The Worldwide Jihad: The Truth About Islamic Terrorism

by Robert Spencer

  Sharia is also political and supremacist, mandating a society in which non-Muslims do not enjoy equality of rights with Muslims. And that is the focus of anti-sharia laws: to prevent this authoritarian and oppressive political and social system from eroding the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. It is plainly disingenuous to claim that anti-sharia laws would infringe upon Muslims' First Amendment rights to practice their religion. As Thomas Jefferson said, it doesn't matter whether my neighbor believes in one god or seventeen; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. It is only when my neighbor believes that his god commands him to pick my pocket or break my leg that his beliefs become a matter of concern for those who do not share them. No one wants to restrict individual Muslim religious practice, or even cares about it. The purpose of anti-sharia laws is not to stop Muslims from getting married in Islamic religious ceremonies and the like, but to stop the political and supremacist aspects of Islam that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims.

  The Islamic state, as delineated by sharia, encroaches on the basic rights of non-Muslims. It would be a sad irony for non-Muslims to oppose anti-sharia and thereby abet their own subjugation.

  Stoning of Soraya M Actress Spreads Comforting Falsehoods

  Does stoning really have "nothing to do with Islam"?

  The Stoning of Soraya M. is a great film; I attended an advance screening of it last year in Los Angeles, and strongly recommend that you see it. It is a powerfully moving indictment of the Islamic practice of stoning adulterers, and indirectly of the Sharia in general—however, those connected with the film are doing their level best to avoid giving the impression that the film has anything to do with Islam at all. The latest to do this, but by no means the only one, is actress Shohreh Aghdashloo, who portrays the victim's close friend. This is understandable in today's politically correct Obamoid climate, but it is unfortunate for the Muslim women who are victimized by this barbaric practice: they will never get justice as long as the world is busy making excuses for what victimizes them, instead of calling to account those who are responsible.

  Anyway, Aghdashloo makes a number of factually false statements in an interview she gave Thursday to Todd Hill of the Staten Island Advance—not just false, but misleading, and ultimately enabling those who perpetuate the practice of stoning. In it, she said that stoning has "been happening since the Stone Age, in Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Other nations and religions have gotten rid of it, and all of a sudden, after 2,000 years of monarchy we're facing it in Iran. What makes me feel devastated is the fact that it's happening there, the cradle of civilization."

  "It's been happening since the Stone Age, in Judaism, Christianity, Islam." In fact, no. The Hebrew Scriptures mandate stoning but it has not been carried out in Judaism since the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., or before that. Islamic tradition contains stories of Muhammad confronting Jewish rabbis who try to conceal the fact that the Torah teaches stoning—they seem to know that Muhammad was a brutal flat-footed literalist who would demand they carry out these teachings literally, when they understood them in a quite different way.

  As for Christianity, stoning has never been practiced except among those strange Christians one encounters only in TV dramas. Jesus famously raised the bar for stoning beyond human reach when he said to a crowd that was poised to stone an adulteress, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7).

  Aghdashloo also, according to Hill, "stressed that stoning isn't mentioned in the Koran." She said: "It has nothing to do with Islam. It's under the category of superstitions and traditions, but obviously those who have hijacked Islam are manipulating people and using this as an Islamic law. It is not, really."

  Stoning has everything to do with Islam and Islamic law. The caliph Umar, one of Muhammad's closest companions, even maintained that it was originally in the Qur'an:

  ‘Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." ‘Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." (Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816)

  "Allah's Apostle" is, of course, Muhammad, who did indeed carry out stonings. Here is the hadith in which he challenges the rabbis about stoning, and in which there is amidst the barbarism and brutality a final act of love and compassion:

  The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah's Apostle said to them, "What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?" They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them." Abdullah bin Salam said, "You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm." They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, "Lift your hand." When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, "Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, "I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones." (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 829)

  Even the monkeys practiced stoning, according to another hadith:

  During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them (Bukhari, vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 188).

  Muhammad's example is, of course, normative for Islamic behavior, since "verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much" (Qur'an 33:21).

  And so Islamic law does indeed mandate stoning for adultery. ‘Umdat al-Salik, a manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most influential institution in the world of Sunni Islam, says this about the penalty for adultery:

  If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death…, someone with the capacity to remain chaste meaning anyone who has had sexual intercourse (A: at least once) with their spouse in a valid marriage, and is free, of age, and sane….

