Ilhan Omar and the Door of No Return


Freshman Minnesota Congressional Representative Ilhan Omar, in an apparent bid to keep a Twitter feud alive with President Trump, tweeted a photo of herself posing with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at the “Door of No Return” on the coast of Ghana.

Part of a 15 member Congressional Black Caucus junket ( funded presumably by US tax dollars), they have been in Ghana to “mark ‘The Year of Return’ and the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in Jamestown Virginia,” according to Pelosi. The Door of No Return, a part of the Cape Coast Castle, stands as a reminder of the evils of slavery — it marks the exit from dungeons under the castle where African slaves were held in merciless conditions until marched through that door to be packed on ships and transported to Europe and the Americas. Estimates are that 11 million African slaves ended up in the Americas; of those only roughly 400,000 came to the British colonies and subsequent United States. The vast bulk (10 million plus) were sold to buyers in the Caribbean and Central and South America.

European slave traders have rightly been pilloried for their central role in the transport and sale of other human beings for profit, and for their inhuman treatment of those they considered less than human. And, of course, Americans of the 17th through 19th Centuries have been condemned for being an avid market for the purchase of slaves and maintenance of slavery as an acceptable institution of society.

Little, of course, has been said concerning the fact that until modern times slavery had always been part and parcel of life in every civilization of the world — the powerful enslaved the weak; the conquerors subjugated their victims; empires imposed their culture on client states and conscripted “non-citizens” to forced labor. That was the way of the world. To the victor go the spoils.

Even less has been said of the fact that though the American colonists enslaved over 400,000 Africans, a blight on our national history, that accounts for only about 4% of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Where is the clamor for the guilty nation-states of Central and South America and the West Indies to acknowledge their huge part in this evil and to offer their mea culpas? Or is the United States to be held to a different standard than nations elsewhere?

But there is one fact concerning African slave trade that is even more obscure in Western media than this. There could be no slaves to transport from Africa to the West were it not for those willing to raid villages and capture innocent men, women and children and then march them bound the the slave markets they created at port cities in western Africa where the European slave ship captains could purchase them “wholesale.” The villainy of the white traders and slaveholders is often publicized, but who was the principal group that enthralled Africans in the first place to sell them to others? It turns out that the primary creators of the slave trade in Africa were Arab Muslims, going back all the way to the time of Muhammad.

Since Muhammad, the “excellent example” whom Muslims are enjoined by the Qur’an to emulate, owned slaves for himself, and bought and sold and gifted slaves in regular transactions, and mandated through Allah’s commands that those captured in jihad raids and battles became the property of the jihadis to keep for themselves or sell in slave markets, Islam has always determined slavery to be a legal and proper institution, with the one caveat that Muslims are never to enslave fellow Muslims. Unbelievers (the “kuffar”) have no rights to freedom and self-determination but are free game for Muslims able to take them captive.

As Arab Muslims invaded North Africa and colonized it, they quickly took slaves and began to send them back to the centers of their growing empire in the Middle East and Asia. With their growth in power and lust for conquest, they pushed south into sub-Saharan Africa and down both eastern and western coasts, subjugating tribes and assimilating some while enslaving others. Up until the Atlantic slave trade opened up in the 1600s, the bulk of African slaves were shipped east to the growing Muslim empires in Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Reasonable estimates suggest that some 14 million African slaves were sent east to Muslim overlords in the rapidly expanding Islamic territories. Once the transatlantic corridor opened, another 11 million were sold by the Muslim slave traders in Africa to be sent west.

Since Islam in its theology sees nothing morally wrong with the enslavement of non-Muslims, it should not come as a surprise to discover that in its 1400 years of existence Islam as a religio-politico-supremacist movement has been responsible for more human slavery than any other movement in history. Its lead role in African slavery is only one horrific chapter in a tome that includes southern Europe, the Middle East, much of Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Even today, much of the unreported slavery that exists is to be found in Muslim-majority countries where it is masked in the form of expatriate Third World employees “hired” as housekeepers and private servants.

Ilhan Omar, in her “send her back” squabble with the President, wants to play off her African roots and America’s guilty psyche over its past sins by implying that she too and her ancestors were victims of the transatlantic slave trade and that “Donald Trump and other white racists” are seeking to continue to victimize her.

See the source image

This, however, is farcical on two levels. First, Omar takes pride in presenting herself as a practicing Muslim and yet has nothing to say concerning the massive evils of slavery perpetrated worldwide by Islam over 1400 years. Instead, she wants to focus on the relatively small evils (by comparison) already admitted by the USA in its retrospective on American history. While as a nation we have repented of and outlawed slavery and are working to eradicate racism, Islam has made no strides in this direction except what was required of countries for United Nations’ membership. Omar is quick to calumniate the USA for past sins, but stands silent in the face of the greatest perpetrator of the evils she finds so reprehensible, presumably because she is prohibited by Islam from denigrating the religion that Allah perfected and delivered to the world through Muhammad (Qur’an 5:3). Well could the words spoken by a famous Jewish rabbi to the hypocrites of his day be applied to Ilhan Omar: “You blind guide! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

Second, Omar’s presence as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus creates the implication that she stands with other Black Americans as a victim of America’s pre-Emancipation and Jim Crow eras. But nothing could be further from the truth. Omar’s heritage is Somali, and her family fled thence to Kenya. We have no way of knowing whether any of her ancestors were taken as slaves by the Arab Muslim slavers of Africa, but one thing is certain — if they were, they would have been shipped from the East coast of the continent, and thus would have lived out their days in the Middle East, central Asia or India. None of them would have undergone forced transport to the Americas.

