Prejudice against Islam

In response to this post, Ray McIntyre offered this:

Let me see:

Muslims died in the WTC buildings. The Mosque is 2 blocks from the WTC ground Zero area. It is being built by a Sufi group, sufis are among those people that those who attacked the WTC attack, murder and whose graves they desecrate.

But I don't imagine this will dent your prejudice and fear.

Many are prejudiced regarding Islam. The question is, who is judging Islam unfairly and out of ignorance? Are those who've read its "sacred" texts "bigoted," or are those who know nothing of what Muhammad actually said and did misrepresenting the "great world religion"?

Here's my reply to someone in the latter group:

It is clear that even nine years after 9/11, nothing's "dented" your prejudice regarding Islam.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, Sufis do not reject jihad against non-Muslims*. No major school of Islamic jurisprudence does. If you want to find genuinely non-violent Muslims, you have to go to groups like the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, who are persecuted as apostates by their more orthodox coreligionists, even in modern, moderate, Muslim nations like Indonesia.

To your ad-hominem-in-place-of-argument: Even if I were prejudiced and fearful, what does that have to do with what Muslims do in obedience to their god and prophet? What about what I've written is false? What does "two blocks" have to do with whether or not we should allow a trophy mosque at Ground Zero? (By the way, "Mosque at Ground Zero" was the name its backers came up with, not its opposition.)

If I quote Muhammad, then where is the "prejudice"? If I cite nearly one and one-half millennia of slavery, rape, and slaughter in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, where is the "phobia"?

Let's examine your logic a bit: Some Muslims who weren't flying planes died in 9/11. Does that mean that their coreligionists flying the planes weren't Muslim? Weren't trying to kill and terrorize non-Muslims? Weren't acting on the words and deeds of their "Ideal Man," the genocidal pedophile Muhammad?

Just the other day a Muslima suicide bomber killed dozens of her fellow Muslims. For fourteen centuries, Sunni have slaughtered Shia and Shia Sunni. None of that internecine violence negates the fact that Muhammad was a bloodthirsty, child-raping tyrant. In fact, Muhammad's words and deeds explain that violence.

So, why do you defend Muhammad's "sacralized" crimes against God and Man? Do you do so out of "prejudice" or "fear"?

*Al-Ghazali was “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad."

Here he is on jihad and dhimma (by way of Andrew Bostom):

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked . . . One may cut down their trees . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . they may steal as much food as they need . . . .

"[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle . . . Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] . . . on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant [sic] bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] . . . They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D)"

If Muslims are merely the victims of "good white Christian folk," then why centuries of jihad in India?

Here's Islam exercising its Constitutionally-protected religious liberties on Hindus.

Strangely enough, the Muslims below said and did what Muslims waging jihad over the last fourteen hundred years throughout the West -- including today's schoolgirl-beheading, underwear-detonating, miniskirt-raping Muslims -- say and do.

I wonder, what's the connection?  Why all the violence against non-Muslims in India?  Could it be India's colonies in the Middle East?  (They didn't have any colonies there?)  Prejudice against non-whites?  (You mean, most Indians aren't "white"?)  George W. Bush?  (He wasn't born until the twentieth-century, and the jihad in India began in the eighth?)

No, the reason that Muslims rape, maim, enslave, and slaughter all around the world is because they all draw from Islam's "sacred" texts their inspiration and justification for jihad.

Notice the extraction of jizya -- and vile humiliation -- imposed on the conquered, "zimmi" (dhimmi) Hindus, and the binary option offered normally to polytheists: Convert or Die (emphasis mine):

The Sultán then asked, “How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tribute (kharáj-guzár) or givers of tribute (kharáj-dih)?” The Kází replied, “They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the zimmí (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islám is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them under in subjection.' To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islám or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.’ No doctor but the great doctor (Hanífa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islám.'”

As I have stated in this blog repeatedly, of the 4 schools of Islamic law, only one (Hanafi) even allows Hindus the right to live. The 3 others simply say that Hindus must be killed if they refuse to convert. That is what this Kazi is telling Ala-ud-din. Note also that he says that Hindus are the worst in the eyes of Allah. This is because in the Kuran, the mushriqs (idolators) are considered the worst of the worst, fit to be killed immediately. Kuran 9:5 is very explicit about this "slay the idolators where ever ye find them..." We Hindus must never forget this - that our fate as per orthodox Islam is beheading.

Now you tell me that it is all in accordance with law that the Hindus should be reduced to the most abject obedience.” Then the Sul-tán said, “Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast had no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal; be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”

So Ala-ud-din says that he has put into place measures (heavy taxation etc.) in order to reduce Hindus to abject poverty and keep them in a state of permanent debasement.

This was the status of Hindus under Islamic rule. Of course, our school textbooks, written by Marxist liars, will portray this period as a "great flowering of a syncretic culture." I leave it to the reader to judge for themselves what kind of "syncretic culture" our textbooks are talking about.

That last part's pretty funny.  Marxism in service to Islam.

I mean, it's not like a Muslim could ever become a Marxist, rise to power, and tax/spend/borrow a non-Muslim people into "abject poverty and . . . a state of permanent debasement," even giving a trillion dollars to a known jihadist government like Hamas, right?  Right?

You'd have to be a racist Islamophobe frightened of the bogeyman-under-the-bed to even entertain such an idea.  In fact, I'm probably a fascist imperialist who eats puppies just for posting this.

(But wait, Marxists love Islam.)

Reading this makes one nostalgic for the good old days...

...when Infidels knew their place.

Don't worry, it's coming soon to a Western nation near you. On the Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule, from here.

Below is commentary apparently from the web site's author. It should be noted that whether or not such treatment is "comparable" to that from Christian lands, the non-Muslims who agreed to submit to such an arrangement had only two other choices: conversion or death.

Also, besides the abject humiliation and subjugation codified here, there were many other atrocities committed against these "protected" peoples. These stipulations are consistent with the Qur'anic commands to fight against and subdue and humiliate non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

After the rapid expansion of the Muslim dominion in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of the "dhimma", or "protected person". The Dhimmi were required to pay an extra tax [. . .] The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, a "pact" which formed the patter[n] of later interaction.

We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor [h]ide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]