Asia Bibi and Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun: The World Is Watching
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
This article first appeared in New English Review.
As I write this piece, there are two dramas playing out in Pakistan and Thailand. Both involve two young women, one a Pakistani Christian, the other a Saudi woman of 18 who has fled her family and renounced Islam. At this point, their fates are yet to be decided as Western nations debate offering them asylum.
Asia Bibi was arrested in Pakistan and accused of blasphemy against Islam and the Prophet Mohammad. Blasphemy against Islam is a capital offense in Pakistan-as it is in Islamic law. Sentenced to death, she languished in prison for several years until her conviction was recently overturned by the Pakistani Supreme Court. She is now in hiding, living under security at an undisclosed location until a country can be found to give her asylum. All the while, mobs roam door to door in an effort to find and lynch her. Great Britain, a country that never ceases to prostrate itself to radical Islamic forces, has already refused. Further complicating her situation is that the Pakistani government has now ruled that it will not let her leave the country until the prosecutor's appeals are fully resolved.
Then this week, an 18-year-old Saudi girl named Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun, fled her family residing in Kuwait and wound up at Bangkok Airport with an Australian visa. It appeared initially that she was going to be put on a flight back home until the Thais turned the matter over to the UN refugee officials. They have now determined that she is a legitimate refugee. At this writing, she is still in Bangkok and awaiting a decision by the Australians.
Any sensible observer would immediately conclude that by any humanitarian measure, both of these women should already be relocated to a country where they can live in freedom and security from vengeful Islamic law. But consider that another Saudi woman, Dina Ali Lasloom 24, who was trying to flee a forced marriage, was forcefully put on a plane back home from Manila where she was seeking asylum in 2017. Her fate remains unknown.
These cases deserve the widest possible publicity for several reasons beyond even human decency and considerations of human rights. The world needs to confront the basic severity of Islamic law as practiced by countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The death penalty for apostates is affirmed by every leading school of Islamic thought and is enforced throughout Islamic societies either by national courts, tribal councils, or the families involved. It stands in stark contrast not only to our laws in the West, but also against basic principles of human rights. Laws against apostasy and blasphemy have no place in the West or any other civilized society.
Hopefully, Alquhun will be on the next flight from Thailand to Australia. If the Pakistani government insists on keeping Bibi in country until her case is finally "resolved", I would hope the US government and others will inform the Pakistanis that good diplomatic relations and foreign aid will hinge on justice for Asia Bibi.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia stand in shame before the world. If the West doesn't step up and provide refuge for Asia Bibi and Rahaf Mohammed Alquhun, we will stand in shame as well. Our governments and other "human rights" organizations bend over backwards to grant refuge and asylum to hundreds of thousands of people migrating around the world who should not qualify for refugee status. Many of these so-called refugees are Muslims. That we would turn our backs on Bibi and Alquhun would be a disgrace and would signal that we are submitting to Islam. After all, Islam in Arabic means "submission".
The time has come for the US and the West to re-evaluate their relationships with these two countries that still live in the Middle Ages. As for Britain, over history, enemies from Napoleon to Hitler have reportedly called them "a nation of shop keepers". If so, they proved both wrong, but the phrase sure fits now. Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave.
As We Try to Celebrate Christmas
Gary Fouse
Fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hat tip Memri and Jihad Watch
First of all, let me wish a Merry Christmas to all my Christian readers. For my Jewish readers who just recently celebrated Hanukkah, I also extend my love and best wishes.
But it is hard not to feel a sense of anger when Christians and Jews are being persecuted around the world.
As I write, the city of Barcelona is under high alert over credible reports that an unidentified Moroccan man may be planning to strike the city on this holiest of Christian holidays.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/barcelona-police-warn-of-muslim-plotting-jihad-massacre-on-christmas-day-city-on-high-alert
Here is a Spanish report from El Pais (Spain), which I have not had time to translate as yet.
https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/12/24/catalunya/1545661368_910928.html
From Canada comes yet another report of a Muslim cleric urging his followers not to wish Christians a Merry Christmas. Yes, Canada has a real problem with hate being preached in many of their mosques.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/canada-muslim-cleric-says-wishing-christians-merry-christmas-is-worse-than-murder
Also on high alert are the always beleaguered Christians of Pakistan, fearing attacks on Christmas day as one of their own, Asia Bibi, remains in hiding while Western nations (and the Vatican) studiously ignore her pleas for asylum. It is an international disgrace.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/islamic-republic-of-pakistan-security-high-at-churches-for-christmas-asia-bibi-still-in-hiding
Meanwhile, Pope Francis continues to ignore the persecution of Christians in Muslim majority countries while lecturing Europeans that they must continue to bring in more and more Muslims, some of whom will torment Europe's Jews and plan attacks on Christmas markets, which are now the target of choice.
And the politicians in Western Europe (with the exception of Italy, Austria, and possibly Denmark) are on the Pope's side as they continue their insane immigration policies, no matter how many people are murdered and no matter how many women are raped. Jews continue to live in fear and many are emigrating. Politicians make statements of support and place guards in front of synagogues and Jewish schools, but the importation of Jew-hating Muslim men continues unabated, thus, the threat continues to increase.
