CAIR San Diego Is Scared of Smart Streetlights


In December 2016 the San Diego City Council approved its Smart Streetlights Program. Originally envisioned as a way to save energy costs by switching from high energy bulbs to LED streetlights that can be programmed and managed individually from a central software platform, this system when fully installed will save the city a minimum of $125,000 per month.

Smart Sensor San Diego

The 8,000 new streetlights should be in place by the summer of 2020. In addition, 4,200 of these locations will also carry CityIQ sensor nodes containing cameras, gunshot detection and environmental data collection capabilities (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure). These sensors are being installed primarily in downtown and heavily trafficked areas.

According to the city, the purpose of these sensor nodes is to monitor traffic flow, parking availability, and pedestrian traffic so as to assist programmers in efficient planning for the future. Additionally, they provide coverage in high-density public areas to assist authorities in solving crimes caught on camera.

Some groups are raising privacy concerns. Chief among them is CAIR’s San Diego chapter. CAIR is a Muslim activist organization keen on using the legal system (or simply the threat of lawsuits) to advance the cause of Islam in America. It is quick to play the victim card, portraying Muslims as innocent targets of bigotry, hate crimes or even government oppression. In this case, CAIR – San Diego claims that the City of San Diego has purposely placed these sensors close to mosques so as to monitor them illegally and gather data on the activities of Muslims in the area.

On September 15th (and updated on the 19th), Dustin Craun, Executive Director of CAIR San Diego, wrote an article with the rather incendiary and misleading title, San Diego Streetlights Target Communities of Color in Unprecedented use of Technology in the United States. It’s misleading because other cities are also moving toward “smart streetlights” (Cleveland, Philadelphia and Atlanta are three cities already using or budgeting for this technology presently) and so such usage is not unprecedented, and it is incendiary because there is no evidence of racism (targeting communities of color) in the article, nor is there any concern for such communities per se, only for those attending the 11 mosques within city limits.

Craun produces street maps showing where updated streetlights and/or sensors are being deployed in relation to mosque locations, claiming that the mosques are being targeted for surveillance. The facts do not back his claims.

Of the eleven mosques, eight are more than 200 feet (some more than 600 feet) from any sensor. Two are over 100 feet from a sensor, and only one looks to be within 100 feet of a sensor. This is important information to know because the city specifications note that a sensor’s cameras can only record over an oval area of some 120 to 180 feet around the sensor, enough to cover intersections, parking and pedestrian movements in affected areas. (This means that locations more than 90 feet from a sensor are beyond its reach.) Additionally, the cameras are fixed, having no pan, tilt or zoom capabilities. Further, the system is equipped with software that automatically blocks private property from view. Lastly, the software contains no license plate reader or facial recognition capabilities. All data recorded remains in the camera’s local memory for 5 days before being erased. In case of crime, police must request camera data within that period, or it is irretrievable.

At most, one mosque might be within the video reach of a CityIQ sensor, but since all private property is automatically obscured by the operative software, the mosque would be blacked out onscreen.

None of this matters to Dustin Craun, who bemoans the fact that Muslims are targeted for surveillance far more frequently than any other group in America. He never bothers to ask the question why this might be. Instead, he assumes a conspiracy of hatred, ignorance and bigotry on the part of the U.S. and local governments intended to harrass and demean Muslims. Even though he knows that the facts do not support his claims of “counter-intelligence surveillance”, Craun continues to promote the lie that Muslims in San Diego are innocent and helpless victims of an antagonistic Big Brother bureaucracy. He writes:

When asked about who designed this platform and why they would be surrounding the majority of the Mosques in the city, the cities [sic] sustainability department and police department would not answer this question.

Perhaps this is because they were dumbfounded by a question with no objective basis in reality — those departments never considered the location of the mosques in the planning process, but made their determinations based on major intersections, traffic flow, pedestrian safety and high crime locations. Craun, however, is convinced that mosque surveillance is at the top of the city’s list of concerns.

