Acid Attacks on Women in Iran
One woman died from injuries sustained in the attack. The others have seen their futures destroyed within moments. Here is what acid can do:
"What Dano threw at her was sulfuric acid that melted her eyes to the sockets and left little of her face. Her nose and lips also disintegrated and one of her ears was severely disfigured. At the time, she was only fifteen, and her life would be changed forever."
There is a record of the victims of acid attacks being taken to the city's Imam Sajjad, Imam Musa, and Fayd hospitals, yet their families have been ordered by the Ministry of Intelligence and Security's Isfahan office to say nothing about these attacks and not to publish photographs in the social media of the horrendous mutilations inflicted.
Nothing unusual here... just a couple of orthodox
Muslims sharing tips at their local sex slave market.
2014.11.10 (Alon Shvut, Israel) - Palestinians stab an Israeli woman to death.
The Prophet and Islam’s Sex Slaves
As for “theological reasons” for sex slavery “according to the Sharia,” these are legion—from male Muslim clerics, to female Muslim activists. Generally they need do no more than cite the clear words of Koran 4:3, which permit Muslims to copulate with female captives of war, or ma malakat aymanukum, “what”—not whom—“your right hands possess.”
That video is ridiculous piece of fluff. It looks contrived and scripted.
Well they don't violently and aggressively interrupt and talk over each other like they do on your preferred news channel.
Is Islam compatible with democracy?
Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy. It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head. Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics. There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.
Qur'an (33:36) - "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision."
Qur'an (45:21) - "What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make." Unbelievers are not equal to Muslims. This is dutifully reflected in Islamic law.
Qur'an (5:44) - "Whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed is among the disbelievers" This is one reason why terrorists openly fight for an Islamic state against democracy and secularism.
Qur'an (39:9) - "Are those who know equal to those who know not?"
Qur'an (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers." This is at odds with democracy, which allows anyone to serve in a position of power over others regardless of religious belief.
Qur'an (63:8) - "...might (power) belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers;" ie. not to anyone else.
Qur'an (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose.
Qur'an (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper."
Qur'an (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..." Obedience is strictly limited to a government drawn from believers, not from the broader community. This verse has also been used to justify submission to autocratic rule, however oppressive it may by. As an Arab tradition put is: "tyranny is better than anarchy."
Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and his messenger are free from obligation to the unbelievers..." Muhammad used this "revelation" to dissolve a standing treaty and chase non-Muslims from their homes if they wouldn't accept Islam. This practice would be incompatible with democratic rule, in which everyone is considered equal.
From the Hadith:
Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" Non-Muslims are intended to be subordinate to Muslims.
Bukhari (88:219) - "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."
Bukhari (89:251) - Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me." The ruler referred to here is the Caliph, who is appointed by Allah, not by popular election. Democratic rule has no legitimacy against the will of the Caliph who, as we see by chain of reference, has the authority of Allah.
To quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law, not man's, should govern the society."
Islamic law is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which are set and fixed. There is no need for addition or correction. Neither is there any room for the law of fallible man (particularly non-Muslims). Nor should it take the place of Allah's perfect law, which tells a man everything he needs to know about daily life (down to which hand he should "hold it in" while urinating).
If Allah is not the authority then anything less is a secular dictatorship, including rule by the Muslim people. As an American-Muslim jurist complained in a recent fatwa, "democracy gives free reign to the authority of the Ummah, and puts no ceiling on it."
Also, the law of one person, one vote is essential to democracy, but heretical to Islam. According to the Qur'an, the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man, and Jews and Christians are never to have equal standing with Muslims under the law (and certainly never in a position of authority over Muslims). Atheists are to be killed outright.
Reform-minded Muslims prefer to ignore all of this and instead point to Qur'an (42:38), where the phrase "[Muslims] who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation" is used as evidence that Islam is compatible with democracy. Also recruited to this end is an oft-repeated hadith that has Muhammad saying, "My community will never agree on an error." On this is based the much ballyhooed concept of "ijma" or consensus among Muslims for determining matters of Islamic law.
But ijma, has always been controversial and rarely practiced within Islam. Some interpret it to mean "consensus of the scholars" - having nothing to do with the opinion of the community at large. Even when its legitimacy is recognized, ijma is accepted only as a secondary (or tertiary) form of authority, behind the fiqh councils. Also, it bears pointing out that ijma and consultation are applicable only within the Muslim community (and probably limited to the "consensus" of males).