I emphasize that I am not referring to all Muslims, but the threat is very real and deeply rooted in Islamic doctrine.
But it is not only Muslims who need to take a look in the mirror. Our political and religious leaders, both Christian and Jewish, are letting us down. They are afraid to stand up to the Islamists in our midst and call them out for their hatred. Interfaith events, which appear to be noble on their surface, are nothing more than exercises in surrender by Christian and Jewish religious leaders who allow Muslim leaders to lie to us about Islam's "peaceful" nature. Many of these same Muslim leaders have a completely different (and more hateful) message when speaking to their own followers. Again-not all, but far too many.
Praying for peace seems to be an exercise in futility, but at least we can pray that today will not be marred by Islamic terror in Spain, Pakistan or anywhere else.
Merry Christmas.
Fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Hat tip Memri and Jihad Watch
First of all, let me wish a Merry Christmas to all my Christian readers. For my Jewish readers who just recently celebrated Hanukkah, I also extend my love and best wishes.
But it is hard not to feel a sense of anger when Christians and Jews are being persecuted around the world.
As I write, the city of Barcelona is under high alert over credible reports that an unidentified Moroccan man may be planning to strike the city on this holiest of Christian holidays.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/barcelona-police-warn-of-muslim-plotting-jihad-massacre-on-christmas-day-city-on-high-alert
Here is a Spanish report from El Pais (Spain), which I have not had time to translate as yet.
https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/12/24/catalunya/1545661368_910928.html
From Canada comes yet another report of a Muslim cleric urging his followers not to wish Christians a Merry Christmas. Yes, Canada has a real problem with hate being preached in many of their mosques.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/canada-muslim-cleric-says-wishing-christians-merry-christmas-is-worse-than-murder
Also on high alert are the always beleaguered Christians of Pakistan, fearing attacks on Christmas day as one of their own, Asia Bibi, remains in hiding while Western nations (and the Vatican) studiously ignore her pleas for asylum. It is an international disgrace.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/12/islamic-republic-of-pakistan-security-high-at-churches-for-christmas-asia-bibi-still-in-hiding
Meanwhile, Pope Francis continues to ignore the persecution of Christians in Muslim majority countries while lecturing Europeans that they must continue to bring in more and more Muslims, some of whom will torment Europe's Jews and plan attacks on Christmas markets, which are now the target of choice.
And the politicians in Western Europe (with the exception of Italy, Austria, and possibly Denmark) are on the Pope's side as they continue their insane immigration policies, no matter how many people are murdered and no matter how many women are raped. Jews continue to live in fear and many are emigrating. Politicians make statements of support and place guards in front of synagogues and Jewish schools, but the importation of Jew-hating Muslim men continues unabated, thus, the threat continues to increase.
I emphasize that I am not referring to all Muslims, but the threat is very real and deeply rooted in Islamic doctrine.
But it is not only Muslims who need to take a look in the mirror. Our political and religious leaders, both Christian and Jewish, are letting us down. They are afraid to stand up to the Islamists in our midst and call them out for their hatred. Interfaith events, which appear to be noble on their surface, are nothing more than exercises in surrender by Christian and Jewish religious leaders who allow Muslim leaders to lie to us about Islam's "peaceful" nature. Many of these same Muslim leaders have a completely different (and more hateful) message when speaking to their own followers. Again-not all, but far too many.
Praying for peace seems to be an exercise in futility, but at least we can pray that today will not be marred by Islamic terror in Spain, Pakistan or anywhere else.
Merry Christmas.
Dan Bongino - Obama, Mueller and the Biggest Scam in American History
Complements: David Horowitz Freedom Center Restoration Weekend 2018
Tags: Dan Bongino - Obama, Mueller, Biggest Scam in American History To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!
UC Berkeley Has to Pay for Abridging Free Speech
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
UC Berkeley has learned the hard way there can be a price to pay for abridging free speech on campus. Now they are paying out $70,000 to Young America Foundation.
https://www.yaf.org/news/yaf-wins-landmark-free-speech-lawsuit-uc-berkeley-to-pay-70000-and-rescind-unconstitutional-policies/?fbclid=IwAR1rahcMqkjCI6AJv0Sd2AwxtLYUDV4g9hAeiBBE0wvTsNfGtaSVmOfr2ks
It is more subtle than a university refusing a student group to bring in a particular speaker. There are other ways a university can limit or eliminate free speech by certain speakers they don't like. They can charge outrageous security fees, for example, that they would not charge to other groups.
Several years ago, I attended an event at UC Irvine where David Horowitz appeared. Not only did the university switch his meeting room at the last minute to a more obscure part of the campus, none of the whiteboard markers had enough ink. Horowitz repeatedly laughed it off at the UCI administrators in the audience who were documenting his words on their laptops.
When Milo Yiannopoulos appeared at UCI not long ago, the event was placed in a room much too small to accomodate the hundreds of people (including myself) who were trying to get in-and whose names were on the registration list.