So how did Omar and her family end up in the USA? It was through the grace and mercy of the US government, and the sponsorship of an American church. After having fled the savage brutality of life in Somalia, Omar survived as a child with her family in an overtaxed refugee camp in Kenya, from which after several years they immigrated as refugees to the United States in 1992, when she was ten, and were granted asylum in 1995. Her life since arriving has been a remarkable success story, learning English, gaining her US citizenship in 2000 at the age of seventeen, graduating high school and then college in 2011. Rising through the ranks of local and state politics, Omar successfully ran for a seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives and took up that role in January 2017. A year and a half later, she filed to run for the United States House of Representatives to fill Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District seat, won that election in November 2018 and has occupied that post since January of this year, earning a salary (not including perks) of $174,000. A hefty sum here in the United States, in Somalia that would be a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice.

One might think that having been rescued from the ravages of her native country, and from the tribulation and futility of a fragile existence in an overcrowded refugee camp, Omar would be singing the praises of a country that has allowed her to rise from desperate poverty to formerly undreamt of heights of success, power, fame and fortune. But apparently not.

Instead, Omar rides on the updrafts of victim politics, seeing any criticisms of her positions as personal attacks on her as a woman, a minority or a Muslim, or better yet, all three. In this case, however, standing with Nancy Pelosi at the Door of No Return in Ghana, her hypocrsy is crystal clear.

One could almost wish that in her “return to Mother Africa” the portal in question would live up to its name, and she would walk through it from West to East. Perhaps a long-term refresher on life in Africa would stir some gratitude in her heart for all advantages she has enjoyed during her time in America as an immigrant turned citizen and member of Congress.

Instead of railing at those who have spitefully chanted “Send her back!” against her, perhaps Ilhan Omar would do better to speak gratefully of the country which has “sent her forward.” Such a stance would go a long way to earning the right to be heard by fellow citizens, and to working constructively with those across the political aisle for the benefit of all Americans.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Islamomoria — Countering the Charge of “Islamophobia”


When words are weaponized and skillfully wielded in the moral battles of a society, they can change the debate landscape in short order — a few decades at most. Witness, for example, a word freshly minted in the early 1980s, when attitudes toward homosexuality were by and large negative. Gay activists coined the term “homophobia” and applied it not only to those holding an “irrational fear” of homosexuality/homosexuals (which is what the term literally meant) but also to those opposed to the practice or lifestyle for moral, medical, sociological or theological reasons. They successfully beguiled a dull-witted society into swallowing uncritically the judgment that anyone opposed to homosexuality as an equally acceptable lifestyle as that of heterosexuality must be intolerant and bigoted, and consequently should be ostracized and shamed into silence until all opposition to the homosexual activist agenda was squelched, and indeed a negative cultural perception was transformed into a positive one.See the source image

Muslim activists in the West were quick to learn from this. In the 1990s, leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood in America and sister organizations, all committed to the ascendancy of Islam and its ultimate conquest of the USA in pursuit of a global caliphate, gathered to strategize a long-term plan for the advancement of Islam in American culture. Key to their vision was the makeover of the negative image of Islam in the West. To accomplish this the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) coined the term “Islamophobia,” and the 29 Muslim Brotherhood-related organizations began to wield it as a verbal weapon to shame and silence anyone critical of Islamic doctrine and practice.

One of the then members of the IIIT who later renounced his Islamic radicalism and left the organization, Abdur Rahman Muhammad, revealed the intent behind the coining of “Islamophobia”:

“This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics…. Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them. This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s deceptive ‘General Strategic Goal for North America.'” [To see that document in Arabic, followed by an English translation, click here.]

“Islamophobia” has been succinctly pilloried as “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” (Wrongly attributed to Christopher Hitchens, who no doubt would agree with the viewpoint, it first appeared in a tweet by Andrew Cummins).  Robert Spencer, Director of JihadWatch and author of eighteen books dealing with Islam and related topics, tersely describes “Islamophobia” as “a propaganda term coined to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror.” He notes a four-fold progression by which this intimidation is meant to proceed –“stigmatize, demonize, marginalize and ultimately criminalize criticism of Islam”, to the end “that jihad terror activities can continue unimpeded and unopposed.” Indeed, Turkey’s President Erdogan has publicly declared that Islamophobia should be recognized internationally as a crime.

Sadly, it has taken less than two decades for the term “Islamophobia” to become as successful in throttling adverse views of Islam as “homophobia” has been in painting gays and lesbians as innocent victims of hatred and bigotry that now is almost universally condemned.