  If the penalty is stoning, the offender is stoned even in severe heat or cold, and even if he has an illness from which he is expected to recover. A pregnant woman is not stoned until she gives birth and the child can suffice with the milk of another. (‘Umdat al-Salik o12.2, o12.6)

  The film is great, and depicts the truth. It is a pity that the film's actors and producers feel compelled to deny and downplay the real cause of this crime against humanity. By doing so, they only ensure that it will keep happening.

  Egypt: A New Dark Age Begins

  December 14, 2012

  Eight people have been killed and hundreds wounded, but the latest bloody chapter in Egypt’s unhappy recent history is about to draw to a close: this Sunday a referendum will be held on the proposed new constitution, and that, presumably, will be the end of that. And what it will most likely herald is the end of the brief era of any meaningful voting in Egypt, and of any hope on the part of women and Egyptian Christians for equality of rights before the law.

  Underlining the claim that to oppose their rule is to oppose Islam itself, the Muslim Brotherhood of President Mohammed Morsi will rally in favor of the constitution at a Cairo mosque near the presidential palace on the day of the vote. Liberals, secularists, and Christians will rally against the constitution on the same day in Tahrir Square.

  They’re against it because, as the Associated Press reported, the draft constitution “largely refle
cts the conservative vision of the Islamists, with articles that rights activists, liberals and Christians fear will lead to restrictions on the rights of women and minorities and civil liberties in general.” They have every reason to fear, for the constitution reflects in numerous particulars Sharia restrictions on their rights.

  Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that their cause will succeed: the constitution is likely to go through, and with it will come Sharia and the dictatorial powers that Morsi recently claimed for himself and then renounced under pressure.

  This has been a long time coming, but its coming has been unmistakable to any objective observer. The “Arab Spring” was never about democracy and pluralism, despite the hosannahs of the Western press; it was always about imposing Islamic law upon Egypt. And now, with the new constitution, Egypt is at the brink. AP noted that the constitution’s wording “could give Islamists the tool for insisting on stricter implementation of rulings of Shariah.”

  Also, “the draft contains no article specifically establishing equality between men and women because of disputes over the phrasing. However, it maintains that a woman must balance her duties toward family and outside work, suggesting that she can be held accountable if her public role conflicts with her family duties. No such article is mentioned for men.”

  The implications for women’s rights are as obvious as they are unsurprising in light of Sharia’s reduction of women to the status of little more than commodities, slaves of the men who own them.

  Then there are numerous articles heralding the introduction of Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech. Islamic law forbids criticism of Islam, Muhammad and the Qur’an, and the constitution duly contains an article that “bans insulting or defaming the prophet and messengers.” And it doesn’t stop there. Another article bans “insulting humans,” suggesting authoritarian restrictions on criticism of political leaders, and yet another “underlines that the state will protect ‘the true nature of the Egyptian family … and promote its morals and values,’” about which AP notes: “phrasing that is vague and suggests state control over the contents of such arts forms as books and films.”

  Nor is any of this likely to be contested in a future vote if this constitution passes Sunday. Once Islamic law comes to Egypt, it will come to stay, until the Egyptians themselves are so tired of its inhuman authoritarianism that another period of liberalization ensues. But that could be decades in the future. In the meantime, Sharia is much more compatible with dictatorship than it is with republican, representative government. That’s why Sunday’s vote could be the last one that matters in Egypt.

  The prophet of Islam, Muhammad, is said to have counseled what appears to be unconditional obedience to rulers: “You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin” (Bukhari 9.89.256). Nor is he recorded as having set up any kind of voting system or representational government for the nascent Muslim community—and as he is the supreme model for emulation for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21), that is a decisive point.

  The great theorist of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), foresaw a titanic struggle between Islam and jahiliyyah, the society and rule of unbelievers: “Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah. Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah; no half-half situation is possible. Command belongs to Allah, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; Allah’s Shari’ah will prevail, or else people’s desires: ‘And if they do not respond to you, then know that they only follow their own lusts. And who is more astray than one who follows his own lusts, without guidance from Allah? Verily! Allah guides not the people who are disobedient’[Qur’an 28:50]; ‘Do they then seek the judgment of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgment than Allah for a people who have firm faith’ [Qur’an 5:50]. The foremost duty of Islam is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, with the intention of raising human beings to that high position which Allah has chosen for him.”

  The day of that supposed deposition, and subsequent exaltation, is looming in Egypt.