I salute the YAF for holding UCB's feet to the fire. These institutions all have a ready made statement they release to the media when these things happen to the effect that they are "100 committed to the principles of free speech, inclusions, etc etc etc". It is a joke. When students and assorted riff-raff rioted at UC Berkeley a few years ago forcing a last minute cancellation to Yiannopoulos's appearance, the university all but put their seal of approval on the assaults and destruction of property as campus police stood around like potted plants. Other universities, like UCI, seem to be allowing disruptions to continue for a set period of time before gently ushering the protesters out with no consequences.
Left to their own devices and with the public not paying attention, universities will continue to limit conservative speech and indoctrinate our youth. They need to be countered, and, when appropriate, sued.
SJP Conference Looms Over UCLA
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
This article first appeared in Times of Israel.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
This article first appeared in Times of Israel.
Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) will be holding its
national conference at UCLA from November 16-18. A few years ago (February
2011), SJP held its Western regional conference on the Westwood campus. That
featured the anti-semitic Oakland imam, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, leading his
audience in the "pledge of allegiance", which bore no resemblance to
the one most of us recite here in the US. Ali's "pledge" swore to
fight to the death on behalf of Islam, jihad, and all that charming stuff.
There is much opposition to
this year's conference, as well there should be. SJP is anti-Jewish to its
core. No matter that they have a few misguided misfits of Jewish background.
They are all for the total destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.
Here is an op-ed that the
feckless UCLA chancellor, Gene Block, has written in the LA Times regarding the
conference.
With all due respect, Mr Block
is full of it. For years, he has allowed Jewish students at UCLA to be bullied
and intimidated by the likes of SJP, the Muslim Student Association, and other
pro-Palestinian forces. He is hardly alone among UC chancellors. From UC San
Diego to UC Berkeley and in-between, it's the same old story. For 20 years, I
have seen it first-hand on the UC Irvine campus where I taught part-time from
1998-2016. In the past two years since I stopped teaching there, I have
attended subsequent events where the bully-boy antics of the SJP have been on
full display. Their tactics are simple: disrupt, bully and intimidate. They are
a disgraceful and despicable organization.
And look who is headlining this
year's freak show at UCLA. The keynote speaker is Chicago-based Palestinian
activist, Hatem Abudayyeh. Here is what Discover the
Networks has to say about Abudayyeh.
Abudayyeh was an outspoken
supporter of Rasmieh Odeh, the Palestinian
woman who was convicted of terrorism in Israel, hid that fact while immigrating
to the US, and was finally deported after lengthy and costly legal proceedings.
All the while, she appeared in front of the courthouse where she was being tried
shouting into a bullhorn to her followers about how unjust America is. And this
guy Abudayyeh was one of her biggest boosters.
Lovely fellow. Just what SJP
wants to represent them. We should all draw the appropriate conclusions.
As Chancellor Block stated, SJP
has the right to free speech. But make no mistake. From November 16-18, hate
speech will be on display at UCLA. With the new outbreak of fighting between
Israel and the Hamas regime in Gaza, no doubt the rhetoric at UCLA will get
even more heated. The 2016 UC Statement of Principles Against Intolerance,
which Block referenced, will be violated to the point of making it nothing more
than a scrap of paper.
Latest Wave of C American Migrants Underlines Need for Border Security
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
As we speak, the latest wave of thousands of Central Americans is making its way though a compliant Mexico en route to our border. They have no visas. They have not been invited. They are coming anyway. They come waving Honduran, Salvadoran or Guatemalan flags. They stop to demonstrate in front of our embassy in Mexico City along the way. Not exactly the best way to ensure you're welcome in the US. Apparently, they don't care whether they are welcome or not.
The same situation is playing out in Western Europe, where hundreds of thousands of migrants, asylum-seekers or refugees have stormed in from the Middle East and Africa, Most are young men in their 20s. With few exceptions, they are making no positive contributions to their countries of destination unless you call, terrorism, murder, and rape to be contributions. While the East European countries refuse to accept them, the Western Europeans seem powerless to say no.
There is also another possible similarity between the two groups: In both cases, billionaire financier George Soros appears to have his hand in it. In the case of Europe, it is documented. He funds some of the NGO rescue ships that are picking up African migrants in the Mediterranean and dumping them in Italian ports. (At least up until the point where the new Italian government stopped allowing the ships to dock.) Soros is also suspected by some to be involved in the Central American wave though the liberal "fact check" sites dispute it.
Both examples point to the need for secure borders on both sides of the Atlantic. Contrary to accusations from the left, very few Americans oppose all immigration. We do insist, however, that we control who comes and who is not allowed in. For his part, President Trump, in his inimical style, is promising to stop the migrants marching through Mexico. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the by now obviously outdated law that people can apply for asylum if they can get one foot over the border. We can't send our Border Control one foot over the line into Mexico to stop them. What is needed is cooperation from Mexico. In past decades, they have flooded this country with drugs and their own illegal immigrants. Now they are providing a way through Mexico for Central Americans. In short, Mexico is being a very bad neighbor.
