Islamophobia

CAIR Video: One Man's Fight Against Islamophobia
CAIR's National Executive Director, Nihad Awad was interviewed by Dan Harris of ABC News April 20, '10, stemming from CAIR's objection to an interview with Wafa Sultan. I found this eight minute, 55 second video at Bare Naked Islam.



The video begins with brief excerpts from a speech and interview with Wafa Sultan. I suspect that the excerpts come from the Freedom Defense Initiative at CPAC in March. Video from that interview was found at Atlas Shrugs. The video confirmed my suspicion. Of course, the only "islamophobia" in the video was in brief cuts from her appearances on Al Jazeera.



I hope to select and transcribe the most egregious lies from Nihad Awad's interview. Do not assume that my transcription is word for word perfect, my hearing is poor, Awad speaks softly, and my computer's sound card is weak.

Wafa Sultan was shown telling FDI that "We must deal with the evil of Islam right now" so that our children won't have to deal with it..."so that the next generation can live in peace". Harris wanted to know what bothered Awad about that interview. .

"From the beginning we strongly believe in free speech. People are entitled to their opinions no matter how wrong they are. But when a person of this nature is interviewed and not challenged; is not opposed or there is no balance in the presentation, you feel that something was missing and that the racist remarks she made and allegations that she made against Muslims as a whole defies logic--defies common sense and basic knowledge... people learn about Islam--they know about Islam--she just reinforces stereotypes and mis-information and she was not challenged."

Islam does not believe in free speech. Islam forbids denial, questioning, sarcasm & reviling Allah, his messenger, the Qur'an and the doctrines derived from it.
Mentioning anything "impermissible" about Islam is one of the violations of dhimma which can cause a dhimmi to lose his protection from Muslims and be killed. The list of attitudes and acts entailing apostasy is documented here; the list of acts prohibited to dhimmis is documented here.

There was nothing inflammatory in the brief interview with Wafa Sultan. The closest she came to "Islamophobia" was in the clip from her speech at FDI when she mentioned "the evil of Islam". There wasn't anything concrete to counter in that interview, which lacked ideological detail.

The allegation of racist remarks is absolutely unfounded. Sultan explicitly stated that her opposition was to Islam, not to Muslims. Islam is not a race; it has enslaved and victimized people of several races. What allegations did she make "against Muslims as a whole"? She said that Islam is evil, and it is. Islam is violent, ordaining warfare, praising self sacrifice in battle against disbelievers as the best deed. Allah sanctifies terrorism and demands genocide. Islam declared war, permanent war, until the entire world is conquered.

Asked about intolerance, of which Islam is accused, Awad replied:

" That is just dead wrong, because Islamic history shows different than what people claim and the Qur'an...the best answer is from the Qur'an, otherwise, if you hear from someone as he would say... trying to spin the issue... the Qur'an emphasizes freedom, freedom of thought and religion...'let there be no compulsion in religion' this comes direct from the Qur'an, nobody can misunderstand it, nobody can misinterpret it. You can not force people to believe and act ... these are the words in the Qur'an. "

Islamic history shows extreme intolerance. I refer to the Pact of Umar. Hitler did not invent distinctive clothing for Jews, he adopted it from Islam. 3:85 clearly declares that choosing a religion other than Islam will never be accepted. Muslims are instructed, when encountering Jews & Christians on the road, not to gree them first and to shove them into the ditch. Doubt me? Then look it up: Sunan Abu Dawud 41.5186.

"No compulsion..." comes from 2:256. 3:110 declares believing Muslims to be the "best of peoples"; the meaning of that verse is explained in Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 : " means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam. ".