Muslim activists continue to proclaim that “Islam is a religion of peace,” and that those who claim otherwise are “Islamophobes.” The one huge hurdle to final success in convincing the West of their campaign is the pesky jihad imperative rooted in the Qur’an, Hadith and Sirat (early Muslim biographies of their prophet). Even though “Islam means peace” has been bleated ad nauseum by the ignorant and the duplicitous since the 9/11 attacks, over 35,000 jihadi attacks around the world since then put the lie to this fantasy claim. In order to obfuscate and distract from these harsh realities, vocal defenders of Islam quickly label any valid criticism of Islamic violence and its justification in authoritative religious texts as “Islamophobic”, hoping thereby to dismiss any further investigation into the totalitarian and supremacist vision cast by Muhammad and his “revelations”.

The successful suppression of most negative portrayals of Islam in politics, academia, interfaith dialogue and the media through the label “Islamophobic” gives credence to the old adage, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” What force cannot accomplish in Western society, imputed shame and guilt manage much more effectively. Fear of being called Islamophobic has caused myriads of writers, bureaucrats, reporters, professors and politicians to parse their words, ignore clear evidence, or engage in dissembling, all to evade speaking the truth about Islam and its designs on the non-Muslim world, particularly the West.

Perhaps what is needed in this rhetorical battle with those who have coined and weaponized the term “Islamophobia” is a powerful word of our own to describe them and their followers. I propose the term Islamomoria. As with phobia, the word moria comes from the Greek language. It means “foolishness/folly/dullness/stupidity” and is the root from which we get our English words “moron/moronic/sophomore/oxymoron”. 

Islamomoria, then, would describe the pollyannish assessment of Islam as a religion or worldview which ignores the jihad mandate, hatred for the disbeliever, sex slavery, inherent gender inequality, and imposition of Shari’a law upon all (including execution of homosexuals and apostates, and dhimmitude for all non-Muslims allowed to live by the global caliphate.) Those preaching or under the spell of such a misguided, positive assessment of Islam would be known as Islamomorons. Perhaps the pejorative sense inherent in this term would serve as a wake-up call to those who listen mindlessly to pseudo-scholarly Islamophiles, while at the same time shaming and silencing the latter from further propaganda. It is the perfect word to describe “useful idiots” so eager to welcome Islam into Western life without realizing they are sowing the seeds of their own society’s destruction. 

So, I commend to you the newly-minted word Islamomoria and its daughter Islamomoron when it comes to the battlefield of rhetorical ideology where “Islamophobia” is being wielded as a weapon to intimidate critics and doubters of the Islamophilic party line. It is an apt rejoinder.

Please feel free to spread this term far and wide. The more currency it receives, the weaker the charge of “Islamophobia” will be to browbeat those who know the truth into silence.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

The Justification of Evil: Allah and Aymann Ismail


Andy Ngo describes himself on Patreon as “… an independent journalist and photographer dedicated to covering topics related to protests, free expression, and Islam. He has been a frequent target of bullying for the militant left, as well as by Muslim activists.

Last Saturday, while covering an un-permitted Antifa mob rally in Portland, Ngo faced the standard bullying while filming the event with his GoPro. As time went on, things escalated as members of the leftist mob struck him with milkshakes (some laced with concrete according to observers). See the source imageUltimately, violence erupted as Ngo, unarmed and unresisting, was beaten and kicked by masked members of the mob while trying to walk away.

The beastly behavior of such thugs, coupled with the callous insouciance of the Portland police and civic authorities who have allowed this barbarity free rein within their city, is unconscionable. No one can justify such unprovoked brutality.

Yet even as I write this, there are some proceeding to do just that.

Aymann Ismail is a staff writer for Slate.com. As a Muslim with a platform, he seeks to defend Islam in America, trying to humanize it and inculcate sympathy in the hearts of his readers. See the source imageHis progressive views are seen in his support for liberal causes and his opposition to those exposing both falsified hate crimes and the vacuous bogeyman known as “Islamophobia.” After learning of the Antifa-led attack on Andy Ngo, Ismail tweeted in response to a rather sane liberal woman who decried the alt-left violence:

In other words, Andy Ngo got what he deserved. Because he is an Islamophobe and unmasker of sham hate crimes, he has “helped create an atmosphere of violence that vulnerable people all have to live through just for being who they are.” What goes around comes around.

Except that Ngo uses words and video to expose the evil of those who wield lies and violence to manipulate others. He has never been accused of physical violence nor has he exhorted others to that end, much less to create an atmosphere of violence against Muslims or other “vulnerable people.” Antifa thugs, on the other hand, regularly create an atmosphere of violence at their mob events, and often resort to physical assault in cowardly fashion when their safety in numbers allows them to pummel lone protesters.

Ismail admits that the actions of the Antifa herd last Saturday were “bad”, but he justifies their battery against Ngo with the claim that “he’s guilty of worse.”

One wonders where Ismail may have come up with this logic. Those familiar with the Muslim mind steeped in the life and teachings of Muhammad don’t have far to look.