It is up to Trump to pressure Mexico in no uncertain terms to stop this march toward our border. If these people are allowed into the US, it will be a huge failure on the part of the Trump administration.
Among all the hand-wringing from the left about the plight of all these thousands of 20-something men, lost is the fact that the actions of these migrants-both in the Americas and in Europe are truly hurting decent, legal immigrants. I still believe in legal immigration for those who will adopt our values and contribute to our various nations. I don't blame people who want to escape horrific conditions in their home countries to seek a better life in America or Europe. But the final say in who is admitted must rest with the receiving country. Immigration is not just for the benefit of the immigrant. It must also be for the benefit of the receiving country. We seem to have lost sight of that fact.
University of Michigan: It's Required
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
"Speaker Emory Douglas,
part of the “Penny Stamps
Speakers Series Presentation” of the Stamps School of Art and
Design, displayed a slide that showed a picture of Netanyahu and Hitler with
the words “Guilty Of Genocide” written across their faces. Below the photo was
the definition of genocide."
The University of Michigan has been in the news quite a bit lately, and for all the wrong reasons. Just recently, a University of Michigan professor made news when he refused to write a letter of recommendation for a student to study in Israel. Now comes this about a speaker who compared Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu with Hitler. That's bad enough. It was a required attendance for certain students.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/252890
So here we have a former Black Panther who comes to the university to defame Netanyahu as being comparable to Hitler, and attendance is mandatory?
I invite the reader to follow the above link to the Penny Stamps site. If you are left with the impression that it is tilted way to the left, you are not alone. This reminds me of the UC Irvine New Narratives program instituted a few years ago by then Vice Chancellor Thomas Parham. In April 2017, I attended one such event which was loaded with a panel of victims including one black radical Canadian woman who had recently moved to the US and opened her talk by saying that she had picked the wrong time to come here in referring to President Trump. I tried unsuccessfully to get New Narratives to invite a speaker who had a more favorable image of America, but all I got was a big run-around.
I wonder if the Penny Stamps Speakers Series would consider bringing in a pro-Israel speaker to provide some semblance of balance to those students who are required to sit through these lectures.
Probably not.
The University of Michigan has been in the news quite a bit lately, and for all the wrong reasons. Just recently, a University of Michigan professor made news when he refused to write a letter of recommendation for a student to study in Israel. Now comes this about a speaker who compared Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu with Hitler. That's bad enough. It was a required attendance for certain students.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/252890
So here we have a former Black Panther who comes to the university to defame Netanyahu as being comparable to Hitler, and attendance is mandatory?
I invite the reader to follow the above link to the Penny Stamps site. If you are left with the impression that it is tilted way to the left, you are not alone. This reminds me of the UC Irvine New Narratives program instituted a few years ago by then Vice Chancellor Thomas Parham. In April 2017, I attended one such event which was loaded with a panel of victims including one black radical Canadian woman who had recently moved to the US and opened her talk by saying that she had picked the wrong time to come here in referring to President Trump. I tried unsuccessfully to get New Narratives to invite a speaker who had a more favorable image of America, but all I got was a big run-around.
I wonder if the Penny Stamps Speakers Series would consider bringing in a pro-Israel speaker to provide some semblance of balance to those students who are required to sit through these lectures.
Probably not.
Professor Juan Cole's Mohammad
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
Hat tip Campus Watch and Middle East Forum
https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/articles/2018/was-prophet-muhammad-really-illiterate-an-intervi
University of Michigan professor Juan Cole always goes to incredible lengths to defend everything that is Islamic. Now he has come out with a new book on the Prophet Mohammad entitled, Mohammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires. If you had any doubts this would be a hagiographic endeavor, Cole's interview with Joseph Richard Preville erases all doubt.
How one can described Mohammad as a "prophet of peace" when he led armies to fight non-Muslims, took women and children as slaves and ordered the murders of his opponents and the beheadings of captives is beyond me. It is true that when Mohammad began his teaching in Mecca, he was peaceful. After he was driven out of Mecca, he and his followers went to present-day Medina, where he consolidated his power and evolved into a warlord. Here are some statements by Cole that strain credulity.
JRP: You write that “Islam is, no less than Christianity, a Western religion that initially grew up in the Roman Empire” and that “Muhammad saw himself as an ally of the West.” How does your theory challenge or support other major scholarly interpretations of early Islam?
JC: The Arab Muslim sources emphasize the origins of Islam in Arabia and downplay how integrated the Arabs of late antiquity were into the Eastern Roman Empire, but Roman sources, inscriptions, and Qur'an passages give strong evidence for the Arabs as Roman citizens or allies. As for Muhammad being allied with Constantinople, there is some evidence for it in early Arabic sources and the eminent Princeton classicist G. W. Bowersock has hinted at it in his recent work, but I have taken the bull by the horns and said it explicitly.
It is true that all three monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam were born in the Middle East. While the first two successfully spread to the West ( the US is a democratic nation founded on Judaic-Christian principles), Islam's spread to the West, largely through recent immigration has hardly been successful. Assimilation has been slight and the clashes are too many to mention especially in Europe today. The fact is that Islam is antithetical to Western ideals of equality and freedom.