In a news clip provided by News8 San Diego, Craun is recorded on camera saying the following [picks up at 1:21 into the clip]:

They can look at every car that enters, everyone that enters and leaves those mosques. They can create data, profiles about our populations, about who’s at our mosques most frequently.

That last sentence was of particular interest to me: “They can create data, profiles…about who’s at our mosques most frequently.” Why should frequency of mosque attendance be of particular concern to authorities? And why would Craun mention this (I assume naively)? Because Craun knows what law enforcement agencies know, that increasing frequency of mosque attendance is a common sign of developing radicalization. Not all frequent attenders turn out to be terrorists in the making, but all Islamic terrorists grow in their radicalism by spending as much time as they can at the mosque, learning the fundamental beliefs and practices of Muhammad and his committed jihadis.

I served as a Christian pastor for 33 years, and can say that I would have been glad to have a CityIQ sensor across the street from any of my churches over that time period. Our congregations have nothing to hide. It never would have entered my mind to be concerned that authorities might want to note our “most frequent attenders.” If they did, my assumption would be that they were looking to thank such people for being model citizens in the community. How telling it is that CAIR San Diego Executive Director Dustin Craun frets over the possibility that the most frequent Muslim attendees at the city’s eleven mosques might be especially surveilled. If they have nothing to hide, they have no reason to worry. But the fact of the matter is that no such surveillance is possible or even intended through the Smart Streetlights program of San Diego. This is all just a tactic to create a sympathetic hearing in the minds of clueless Americans to drive home the propaganda that Islam is a peaceful religion under attack by bullies and haters.

One last thing. Craun attempts to buttress his complaint against “spying” by citing a portion of the only Qur’anic verse dealing with this subject, Sura 49:12. The text he quotes indeed says, “Do not spy.” In his commentary about how this applies to the present matter, Craun implies that by their wrongful actions the city leaders are creating an atmosphere of mutual suspicion such that “… we will never be able to join together in unity to fight against the forces who create fear about our diverse communites [sic].” The use of these CityIQ sensor nodes, he wrongly infers, is prohibited by the Qur’an,

What Craun fails to note (or at least admit) is that this passage only forbids Muslims from spying on other Muslims. Here’s the whole verse:

O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful.


Speaking to Muslims (“you who have believed”), Allah commands that they not spy on or engage in backbiting each other. The assumption that this applies to how Muslims are to treat infidels, or more importantly in this case, how infidels are to treat Muslims, is not legitimate. To find out how Muhammad felt about spying on disbelievers, we must turn to the Hadith and biographies. There we discover that the prophet felt no compunction over spying on his enemies. Frequently he sent his companions out to surveil potential or actual enemies, or to pretend to befriend non-Muslims so as to gain information from them or cause them to let down their guard before an assassination attempt. Bukhari 5.59.495, 325, 412 and 4.52.281 provide a few accounts of such behavior by the “perfect man,” whom all Muslims are to emulate.

So, “Do not spy,” is a Qur’anic command that applies only to Muslims toward other Muslims. Even if the Smart Streetlights program were engaging in spying, Sura 49:12 would have no relevance to this matter. Presumably, if Muhammad thought it wise to keep a surreptitious eye on potential enemies, U.S. authorities have every right to do the same. And given the circumstances of the last two decades, where Muslims worldwide have been the perpetrators of the vast majority of terrorist attacks, until Muslim communities can demonstrate they have purged jihadi ideology from their communities and their Islam, and can live in harmony with those around them, we would be fools not to keep out eyes open and alert.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Islam’s Inferiority Complex


Islam, since its very inception, has suffered from a serious inferiority complex.

Muhammad as an aspiring prophet in his home city of Mecca labored for some twelve years to convince his fellow citizens that they should renounce polytheism and bow before the sovereign rule of Allah. By the time his tribe’s patience had run out and he was finally driven from Mecca in 622 AD, the wannabe prophet had attracted a relatively small number of converts from the people of his city, and the number of his detractors was growing increasingly vociferous.