American scholar Jamal Badawi says that it is the duty of Muslims to bring about Islamic rule: "The Qur’an is full of direct and indirect, implicit and many times explicit indications that show that the establishment of the Islamic order is a requirement on Muslims whenever possible." He also scoffs at secularism: “If a Muslim believes that there is any human being who has the right to make laws other than Allah then obviously this is total divergence from the path of Islam. Or any person who believes that secularism is superior to the law of Allah, he's violating the basic Quranic tenets"
Muhammad ruled on Allah's authority and did not submit his decisions to the will of the people. Neither is there any tradition of democracy in the 1400 year history of Islam in the Middle East and Persia. If the entire world became Muslim overnight, it is highly doubtful that democracy would last, since it would be applicable only to the most mundane of matters not already decided by Islamic law.
As another cleric, Sufi Muhammad, recently put it, "True Islam permits neither elections, nor democracy."
Morocco Teen that was Forced to Marry Rapist is Brutally Attacked for Seeking Divorce
Enslaved and exploited for Allah
A virgin is worth $100 on the slave market; a mother only $10 • Women are forced to convert to Islam and then turned into sex slaves • Thousands of Kurdish and Yazidi women held by Islamic State are learning that modern slavery is alive and kicking.
Kurds on the Syrian-Turkish border. The Muslim world looks on in silence
Quote:Morocco Teen that was Forced to Marry Rapist is Brutally Attacked for Seeking Divorce
Think that would cut down on divorce in America? Can progressives get behind that?
We've never been given credit for doing that!
Beirut - The Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria on Tuesday posted photographs appearing to show jihadists throw a "gay" off a rooftop and then stoning him to death.
"The Islamic court in Wilayet al-Furat decided that a man who has practised sodomy must be thrown off the highest point in the city, and then stoned to death," read a statement accompanying the images.
Equality and Sharia
"While you are the stronger I ask of you my freedom since that is your principle; but when I am the stronger I will remove your freedom since that is my principle.” Louis Veuillot
The principle of equality is very important in western civilisation:
Equality of all in the sight of God (which comes from Christianity)
Equality of all before the law (which comes from Roman law)
The aim of removing barriers due to sex, class, race, ethnicity etc has been important in reducing discrimination and allowing greater social mobility, equality of opportunity etc
The concept of universal human rights (which comes from liberalism and rationalism)
Most people in western democracies would subscribe to these forms of equality.
The Left in particular has made the principle of equality its guiding idea. It provides them with a very simple moral compass. The judgement that equality is good and inequality is bad is easy to understand. It accords with childhood notions of fairness. The principle of equality dominates left-wing thinking.
The Left has defined justice in terms of equality. The more equality, the more fairness; “social justice” serves as a label for a social order where justice is achieved through equality. Inequality of wealth or power is always wrong. The more unequal a society is, the more wrong it is. That which leads to increasing equality is right and good. That which creates increasing inequality is bad.
The party on the weaker side of a relationship is the victim, the exploited or oppressed; the party on the stronger side is the oppressor. Righting this wrong involves taking from the stronger and giving to the weaker. This will always create more justice.
At the far end of the scale, on the far Left, the stronger party can do no right whilst the weaker party can do no wrong. Any action can be justified which produces a more equal relationship. Any amount of logical distortion and defacing of reality is justified when arguing for the cause of equality.
The principle of equality has now been pushed into realms where it does not belong and where it is meaningless. For example, many people like to think that all opinions are equally valid: “I’m entitled to my opinion”, “You have your opinion and I have mine.” This is simply subjectivism gone mad and takes no account of the amount of learning or experience behind different opinions. It takes no account of the cogency of an argument or the strength of evidence supporting it.
An area where the principle of equality has caused enormous mischief is when it has been applied to different cultures. The doctrine of multiculturalism has promoted the idea that all cultures are worthy of equal respect, equal treatment, and equal acceptance (except the culture of liberal democracy itself which makes any of this remotely possible).
This equality of respect has even started to lead to the idea that all cultures should be treated on the terms in which they define themselves. Where a culture such as Islam defines itself as the supreme worldview, then Muslims should be allowed to see themselves and behave as if Islam holds this position in the world. If Islam refuses to allow criticism, then it should not be criticised. This is tantamount to according Islam the respect that it accords itself. We see some of this when we hear western leaders referring to "the Prophet Muhammad" and when criticism of Islam is criminalised.
The concept of multiculturalism sounds plausible and tolerant in the abstract but as soon as we start to drill down into specifics it comes unstuck. Consider for example the aim of each cultural sub-group respecting the beliefs of every other sub-group: Do you as a non-Muslim respect the Islamic belief that you are inferior? Do you respect the Islamic belief that if you criticise Islamic beliefs such as this you are insulting Islam and should be punished, possibly killed?[/u]
As we sleepwalk into soft multicultural totalitarianism such problems are becoming all too real. Police in Bradford, UK, are searching for a man who made derogatory remarks about Islam on a bus whilst sitting behind an "Asian" man. Thus the authorities are already deciding who is allowed to say what to whom.