JRP: Many biographies portray Muhammad as illiterate and provincial. Would you agree?
JC: The Muslim tradition calls Muhammad "illiterate," I think in part to protect him from charges by polemicists that he learned things by reading the Bible or other works. But the tradition also says he was a successful long-distance merchant who regularly traded up to Damascus and Gaza in the Eastern Roman Empire. Long distance merchants are always literate, and I think Muhammad could read and write Arabic, Aramaic and possibly Greek. The Qur'an shows knowledge of the Bible, of Jewish tradition, and of classical Greek thought. It isn't provincial.
An interesting observation and opinion on the part of Cole since he strays from Islamic teaching that Mohammad was illiterate. Also interesting is the reason Cole thinks Muslims say that Mohammad was illiterate. Critics of Islam do not believe that Mohammad truly received the word of God from the archangel Gabriel (He may have imagined he did), therefore the idea that he read the Bible and initially borrowed from it is open to question.
RP: What was Muhammad’s role in the creation of the Constitution of Madinah? How revolutionary was this document for its time?
JC: The Constitution of Madinah was a treaty among groups in Madinah, to which the Meccan pagans expelled Muhammad in 622. Madinah had Muslims, Jews and pagans and possibly some Christians. The treaty pledged all these groups to defend the city militarily if it was attacked. It says that the Muslims have their religion and the Jews have theirs, so it recognizes freedom of conscience and is a political alliance. In the Roman Empire at that time, Jews were placed under disabilities and would not have been treated as equals this way.
And when the Jews supposedly broke the constitution, they were executed, and ever since Jews are hated within Islam. The Koran is replete with hateful verses against Jews (and Christians). Over the centuries Jewish minorities have had to live in a condition of dhimmitud, second class citizenship enshrined in the laws. It is true that in some places, Christians treated Jews as bad or worse as did Muslims, but Cole's answer leaves out tons of facts.
JRP: How did medieval Muslim clerics slight or minimize the Qur’an’s peace verses by a theory of abrogation?
JC: Peace-making and turning the other cheek are very important themes in the Qur'an. It allows going to war to defend yourself and innocents, but forbids aggressive, expansionist warfare. The text was very inconvenient for later aggressive Muslim empires. So ideologues developed a theory of "abrogation" where later verses invalidated earlier ones. They interpreted late verses on warfare as permitting aggression (they don't), and then alleged that all the peace verses were thus abrogated. It was an intellectual and spiritual travesty. Some Muslim thinkers, though, said only 5 verses were abrogated (not the peace verses), and rejected the procedure.
For Cole to claim that peace making and turning the other cheek are important themes in the Koran is a hoot. Reading the Koran especially putting the suras (chapters) in chronological order contradicts Cole on its very face. The early Mecca suras do tend to be benign and peaceful, but the Medina suras are clearly not. Put in order of time, it all makes sense. Mohammad evolved from a simple preacher in Mecca to a warlord in Medina. As for the principle of abrogation (which Western-based "moderate" imams are loathe to discuss), it makes perfect sense given the transformation of Mohammad ands the obvious contradictory verses in the Koran. Keep in mind that it is the Islamic scholars themselves (not Cole) who are the authorities in Islam since Islam has no Vatican and has no popes.
JRP: You have placed strong emphasis on Muhammad as a “Prophet of Peace.” How do you think your book will encourage and strengthen Islamic peace studies?
JC: The peace verses of the Qur'an have been there all along, and have been central, but scholarship has not focused on them. I'd like to see the kind of intersection of Peace Studies with Islam that exists with regard to Christianity. Christians have fought a lot of wars and even been involved in genocide, but we all also know about the Quakers and Mennonites. Only a few authors have written on the history of peace movements in Islam, which include the Murid Sufis of Senegal and the Gandhist Muslims in twentieth-century India.
Yes, the peace verses in the Koran have been there all along, but they are not central because they have been abrogated. Sura 9, the last major sura recorded is arguably the most violent and intolerable. It virtually abrogates every peaceful verse recorded earlier in time. As for Sufists and groups like the Ahmadiya Muslims, it is true they have a good track record of not being involved in the terror and intolerance we see in Islam today, but they are not regarded as Muslims by mainstream Islam. In fact, those that live in Muslim countries are persecuted. As for the wars and genocide of Christians, aside from the Crusades (in which both sides were culpable and Christians killed many Jews in the process), how many wars were fought for purely religious reasons? Genocide? I would argue that Hitler and the Nazis had no religious motivations for the Holocaust. They did not object to the theology of the Jews; they considered Jews as a race to be exterminated. And Hitler, despite his Catholic birth, was no Christian. He derided religion in general. If you want to talk about genocide in the modern sense, look no farther than today's Middle East.