Muhammad had hoped to win support for his religious claims and stature from the other main monotheists of the region, the Jewish and Christian tribes known as “people of the Book [i.e., the Bible].” He even included in his preaching repertoire stories he had picked up listening to oral traditions concerning biblical characters. However, as the Jews and Christians learned more of his grandiose claims and eccentric teachings, they concluded he was not a prophet sent by the God of their revelations.

Rejected by the polytheistic people of Mecca and by the monotheistic tribes in western Arabia, Muhammad turned his growing wrath toward them. His preaching became more antagonistic and defensive, with Allah pledging hellfire against the prophet’s opponents and propping up Muhammad’s ego at the same time. Within his community of believers, his will was unassailable, and even Allah seemed eager to do his bidding, providing him wives and booty and self-serving revelations.

Muhammad turned out to be rather thin-skinned, which is not unusual for those with an inferiority complex. When opponents mocked him with crude jokes or irreverent songs, he was offended. However, the prophet was surrounded by devotees who were willing to “kill and be killed” in his service (see Quran 9.111), and Muhammad was not above despatching them to assassinate those who had wounded his ego.

See the source image

So too, today, those who mock the prophet, or his Qur’an, or who blaspheme against Allah commit a capital offense according to Islamic law, and are executed where Shari’a is fully implemented. What other religion demands a death penalty for those who make fun or draw irreverent pictures of its founder? Those who find criticism (even well-founded criticism) intolerable and seek to eradicate it once and for all are typically hounded by a sense of inferiority. It’s no surprise that in recent years the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) has barraged the United Nations with demands that the world regulatory body outlaw any speech that might conceivably be construed as “Islamophobic.” An inferiority complex dreads freedom of speech.

When the Islamic community cannot get others to shut down its detractors, its response is typically not one of engagement with criticism but rather the turning of a deaf ear and the rising chant of “Allahu akbar” — “Our god is greater than your god.” This is simply a religious intensification of the schoolyard spats that end up with, “Oh yeah? Well, my dad can beat up your dad,” followed by fingers stuck in ears so as to no longer hear one’s opponents.

Islam reveals its inferiority complex as well whenever Muslims publicly apostatize from the faith. No religion likes to lose adherents, but only Islam resorts to death threats to keep members from leaving. It cannot bear to admit that former Muslims find Islam untrue and unappealing, nor does it wish to coexist with such disbelievers. Instead, Shari’a mandates execution of those who leave the faith, hoping by the imposition of fear to quell the spread of doubt among its masses.

At the other end of the spectrum, if and when a famous kafir (infidel) decides to become a Muslim, such news is trumpeted far and wide by Islamic propagandists as proof of the claims of Islam. The amount of energy devoted to such efforts in the Muslim world dwarfs similar developments in other religions. One wonders whether such fanfare is directed more to shoring up the sagging morale of the Muslim community than to welcoming a new convert into its midst.

Likewise, the use of force to coerce unbelievers to adopt Islam, or failing that, to compel them to live as dhimmis (third-class members of Islamic society) betrays the nagging fear that Islam on its own cannot stand in the marketplace of free ideas. The rules enacted for dhimmis legalize their status as those inferior to Muslims, so that the Muslim world can continue to mask its vexatious inadequacies by pointing to the enforced lowliness of its enemies.

But nowhere is the inferiority complex of Islam more evident than in its unending competition with the Christian gospel. Muhammad could not stomach the stature granted to Jesus within the New Testament and in the lives of Christian disciples so he had to diminish the role of Jesus in his Qur’anic teachings. Jesus could not be divine; he could not be the Son of God; he could not be the Savior of the world; he could not have risen from the dead and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. In effect, he could not be greater than Muhammad himself, or even his equal. He was only a prophet, a great one perhaps, but Muhammad was the last and greatest of them all.

