islamic countries;

France – 4.7 million Muslims of which 1.6 million hold radical beliefs

Great Britain – 2.8 million Muslims of which 2.2 million hold radical beliefs

US 2.6 million Muslims of which over 500,000 hold radical beliefs

This only shows 12 of the 49 Islamic countries in the world, and only 3 western countries where populations of Muslims reside. Of the mentioned countries, which is not even half of the total global Muslim population, a total of 680,030,000 Muslims hold radical beliefs out of the total 942 million Muslims in those countries. This is more than half, not just a fraction, over half of the Muslim populations mentioned are considered, by definition, radicalised.

We know from countries like Saudi Arabia adhering to strict sharia law and the high radical jihadism in countless other countries, that the same high percentages of radical beliefs exist in those countries too. Which undeniably takes the number of radical Muslims to well over half of the entire Muslim population world wide. Which really begs to differ to the tiny minority claim.

But let’s keep looking;

27% of Young French Muslims (1.62 million) back the Islamic State, poll finds source

A PEW research published a study in 2007 under the name Muslim Americans Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream (Released May 22, 2007). It revealed that a large number of Muslims in the West support suicide bombings (mass murders). The numbers are probably much higher today. source

More than 42 Million Muslims support ISIS and support is growing. The study, based on four recent polls, reveals the shocking level of support for the caliphate around the world. Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project, which carried out the research, warned that “ISIS is only a fraction of what it could potentially become”. He said: “If we don’t act quickly, this is still going to grow – and what we’re looking at today is going to look like the good old days compared to the future.” More than 8.5million people view ISIS positively, and around 42million view them somewhat positively, according to the data. source

In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State terrorist group, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. Al Jazeera

Palestinians have the highest percentage support for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda – PEW statistics

Pew Poll Analysis: A Billion Muslims Want Sharia Law source

BBC Poll: 49% of UK Muslims endorse hate preachers; 11% support Jihad; 27% support Charlie Hebdo execution BBC

The number of deaths from terrorism increased by 61% between 2012 and 2013, a study into international terrorism says. There were nearly 10,000 terrorist attacks in 2013, a 44% increase from the previous year, the Global Terrorism Index 2014 report added. The report said militant groups Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and the Taliban were behind most of the deaths.

This is only a fraction of the data and information available online. Don’t take my word for it, research for yourself. Use the links provided or start your own google search and start fresh.

The issue of radicalism is very clearly not a minor element of Islam. Many parts, hundreds of verses in fact, of the Qur’an are radical. It is impossible to deny that there is a global epidemic of Islamist extremism, resulting in distorted perceptions of reality and the world, which is proving fatal for all too many innocent people, muslims included. This article is not an attack against all muslims, because there are millions of peaceful muslims who do not share these radical views. But these are issues that must be discussed openly and honestly, and addressed by muslims and non muslims alike for there to be any hope of peace and functional multi-religion and secular societies.

Reezy Smith, TTEONB

JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER

Is Islam winning? You bet they are!

There is no doubt whatsoever that we in Australia have a problem with Islam and it would be folly to say or think otherwise. The problem is not only with radical Islam.  Self-proclaimed ‘moderate Muslims’ exacerbate the situation. Those who firstly fail to speak out in any meaningful way against what we know as ‘radical Islam’ and secondly the ‘moderate Muslims’ insist that the radicals have nothing to do with Islam.

Further confusion arises in the suggestion that Muslim youths are being radicalised and that radicalisation has resulted in a number of youths leaving Australia to join Islamic terrorists ISIL.

There exists reluctance from Islamic leaders to accept that radicalisation of their youth is taking place inside their own Mosques and Muslim bookshops. Some of these Islamic leaders state quite clearly that it is our fault that their youths are running off the rails.

Our government, ASIO, ASIS, our Defence Minister and his hapless Assistant Defence Minister, ADF leaders and defence bureaucrats should be getting together to formulate a logical and credible plan to recognise all aspects of the problems and take coordinated actions to correct them. What we see instead is a gaggle of politicians, bureaucrats, security agents and defence leaders who are all over the place, a veritable dogs breakfast. In the middle of that confusion there is Gillian Triggs, who, with her version of a Human Rights Commission believes we should be compensating Muslim criminals with taxpayers’ money.