If Cole wants to argue that most Muslims are leading peaceful lives and we should not blame them all for the atrocities being carried out today, that is fine. Cole, however, engages in falsehoods that are so easy to disprove just by scratching beneath the surface. If this is the type of scholarship to be found at the University of Michigan, they might as well stick to football.
https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/articles/2018/was-prophet-muhammad-really-illiterate-an-intervi
University of Michigan professor Juan Cole always goes to incredible lengths to defend everything that is Islamic. Now he has come out with a new book on the Prophet Mohammad entitled, Mohammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires. If you had any doubts this would be a hagiographic endeavor, Cole's interview with Joseph Richard Preville erases all doubt.
How one can described Mohammad as a "prophet of peace" when he led armies to fight non-Muslims, took women and children as slaves and ordered the murders of his opponents and the beheadings of captives is beyond me. It is true that when Mohammad began his teaching in Mecca, he was peaceful. After he was driven out of Mecca, he and his followers went to present-day Medina, where he consolidated his power and evolved into a warlord. Here are some statements by Cole that strain credulity.
JRP: You write that “Islam is, no less than Christianity, a Western religion that initially grew up in the Roman Empire” and that “Muhammad saw himself as an ally of the West.” How does your theory challenge or support other major scholarly interpretations of early Islam?
JC: The Arab Muslim sources emphasize the origins of Islam in Arabia and downplay how integrated the Arabs of late antiquity were into the Eastern Roman Empire, but Roman sources, inscriptions, and Qur'an passages give strong evidence for the Arabs as Roman citizens or allies. As for Muhammad being allied with Constantinople, there is some evidence for it in early Arabic sources and the eminent Princeton classicist G. W. Bowersock has hinted at it in his recent work, but I have taken the bull by the horns and said it explicitly.
It is true that all three monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam were born in the Middle East. While the first two successfully spread to the West ( the US is a democratic nation founded on Judaic-Christian principles), Islam's spread to the West, largely through recent immigration has hardly been successful. Assimilation has been slight and the clashes are too many to mention especially in Europe today. The fact is that Islam is antithetical to Western ideals of equality and freedom.
JRP: Many biographies portray Muhammad as illiterate and provincial. Would you agree?
JC: The Muslim tradition calls Muhammad "illiterate," I think in part to protect him from charges by polemicists that he learned things by reading the Bible or other works. But the tradition also says he was a successful long-distance merchant who regularly traded up to Damascus and Gaza in the Eastern Roman Empire. Long distance merchants are always literate, and I think Muhammad could read and write Arabic, Aramaic and possibly Greek. The Qur'an shows knowledge of the Bible, of Jewish tradition, and of classical Greek thought. It isn't provincial.
An interesting observation and opinion on the part of Cole since he strays from Islamic teaching that Mohammad was illiterate. Also interesting is the reason Cole thinks Muslims say that Mohammad was illiterate. Critics of Islam do not believe that Mohammad truly received the word of God from the archangel Gabriel (He may have imagined he did), therefore the idea that he read the Bible and initially borrowed from it is open to question.
RP: What was Muhammad’s role in the creation of the Constitution of Madinah? How revolutionary was this document for its time?
JC: The Constitution of Madinah was a treaty among groups in Madinah, to which the Meccan pagans expelled Muhammad in 622. Madinah had Muslims, Jews and pagans and possibly some Christians. The treaty pledged all these groups to defend the city militarily if it was attacked. It says that the Muslims have their religion and the Jews have theirs, so it recognizes freedom of conscience and is a political alliance. In the Roman Empire at that time, Jews were placed under disabilities and would not have been treated as equals this way.
And when the Jews supposedly broke the constitution, they were executed, and ever since Jews are hated within Islam. The Koran is replete with hateful verses against Jews (and Christians). Over the centuries Jewish minorities have had to live in a condition of dhimmitud, second class citizenship enshrined in the laws. It is true that in some places, Christians treated Jews as bad or worse as did Muslims, but Cole's answer leaves out tons of facts.
JRP: How did medieval Muslim clerics slight or minimize the Qur’an’s peace verses by a theory of abrogation?
JC: Peace-making and turning the other cheek are very important themes in the Qur'an. It allows going to war to defend yourself and innocents, but forbids aggressive, expansionist warfare. The text was very inconvenient for later aggressive Muslim empires. So ideologues developed a theory of "abrogation" where later verses invalidated earlier ones. They interpreted late verses on warfare as permitting aggression (they don't), and then alleged that all the peace verses were thus abrogated. It was an intellectual and spiritual travesty. Some Muslim thinkers, though, said only 5 verses were abrogated (not the peace verses), and rejected the procedure.
For Cole to claim that peace making and turning the other cheek are important themes in the Koran is a hoot. Reading the Koran especially putting the suras (chapters) in chronological order contradicts Cole on its very face. The early Mecca suras do tend to be benign and peaceful, but the Medina suras are clearly not. Put in order of time, it all makes sense. Mohammad evolved from a simple preacher in Mecca to a warlord in Medina. As for the principle of abrogation (which Western-based "moderate" imams are loathe to discuss), it makes perfect sense given the transformation of Mohammad ands the obvious contradictory verses in the Koran. Keep in mind that it is the Islamic scholars themselves (not Cole) who are the authorities in Islam since Islam has no Vatican and has no popes.
