Woolwich attacks - false flag ... again

It will come as no surprise, but is no less sickening for all that... we are beginning to see the inevitable.
We saw it, after all, with 9/11. We saw it with 7/7.
My convert friend refuses to accept either atrocity was carried out by those following his faith. It was western governments, security forces and of course....the JEWS!
There are claims now emerging that Woolwich was a false flag operation.
On the anti-Semite site run by bonkers Canadian professor Michel Chossudovsky called rather grandly Global Research we see this:

Woolwich London Killing: Terrorism or False Flag?

Chossudovsky, by the way, has been described in various quarters as one of "Canada's nuttiest professors, those whose absurdity stands head and shoulders above their colleagues" link

The article has this to say about the recent events. Look away now if you are easily offended by rank stupidity.

These type incidents automatically raise questions. Answers are needed before jumping to conclusions. The timing of Wednesday’s killing is very suspicious.
COBRA refers to the room where committee members meet – Cabinet Office Briefing Room A. A terrorist alert was imposed. Heightened security steps were taken.
These measures don’t commonly follow street killings. It doesn’t matter how gruesome. Most incidents get scant coverage. Many go unnoticed.

The article goes on to quote Peter Eyre, "a Middle East consultant, geopolitical analyst, investigative journalist, anti-war activist, and valued Progressive Radio News Hour guest."

“The gruesome scene of a decapitated actor with no police or paramedics at the scene and no blood,” he said.
The “offenders are shot by armed police who are in attendance in the background but the murder scene has not been secured!!”
Many awakened “to this amazing Shakespearean play that has unfolded in Woolwich, London where all the actors were so bad they would not even qualify for an interview as an extra in some third rate movie!! S)o much vivid violence and yet still no blood at the scene…why?”“(B)ecause the actors had not had time to splash it around before they filmed the scene.”“(I)t was however added later as the picture (in his article) shows…the blood is only on the pavement and not on the road!!”“(D)o you think they attempted to copy the Boston Bombing but somehow did not get it right?””

So, innocent Muslims were framed for 9/11. Innocent Muslims were framed for 7/7. Now innocent Muslims were framed for Woolwich.

Black is white. White is black. And I'm a small rodent called Gerald. 

Please wake me up when the nightmare is over.

Oxford abusers "attended the Mosque"

The Guardian today carries an interesting aside to the deeply disturbing story of the systematic grooming and abuse of vulnerable young girls in the town.

Across the Cowley Road the leaders of the Central Oxford mosque are equally horrified that men who attended prayers inside its doors – men who had wives and children and were well known in the community – could have been responsible.

In a previous post I suggested that religion rarely makes bad people do good things but can and does make good people do bad things. I took as my example of the latter the Boston bombers, the younger of whom (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) had received a $2,500 scholarship from the city of Cambridge, Mass. and was hoping to become a dentist.

Now we have an horrific example of how religion fails to make bad people do good things or,more pertinently in this case, doesn't stop bad people doing some of the most evil things imaginable.

Bangladesh - Allah, take note...

Allah must be delighted with the news emerging from Bangladesh at the moment.
We know that God (whether He be the one found in the Jewish Bible, the New Testament or the Qur'an) is obsessed, above all else, with being given due recognition by mankind for His creation. We also know (because He never let's us forget it) that He is a jealous God; there is nothing worse in His book(s) than worshiping other gods, or shirk as it is known in Islam.
Now, in any country not labouring under the yoke of religious mania, the news that 585 of their fellow citizens had perished when a factory collapsed would have been greeted with outrage by the inhabitants. Especially when it became clear the reason for the collapse was the greed of the owners and the shameful turning of a million blind eyes belonging to westerners more interested in buying cheap jeans than in caring for the abused workforce who produced them.
And indeed there was outrage in Bangladesh the day after this appalling tragedy. There were street protests. There were howls of anguish and impassioned debate. Three people died and hundreds were injured.
But the poor deluded Bangladeshis chose not to come out on the streets in support of their fellow workers being abused by grasping bosses but - and I still find this difficult to believe even as I write - rather in support of a newly formed Islamist group demanding, inter alia, the death penalty for those who insult Islam.
If ever an illustration were needed of how religion warps the perspective of those whom it infects,  there it is in glowing red of the tyres set alight in the streets and the bestial howls of the crowd screaming: "One Point. One Demand: Atheists must be hanged!". If ever I need an answer to the question: Why are you running this blog -what do you have to fear from Islam or any religion? I shall simply ask in return why the pointless deaths of those factory workers was deemed less worthy of protest than the demands for the deaths of those who can't believe in the merciful god of Islam.

Lessons from the Boston bombers

Two articles in today's Sunday Times serve to illustrate why I continue to question my friend's conversion to an ideology that seems to me to be the antithesis of what humanity should be striving to achieve, namely leaving the world in tact and a better place for our children .