So what has the government come up with to combat the problems associated with Islam in Australia? It planned to toughen up the laws on hate speech and anti-discrimination. It planned to introduce new anti-terror laws with the cooperation of the Islamic leaders. Those Islamic leaders immediately told Abbott to shove his new laws up his jumper. Goodness, after all we can’t have laws outlawing the promotion of Jihad—can we?

Toughening hate speech laws and failing to scrap 18C is really mindless and does little more than empower an army of “Thought Police” who will happily hound anyone with the temerity to call out the antics of Muslims here and overseas.

We should be asking why they are not toughening up the laws of treason and applying them to the many Islamic radicals who are seemingly allowed open slather in promoting terrorism and radicalising Muslim youth in their Mosques with a view to sending them to join overseas terrorist groups such as ISIS. There has never been a whole lot of common sense out of Inspector Clouseau and Schmidt the Spy.

It is mind boggling that the ADF now has an Islamic Imam who is sympathetic with Hizb ut-Tahrir, a banned terrorist organisation in a number of countries.  Hizb ut-Tahrir is the Islamic organisation that recently called for an Islamic army to be formed in Australia to force Sharia Law upon all Australians.

It doesn’t stop there. The Chief of our Navy in March 2013 appointed a Muslim Captain, Mona Shindy, to be the Strategic Advisor on Islamic Cultural Affairs. There were 15 Muslims serving in Navy and 88 employed across the ADF.

Some of the stuff that is coming from Captain Shindy is worrying and all Australians should view her words with utmost concern, if not alarm

Captain Shindy begins by telling us, “Why then have Muslims been linked to terrorism? Terrorism is an unjustifiable, abhorrent act that has nothing to do with Islam.”  There it is right from the start – Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

Some readers may not realise that our Navy has introduced a special uniform for Muslim women now serving within its ranks. That’s nothing to worry about you may think. Well, think about this; the introduction of the Hijab into official Australia Navy dress is in order to comply with the dress code required by the Quran and that now makes our Navy compliant with Sharia Law. Sharia Law is being surreptitiously introduced little by little in the hope we won’t notice. How many other ideologies are given that concession within the ADF?

Captain Shindy says that, “There is no way that Muslim women are oppressed.”  She goes on to contradict herself by saying that the exception is in certain Islamic countries (all of them). Confusing isn’t she?

Then comes a real doozy. According to Shindy, there is nothing wrong with Islam; it is our Western values that are the problem. Yep, there it is again – it is our fault. Here is what Shindy has to say about that,“Continuing to assess Muslim behaviour and lifestyle through a Western lens, shaped through Western historical experiences and understanding (which is very different to Islamic history and tradition), is fraught with danger and is perhaps the main reason for incorrect conclusions and views being reached.”

Yes, of course we reached incorrect conclusions that 99.9 % of terrorists throughout the world are Islamic. Gee, any fool can see how silly we are. So if we all change our way of thinking to fall into line with Islam then there won’t be a problem.

There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of Islamic terrorist acts perpetrated every single day right throughout the world. There are hundreds of Islamic terrorist groups active across the planet and we know that is a fact because all of them tell us that they are Muslims.

According to Captain Shindy, we need to stop using the word Islam when discussing Islamic terrorists. The Captain says, “Indeed, the word ‘Islam’ needs to be removed from reporting on ISIS/ISIL or Daesh. The barbaric nature and ideology of these groups has nothing to do with Islam and we should work to limit their appeal to vulnerable Muslims, preventing the use and advertising of ‘Islam’ in their name.  

Captain Shindy doesn’t appear to understand that Muslims are their own enemies possessed of a victim mentality that leads them to believe that it is not they who are at fault but everyone else. The woman doesn’t make any reference to Muslims taking actions to clean up their own mess and that is probably because she firmly believes Islam has nothing to answer for.

They move into our world and expect us to change our lifestyle, our culture and our laws to suit them.  They make little if any effort to integrate and cite imaginary oppression that, if it exists, is brought upon them.

Written by Jack Cade, source

JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER

Is the Qur’an really the message of Allah?

We are told that the Qur’an is the message of Allah as told to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel over the remaining period of his life. As Muhammad could not read nor write in his lifetime the verses were committed to heart by his followers and no one it seems thought to commit it to paper until at least one year after his death. This apparently then took 20 years in total to piece together, or did it? It wasn’t until 100 years after his alleged death that the first sighting or knowledge of Islam and the Qur’an came into being with the first known reference to a Prophet called Muhammad appearing 60 years after his alleged death.
Now I have a hypothetical question to ask of people here: who can remember word for word what was told to them 15 years ago? Maybe even ten years ago? Okay well what about 2 months, you should be able to remember word for word what was said right, right? I am sure most of us here have heard of or even played the game of Chinese Whispers. Do you remember it started out as a simple thing like ” Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth” and we all know by the time it got down to the last person, quite sometime later, the message was completely different. Now there are those that will say ‘Oh but wait! The words may be different but the message is the same and therefore means exactly as what was spoken.’
So okay back to the prophet Muhammad. He said some things to his followers and we are to believe that they took his exact words over the next 20 years after he died and committed all of these to paper, oh and in the correct order! Well here comes the interesting thing. It seems they didn’t, or they did, or maybe they didn’t, oh wait only those that were closest to the prophet truly knew the correct order not the mere followers of him and the correct meanings. By this time the words of Allah had already been spread by word far and wide across the northern region of Africa and into Asia (Turkey, Afghanistan and the northern parts of India now known as Pakistan).
So now all of a sudden it is no longer the direct message of Allah as it has now been contaminated by man. So it was arranged into a nice little book for followers to read. These men that put together this book decided to put all the good nice peaceful bits he said while he was in Medina at the back of the book and all the evil stuff about killing and raping and so on at the front to look as though it had been abrogated by the later bits.
Now that last bit there is true. The Medina parts of the Qur’an were indeed abrogated by the Meccan parts which came later. We know that Muhammad was first kicked out of Mecca and he went and set up shop in Medina until he could get enough followers to go back and take Mecca. So now when you read the Qur’an in its chronological order, the order most Muslims don’t want you to know, the story becomes quite different.
Now fair call to Muhammad as he was not a dimwit. He spoke verses of peace and love for everyone when he first lived in Mecca as his new religion didn’t have a lot of followers. Later in Medina when he did gain more and more followers the verses became quite evil towards those that didn’t follow Islam. Now stop for a minute and think about this. Why is it the bigger and bigger and more and more people “joined” Muhammad did Islam become more about killing and raping and all the bad stuff? Surely if Allah was peaceful at the beginning wouldn’t he still be so as the numbers grew? Ah yes of course the larger Muhammad’s group of followers become the more resistance they experienced. Why if they were so peaceful would they receive any kind of resistance? Why would Allah say to Muhammad turn to killing until all people submit to him, by the way hence Islam, which means to submit. It just does not make any sense at all for a god to be so full of hate of everything he supposedly created. Why create it all just to hate it or ruin it.
So anyway at that time amongst all the battles, killing, conquering and expansion of this new ideology no one thought to put it to paper until after the self proclaimed prophet died? Honestly we’re supposed to believe that each time he spoke everyone had memories like no other human and was able to remember precisely what he said word for word throughout the remainder of Muhammad’s life and then for a further 20 years after his death?! Now I know there are people out there that if you tell them something they will remember it almost word for word but it is fair to say based on my own experience managing staff, that they won’t remember it for very long unless it is written down.
After Muhammad’s death man altered and quite probably added their own interpretation as to what was meant by these verses gifted to the prophet by the Angel Gabriel, see even Allah himself didn’t directly speak to Muhammad. Throw in the hadith as the teachings of how this person allegedly lived his life and one must ask: What sane person anywhere in the world with a peaceful mindset would follow such rubbish?

So look I am not going to go into the greatest depths of history of the time period in which Muhammad came up with these passages as it is all already out there. I do suggest people, no matter what faith, go and have a look and see what you find. I have read many books on the times of Muhammad and also many web based pieces and so on and they all say exactly what I have said so none of this is untrue. Have a read also of just two links of many that list the chronological order of the Qur’an and not the one Muslims want you to read. Have a read of it and also study the Hadith as well so you can then go and ask questions, question to people that actually know what they are talking about. People like Sam Harris, Dr Mark Durie, Maajid Nawaz, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, Pamella Geller but also find Muslim Islamic scholars. Not your everyday Muslim you find on the street because some of them haven’t even read nor seen the Qur’an and only believe what they are told (hmmm that sounds familiar in this history line). Research it all. Take the time to truly get to know and understand exactly every facet of Islam and also Muslims. Learn the different cultures within Islam and see how Muslims are not just of one race. Learn the fights that happened within Islam to decide who should be the true successor of the prophet and why the Sunni and Shi’a went their separate ways. Learn about the Sufi Muslim and all other sects within Islam. Learn their interpretation of the exact same “book”. Don’t just take the word of what you read in the newspaper or hear on the television because yes a lot of times the reporter/presenter is putting in their own misconceptions of the topic in to the pieces. Especially don’t take the word of those on the left or those on the far right because those people aren’t open to true unbiased knowledge, plus most of them truly are crazy. Be careful though in who you align with though but most of all seek the truth. If you don’t have time to read then make time.

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Rodwell_Koran.html

http://chronquran.blogspot.com.au/

JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER

The Dangers of Legitimizing Muslim Grievances

There is no surer path to Muslim violence than through the legitimization of Muslim grievance. And once you accept the legitimacy of the grievance, then you are also bound to accept the legitimacy of the violence that follows.

Violence begins with grievance. Grievance is the pretext for violence and the narrative for the violence. Liberals make a fetish of separating the grievance from the violence, emphasizing constructive means of resolving the grievance. But what do you do when the grievance and the violence are inseparable? Grievance is the stories that Muslims tell themselves to justify their violence. To explain why they kill children and why they murder the innocent. The list of grievances is an endless as the violence. Every act of violence carries its own narrative.

The endless Muslim conflicts throughout the world all carry their burden of history. But it isn’t a history that can be resolved with a tolerance session. Muslim grievances are the frustration of conquerors, the broken teeth of predators who weren’t allowed to feed on the world until their stomachs burst. All the lands they couldn’t conqueror, the peoples who rebelled against their rule, the inferior civilizations that pushed them back and drove them off. The swine who build skyscrapers and enjoy the fine things in life.  The civil rights model of social conflict resolution accepts grievances as legitimate and then tries to ‘heal’ through them through social justice. And when that model is applied to Muslims, it turns into empty appeasement because the conflicts at the heart of Muslim violence cannot be resolved through integration or representation.

Applying the word “justice” in any form to a conflict involving Muslims is wasted ink. The problem begins with a clash of definitions. To a citizen of a secular Western state, “injustice” means a lack of representation. To a Muslim, “injustice” means a lack of Islamic jurisprudence. A Non-Muslim state is always unjust simply because it is not ruled by Islamic law. The fundamental Muslim grievance is that they are not in power, not just in Israel where the world has accepted their demand to be in power as a wholly moral and legitimate demand, or throughout the Muslim world where Western governments have helped bring the Islamists to power with bombs and political pressure. The fundamental grievance is that they are not in power… everywhere. If you believe that Islam is the fundamental law of mankind, that all mankind at one time were Muslims and that there is no true justice except through Islamic law– then it follows naturally that Muslims have been cheated of their rightful power, that they are forced to live under “atheistic” regimes and that “justice” demands that the world “revert” to Islamic rule. It’s why the rhetoric of democracy falls notoriously flat when it comes to Islam.

Muslims are not out for representation except as a preliminary stage to absolute power. They may route the guardianship of that absolute power power in various ways, through a dictator or some form of popular democracy, but these are only vehicles for the imposition of Islamic law. The absolute power of Islamic law is justified by its origin in Allah and the unjust nature of non-Muslim law is equally proven by its lack of divine origin. If you take Islamic assumptions at face value, then this makes perfect sense. Therefore a devout Muslim cannot view a non-Muslim society as just. Equating an infidel code with Sharia is blasphemy. And so the logic of Islam dictates that Western Muslims must view themselves as oppressed. Like the struggle with the left, this is a clash between the ideal and the real.

Totalitarian idealists are always outraged because compared to their ideal every system is rotten, corrupt and unjust. Whether it’s the ideal of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or the Guardianship of the Jurists, it all comes down to the tyranny of the ideal against the immorality of the real. The representational compromises that make the modern Republic work are anathema to people who believe that they have the perfect system which will be absolutely just… because it is perfect. Muslim grievances justify endless war against the real, in the name of the ideal, without ever having to deal with the shortcomings of the ideal. The collectivism of the ideal disdains the individual except as a foot soldier, a martyr in bringing about the ideal. The infidels are unworthy of life because they are immersed in the grossness of the real. And the suicide bomber rejects the real for the ideal by disdaining his own life, much as he disdains the despised earthly women, but the demon virgins of paradise who represent another ideal. The common denominator of the cartoon controversies, Muslim wars around the world and just about every other grievance, from their claim to Spain to their demand for more mosques, is an insistence on power at the expense of others. Everyone has to keep paying a price for Muslim grievance– either in rights and freedoms, or in blood.

Muslim violence is already a self-perpetuating grievance engine. If Muslims win a war, then they’re heroes. If they lose a war, then they were betrayed, undermined from within and had what was theirs stolen from them. The grudges will fester for a thousand years and touch off endless wars until they get what they want or they lose the ability to fight those wars. The purpose of war is conquest. Islam treats Muslim conquest as a form of justice. A failed conquest is an injustice. Try applying social justice to a mindset like that and what you’re left with is Europe today. Since no Muslim should ever have to live under the unjust rule of infidels, there is always a cause for war and a fifth column waiting to rise up and demand their right to rule over everyone else. And the war is endless– its origins written in blood on the pages of Islamic scripture. Innocence is the root of grievance, the “I was minding my own business until he came up and hit me and then I had to burn his village, rape his daughters and spend a thousand years enslaving his descendants” narrative of Islam. First comes the innocence and then comes the genocide.

Legitimizing Muslim grievance means accepting their narrative of innocence. Their “I was minding my own business until this cartoon offended me, until I was hauled off to Gitmo for absolutely no reason, until people give me dirty looks on the street for absolutely no reason and then I just had to kill as many of them as I could” narrative. That narrative of innocence is a lie. People are not innocent, and the conquerors and oppressors of much of the world are certainly a long way from innocent. Historical Islam was a brutal conquering ideology that fed off blood and human misery. No amount of revisionist history will make that go away and the revisionist history is a disgusting insult to the millions killed and the cultures wiped out for the greater glory of Islam. A religion that has never stopped practicing genocide, slavery and repression as religious mandates is the worst positioned to act out the charade of innocence, to pretend that everything was fine until the Ottoman Empire fell and the British and French colonialists replaced the Muslim colonialists and gave the local minorities civil rights instead of a spiked boot in the face. Legitimizing Islamic grievance is dangerous not only because it feeds the self-righteous violence of Muslims, but because it convinces well-meaning Westerners that maybe they have a point.

Once we accept the grievance, then it becomes hard to resist the violence, except by calling for more peaceful means of resolution. And if those peaceful means of resolution fail… then the violence is justified. The Israeli peace process is a case study of how this process operates, how the legitimization of Muslim grievance comes to justify its violence, and how its own obstruction of negotiations disproves the peaceful means of resolution, which then doubly justifies the violence. Rejecting the grievance also rejects the violence, it prevents the narrative from getting its foot in the door, the mosquito whine that pitifully pleads even as it’s sinking its stinger into your neck. Fighting that narrative requires pulling back to see the sweep of history, the conquering armies of the Caliphs bringing slavery, destroying cultures, burning books and oppressing millions. And it requires that we see history repeating itself again. Grievance was at the root of Mohammed’s conquests. His “I was minding my own business, preaching a totalitarian ideology that said non-Muslims are inferior dogs when someone made fun of me, so of course I had them killed and fought a war and enslaved their descendants for all time” narrative. Poor innocent me.

Muslims must believe themselves to be moral, or accept that they are mass murderers fighting wars and destroying civilizations. And they need us to accept their narrative, to view them as moral actors resisting oppression and injustice– rather than monsters spreading pain, hate and fear in formerly peaceful places. While we may not be able to prevent them from believing their lies, accepting their lies deludes us and them… and directly feeds violence. When Americans keep repeating that Islamophobia is a major problem, Muslims treat this as an admission of guilt and a justification for violence. When Europeans accept that freedom of speech should take a back seat to Muslim sensitivities, then Muslims hold it up as proof that they don’t really believe in freedom of speech and that those who insist on it are not following principles, but are deliberately agitating against Muslims. Everyone who shouts “Blood for Oil”, denounces Gitmo, rants about Israeli occupation and all the rest of it is legitimizing Muslim violence, whether or not they mean to do so. And when they perpetuate a myth of Islamic innocence, they are denying Muslims the opportunity to make a moral reckoning without which they cannot improve or change. Wars begin as stories and end as stories. The Muslims have been telling their story for a long time. And these days we’re telling their story too.

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog source

JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER

Muslim Honor Killings

Honor killings are an irrevocable part of sharia law and Islam. Most of the victims of these killings are female, and someone killed for “honor” could have been charged with something as trivial as a suspicion,  and the usual accusation is adultery. This barbaric practice is driven by the delusion that only the death of the offending person will restore honor within the family, and honor killings are almost always carried out by immediate family members. There is usually no trial, no chance for the victim to defend themselves or any consideration for the victim. Victims can be stoned to death publicly, set on fire, have acid thrown at them that melts away their flesh, be decapitated or have their throat cut, or simply shot down n cold blood – all of this is quite often without warning.

There is a deep rooted gender bias within the act of honour killing; the vast majority, some statistical data claim over 80% of the victims are female, and the average age of victims worldwide is 23 years old. Being female, young and muslim can be fatal if accused of “immoral” behaviour.

The Middle East Quarterly advises that worldwide, more than half the victims were tortured; i.e., they did not die instantly but in agony. In North America, over one-third of the victims were tortured; in Europe, two-thirds were tortured; in the Muslim world, half were tortured. Torturous deaths include: being raped or gang-raped before being killed; being strangled or bludgeoned to death; being stabbed many times (10 to 40 times); being stoned or burned to death; being beheaded, or having one’s throat slashed. The MEQ also punlished the following data;

REGION	Worldwide	North America	Europe	Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE	23	25	22	23
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2	66	49	66	72
Family Position1
— Daughter/Sister	53	50	49	56
— Wife/Girlfriend	23	27	34	17
— Other3	24	33	27	27
Paternal Participation4	37	53	39	31
Multiple Perpetrators	42	42	45	41
Multiple Victims1	17	30	7	21
Tortured1	53	39	67	49
Motive4
— “too Western”	58	91	71	43
— “sexual impropriety”	42	9	29	57

In Pakistan, where honor killing is wide spread, a pregnant 25-year-old woman was stoned to death by her family for marrying a man she loved.

The stoning took place in the middle of the day, outside a courthouse, beside a busy thoroughfare. The woman and her husband had been “in love,” her husband said, and they’d gone to a courthouse to sign the paperwork. Outside, the woman’s father, brothers and extended family waited. When the couple emerged, the family reportedly tried to snatch her, then murdered her.

“I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it,” her father told police, adding that it had been an “honor killing.” source

This is very typical for honor killings. Imagine being killed painfully by your own family simply for falling in love…

The following are some statistics on honor killings, as published by Muslim Statistics;

Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/03/turkey-war-on-women/
http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=170502&bolum=100

Civitas: 1 in 3 Muslims in the UK strongly agree that a wife should be forced to obey her husband’s bidding
http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

BBC Poll: 1 in 10 British Muslims support killing a family member over “dishonor”.
http://www.expressandstar.com/blogs/peter-rhodes/2011/12/28/honour-killing-%E2%80%93-a-stain-on-our-nation/

Middle East Quarterly: 91 percent of honor killings are committed by Muslims worldwide.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43207

95% of honor killings in the West are perpetrated by Muslim fathers and brothers or their proxies.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/21/barbara-kay-continue-calling-honour-killings-by-its-rightful-name/

A survey of Muslim women in Paris suburbs found that three-quarters of them wear their masks out of fear – including fear of violence.
http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3402230

Two-thirds of young British Muslims agree that ‘honor’ violence is acceptable.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117003/More-thirds-young-British-Muslims-believe-honour-violence-acceptable-survey-reveals.html

Pew Research (2013): Large majorities of Muslims favor Sharia.  Among those who do, stoning women for adultery is favored by 89% in Pakistanis, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, ~50% in ‘moderate’ Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, and 26% in Russia.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Pew Research (2013): Honor killing the woman for sex outside of marriage is favored over honor killing the man in almost every Islamic country.  Over half of Muslims surveyed believed that honor killings over sex were at least partially justified.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

(2013) Jordanian teens support honor killing.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130620-jordan-teens-still-think-honour-killings-justified-study

“Islamic gender apartheid is a human rights violation and cannot be justified in the name of cultural relativism, tolerance, anti-racism, diversity, or political correctness. As long as Islamist groups continue to deny, minimize, or obfuscate the problem, and government and police officials accept their inaccurate versions of reality, women will continue to be killed for honor in the West. The battle for women’s rights is central to the battle for Europe and for Western values. It is a necessary part of true democracy, along with freedom of religion, tolerance for homosexuals, and freedom of dissent. Here, then, is exactly where the greatest battle of the twenty-first century is joined”  – Phyllis Chesler,  professor of psychology and women’s studies at the Richmond College of the City University of New York and co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology and the National Women’s Health Network.

JOIN TTEONB on FACEBOOK

JOIN TTEONB on TWITTER