According to orthodox Muslim history, in January of 624, after less than two years in Medina, Muhammad tasked a group of thirteen followers to embark on a reconnaissance mission to Nakhla, on the main route between Mecca and Ta’if. Their orders were to watch the movements of Quraish caravans and report back to him. Since this was one of the sacred months during which by time-honored custom all fighting was prohibited in the Peninsula for pilgrims to travel freely to distant shrines, all caravans felt safe from marauders. One of the Muslim contingent had even shaved his head to give the false impression that this band of thirteen was also on pilgrimage. When a richly laden caravan passed through Nakhla and stopped for the night, the temptation for the Muslims was too strong to resist. In spite of prohibition against fighting, the raiding party decided to attack.

See the source image

Surprising the Quraish traders during their meal preparations, the Muslims killed the caravan leader with an arrow and took two other Meccans captive. The fourth escaped and ultimately made it back home where he recounted this serious breach of peace. Meanwhile the Muslim party returned to Medina in high spirits, with their two captives and an impressive array of booty. They were prepared to hand over one-fifth of the haul to Muhammad (as Allah and Muhammad had mandated), but their prophet angrily refused to have anything to do with the treasure, infuriated that they had brought disrepute upon him and his movement by breaking the rules under which all other tribes lived faithfully. He declared, in protest of his innocence, “I did not instruct you to fight in the sacred month.”

The raiding party (and other Muslims in Medina) were demoralized by this state of affairs, realizing that they were guilty of a serious offense. Doom hung over the Muslim camp until a few days later when the prophet emerged from his dwelling with a new revelation from Allah. It became v. 217 of Surat al-Baqarah (chapter 2 of the Qur’an):

“(Muhammad), they ask you about fighting in the sacred month. Tell them that it is a great sin. However, creating an obstacle in the way of God, disbelief in Him and the Sacred Mosque, and driving away the neighbors of the Sacred Mosque is an even greater sin in the sight of God: Disbelief in God is worse than committing murder” (2:217, Sarwar translation).

Allah acknowledges that the Muslim raiding party has committed a great evil. But he goes on to say that, by comparison, the evil committed by the Quraish dwarfs that of the Muslims: the Quraish had been Muhammad’s tribe in Mecca, and were responsible for opposing him and his message and for preventing Muslims from free access to the sacred mosque (the Ka’aba) in Mecca. So, it’s true, Allah admits — his followers committed deception, murder, kidnapping and stealing. But the pagans of Mecca were guilty of much more heinous crimes — they were opposed to the spread of Islam, and refused to convert. Hence, “Disbelief in Allah is worse than committing murder.” As a result, Allah gives his Muslims a pass for their small infraction, but pledges that he will roast his enemies in unending flames for their resistance to the advancement of Islam. 

Enshrined in Allah’s immutable book we find, then, this warning to the non-Muslim world: If you stand against the expansion of Islam, then whatever evils my followers may inflict upon you will be justified, because your evil is staggeringly greater than anything they could do. If you oppose my religion, you will get what you deserve, no holds barred.

It’s not surprising, therefore, to see the same mentality at work in the words of Aymann Ismail. In this case, Allah is using Antifa thugs as his instrument of punishment, but the principle is the same — since Andy Ngo has exposed many lies and evils that are part and parcel of Islam, and since he has pierced the fog of “Islamophobia” by uncovering the hate crime hoaxes upon which Muslim activists depend to advance their fantasy of Muslim victimhood, Ngo is guilty of such great offense that whatever Antifa “warriors” have done to him pales in comparison. 

Perhaps we could paraphrase Allah’s words to fit Ismail’s perspective: “Disbelief in the Cause is worse than a beatdown.” Or maybe we should just stick with Ismail’s own words: “This is bad, but he’s guilty of worse.”

Aymann Ismail seems to have learned well from his god and prophet. 
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Islam’s War Against Democracy


In the Never-Never Land of “moderate Islam”, the West is reassured that Islam and democracy are fully compatible. After all, many Muslim countries have elections and parliaments, we are told – ipso facto, Islam and democracy must be able to coexist. Some Muslim scholars even go so far as to say that democracy is an inherent Islamic concept, utilizing terms such as shura (a council formed to provide consultation for the head of government) and ijma’ (defined generally as “consensus”, but more precisely meaning the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on a question of Shari’a law). But as usual, reality paints quite a different picture.

The Democracy Index is a scale developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit beginning in 2006 and updated regularly. The latest 2018 index rates the 167 major countries of the world based on sixty different indicators, ranking them on a scale from 1-10 (10 being a perfect democracy). Based on their scores, countries are grouped in one of four descending categories: full democracies; flawed democracies; hybrid regimes; authoritarian regimes.

Not surprisingly, of the 57 Muslim majority countries worldwide, 16 of them rank in the bottom 25 countries of the world, and 49 of them do not break into the top 100 rankings. Another way of saying this is that only 8 Muslim countries make it into the top 100, with Malaysia securing the highest spot for a Muslim nation – number 52. By the way, Israel is ranked in 30th place, and the USA in 25th (indicating, perhaps, a higher degree of objectivity than non-Westerners might otherwise accord this index).

The Index also divides the world into seven regions, and ranks the regions according to the averaged scores of all the nations within them. Not surprisingly, North America ranks first and Western Europe second as “full democracies;” at the bottom of the list, again not surprisingly, is the region of the Middle East and North Africa, categorized as “authoritarian regimes.”