Asked about the treatment of women in KSA, for example:

" You have to differentiate between culture and religion and sometimes there is a big difference between the two. My understanding of my faith ... women are not only protected but they can be leaders in the Muslim World, when you look at Pakistan, Turkey and Bangladesh, they can be leaders in the Muslim world. "

Awad is playing a subtle semantic game. Islam is not a religion, it is a deen: way of life. It encompasses all aspects of human activity, culture included. Women are chattel property, "tilth", literally a field to be plowed and seeded. They are inferior to men, deemed deficient. Moe had something pertinent to say about female rulers : When Allah's Apostle was informed that the Persians had crowned the daughter of Khosrau as their ruler, he said, "Such people as ruled by a lady will never be successful."


Asked about the aftermath of 9-11; Islamophobia :

"Our job is getting more difficult every day although we see a new tone in the new administration, we see a hand extended to the Muslim world, ...we see a positive speech toward Muslims and a tone of reconciliation; but I believe the situation overall is getting worse. Islamophobia is being accelerated in the United States, I haven't seen clergy or political leader who stands up and pushes against bigotry against Muslims. "

"Islamophobia" implies irrational fear and loathing of Islam. After 9-11, considering the untimely deaths of approximately 270*10⁶ people in the last 1400 years, fear and loathing of Islam is not irrational. Muslims label well documented blog posts such as this "Islamophobia".

If the media were more responsible, and our leaders were better, isn't your job made more difficult by the identity of the terrorists ...

"Its important to recognize that the majority of Muslims and organizations including ours, leaders and clergy in the United States and around the world have condemned 9-11 and I believe we were the first organization on the face of the earth to condemn 9-11 but months and years after that we are always confronted on some national television show: 'where are the moderate Muslims--where is the condemnation' and we say we did, but who is listening? Which national network has displayed or communicated or shown our condemnation? I think our voices are somehow excluded and ignored because as we say 'if it bleeds, it leads' . Maybe our statements are not amusing to the ear of people who are accustomed to seeing violence on television but they do not see Muslim leaders coming to condemn this violence. We are condemning the violence, but we do not want to be defined by condemning violence. There are seven million Muslims in the United States. There are engineers, doctors, public servants, educators, they do great work to make America better every day; I'd like to see stories about these people ... I do not want to see my faith, which has been hijacked by a very tiny minority in the world, to be defined by their acts while the majority of us are having to stand up and condemn the acts of the few. "

So they condemned the attack on the World Trade Center. Wonderful, now we should form a circle, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Yeah, right. Malicious malarkey! They condemn attacks on "innocents"; another semantic game tactic. Only Muslims can be innocent. Anyone who is not Muslim is a rebel against Allah, who deserves to be killed. 5:33 prescribes hudud for those who "wage war against Allah". That expression is defined in Ibn Kathir's tafsir of that verse:

"`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. ".

Take note of the word I highlighted in that definition; disbelief = waging war against Allah. They will not denounce, condemn and abjure the damnable doctrines which sanctify and mandate offensive conquest, genocide & terrorism because that would be an act entailing apostasy.

Seven minutes and forty eight seconds into the interview, Awad tells the big lie: " I do not want to see my faith, which has been hijacked by a very tiny minority in the world, to be defined by their acts while the majority of us are having to stand up and condemn the acts of the few. "

Islam has not been hijacked. As previously documented, casting terror is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam and offensive conquest is a permanent mandate, in the course of which genocide must be performed. The founder of Islam was a terrorist. Have you read the Qur'an? Try 33:26-27. Even if you never read another hadith, read Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220.

Eight minutes and twelve seconds into the interview, asked if he gets threats, Awad answers in the affirmative, during which statement, he is framed in the camera's viewfinder as if to simulate the view through an assassin's telescopic rifle sight. he says that when he speaks sincerely, from his heart people listen and believe him. Those must be rare occasions, rare indeed.

Judicial Hypocrisy in India: Critical Update

Update!! New information has been discovered which I was not able to find at the time of the original publication of this article.

BNET ran a Times of India article dated April 17, '10, which reports that India's Supreme Court ruled in favor of banning a book titled "Islam A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims".