And the message of the Qur’an could not be inferior to that of the gospel. In order to prevent that, Muhammad asserted that the true message of Jesus was none other than that which Allah had granted him — to warn humanity of the coming judgment of Allah should human beings refuse to bow before the Almighty as obedient slaves. However, in the years since Muhammad’s death, Muslims have actually had opportunity to compare the New Testament to the Qur’an, in the process of which they have discovered that the message of a God of love certainly eclipses that of a God of vengeance. So Muslim apologists today seek to reframe the teaching of the Qur’an to mimic that of the gospel as much as possible.

The New Testament declares that God loves sinners and sent His Son into the world to save those who would otherwise perish in their sins. Jesus spent much of his earthly ministry among those deemed unworthy in the eyes of the religious elites. The New Testament declares that God loves sinners and sent His Son into the world to save those who would otherwise perish in their sins. Jesus spent much of his earthly ministry among those deemed unworthy in the eyes of the religious elites. The apostle Paul summed up God’s heart with these words: “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). His love is personal and unending, an intimacy with the human soul deeper than can be found in any other relationship. This truth demonstrates why the gospel has commanded such a prodigious response from the human race from its first proclamation until now.

Muslim apologists know this, and also know that the Qur’an carries no such message. The God of Islam is not a God who loves sinners personally and intimately. Allah has not sacrificed himself in any way to purge the sins of his rebellious creation. He remains aloof from his creation, warning the disobedient of the impending tortures of hell, and promising the obedient the sensual pleasures of paradise. But a message of fear is not as compelling as a message of love, so apologists comb the Qur’an for any signs of Allah’s love. The results are not encouraging.

Forty-two times the Qur’an speaks of Allah with regard to love. Unfortunately, over half of those instances (twenty-three to be exact) refer to that which Allah does not love. For example, he does not love those who do wrong, who make corruption in the land, who reject Islam, who are not generous, who are arrogant, wasteful, treacherous, criminal, and so on. The other nineteen occurrences describe those whom Allah does love: those who do good, who are righteous, who love his prophet, who fight (jihad) in his cause, who are pure and clean (keeping the ritual laws), and so on. Allah’s love is a response to those who “make the grade,” and it is experienced not in terms of personal intimacy but through the abundance of rewards in this life and the next.

Nevertheless, spurred on by a sense of theological inadequacy, Muslim apologists look for revelatory passages to fill what is lacking, and some put forward a Qur’anic text which seems to show promise in terms of divine intimacy and affection. Found in Sura 50:16, triumphal commentators wax eloquent about how Allah’s words unveil that he is nearer us than we might ever imagine:

And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein...

Image result for closer than yourjugular vein

Here is proof, they say, that Allah indeed loves us personally and intimately. The Qur’an matches the New Testament in its “good news.”

But upon closer inspection, that is not at all what this passage means. The entire context of this chapter deals with those who have thumbed their noses at Allah in spite of all the signs he has given them in creation of his power and goodness. He warns them that they cannot hide their thoughts and actions from him. Indeed, he is closer to the slaves he created than their own jugular veins (those blood vessels which when slit quickly drain life from the body). Far from asserting that Allah’s closeness means his personal love for humans, this verse declares that Allah is watching closely the lives of his slaves, and nothing escapes his notice. Judgment will be meted out accordingly. The next two verses (50:17-18) clarify even further what this closeness of Allah entails — it is not his personal presence but the two recording angels he has sent to be seated, one on the right shoulder to record every good act and the other on the left to record every bad deed:

When the two receivers receive, seated on the right and on the left. Man does not utter any word except that with him is an observer prepared [to record].

There is no love, grace or mercy in this Qur’anic chapter. Instead, we find the chilling warning that no evil thought or deed will slip past Allah’s notice. He will punish fully those who disobey him, and reward with paradise those who obey him sufficiently. But, of course, no one obeys Allah perfectly — even Muhammad was commanded four times in the Qur’an to repent of his own sins, and the Hadith traditions show the prophet entreating his followers to pray for him that at the Day of Judgment he would be found worthy.