But even aside from such a complex measuring scale, a common-sense definition of democracy and a basic understanding of Islam compel the conclusion that Islam and democracy will always be at loggerheads with each other.

Fundamentally, democracy is a system of government whereby the governed freely elect their leaders and determine the laws of their nation through majority vote. Islam, on the other hand, decrees that the law of the land for any Muslim-ruled country must be Shari’a, the divine, perfect Law of Allah, which of course is immutable. Were human beings to legislate some change to Shari’a, their actions would, in the eyes of orthodox Islam, enshrine some fallible, human morality in place of Allah’s will, thereby committing blasphemy by overruling Allah’s authority in favor of their own. The closest Islam could come to democracy would be to allow free election of leaders who commit to enforce Shari’a over the land.

But even this is not quite possible in Islam, for Shari’a law mandates that non-Muslims may never hold positions of authority (political or otherwise) over Muslims (see, for example, Reliance of the Traveler [the classic manual of Shari’a according to the Shafi’i school of jurisprudence], section o25.3(a). This law stems from two Qur’anic verses: 4:141 concludes with the declaration that “Allah will not grant the unbelievers any way over the believers;” likewise in 63:8 we find the statement that “…to Allah belongs the might and to His Messenger and to the believers,” the clear implication being that Islam’s god forbids non-Muslims from exercising authority or power over Muslims.

Hence, according to Shari’a, even if a Muslim government calls for political elections, only Muslims may be elected. Should a Christian, Druze, Yazidi, Jew, Hindu, atheist run for office, that may be permissible by the government, but no Shari’a-compliant Muslim would be able to vote for him or her. Elections may indeed be held, but they are not free when carried out under the umbrella of Shari’a.

The inanity of this policy is fully illustrated by a debate held last week (June 12th) between Ahmad Zayed, a professor of Shari’a at Qatar University, and Raed al-Samhouri, a Saudi Islamic scholar also based in Qatar. [To see the pertinent clip of this debate, click here.] Al-Samhouri posed this question of Zayed, “Does Islamic law allow for a Christian to rule over Muslims?”

Zayed responded, “I said that according to the general law of equality, anyone can run for office. This is not a problem.” Under more intense questioning, he added, “”Hold on, my dear brother. Anyone can run for office, but when a Muslim votes, in accordance with the principle of Shari’a, he knows who he should vote for.” He went on to say that a ruler cannot be a non-Muslim.

The moderator, seeking clarity, offers this summary of Zayed’s position: “So non-Muslims can run for office, but Muslims are not allowed to vote for them.” Zayed agrees, “Yes, that’s it.”

But al-Samhouri is not yet satisfied. Here’s how the debate ends:

Al-Samhouri: “But is it allowed, according to the Shari’a, for a Muslim to vote for a Christian?”

Zayed: “No.”

Al-Samhouri: “I rest my case.”

So, when you hear the legions at CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), or activists such as Linda Sarsour, or Muslim politicians such as Ilhan Omar and Rashia Tlaib, or useful idiots such as Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and innumerable other ignorance-peddlers declare that Islam and Western democracy can coexist beautifully together, please laugh and change the channel instead of nodding in dimwitted agreement.

Shari’a makes clear that Islam is an unrelenting enemy of democracy.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Schizophrenic Muslim Mind


Muslims are torn by two competing realities. The first is the illusion of supremacy upon which they have been suckled all their lives by the Mother of all books (the Qur’an). The second is the real world in which they have to live. See the source image

Talk with an average Muslim and sooner rather than later you will hear him/her boast — theirs is the best religion (“Today I have perfected for you your religion” — Quran 5.3); they have the best prophet (Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, i.e., the final prophet with Allah’s most complete revelation for mankind); they have the best book (the Qur’an is the literal, inimitable, unchangeable words of Allah); the best people (“You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” — 3.110); theirs is the best language (the language of Arabic is the language of heaven, and certainly the language of revelation); they have the best law (Shari’a is divine law, and all the world should be governed by it); they have the best “blood” (i.e., according to divine law the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is a capital crime, while the shedding of the blood of a kafir is halal (permitted), in some cases requiring a payment of restitution to the victim’s family, in other cases stirring promises of heavenly rewards for dispatching a disbeliever properly to hellfire.

Indoctrinated to believe in Islam’s paramountcy, and therefore in their supremacy over everything non-Islamic, Muslims mindlessly roar “Allahu akbar” in unison whenever the imperative “takbir” is shouted.  See the source imageOften wrongly translated in the West as “Allah is great,” what this means more precisely is “Allah is greater!” It is a claim to superiority, to the supremacy of Allah’s name over any rival which the non-Muslim world might offer in competition.

As Allah’s followers, Muslims believe it is mandatory that they rule over non-Muslims. Slaves are permitted, because infidels lack the dignity and valoiue of Muslims. Islamic law forbids that non-Muslims ever hold positions of authority over Muslims, especially in government. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights (the Islamic world’s 1990 response to the 1948 United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Muslim governments refused to acknowledge) openly states:

“The right to hold public office can only be exercised in accordance with the Shari’a, which forbids Muslims to submit to the rule of non-Muslims.”