Upon further research, I found that the article heralds the finalization of a ruling issued earlier this year. I also discovered two resources which should prove to be of inestimable value in the search for truth.

• Mark Humphrys posted this link to the text of Islam, a concept of political world invasion by Muslims by R.V. Bhasin (2003) .
• V. Sundaram uttered and published a seven page analysis of the injustice performed by the Supreme Court of India in this case.

Particular complaint was made, illegally, according to Sundaram, of the author's quotes from the Qur'an and his interpretation of their meaning. The court appointed a special master to translate the Qur'an for them. I found that chapter 7 contains a quote of 9:29 which, while imperfect, transmits the essential meaning of the verse without distortion. Chapter 15 contains additional quotes.

After examining the second listed chapter, I find that the quotes are sufficiently full and accurate to convey their meaning. I also find this among the concluding paragraphs. It speaks directly to the issue involved in the ban.

Whereas there are yet many more Ayats that go on to speak against the non-believers in Islam. India having declared itself a secular country believes also in guarding the religious feelings of the minority communities, The Constitution of India and many laws made thereunder are specially enacted to keep the internal atmosphere within the country free of communal tensions. 1 have therefore laboured to keep away many of of the positively provocative Ayats to which all Muslims must owe their allegiance. Hence, while it is possible to add to the above number of 16 Ayats, material declared in Quaran as binding to the Muslims yet it may not be conducive for a non-Muslim writing this book to state more than what 1 have done. Indeed, It is possible for many critics to draw my own chosen path not to have included them in this publication for the reason that such further inclusion could cause bitterness in the society comprising of Hindus and Muslims living in India.

I find in chapter 16 that 18:22 is mis-cited. Other than that, the quotes are reasonably accurate. I find further that my guess that the author was influenced by the Calcutta Qur'an Petition appears to be vindicated. I presume that the book was written in another language and translated into English.

I can not dispute such of the author's conclusions as I have encountered in my brief survey of a few chapters. I am more convinced that the book was banned unjustly; the ban should have been reversed on appeal.

The rough translation and selection of background and foreground colors make the book difficult to read. In my opinion, it is well worth reading and ought to receive a wide audience.
-------------------------

DNA reports that the Bombay High Court upheld a state ban on the publication of Islam — A concept of Political World Invasion by RV Bhasin.

Freedom of expression granted by the Constitution, the bench said, should not be used to trigger “senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order”.

If a book describing Islamic doctrines and practices is judged to trigger violence, then what about the Qur'an, which sanctifies and mandates genocidal terrorism? The Calcutta Qur'an Petition was arbitrarily dismissed,. yet this case upholds this book banning. Which is worse, a book which perpetuates an order to engage in aggressive warfare or a book which describes its effects? It is obvious that the wrong book was banned.

Jihad-in-Islam-by-Maududi

S. Abul A'la Maududi gave a lecture about Jihad in Lahore, April 13, 1939, Jihad In Islam. Sayed means that Maududi was a direct descendant of one of Moe's daughters. He was a theologian and philosopher who founded Jamaat-e-Islami.

His major work is Tafhim al-Qur’an which explains the meaning of the Qur'an. A quick survey of his tafsir should convince you that he knew his subject matter. [Qur'an links in this post are to Tafhim al-Qur’an.]

Jihad In Islam brings up some important concepts which deserve careful consideration. On the first page, Maududi brings up the concept of Jihad, and turns it against Islam's detractors with a reverse projection. He accuses the West of making war for economic gain, contrasting that with Jihad in the way of Allah, for the holy purpose of making things right in the world. Of course, he overlooks Moe's mercenary motivation, which was revealed by Allah in 8:67.

On the second page, Maududi punches a large hole through the fiction of Islamic passivity. [Emphasis added.]

We have now officially denounced armed. struggle of all sorts just to convince and satisfy our overlords. Now the term Jihad only refers to word-war through spoken or written word.