So the idea that Allah is nearer to us than our jugular vein (which jihadis are ever eager to sever in striking the necks of unbelievers as a sign of Allah’s ultimate judgment) hardly conveys the notion that Islam’s god has a heart filled with love toward sinners. Indeed, it’s quite the opposite: Allah watches with an eagle eye for any slip-up among his slaves, and his sword is poised at any moment to despatch those who displease him to an eternity of roasting in hell.

One might wonder why anyone would remain within such a religion of internal coercion and external tyranny. The answer for most, I believe, is that they don’t know any better. They have grown up in societies that effectively blocked them from exposure to any worldview other than Islam, and at the same time their religion has told them that they are the best of all peoples that Allah ever placed on earth (Quran 3:110) and that non-Muslims are the vilest of all creatures in the sight of their god (98:6). Disgust over the presumed filthiness of the kuffar (infidels) causes them to shun anything unislamic, and fear of the death penalty for apostasy keeps them timidly corralled within the thought-prison of Shari’a orthodoxy.

But the last half-century shows that times are changing. The effects of globalization, social media and the Internet have broken through the barricades of Islamic indoctrination. Muslims are freer than ever before to explore other worldviews, to interact with infidels and discover that they are not at all the vilest of creatures (any more than Muslims are), and that certainly the Muslim community is not, according to so many standards of measurement, the best of all peoples. Today by the thousands Muslims are leaving Islam for all sorts of other options — turning to atheism, becoming Christians, plunging into secular hedonism. Whatever captures their interest provides sufficient incentive for them to jettison Islam and the inferiority complex under which they labored for so long, and to revel in the freedom they now have discovered in laying aside the straight-jacket of a religion where Allah is closer than their jugular vein.

May their tribe increase!

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

Ilhan Omar and the Revolving Doors of Marriage


U.S Rep. Ilhan Omar presents herself as a practicing Muslim — she wears a head-covering out of religious conviction, talks proudly of her Muslim heritage, speaks at fundraisers for the Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and often seems to take the side of Islamic regimes over against U.S. interests. (Notably, she has praised her native Somalia, defended Hamas leadership over its rocket attacks on Israel and sided with the mullahs of Iran over against the present foreign policy actions of the United States.)Image result for ilhan omar

Yet, at the same time, she wishes to be seen as a progressive Democrat. So she stands as a proud feminist even though Islam as a worldwide movement is the greatest oppressor of women ever to control human behavior patterns. She claims to be a staunch supporter of LGBTQ rights, even though Shari’a law commands that those declared guilty of homosexual behavior must be executed — this is based on three passages in the Qur’an (7.80-84; 26.165-166, and 4.16) and numerous Hadith traditions such as this one from Sunan Abu Dawud 4462:

The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot [Lot] (i.e., the people of Sodom), execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” 

The conflict between settled Islamic law and Western leftist values is inescapable, but it is nonetheless ignored by both Muslim and secular progressives alike so they may harmoniously band together to destroy a larger, common enemy: traditional Western culture founded upon a biblical worldview and ethic. Hence, Ilhan Omar and so many others are able to live a lie without batting an eyelash or being challenged in their hypocrisy.

Omar’s past life is coming under increasing scrutiny as she dwells in the public spotlight. One area of special interest is her marriage history. She has been married and divorced two times, is married once again but apparently has recently filed for divorce a third time. In our present culture this is not all that unusual, sadly, but it is even more acceptable in Muslim circles since marriage is treated solely as a legal contract, not as the lifelong partnership/covenant envisioned in the Bible. What is a bit surprising, however, is the freedom Omar has had in initiating her divorces. Under Islamic law the husband can procure a divorce instantly for almost any reason, but the wife is extremely limited in her capacity to seek legal exit from the marriage.