Moreover, Muslims who rule can only do so in accordance with Islamic law — they are not permitted to innovate. Because Islam is perfect and supreme, according to its leaders, critical inquiry is not allowed. Any thinking which might question the received faith is initially discouraged, and if pursued, finally punished. According to the Quran (33:36):

It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

The most chilling extension of this suppression is, of course, the penalty of apostasy, which all the schools of Shari’a (both Sunni and Shi’ite) label a capital crime, with execution typically by beheading.

So Muslims are raised to believe in the supremacy of Islam over all else, and they toe the line well under the shadow of the sword of judgment. But here is where real life begins to interfere with fantasy.

If Islam indeed is the best religion, why does it need a law to compel people to remain within its confines?

If it is the perfection of revealed truth, why is critical inquiry not encouraged? After all, an honest search for truth should lead toward what is ultimately true, and not away from it. Truth stands up under scrutiny. So, why not encourage scholars to study the early manuscript evidence of the Qur’an and reveal to their lay audiences the facts that there is no original text of the Qur’an in existence, and that the various early manuscripts which do exist contain discrepancies from one another.

If the Qur’an is only truly the revealed words of Allah when read and understood in classical Arabic, why did Allah not cause all humanity to speak Arabic, so that the world could truly grasp his revelation? Why today does less than one quarter of the world’s Muslim population speak or read Arabic, and even fewer among that elite group understand the ancient and complex classical Arabic of the Qur’an? Why do Muslim scholars not openly admit that due to the mists of history and evolution of language, roughly one out of every five sentences in the Qur’an is unintelligible, and we are left with the best guesses of linguists?

Why is the eternal, perfect revelation of Allah concerned about squabbles in Muhammad’s harem, or with whether he can marry the divorced wife of his adopted son? Why should the timeless word give detailed instructions about caravan raids and battles with neighbors? Would not one hope that God’s best revelation to the human race should contain things more lofty than the prosaic concerns of a desert warrior?

Wouldn’t we hope for a restatement or clarification of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount from the Mother of All Books? And yet we find in the Qur’an no clear teaching of a universal morality woven into the fabric of creation by its Monarch. Indeed, if the Qur’an and Shari’a are any indication, what is “moral” or “righteous” before Allah is that which advances the cause of Islam (whatever it takes), and what is “wrong” is whatever impedes that advance:

O believers, whosoever of you turns from his religion, God will assuredly bring a people He loves, and who love Him, humble towards the believers, disdainful towards the unbelievers, men who struggle in the path of God, not fearing the reproach of any reproacher. That is God’s bounty; He gives it unto whom He will; and God is All-embracing, All-knowing (5:54).

 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan (4:76).

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves (48.29).

This is what leads to the summary doctrine of Islam known as al-Walaa’ w’al-Baraa’ (Loyalty and Disavowal).  A Muslim is to devote himself to everything that pleases Allah and to oppose whatever displeases Allah. Morality is defined by what pleases Allah (what advances his supremacy within creation), and immorality becomes whatever stands between Allah and recognition of his supremacy. Oppression, murder, slavery, rape, deception, hatred of the infidel, all become sanctified tools of Allah if they serve to extend his kingdom on earth (i.e., the Muslim conquest of non-Muslims).

Muslims who are troubled by such partisan morality cast their eyes around the world to other cultures and see more elevated, even universal, versions of moral order. They see in the West the stand for universal rights and freedoms, and the aspiration that all human beings should be treated equally. Then they look back at the 57 Muslim-majority nations in the world, and note the number of dictatorships, the endemic nepotism within their leadership, and the rank corruption of their political and religious leaders.

They see that according to international studies, Muslim countries steadily rank at or near the bottom when it comes to personal freedoms, economic opportunities, standard of living, education, and equal rights. They see that human slavery has been eradicated over most of the non-Muslim world, but that it continues to thrive in the heart of the Islamic ummah.

They recognize that all of the blockbuster scientific discoveries and mind-bending technological breakthroughs, all the impetus for invention and innovation, come from the non-Muslim world. Not least among these achievements are the continuous military upgrades which make the West far superior in might than even the best equipped Muslim coalition could conceivably muster.

These realities are what lead to the schizophrenic Muslim mind. While yelling “Allahu akbar,” active Muslim supremacists are forced to scatter for cover whenever US drones are overhead. Knowing they are militarily inferior to infidel forces, jihadis are compelled to use the tactics of asymmetrical warfare: hit and run thrusts, lone wolf suicide bombers, terror attacks against soft targets. They turn as well to non-military tactics, making use of immigration and refugee policies in the West which allow them to infiltrate in large numbers, live as parasite on government welfare, and out-reproduce the native populations so as to increase their size and influence in the decades to come.

Just a few years ago, the Islamic State (ISIS), inebriated with its success in Iraq and Syria, boasted that soon the black flag of Muhammad and his followers would fly over the White House. They boasted ad nauseum that nothing could stop their advance, Allah willing.See the source image Apparently, Allah was not willing, because when the Trump administration took charge in the White House and decided to act decisively against ISIS in Syria, it was expunged in short order. The roars of Allahu akbar receded into the silence of impotence.