  Gaddafi’s Death Gives Rise to a Sharia State

  Muammar Gaddafi is dead, and Barack Obama’s partisans are hailing the Brave New Libya as a triumph for his administration. Speaking about the Libyan revolution in March, Obama hailed “the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny,” saying now they have done it. It may, in fact, give him a boost in the polls, bolstering his manufactured image as a fearless anti-terror crusader, bagger of bin Laden, al-Awlaki, and now Gaddafi. But much less likely is the possibility that the end of Gaddafi’s regime will actually secure the rights of peaceful assembly and free speech for Libyans, or be any benefit to the United States.

  This is hard for many people to believe. After all, Gaddafi has been waging war against the U.S. for so long that it was fully 25 years ago that Ronald Reagan dubbed him the “madman of the Middle East.” But following in Gaddafi’s wake is likely to be a Sharia regime that will be even more virulent in its anti-Americanism than he was—and much better connected internationally.

  Supporters of Obama’s intervention in Libya generally assumed that the forces that were revolting against the Gaddafi regime were secular and oriented toward Western values. When Gaddafi was captured and killed, the victors were chanting “Allahu Akbar.” This is a common enough chant in Muslim countries, especially on such occasions, but in this case it was emblematic of the imminent replacement of Gaddafi’s bizarre Islamosocialist cult of personality with a straight Sharia regime populated by al-Qaeda elements.

  It is likely that the new America-backed regime will compete with the Gaddafi regime in its hatred for America and the West, and become noted for being even more anti-American than he was. David Gerbi was one of the many who believed the mainstream media news stories about plucky Libyan revolutionaries fighting for freedom against a repressive regime. Gerbi, a Libyan Jew who had lived in exile in Italy for decades, took people like Barack Obama at their word and believed that what was happening in Libya was a wonderful throwing-off of oppression and reaffirmation of human rights. He decided to return to Libya to rebuild the synagogue in Tripoli, a once-grand structure that had been used as a garbage dump during the Gaddafi regime.

  But when Gerbi arrived in the new Libya, he was in for a rude awakening. Demonstrators outside the synagogue revealed to him the brutal truth behind all the fog of political correctness: Carrying signs with inscriptions such as, “There is no place for Jews in Libya,” they made it abundantly clear that they believed that his attempt to rebuild the synagogue was yet another plot of the Zionism they detested, and the enlightened democratic revolutionaries called for Gerbi’s deportation. Gerbi ultimately returned to Rome.

  Gerbi’s case was not isolated. Islamic law mandates a humiliating second-class status for Jews that, among other discriminatory regulations, forbids them to repair old houses of worship or build new ones. And Islamic law is going to be the foundation of post-Gaddafi Libyan society. Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of Libya’s Transitional National Council, declared before a jubilant crowd in Tripoli in September that Sharia would henceforth be the “main source” for Libyan law. Likewise Sheikh Abdel Ghani Abu Ghrass, a popular imam in Libya, who told a crowd of thousands in Tripoli, “We must underline the Islamic character of the new Libyan state,” and that Libya “should be governed in conformity with Sharia.” Libya’s new draft constitution declares: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence [Sharia].”

  Obama probably sees nothing amiss in all this. He has never shown any awareness of or concern about the possibility that Islamic states might in themselves constitute a threat to the United States.

  Obama would do well to heed the words of the Egyptian Islamic jihad leader Sheikh Adel Shehato, who declared in August that the problem with Mubarak was that he did “not rule in accordance with the Sharia. … As Muslims, we must believe that the Koran
is our constitution, and that it is impossible for us to institute a Western democratic regime.” Shehato said that if a Sharia regime came to power in Egypt, “of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world.”

  Once those holding the same sentiments secure their power in Libya, more conflict with the U.S. is inevitable.

  * * *

  Become a Hyperink reader. Get a special surprise.

  Like the book? Support our author and leave a comment!

  IV.

  Obama

  Obama Enables America’s Enemies

  No sooner was Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi elected president of Egypt than he announced his determination to work for the freedom of an enemy of the United States: blind sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life term for his role in planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Not since Jimmy Carter helped usher in the Iranian Revolution has an American president done so much to aid those who are determined to destroy the United States.

  In fact, the parallels are numerous. Carter betrayed the shah of Iran, a longtime U.S. ally who had a dismal human rights record but was generally loyal, and paved the way for the ascent to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian mullahcracy that quickly showed its gratitude to Carter by taking U.S. Embassy personnel hostage, and has maintained a war footing against the United States ever since.