JRP: You have placed strong emphasis on Muhammad as a “Prophet of Peace.” How do you think your book will encourage and strengthen Islamic peace studies?
JC: The peace verses of the Qur'an have been there all along, and have been central, but scholarship has not focused on them. I'd like to see the kind of intersection of Peace Studies with Islam that exists with regard to Christianity. Christians have fought a lot of wars and even been involved in genocide, but we all also know about the Quakers and Mennonites. Only a few authors have written on the history of peace movements in Islam, which include the Murid Sufis of Senegal and the Gandhist Muslims in twentieth-century India.
Yes, the peace verses in the Koran have been there all along, but they are not central because they have been abrogated. Sura 9, the last major sura recorded is arguably the most violent and intolerable. It virtually abrogates every peaceful verse recorded earlier in time. As for Sufists and groups like the Ahmadiya Muslims, it is true they have a good track record of not being involved in the terror and intolerance we see in Islam today, but they are not regarded as Muslims by mainstream Islam. In fact, those that live in Muslim countries are persecuted. As for the wars and genocide of Christians, aside from the Crusades (in which both sides were culpable and Christians killed many Jews in the process), how many wars were fought for purely religious reasons? Genocide? I would argue that Hitler and the Nazis had no religious motivations for the Holocaust. They did not object to the theology of the Jews; they considered Jews as a race to be exterminated. And Hitler, despite his Catholic birth, was no Christian. He derided religion in general. If you want to talk about genocide in the modern sense, look no farther than today's Middle East.
If Cole wants to argue that most Muslims are leading peaceful lives and we should not blame them all for the atrocities being carried out today, that is fine. Cole, however, engages in falsehoods that are so easy to disprove just by scratching beneath the surface. If this is the type of scholarship to be found at the University of Michigan, they might as well stick to football.
Siraj Wahhaj: "My Son Can Be a Little Extreme"
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
This article first appeared in New English Review. Much of the information (not all) is contained in previous posts in Fousesquawk regarding this issue.
Even CNN's politically correct talk show host, Brooke Baldwin, was dumbstruck by that statement after she ran a video clip Thursday in which Imam Siraj Wahhaj spoke to the press about the arrest of his son, Siraj Wahhaj, Jr. in the New Mexico desert.
Yep. Keeping kids in starvation conditions in a filthy compound in the middle of the desert while training them to fire weapons in preparation for school shootings can be "a little extreme".
The elder Wahhaj also claims that it was he who tipped off the police to the New Mexico location when he learned that his son had absconded with his own three-year-old son in Georgia.
What CNN and other mainstream outlets are failing to report is the full background on Wahhaj Sr, a man with a long history of radical speech and associations behind him. About the farthest the media will go in describing Wahhaj's radical background is to advise the public that he appeared as a defense witness in the trial of the so-called "Blind Sheikh", Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case. They generally leave out the fact that Wahhaj was an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. (He has never been charged.)
As the media loves to point out, Wahhaj was the first Muslim to give an opening prayer in the House of Representatives, which doesn't say much for the House. It is true that Wahhaj has convinced many non-Muslims that he is a peaceful moderate. When appearing before non-Muslim audiences (and the press), he comes across as a kindly, soft-spoken, grandfatherly type. When speaking before his own congregation and Muslim groups, however, it all changes. His language becomes full of hate, especially for America, which he has called "a filthy garbage can". He has also told his followers that Islam will take over America and made references to arming people with Uzis and 9 mm's. Both statements are now quite ironic given the filthy conditions in the New Mexico compound and the fact that weapons were also discovered including an AR-15.
Wahhaj's incendiary rhetoric has not turned off groups like CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, or the Islamic Circle of North America, who use him as one of their favorite speakers. In 2013, CAIR Southern California leader Hussam Ayloush spoke in Riverside, and I asked him why CAIR would invite Wahhaj as a speaker given the statements described above. Ayloush replied that Wahhaj was "one of the most prominent and respected religious leaders in America", and I was a bigot for asking.
Linda Sarsour is another admirer of Wahhaj, whom she describes as her mentor and who taught her to "speak truth to power".
Also ironic is the fact that when Wahhaj came to speak at a charity dinner in Yorba Linda, California in 2011 along with another radical imam, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, sponsored by the Islamic Center of North America (ICNA), a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned group, a protest ensued prior to the scheduled beginning of the event. I was present and spoke at the protest as did several local public officials including Congressman Ed Royce (R-CA). Unfortunately, some people showed up with their own agenda and engaged the attendees with chants as they arrived, an act we did not approve of. In the lead up to the event, local residents met with ICNA representative Shakeel Syed (now of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California) and requested that they find other speakers than Ali and Wahhaj given their radical nature. Syed's angry response was to point his finger at the lady who made the request and say that they would bring whatever speakers they chose.
Unfortunately, you will hear none of the above facts on CNN or other mainstream outlets other than perhaps, Fox. It is another sterling example of the media deliberately omitting pertinent facts.