The first is an article by the Chairman of Quilliam, an organisation which has founded a youth movement in Pakistan to counter extremist ideas. Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist, imprisoned for his extreme views, looks at how the global jihadist movement has changed in the last ten years from the credo of a group to the "mission of an insurgency" seen across the Arab world and beyond. The central tenet of this shift from a local to a global struggle is that the jihadist's "people" stop being his neighbours or fellow nationals, and instead become brothers and sisters of the ummah. Hence the enemy become "non-Muslims", "the only war that of Islam versus the non-believer" and it becomes justifiable to strike America and her allies in any way because of their interference in countries which are on the brink of creating a state where the ummah can live as they wish. Thus we see young Chechens blowing legs off marathon runners in Boston not because they believe that it will free their countrymen from Russian hegemony, but because they were brainwashed in their local Mosque into believing that such actions would ultimately help the global struggle against the kuffar.

The second by Andrew Sullivan, very pertinently, tries too understand how and why the left refuses to see religion as the cause of the Boston bombings. It quotes Tsarnaev's uncle describing his nephew's shift to "extreme devotion": "I was shocked when I heard his words, his phrases, when every other word he starts sticking in words of God", and asks why commentators such as the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald should desperately search for some other motive (societal alienation, mental illness, instability) when "history is crammed with violence committed in the name of God". We have seen how Christianity can "become murderous": from the crusades to the religious conflicts of the 17th century when it was founded by a supposed peace loving prophet. Why is it so unlikely that a religion founded by an "explicitly political conqueror"  should be used by today's terrorists to justify their abominations? The tendency to take religion to its extreme, violent form is "not the exclusive province of any faith". But what we should understand here is that those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam are simply expressing a faith without doubt or humility. "It is past reason". It is, as Muslims love to tell us, total surrender, and it knows no restraint.
So why should we not believe Tsarnaev when he tells us his motives. He is, as Sullivan says, not crazy - just terrifyingly consistent.
He may be the exception. We know that most Muslims are peaceful and caring and love their families and hope for the same things we all do: a better world for their children. But it is also true, it seems to many of us, that Islam has a difficult problem with modernity. It cannot, like Christianity moderate doctrinally because the Qur'an is the uncreated word of God. It cannot be subjected to objective scholarly criticism or be re-interpreted in the light of scientific advance. Nor can it accept the existence of those who choose not to believe in one God or no God at all. And it is universal in its aims.

These, to me, are disturbing characteristics in isolation, but terrifying when put together.

Boston bombers - good people...

Religion doesn't make bad people do good things, but it does make good people do bad things.

Islam and democracy

Regular readers of Rational Islam? will know the background to the genesis of this blog: a close friend converted to Islam in his late twenties and promptly declared that among other things:
i. evolution was a lie
ii. Adam and Eve were the first humans
iii. the ancients lived to hundreds of years old
iv.desert sprites called jinn actually exist
and
v. the Qur'an contained miraculous scientific miracles which prove its divinity.

Each of the above in its own way is worrying to hear from an intelligent, educated man who, prior to his conversion, was as intellectually curious an individual you could hope to meet.
But perhaps the most disturbing of all his new dogmas was his new view of democracy.
He was now, he explained, against a state body that arrogates for itself the right to decide what is permissible and what is not permissible, "because that is the right of God alone". He further maintained that knowledgeable Muslims of all allegiances should know that an Islamic state should be run on Islamic principles, not democratic ones.

I find this the most disturbing because, let's face it, if my mate or 2 billion other individuals want to believe in fairy tales then that's sad and a waste of intellectual capacity on a truly planetary scale, but ultimately it's not going to affect the rest of us in the short term. But if an intelligent and level-headed individual can suddenly reject the basic principles upon which all free societies are based because his religion tells him to, is it irrational to fear that this disparaging view of democracy is held by the majority of Muslims?
Is it irrational to fear that the Islamic desire for a society governed by their God is a threat to those of us who don't share their beliefs and who cherish the right to determine our own future?
Or put another way, as Hizb ut-Tahrir have it in their manifesto:  is an ideology which maintains

 the rule of people, for the people, by the people -the basis of the democratic system is to be rejected because it is laid down by man and it is not from the God.

one with which we ought to feel entirely comfortable?

I'm just asking...

Because those Muslims who live in democracies and who espouse such anti-democratic beliefs are presumably looking forward to the day when they can (using the democratic process) bring about an Islamic state.

And of course, we shouldn't forget that once an Islamic state has been established, no-one will be allowed to work to bring back democracy - for Allah is a jealous god and has told us that those who work to undermine the caliphate must be crucified (or have alternate hands and feet amputated) (5:33)

Slavery - an unfair criticism of the Qur'an?

A recent comment on a previous post summarises many of the objections to my posts (apart from the one about not speaking Arabic...) I receive from Muslims and illustrates the ignorance of their own religion under which some poor Muslims are still labouring.