Omar’s marital history is a bit complicated, particularly if she claims to submit to Shari’a, as any good Muslim must. Here’s a timeline of her marriages and divorces, according to civil and legal documents:

  • 2002 — Islamic religious marriage to Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi
        • They have two children before divorcing
  • 2008 — They are divorced according to Shari’a law
  • 2009 — A few months after the divorce, Omar marries Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in a state-sanctioned ceremony.
        • no children come from this union; apparently Hirsi, Omar and Elmi all live together in the same house for the next two years.
        • questions have been raised about whether Elmi and Omar are brother and sister, and the marriage was arranged “for immigration reasons.” Omar denies this.
  • 2011 — Omar separates from Elmi in a religious ceremony but does not file for legal divorce.
  • 2012 — Within a few months by Islamic ceremony she enters into a remarriage with Hirsi. Their third child, Ilwad, is born June 11, 2012. You can do the math for yourself.
  • 2017 — Omar files for legal divorce from Elmi late in the year.
  • 2018 — Divorce is granted early in the year. One month later, she marries Hirsi in a civil ceremony.Image result for ahmed hirsi and ahmed elmi

A few things stand out at first glance. From the perspective of Shari’a law, although a Muslim man can have up to four wives concurrently, a Muslim woman can be married to only one Muslim man at a time. Marriages contracted among Muslims, whether civil or religious, are recognized by Islamic courts as valid.

Though Omar has attempted to spin her merry-go-round marriages as “religious/cultural”  or “legal”, her distinctions fall flat. As a Muslim entering into a religious marriage before Allah, she must consider that marriage even more legitimate than one merely solemnized before the State. Otherwise she places a human authority above Allah. Likewise, if she dismisses her first union with Hirsi as only an affair, not a “true” marriage, then according to Shari’a law, she and Hirsi are guilty of repeated fornication (the penalty for which is death by stoning) and the children of this relationship are ever in a state of disgrace.

If, on the other hand, she recognizes her relationship with Hirsi as a true marriage, then according to Shari’a, when they are irrevocably divorced (which is accomplished with a threefold declaration by the husband of “talaq”) they cannot be remarried until Omar has been married to another man, consummated that marriage with a sexual union, and then been irrevocably divorced from that husband. At that point she would be able to remarry her first husband Hirsi.

This bizarre arrangement stems from “revelation” in the Qur’an found in Sura 2:230 —

After a divorce for the third time, it is not lawful for the husband to resume marital relations with her or remarry her until she has been married and divorced by another husband. In that case, there is no sin for the former husband to marry her if they (both) think that they can abide by the law. These are the laws of God. He explains them for the people of knowledge. (Sarwar trans.)

That the wife in this case must have engaged in sex with the second husband bef0re being divorced and remarried to the first husband is confirmed by a hadith tradition found three times in Sahih Bukhari (7.72.715; 7.63.187; 8.73.107) as well as in al-Muwatta Imam Malik (28.7.17). Here’s the version from Bukhari 7.72.715:

Narrated ‘Ikrima: Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha [Muhammad’s young and favorite wife] said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (‘Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e., that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.”

The woman in question seeks release from her second marriage so she can go back to her first husband. Apparently, her present husband is physically abusive (she is sporting deep bruises from his beatings, as Muhammad’s wife ‘Aisha points out to the prophet). Additionally, she claims he is impotent and cannot satisfy her sexually, meaning their marriage had never been consummated. The husband, ‘Abdur-Rahman, learning that his wife had gone to the prophet to complain, rushed over to defend himself and his marriage. Disputing her charge of impotence, he claimed that she was rebellious toward him and only wanted to return to her first husband. Muhammad completely overlooks the issue of physical abuse by ‘Abdur-Rahman (after all, the Qur’an gives license to the husband to beat his wife or wives if he “fears rebellion” from them and they have not responded favorably to lesser punishments (see 4:34)), and deals only with the wife’s desire to divorce ‘Abdur- Rahman in order to return to Rifa’a, her first husband. He makes it clear that she is “stuck” with Abdur-Rahman until she allows him to consummate the marriage with her, after which point he can divorce her and she can be permissibly remarried to her first husband. 