Whether the elder Wahhaj has any involvement in his son's activities or not, it is fair to ask how much of his teachings sank into his son. I hope that the authorities will at least explore any possible involvement on the part of the imam. To not do so would be gross negligence on their part.
A Salute to College Republicans
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse,blogspot.com
Full disclosure: I write this as an independent voter who routinely votes for Republicans simply because they more represent my conservative point of view. I have never joined any particular party.
But the case of the Stanford student, Hamzeh Daoud, who made written threats of physical violence against "Zionists" on the Stanford campus, has once again pointed out the fact that many College Republican (CR) chapters, especially in California, are taking the lead in standing up, not only for conservative values and free speech issues, but also standing up to campus anti-semitism.
During the years I was teaching part-time at UC Irvine (1998-2016) and getting involved in anti-semitism issues, the CR chapter was fairly dormant. That has changed in recent years as they have become more assertive in standing up for free speech issues and defending Jewish students under assault by the pro-Palestinian brown shirts. Probably the most significant figure has been Ariana Rowlands, a past president of the UCI CR and a recent graduate.
In May 2016, it was College Republicans, who by chance, witnessed an SJP disruption of a pro-Israel event on the UCI campus and videotaped it. They also stood up for free speech in inviting conservative pundit Milos Yiannopoulos to speak, which led to protests and an attempt by the UCI administration to discipline them. The CR stood their ground and forced the administrators to back down. More recently, the CR hosted a group of Israeli reservist soldiers to speak at their weekly meeting in May 2018, an event, which was predictably disrupted by outside agitators invited by who knows who. (Actually, I have a good idea.)
Also at UC Berkeley. the CR chapter has stood for free speech. Their 2017 invitation to Yiannopoulos to speak led to an actual riot by Antifa type thugs, who by their actions forced a cancellation of the event.
Now comes the ugly incident at Stanford, where Daoud posted social media messages promising to (physically) fight "Zionists" on campus. It was the CR chapter at Stanford who put themselves out front by calling for the administration to take action. (To this date, we don't know what that action is.) Not surprisingly, the campus newspaper, The Stanford Daily, shamelessly stood up for Daoud and his anti-Israel cause, filling the pages of their publication with denunciations of Israel and the CR. Daoud has now resigned his position as a dorm resident assistant, but we do not know what if any punitive action will follow from Stanford. That is covered by state privacy laws.
Of course, one cannot speak for every CR chapter in the nation. Clearly, some are more active than others. All I can say is that it is heartening to see certain chapters actually stand up for their values in the face of the politically-correct climate on most every campus. If this is the future of the Republican party, I cannot wait to see them replace many of the current crop in Congress. We need to support them.
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse,blogspot.com
Full disclosure: I write this as an independent voter who routinely votes for Republicans simply because they more represent my conservative point of view. I have never joined any particular party.
But the case of the Stanford student, Hamzeh Daoud, who made written threats of physical violence against "Zionists" on the Stanford campus, has once again pointed out the fact that many College Republican (CR) chapters, especially in California, are taking the lead in standing up, not only for conservative values and free speech issues, but also standing up to campus anti-semitism.
During the years I was teaching part-time at UC Irvine (1998-2016) and getting involved in anti-semitism issues, the CR chapter was fairly dormant. That has changed in recent years as they have become more assertive in standing up for free speech issues and defending Jewish students under assault by the pro-Palestinian brown shirts. Probably the most significant figure has been Ariana Rowlands, a past president of the UCI CR and a recent graduate.
In May 2016, it was College Republicans, who by chance, witnessed an SJP disruption of a pro-Israel event on the UCI campus and videotaped it. They also stood up for free speech in inviting conservative pundit Milos Yiannopoulos to speak, which led to protests and an attempt by the UCI administration to discipline them. The CR stood their ground and forced the administrators to back down. More recently, the CR hosted a group of Israeli reservist soldiers to speak at their weekly meeting in May 2018, an event, which was predictably disrupted by outside agitators invited by who knows who. (Actually, I have a good idea.)
Also at UC Berkeley. the CR chapter has stood for free speech. Their 2017 invitation to Yiannopoulos to speak led to an actual riot by Antifa type thugs, who by their actions forced a cancellation of the event.
Now comes the ugly incident at Stanford, where Daoud posted social media messages promising to (physically) fight "Zionists" on campus. It was the CR chapter at Stanford who put themselves out front by calling for the administration to take action. (To this date, we don't know what that action is.) Not surprisingly, the campus newspaper, The Stanford Daily, shamelessly stood up for Daoud and his anti-Israel cause, filling the pages of their publication with denunciations of Israel and the CR. Daoud has now resigned his position as a dorm resident assistant, but we do not know what if any punitive action will follow from Stanford. That is covered by state privacy laws.
Of course, one cannot speak for every CR chapter in the nation. Clearly, some are more active than others. All I can say is that it is heartening to see certain chapters actually stand up for their values in the face of the politically-correct climate on most every campus. If this is the future of the Republican party, I cannot wait to see them replace many of the current crop in Congress. We need to support them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