"Everyone here is babbling about something in which they have no clue. Stop taking stories and verses out of context. How exactly did you judge Islam being male oriented? When Islam came at the time of Persians and Romans none of those empires gave rights to women let alone respect of any sort to them. Slavery was in its peak. Therefore....Islam at that time announced that:1-slavery is forbidden2-women have the right to choose who to marry3-women have the right to inherit4-women were given 3 times the respect to a father by a hadeeth of prophet (pbuh)5-women participated in battlefields as a part of the army6-and in heaven a woman is a lot more beatiful than the 70 virgin hoor alaien, rewarding a women with more beauty as to what she served in life.7-the story about (hell is made mostly of women) meant to teach women not to gossip. Also, not betray, resign their husbands.
Islam gave all of that 1400 years ago when most of the world lived under horrible laws.
The elections and democracy? We had that 1400 years ago, although some ppl out of greed changed it but that is not the point.
The point is, when you take the Quran, you take it all without leaving a part of it." 

There is much to take issue with here but let us for the moment focus on #1.
"Slavery is forbidden"
The commentor blithely claims that Islam "announced that slavery is forbidden" at a time when slavery was at its peak in the Roman Empire. Really? Even my convert friend admits that the Qur'an accepts slavery as a normal, if regrettable  part of society . He tries to defend this by stressing the references to how one should consider giving slaves their freedom in some circumstances and how one should treat one's slaves fairly:

The conditions on the slave master are quite stringent in Islam. The slave must be housed decently and given the same quality of food and clothing that the master has. I have the feeling that many supposedly free employees of modern times live in less dignity than slaves have had under Muslim rule. 

We should also remember, however, that despite my friend's valiant attempts to dress up the Qur'an's disturbing references to slavery as some sort of liberal social contract, the Qur'an in fact reveals what it really thinks of the position of slaves in the infamous ayat 33:50 wherein Allah tells Muhammad with whom sex is lawful: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war (slaves). This seems to me to be a strange way of telling us that slavery is forbidden. Ah- but here I am taking words out of context again! So let's read the whole ayat:

O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncles on the mother's side emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage, a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers. We are aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Now I understand! It's not just Muhammad who can have sex with his slave girls without risking the ire of The  Almighty. In fact it's any Muslim...Because Allah is forgiving and merciful. (I wonder if the slave girls forced to submit to the desires of their masters thought Allah quite so merciful....)
Perhaps I'm interpreting these lines incorrectly (because I don't speak Arabic, of course). So let us go to the scholars for their expert opinion. Ibn Timiyya, inter alia, makes it clear for us: (Vol. 32, p. 89),

"The root of the beginning of slavery is prisoners of war; the bounties have become lawful to the nation of Muhammad."

And if that were not unambiguous enough, in Vol. 31, p. 380, he says this:

"Slavery is justified because of the war itself; however, it is not permissible to enslave a free Muslim. It is lawful to kill the infidel or to enslave him, and it also makes it lawful to take his offspring into captivity."

But surely we should look to the "best human ever" for our guide as to how to deal with slaves. If slavery was common at the time of the Prophet then he could have set an example for the billions of humans to come after him by NOT OWNING SLAVES HIMSELF. But wait, it seems that Muhammad, according to expert Muslim sources, was in fact a great slave owner. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, a respected scholar, in his book

"Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160), says,

"Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca.

But perhaps Muslims over the centuries since Muhammad have interpreted the evidence like my commentor and modern apologists and have done their best to rid the world of the the scourge of human bondage. That, after all, is what we would expect of the followers of a religion which apparently so unambiguously forbids it.

What then are we to make of of the fact that historians estimate that between 10 and 18 million Africans were enslaved by Muslim Arab slave traders and taken across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert between 650 and 1900? Would these traders have so blatantly disobeyed their God if they believed that what they were doing was forbidden? Let us not forget, after all, that the "Christian" slave traders made reference to their holy book to justify their trade:

"Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "

Christians traditionally believed that Canaan had settled in Africa and that thus all the dark-skinned people in the continent of Africa were there to be exploited. (How wonderful are the Abrahamic religions!) Even in the New Testament, where Jesus has many opportunities to tell his followers that slavery is a sin, nothing is heard.

Thus in all three books of the monotheistic religions - those religions deemed so much more advanced, sophisticated and civilised than their "pagan" alternatives - slavery is casually mentioned without criticism. More - the references therein have encouraged the followers of the Abrahamic religions to continue to enslave a large proportion of humanity for no other reason than the colour of their skin or because they worship the wrong god.

One final point. Many Islamic apologists assume that slavery under the Romans was far less humane than that practised under the new enlightened system of Islam.  In fact, as we are discovering with the latest research from places such as Herculaneum, slaves in the Roman Empire were generally well treated, could buy their freedom and even become full citizens of the Empire. So even the last desperate resort of the apologist - the social improvement of Islamic style slavery - holds no water whatsoever.