We can argue about the merits of different approaches to equality: Few would accept the far left idea of equality of outcomes but for the principle of equality before the law most of us would fight to the death.
Why then do we allow Islam to erode equality? Why do the Left, of all people, do the most to further this endeavour? Why do they offer their blind support to a religious and political system that sanctifies inequality? Simply because there is a temporary appearance of redressing inequality with a dominant western world? Out of protectiveness toward the perceived underdog?
And, of course, there is the intractable problem of people growing up in liberal democratic cultures who cannot believe that a social order in the modern world could actively promote - and sanctify - inequality and enshrine it in law.
Islam cannot be separated from Sharia; they have grown together like Siamese twins. Muhammad was a law giver and executioner as much as he was a self-appointed prophet. Sharia law is based on his example as a person and upon his “revelations” as recorded in the Koran. Obedience to the words of Muhammad and emulation of him is obedience to Allah; this is true in the political sphere as much as the personal. In Islam the two are one and the same. This makes it radically monotheistic and totalitarian.
The principles of Sharia are derived from the Koran and the traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life and behaviour. The principles of Sharia are well-established and non-negotiable, having been established many centuries ago.
The following are examples of where Sharia is in direct conflict with the principle of equality:
Inequality of women
In a court of law a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s
A woman is only entitled to half the inheritance of her male siblings
A man can have four wives and divorce them easily, whereas a woman must give specific reasons to a Sharia court, some of which are extremely difficult to prove
Inequality of non-Muslims
Testimony of a non-Muslim is not acceptable against a Muslim in court
Polytheists and pagans are below People of the Book (principally Jews and Christians) and People of the Book are below Muslims. Under conquest, polytheists and pagans have two choices: convert to Islam or be killed; People of the Book have a third choice: live as second class citizens in the Islamic State and suffer various permanent humiliations and penalties in order to buy “protection” from Muslim persecution. This is an elaborate protection racket.
One of the conditions which People of the Book have to agree to is the payment of an annual poll tax known as jizya. This often has to be paid by means of a humiliating ritual and involves onerous sums of money.
Non-Muslims should never have authority over Muslims
The life of a non-Muslim is worth less than a Muslim’s. For this reason a Muslim should not be executed for killing a non-Muslim but should be executed for killing another Muslim.
Inequality of homosexuals
Homosexuals have no right to live.
The punishment for homosexuality is unanimously agreed to be execution. Only the manner of execution is disputed.
Recent videos from Islamic State show homosexuals thrown from tall buildings. This is a common method of executing homosexuals in accordance with Sharia law.
Slavery is one of the most unequal relationships
Muhammad bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves. Slavery is therefore Sunna (in accordance with his example). Due to this fact, slavery cannot be deemed impermissible and is still legal under Sharia today (as it will always be).
Muhammad also had sex slaves. He gave women as sex slaves to his companions. This means that sexual slavery is also Sunna.
Sharia law includes a lot of rules about the keeping of slaves and their treatment. All of these rules take as their presupposition that there is nothing wrong with slavery as such.
There is no limit to the number of sex slaves a Muslim can own. A man can have sex with his wife/wives and any number of sex slaves.
This list is by means exhaustive but it should serve to illustrate that Islam and the legal system integral to it do a great deal to not only enforce inequality but to sanctify it. We may dislike many aspects of inequality in liberal democratic societies and rail against the amount paid to certain bankers etc but we can at least protest these forms of inequality.
Under Sharia, to protest the inequalities enshrined in it would be blasphemous and thus a capital offence.
Why then are the Left of all people so keen to defend Islam from criticism?
One of the reasons for this capitulation to Sharia is the doctrine of multiculturalism. Having established the principle that all cultures are equally valid, they have provided an anti-egalitarian and absolutist culture with a protective shield behind which it can advance ever deeper into our societies. There is no ultimate standard by which to judge another culture.
If all cultures are equal how can you judge that cultures that endorse slavery are worse than cultures that don’t; that belligerent and destructive cultures are worse than peaceful and creative ones; that cultures where inequalities are extreme are worse than egalitarian cultures?
What remains so extraordinary (and exasperating) is the defence offered to Islam by those committed to fighting inequality when Islam is so inimical to equality. As a good friend pointed out the other day, it is such people who really are "Islamophobes" because they are too scared to actually study Islam and find out what it really means. They engage in the typical avoidance behaviour of the phobic person.
By acting as the dupes of every Islamic apologist; by refusing to investigate the actual doctrines of Islam (and their unchangeable nature); by adding to the smokescreen of confusion about Islam instead of seeking to clarify it; by attacking as malicious bigots those people who have done an Islamic reality check; by refusing to read the Koran and find out how it is interpreted (including the pivotal rule of abrogation); by all these means they are binding us to pillars of inequality from which we may never escape.