Another significant revelation, on the third page, could be overlooked too easily. A misunderstanding of the nature of Islam is partially responsible for misunderstanding Jihad.

The first misunderstanding is that Islam is taken as a religion in the conventional I sense of the term ‘religion’.

Maududi proceeds to define that conventional sense. Pay close attention to this.

Religion as a common term means nothing more than a hotch potch of some beliefs, prayers and rituals.

Maududi told his audience that, under this definition, religion should be "a private affair". ... "There is no occasion- and justification to take up arms in this process. "

If we quit reading there, we miss the message. On the next page, Maududi deflates the balloon.

...if Islam is taken as a conventional type of religion, the institution of Jihad cannot be justified.

So why was Maududi lecturing about Jihad?

In fact Islam is neither a religion, nor the Muslims are a nation in the conventional sense of these terms. Islam, instead, is a revolutionary concept and ideology which seeks to change and revolutionise the world social order and reshape it according to its own concept and ideals.

This concept is further developed beginning on page 9.

It is the .most important, rather fundamental ideal of the Muslims, the most outstanding revolutionary party to sacrifice its life and and all the resources at its command to fight, against the evil forces. of the world, not to take their place but completely eliminate the evil and to enforce the word of Allah all over the world.

Islam is a revolutionary program to impose itself upon the entire world by force if necessary. But there is more. At the end of the page 10, another important concept is introduced: Allah's sovereignty.

No one has the right to become self-appointed ruler and order and prohibit whatever he likes on his own volition and authority.

Any ruler not ruling by the Qur'an is an evil tyrant who must be overthrown. The following verses are cited to support these ideas: 26:151-152, 18:28, 11:18-19, 12:39, 28:38, 79:24, 2:258 and 41:15.

Page 15 of the lecture spells out the intention of Islam with some clarity. [Emphasis added.]

...Islam is not merely a religious creed or a set of rituals but it is a comprehensive system that tends to annihilate all tyrannical and evil systems in the world and to enforce its own reformation programme which it deems best in the interest of mankind.

Any system that is not Islamic is necessarily tyrannical and evil. Islam decides what is good for us and imposes it by force of arms, annihilating our system of government and way of life.

On page 16 we learn that the purpose of the Party of Allah is

to eliminate the hegemony of un-Islamic aystems replacing them with a balanced social and cultural order called the Word of Allah by the holy Quran,

To support this, Maududi cites 3:110, which describes Muslims as the best of peoples. Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 explains what makes them the best: bringing us with chains on our necks until we embrace Islam.

In the lecture's next page, Maududi cites three ayat as the scriptural basis for Jihad: 2:193, 8:73 and 9:33. On that basis, the Party of Allah must "capture power".

On page 18, Maududi explains why the Muslims living among kuffar is compelled to strive for "the extirpation of the rule opposed to their ideology and bring their own ideology into power". They can't tolerate the ideological conflict.

Maududi restates Islam's strategic objective on page 20.

...that the objective of ‘Jihad’ in Islam is to liquidate the suzerainty of an un-Islamic system of life and replace it with the rule of Islam.

We learn next that Islam must be expanded, that it must be imposed globally. This is made plain on page 21.

...no State can fully implement her ideology without expanding it to her neighbouring States.

Maududi presents the example of Islam's founder, who invited the rulers of neighboring states to embrace Islam and "resolved to take military action" against those who refused. It should become clear to you that Islam is violent, not peaceful; that it seeks to impose its will upon the entire world, destroying our way of life in the process. Islam is waging an existential conflict against us; what are we going to do about it?

While I urge everyone to read translations of the original sources: the Qur'an & Sahih Bukhari and their derivatives such as Reliance of the Traveller and Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, much can be learned from Jihad In Islam, Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah and The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad and from many secondary sources. “Radical Islam: A Threat America Must Take Seriously” will be web cast Saturday, April 24, '10 from 10 to 5 EDT.