This arrangement has come to be known as “nikah halala” or “nikah hilla”. The Arabic word “nikah” literally means sexual intercourse, but more largely refers to the institution of marriage, to which intercourse is largely confined (except for sex slaves and those raped licitly during jihad, according to Shari’a law). “Halala” and “hilla” come from the same Arabic root word used to designate permissible foods to eat (halal) over against forbidden ones (haram). So, nikah halala means “permitted or licit sex” and has come to designate a marriage entered into specifically so as to make a divorced woman “permissible” for her first husband to marry once again, after she has been “enjoyed” sexually by another man in an intervening marriage. In fact, in Islamic Arabic parlance, the intervening husband is known as a “muhallil” (also from the same root for halal), which means “one who makes permissible/lawful.”

Sadly, in some parts of the Muslim world this has turned into something of a cottage industry with men hiring themselves out as muhallils, all in “a humanitarian effort” to reunite couples divorced through a husband’s impetuous and hotheaded “triple talaq” (talaq is the Arabic word for divorce, and when a husband repeats it three times in succession to his wife, she is immediately and irrevocably divorced). If he regrets his hasty act and wants to keep his wife, his only recourse is to find a muhallil who will marry his wife, sleep with her at least once, and then agree to divorce her immediately. 

According to Shari’a law as found in one popular manual (Reliance of the Traveller), such a “one night stand” kind of marriage is not valid, if the purpose of the sham marriage is only to allow a divorced couple to remarry. But there is a way around this legally — as long as that purpose is not explicitly stipulated in the written marriage contract, then the nikah halala is legal:

m6.12 The following types of marriage are legally invalid:

(3) or to marry a woman after her threefold divorce solely to cohabit and thus permit her (dis: n7.7) to remarry her previous husband (A: which is an enormity (dis: p29)), though if the marriage agreement is made for this reason but does not expressly stipulate it, then it is legally valid (dis: c5.2).

So, with regard to practicing Muslim Ilhan Omar, who married and divorced Ahmed Hirsi (2002-08), and then married him again in 2012, such a remarriage would only be allowed to them if she had married and been sexually active with another husband in the intervening years. Omar asserts that this is indeed the case, as she legally married Ahmed Elmi in 2009. However, there are significant questions as to the legality of this marriage since there is growing evidence that Elmi may in fact be Omar’s full brother (from the same parents). If that is the case, then Omar and Elmi might not have consummated the relationship — it would have been a marriage only on paper, to grant him legal status in the USA and the ability to quickly pursue a college degree (which he did). However, if the marriage was never consummated, then Omar’s remarriage to Hirsi would be forbidden according to Islamic law. On the other hand, if she and Elmi did consummate their marriage and are in fact sister and brother, then they would be guilty of incest, a crime in America and a major sin in Islam. Such a marriage would not be regarded as valid by Shari’a law, and would again not qualify as “nikah halala”. In this case, her subsequent remarriage to Hirsi would also be forbidden. 

The only safe course for Ilhan Omar would be to demonstrate beyond doubt that Ahmed Elmi is indeed not her brother or other close relative. Then according to both US law and Shari’a restrictions, she would be in the clear. The only thing left for her to explain would be how she could continue to be bound to two marriages concurrently from 2012 to 2018, when she finally divorced Elmi, after having remarried Hirsi in 2012 through an Islamic ceremony. If she claims that she was not “really” married to Hirsi in 2012, but only married him legally in 2018 after her divorce from Elmi, then according to Islamic law she is guilty of adultery (they had their third child in 2012), the penalty for which is death by stoning. Perhaps this is one reason Omar has not shown unqualified support for the implementation of Shari’a law in the USA, and why she wouldn’t want to take up occupancy in a Shari’a-compliant country.

In any case, Omar’s vacillation between U.S. and Islamic marriage laws whenever it has suited her purposes leaves me wondering where her allegiances really lie. Will she support Western-style human rights when it no longer suits her? Will she adopt pro-Shari’a positions when that gains her greater support from voters in her district? Is she an equal opportunity offender, as long as it advances her career? Time will tell. But one thing is for sure, her marital history raises lots of questions as to her integrity.

Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 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 | 18 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