All these tactics and setbacks are an implicit admission that Islam is not superior to the non-Muslim, Western world — even with all our moral weaknesses, the West still outshines the Islamic world in terms of human rights and privileges; our quest for truth in the scientific and technological realms dwarfs that of the Muslim nations; our military strength leads to their saber-rattling and shaky knees, but no offensive engagements.

How can it be that the subjects of Islam, to whom Allah has promised supremacy over all the world, should find themselves inferior to the non-Muslim societies of the West and East? How can it be that there is no Caliphate since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 which sits as King of the hill, forcing infidel lands into submission before Allah? Why has Allah allowed disbelievers to effectively overrule the Muslim agenda and advance their own instead?

These are questions that the Islamic world is loath to address, because they expose the weaknesses of a religious community indoctrinated to believe it has no weaknesses and must always triumph in the cause of Allah. The Muslim Brotherhood, and other fanatical groups, to their credit have faced these questions. Their answer is that the Muslim world has lost to the West because it has not been committed enough to the cause of Allah and his prophet. If Muslims en masse offer their full devotion to Islam, Allah will make them once again victorious over the infidel world.

But for most other Muslims, this is not a palatable option. Thus, they are content to live a schizophrenic existence, closing their eyes and reciting that they are the best of all peoples with the best of all religions, all the while sensing, deep within their psyches, that it is a lie.

Posted in Uncategorized | 27 Comments

Curing Homosexuals — Islam Contains All You Need to Know…


Have you ever wondered why Muslim-majority countries consistently trail the rest of the civilized world in producing scientific advances, technological achievements, educational insights and new fields of study? The answer is fairly simple — Islam.

Muslims believe, as doctrine of the first order, that the Qur’an contains all the truth needed for human felicity, and that Allah sent Muhammad into the world in part to be the perfect exemplar for all human beings to emulate. Therefore, a Muslim’s time is best spent memorizing and reciting the Qur’an in Arabic — even if one does not understand the Arabic language the hope is that somehow its “truth” will penetrate the believer’s heart and the reciter will please Allah, perhaps meriting divine rewards — and poring over the authoritative Hadith literature to learn how to imitate the Arabian prophet in all matters, from how to defecate correctly to what to do when a fly lands in your tea. All other studies pale in comparison to Allah’s revelation. One anecdotal, perhaps apocryphal, story drives home the mindset inculcated by Islamic orthodoxy. fSee the source imageFirst recorded in print by the Muslim historian al-Qifti (lived 1172-1248) in his book Ta’rikh al-hukama’ (History of Learned Men), the account details the destruction of the famed Alexandrian Library of Egypt after the conquest of that city in 641 by the invading Arab Muslim army. When its general, ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas  (my purported ancestor), learned of the trove of knowledge preserved in scrolls and books, and was asked by an Alexandrian named Yahya (John) to transfer them to non-Muslim control, al-‘Aas responded, “I cannot make any order without first asking the permission of the Prince of the Believers [i.e., Caliph] ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.”

So he wrote off to his Master for instructions, and in time received this reply from the Caliph, according to historian al-Qifti:

“As for the books you mention, if there is in it what complies with the Book of God [Qur’an], then it is already there and is not needed and if what is in these books contradict the Book of God there is no need for it. And you can then proceed in destroying them.”

Not one to let resources go to waste, al-‘Aas ordered that the vast collection of books be parceled out among the public bathhouses and burned in the furnaces used to heat their water.  Al-Qifti concludes with this note:

 “…it is said that they had enough heating for six months.”

So, here’s the axiom for Islamic learning: If the Muslim revelatory sources already contain some truth, one need not search for it elsewhere; if they don’t contain it, it is irrelevant or worse, and should be disposed of. As a result, Muslim academics are always playing catch-up with the rest of the world, but with both hands tied behind their backs. They can’t acknowledge the truths of the scientific and epistemological disciplines unless they first comb through their religious tomes to find some obscure statement which they can ingeniously twist to accommodate the realities of modern-day life.

Here is a sadly illuminating example from a March 25th interview on Kuwaiti Scope TV featuring Dr. Mariam al-Sohel, a “human development advisor” with an honorary doctorate in “Sex Management” from the International Union of Universities in Turkey (which itself is not a university and was founded, as far as I can tell, in 2016).

Sohel claims that based on “the prophetic medicine” of Muhammad, meaning his recorded statements or actions having anything to do with health matters (such as drinking a mixture of camel’s milk and urine, or making sure to immerse a fly fully in one’s drink if it lands there since one wing contains disease and the other its cure), she has discovered the cure for homosexuality and has developed suppositories (exactly the same for both genders but color-coded so as not to mix them up, for some reason) which will stem these faulty sexual urges.

Her medical wisdom is based on a supposed Hadith text (which I have not been able to locate in the ancient sources) dealing with an anal condition troubling ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, Muhammad’s close companion who would later become Islam’s second Caliph. Muhammad is said to have counseled Umar that his condition needed to be treated with sperm. Apparently the reason for this is that he had contracted anal worms which feed on human sperm. It’s possible that Sohel learned this through a fellow Kuwaiti, the firebrand Shi’ite imam Yasser al-Habib who never shies from showing disdain for the “rightly-guided caliphs” of Sunni Islam and all their spiritual descendants. Al-Habib declares:

It is told [in the hadith] that Omar Ibn Al-Khattab had an anal disease, which could be cured only by semen. One should know that this is a well-known medical condition, which is also mentioned in sacred texts. Someone who, God forbid, has been penetrated in the anus – a worm grows within him, due to the semen discharged in him… A disease develops in his anus, and as a result, he cannot calm down, unless… That’s right, it becomes like an addiction, and he cannot calm down unless he is penetrated again and again.

