Tag Archives: Apostasy in Islam

Islam Has A Problem With Free Speech

Posted on by

I am currently reading the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin. In the book, the Mr. Coughlin explains the Islamic view of free speech and human rights. One of the things he makes clear in the book is that in Islam, human rights and free speech must be subject to Sharia Law. Simply stated, this means that apostasy or slander can be punishable by death. Under Sharia Law, slander is defined as anything that makes the person hearing it unhappy–truth is not relevant in the definition. A recent story posted at Dr. Rich Swier’s blog illustrates this. The headline of the story is, “UC Berkeley Student’s Article Pulled Over Fears For Her Safety.”

This is the article:

If someone had told me six years ago that I would leave Islam and end up an atheist, I would never have believed him.

I was born and raised as a Muslim. I grew up in a Muslim country — Pakistan — surrounded by other Muslims who were convinced that their religion was the one true religion. My family, in particular, followed moderate Sunni Islam, which is a more liberal approach based on the “Sunnah,” or Prophet’s teachings. That was the path I set out on. But now, as a Muslim apostate and atheist, my journey couldn’t have led me any further from what I once knew to be true.

Until I was 14, I simply accepted everything I’d been told about Islam. I was taught that being born into a Muslim family is a blessing and is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon someone. I initially thought the Sunni path I followed was the one true path, just like my Shia, Bori and Ismaili friends adhered to the teachings of the sects their families followed. I noticed how everyone around me claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, which made me question who was actually right. I started to view Islam — and religion in general — as something dogmatic, irrational, unscientific and, most of all, completely sexist.

A feminist since age 10, it’s always been hard for me to reconcile my feminism with my faith. Even though the Pakistani society in which I grew up was sexist, my family has always been very progressive. As a result, I never accepted the male superiority and traditional gender roles that were part of my society. For most of my teen years, I felt torn apart by my contradictory beliefs. On one hand, I was a radical feminist who supported gay rights. But on the other hand, I was a practicing Muslim whose religion was clearly homophobic and placed men above women.

At that point, I still believed in an all-knowing God, and I felt that if I learned more about Islam, I would be able to understand why it stated the things it did. I read the Quran with translation and countless books on Islamic jurisprudence. I started taking classes at Zaynab Academy and Al-Huda, two traditional Islamic organizations. The Islam they preached was not the liberal, fluid Islam of my parents: Instead, it followed the Quran very rigidly. While the moderate Muslims I knew never encouraged hijab or gender segregation, these institutions differed in their views. I started to follow a more ritualistic Islam, going as far as giving up listening to music and wearing the hijab.

Stifled by orthodox Islam, I decided to turn to a more liberal approach. I embraced Sufism, which is the mystical side of Islam, and began to see God as an entity of love. Feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud and Leila Ahmed, gave me a glimmer of hope that Islam and feminism could be compatible, although I later found their arguments very selective. On the other extreme, I read writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another ex-Muslim atheist, whose harsh criticism of Islam was not always justified.

After trying to understand Islam through a plurality of perspectives — orthodox, feminist, Sufi and liberal approaches — I decided to leave Islam, but by that point, I had realized that I didn’t need to look at things as black and white. I could leave Islam without dismissing it or labeling it as wrong.

Going through all of these versions of Islam has enabled me to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the religion. Islam is no monolith, and with more than 1.5 billion followers, it’s impossible to refer to Islam as a single entity. There are Muslim women who cover every inch of their bodies except for their eyes, and there are also Muslim women who wear short skirts. With so much variation amongst Muslims, it’s hard to determine who really gets to speak for Islam.

Despite being one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, Islam is still extremely misrepresented and shrouded with stereotypes. I want to address these stereotypes and portray Islam in all its diversity. I’ve experienced the religion firsthand and have also viewed it as an objective bystander. I probably spend more time thinking about God than most religious people; despite my skepticism, I’ve always yearned for a spiritual connection. I want to share what I’ve learned about Islam over the years. I plan to defend it and give credit where it’s due — Islam, after all, gave women the right to work and own property back in the seventh century — and I also plan to ruthlessly point out areas that need reform (yes, Islam does allow men to have four wives and sex slaves).

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Islam, it’s that my former religion, just like any other ideology, has its flaws. Religion should not be immune to criticism. It’s important to have an honest dialogue about religion and identify what can be improved — and that’s exactly what I plan to do.

The publishing of this article put the author’s life in danger.

The American First Amendment is at risk. According to the book Catastrophic Failure, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working with the United Nations since 2005 to subtly change the definition of free speech.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the world that America would not “criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.” (Page 309) Secretary Clinton supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education,, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.

Since the Muslim community seems to be the community that reacts to free speech with violence, we can see what this resolution is actually about. It is a quiet imposition of Sharia Law on non-Muslim countries. If my speech causes violence, I do not have the right to free speech. If my speech does not cause violence, it is acceptable. Logically it follows that since Christians and Jews do not kill people in response to negative statements, criticizing them must be acceptable as free speech. Since Muslims often respond to negative statements with violence, criticizing them is no longer legal.

This is the enemy we need to be aware of in America–the enemy that attacks our Constitution and freedom. It is a subtle attack that needs to be countered with truth and education. Unfortunately, our government and our mainstream media are not familiar with either of those concepts.

 

A Voice Of Wisdom Crying In The Darkness

Posted on by

According to the website AndrewCMcCarthy.com:

Andy is a former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, best known for leading the prosecution against the Blind Sheik (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven other jihadists for waging a terrorist war against the United States – including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. After the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the U.S. attorney’s command-post near Ground Zero. He later served as an advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

A few years ago, I had the privilege of hearing Mr. McCarthy speak in Massachusetts. At that time he explained his approach to prosecuting the Blind Sheik. He explained that his staff began to look at the writings of Islamic scholars in an effort to provide that the Blind Sheik was acting outside of the tenets of Islam. Unfortunately, as the investigation of those tenets progressed, the evidence pointed to the fact that the Blind Sheik was actually following the tenets of Islam.

In a National Review Online article written today, Mr. McCarthy again explains how Islam is in agreement with the recent attack in Paris. He explains that the attack was not the result of extremism–it was in keeping with the basic tenets of Islam.

The article begins:

There are now at least twelve confirmed dead in the terrorist attack carried out by at least three jihadist gunmen against the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo. While it practices equal-opportunity satire, lampooning Islam has proved lethal for the magazine, just as it has for so many others who dare to exercise the bedrock Western liberty of free expression. Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed in 2011 over a caricature of Mohammed that depicted him saying, “100 lashes if you don’t die from laughter.”

The cartoon was obviously referring to sharia, Islam’s legal code and totalitarian framework. Don’t take my word for it. Just flip through Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, the authoritative sharia manual. You will find a number of offenses for which flagellation is the prescribed penalty.

The article explains that Reliance of the Traveller is a renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture.

The article states:

In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements, including one from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank begun in the early Eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”). Perhaps more significantly, there is also an endorsement from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West.

In their endorsement, the al-Azhar scholars wrote:

We certify that the . . . translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community. . . . There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. . . . May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.

There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.

Reliance of the Traveller is the definitive interpretation of Islamic scripture. So what does Reliance of the Traveller say about the kind of attack that occurred in Paris?

The article quotes Reliance of the Traveller:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

Please follow the link to the article at National Review Online to see what other teachings are part of basic Islamic law. According to the laws of Islam, terrorism is not extreme–it is a basic tenet of Islam.

The terrorists were doing exactly what Reliance of the Traveller told them to do to punish apostasy. Whether the western world chooses to believe that or not, it is a fact. We had better accept that fact quickly or we will either lose the right to free speech or deal with similar attacks in the near future. The choice is ours.

 

This Is The Outcome Of Political Correctness

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Investors.com posted an article about recent events in Sweden. Sweden has an open-border immigration policy which resulted in the arrive of 100,000 refugees fleeing the conflict in the Balkans in the 1990’s, and  more recently, refugees from Iraq and other Arab countries settling there. Unfortunately, rather than rejoice in their new-found freedom, many of these refugees have brought the oppression of their former homelands with them.

The article explains what has happened:

The perils of multiculturalism and open borders have reached critical mass in Sweden. There are Muslim enclaves where postal, fire and other essential services — even police officers themselves —require police protection.

A police report released last month identifies 55 of these “no-go zones” in Sweden. These zones are similar to others that have popped up in Europe in recent years. They formed as large Muslim populations emigrating to politically correct and tolerant European states refuse to assimilate and set up virtual states within a state where the authorities fear to tread.

Soeren Kern of the Hudson Institute has documented the proliferation of these zones. They are de facto Muslim micro-states under Shariah law that reject Western values, society and legal systems. In these districts non-Muslims are expected to conform to the dictates of fundamentalist Islam or face violent consequences.

“A more precise name for these zones,” says Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes, “would be Dar al-Islam — the House of Islam or the place where Islam rules.”

This is not an imaginary tale about a small percentage of Muslims–this is something that is actually happening with the consent of a majority of the Muslim community. There have been no-go zones in France for decades.

Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion, and those Muslims who believe they are correctly following the Koran strive to set up Sharia Law in whatever country they settle. We have already had a court case where Christians were arrested for preaching near the site of a Muslim event in America (rightwinggranny). Many of our states have passed preemptive laws outlawing Sharia Law in their states. We need to aware of the fact that Islam is a conquering religion. Political correctness is not our friend in this matter.