Based on this “prophetic Arab medicine”, Sohel has developed suppositories meant to  kill the anal worms in both homosexuals and lesbians (though she never explains how the worms would first have entered females interested solely in same-sex encounters. Since these worms, ever hungry for sperm, control human desires for anal sex, their eradication will as a result cure any human being from same-sex urges. It’s as simple as that — and we have the prophet of Islam to thank for showing us the way to rid the world of homosexuality. No more need to bind up gay men and throw them off tall buildings — just plant some suppositories in their backsides and watch them become normal heterosexuals! Muhammad must indeed be “a mercy to all the worlds” (Q 21:107).

You can hear her for yourself in this clip, courtesy of Memritv.org:

https://www.memri.org/player/clip/42570/1/1

The purpose of pointing this out is not to make fun of Islam but to warn Western society that the greater the place we give to Islam in our educational institutions and in the determination of the moral fiber of our culture, the more we can expect a pull backwards to a 7th century pre-scientific and anti-Judeo-Christian worldview. For orthodox Muslim adherents, there can be no questioning of the assertions of the Qur’an and Sunnah traditions. As Islam gains ascendancy, Western curricula will increasingly feature memorization of the Qur’an, study of its contents, degrees in Hadith “science” and the casting away of Western arts and sciences as well as the academic freedom to pursue truths wherever they lead. Such pursuits are after all just so much flotsam and jetsam from the days of jahiliyya — the times of ignorance before the dawning of Islam and the reframing of the world.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

God Created Humans on the Sixth Day. Why?


In the history of Christian thought, pursuit of the knowledge of God has always held the position of highest honor. There are two ways by which objective knowledge of God can be acquired: the study of His revelatory works, i.e., the Bible (known as special revelation), and the study of His creation, under the assumption that what is made reflects truths about its Maker (this is known as general or natural revelation).

Since special revelation gives us much more detailed information about the mind and heart of God, it takes precedence over general revelation and acts as a corrective to our conclusions about God based only on observation of the natural world around us. Nevertheless, it is the revealed Word of God that impels us to want to know as much about the God who created, loves and redeems us for an eternity of love in relationship to Himself. This theological thirst for knowledge of God is what led Western Judeo-Christian civilization to begin detailed study of the natural order, leading to the development of what we know today as “the sciences,” and is why theology itself became known as “the queen of the sciences.”

With that preamble, I must confess that two days ago an observation of the natural order led me to a theological conclusion that I have never seen in the Bible before. It answers the question, “Why did God create humans on the sixth day as His final act?” as taught in Genesis 1:26-27.

The traditional answer has always been that God saved the best for last, so to speak, creating Man as male and female in His image and likeness both to honor human beings and to crown His creative efforts with His most glorious masterpiece.

I have nothing against this view — in fact, I quite agree with its high view of human dignity and our place in God’s purposes. However, my new insight adds some rich texture to the answer, not found in most theological commentaries. Since I owe much of the credit for this truth to my yellow labrador retriever, I have named this insight “Haley’s Hypothesis.” Here’s how it came about.

Two days ago, in the late afternoon, I prepared the backyard for its first mowing of the season — weeding, discarding dead branches, raking dead spots and clearing any obstacles so I could bring order out of the chaos engendered by winter. As I fired up the mower and started on one side of the yard, Haley laid down on the other side to watch me. At the end of the first row, I turned the mower around to come back, and looked at the fresh-cut swath I had just finished — it looked good! Each successive row added to the beauty. When I got about halfway through the yard, I compared the cut section to what was left and felt a rush of delight. But there was still work to do before the sun went down, so I turned my attention to the grass ahead of me and pushed on. This is where Haley enters the picture in a more active way. She wanders about twenty feet ahead of me, directly in my path, and squats nonchalantly, leaving a pile of skubala (for non-Greek students, that’s excrement) right where the mower is headed.

Frustrated, I turn off the mower, grab a shovel, and remove this blemish on my masterpiece-in-process. The thought crosses my mind that I should have left Haley inside until all the yard was finished and I could gaze on it with satisfaction, and murmur, “Behold, it is very good.”

That’s when it dawned on me. Perhaps the reason God waited until the end to create Man was because He knew of the human penchant to befoul our surroundings (which of course didn’t take long — see Genesis 3) and He wanted the undisturbed joy of unfolding His beautiful works without having to stop to clean up untimely messes produced by the apple of His eye.

So, perhaps the real reason humans were created on the last day after everything else was in place was so that God could hum with undisturbed joy in getting everything just right before letting Adam and Eve out onto the perfectly mowed backyard….

That’s Haley’s Hypothesis in a nutshell. But keep in mind, it might be a total load of skubala.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments