Posts

This Month in the History of Jihad

December was the month of numerous jihad conquests. My latest in PJ Media:

December has been a favorable month for the advancing jihad since its earliest days. (Note: citations for all quotations below can be found in The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS.)

In December 633, the legendary Muslim warrior Khalid ibn al-Walid arrived at al-Firad, a fortress of one of the great powers of the day, the Sassanid Persian Empire. The other great power, the Byzantine Empire, seeing the Muslim advances all over Iraq, decided to aid the Persians against Khalid even though they had just fought a series of exhausting wars against each other. The Ninth Century Muslim historian Tabari has the Persians and Byzantines exchanging intelligence about Khalid: “This is a man who is fighting on the basis of religion. He has intelligence and knowledge. By God, he will most definitely be victorious, whereas we will most certainly fail.”

It is doubtful that Seventh Century Roman and Persian commanders were actually that defeatist, but they were certainly correct that Khalid was “fighting on the basis of religion.” Everywhere he had gone in Persia, he had called the people to accept Islam or pay the jizya, the Qur’an-mandated tax for the “People of the Book.” For Khalid, the invasion of Persia was an expedition to bring Islam to the Sassanid Empire, or to subjugate the Zoroastrians and Christians in Persia under the rule of the Muslims.

The Persians and Byzantines had every reason to be concerned. Khalid told his men: “Press your pursuit of them. Do not grant them any respite.” The Muslims won a decisive victory. Tabari notes that “the cavalry commander would corner a group of them with the spears of his men; having collected them, they would kill them. On the day of al-Firad, one hundred thousand men were slain in the battle and the pursuit.”

Around the same time, the Muslims were conquering the Holy Land. Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, in a sermon delivered in December 636 or 637, lamented the advent of “the Saracens” (he never referred to them as Muslims), “who, on account of our sins, have now risen up against us unexpectedly and ravage all with cruel and feral design, with impious and godless audacity.”

Sophronius deplored “so much destruction and plunder” and the “incessant outpourings of human blood.” He said that churches had been “pulled down” and “the cross mocked,” and that the “vengeful and God-hating Saracens … plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries, oppose the Byzantine armies arrayed against them, and in fighting raise up the trophies [of war] and add victory to victory.”

Once those victories had secured the conquest of a particular region, the native population had to be subjugated, with dire consequences if it forgot its subordinate station. On December 30, 1066, rioting Muslims — enraged by the humiliation of a Jew having been appointed to rule over Muslims — murdered four thousand Jews in Granada, in reputedly tolerant Muslim Spain. The maddened Muslim mob crucified the Jewish ruler, Joseph ibn Naghrila, and plundered the homes of the Jews.

Efforts to regain the territory lost to the jihadis were unsuccessful, except in Spain. Pope Eugene III in December 1145 called for a second Crusade, and an army was amassed, but it was soundly defeated by the Turks in Asia Minor and never even got close to achieving its objective of recapturing Edessa. The Muslim commander Nur ed-Din worked hard to revive the spirit of jihad among the Muslims, using a combination of threats and enticements. One emir who received his call to aid him in jihad against the Franks complained: “If I do not rush to Nur al-Din’s aid, he will strip me of my domain, for he has already written to the devotees and ascetics to request the aid of their prayers and to encourage them to incite the Muslims to jihad.”

If non-Muslims tried to free themselves from Islamic rule, they could lawfully be killed according to Islamic law. In the Ottoman Empire at the end of the 19th Century, Armenian desire for independence led to the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. At Urfa in December 1895, Armenians gathered in their cathedral and requested Ottoman government protection, which the officer in charge granted, surrounding the cathedral with troops. Then other Ottoman troops, along with local Muslim civilians, rampaged through the city, slaughtering Armenians and plundering their houses. A large group of young Armenians was taken to the local imam, who ordered them to be held down. An eyewitness said that the sheikh then recited some verses of the Qur’an and “cut their throats after the Mecca rite of sacrificing sheep.”

Throughout Islamic history, killing those who were considered to be enemies of Islam was considered a meritorious act. In 1948, Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna ordered one young member of the Brotherhood, a 23-year-old student named Abdel Magid Ahmed Hassan, to do his duty before Allah — which, a sheikh explained to the young man, involved killing “the enemies of Islam and of Arabism.” Hassan agreed to murder anyone al-Banna told him to, and so on December 28, 1948, the young man gunned down Egypt’s prime minister, Mahmoud El Nokrashy Pasha.

Killing the enemies of Islam could also be done on an industrial scale. On December 22, 2011, U.S. District judge George B. Daniels ruled in Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., that Iran and Hizballah were liable for damages to be paid to relatives of the victims of the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks in New York and Washington, as both the Islamic Republic and its Lebanese proxy had actively aided al-Qaeda in planning and executing those attacks. Daniels found that Iran and Hizballah had cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaeda before 9/11 and continued to do so after the attacks.

Muslims also could be the victims of this violence. On December 15, 2014, the Islamic State (ISIS) — which then controlled a significant expanse of territory in Iraq and Syria — released a document entitled “Clarification [regarding] the Hudud,” punishments Allah specifies in the Qur’an. This was essentially the Islamic State’s penal code. Blasphemy against Islam was punishable by death, as per the Qur’an: “If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism — you are no longer bound by your covenant with them — that they may refrain” (Qur’an 9:12). Adulterers were to be stoned to death; fornicators would be given one hundred lashes and exile. Sodomy (homosexuality) was also to be punished by death, as per Muhammad’s reported words: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”

This sensibility has come to the West, as is abundantly documented in The History of Jihad, and not just on 9/11, or in the form of terror attacks….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Experts agree: America being exploited by veiled threat of Islam

EU seeking to help Iran as U.S. gets tougher, pressing allies

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Muslim Migrant says he Stabbed University Lecturer to Death Because he ‘insulted Muhammad’

Since the whole Western intelligentsia agrees that one must not insult Muhammad, but that it is a matter of “respect” to submit to Sharia blasphemy laws, will Ali R. now be freed with an apology?

Ali R.

“Irish lecturer stabbed to death in Paris had ‘insulted the Prophet Mohammed’, says his Pakistani killer,” by Peter Allen, MailOnline, December 7, 2018 (thanks to Anne):

An Irish university lecturer stabbed to death by one of his former students had allegedly ‘insulted the Prophet Mohammed’, his killer has told French police.

The 66-year-old academic, named locally as John Dowling, was attacked and stabbed 13 times outside the Paris university where he worked on Wednesday.

Ali R., a 37-year-old Pakistani national, has confessed to the killing and told police he held a personal grudge against the teacher after failing his exams last year.

Ali – whose surname has not been disclosed by the French authorities – is due to be indicted for murder in Paris today for the attack outside the Leonardo de Vinci private university in La Defense business district.

Catherine Denis, the Nanterre prosecutor involved in the case, said Ali harboured an ‘obsessive resentment’ against the university for kicking him out in September 2017.

‘He came to France two years ago to join the management school, but did not pass his first year,’ she said.

‘Since then he had been returning to the college, and had become unwanted to the point that he was not allowed in any more.’

CCTV footage shows Mr Dowling chatting calmly with Ali at around midday, before the attacker took out a steak knife and plunged it into the Irishman’s throat, and then into his chest.

Ali has told police that the teacher had made fun of his Muslim religion during English classes at the university.

‘He produced a drawing, which he showed off in class, insulting the Prophet Mohammed,’ Ali said, according to Ms Denis.

Despite this claim, Ms Denis said ‘nobody remembers such an incident. ‘We don’t have proof of radicalization, but rather a feeling that we’re dealing with someone who is very religious, very pious, very practicing.’…Fran

Ms Denis said Ali R. was not known to the intelligence services, but was an ‘obsessive patriot’ from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

This Twitter picture appears to show the aftermath of the fatal stabbing outside the Leonardo De Vinci private university on Wednesday afternoon

He had just renewed his residency permit to stay in France, and had bought the steak knife from a supermarket close to the university….

Despite this, detectives have so far ruled out any links between the attacker and jihadi groups….

So what? He obviously shares their beliefs.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Thanh Tran on Unsplash.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister denies Jesus’ existence, vows to spearhead international campaign against insulting Islam

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan remarked during a recent celebration of Muhammad’s birthday that while the life of Islam’s Muhammad “is part of history,” there is no “mention” of Jesus in human history. In the same speech, he vowed to stop the West from committing “blasphemy” against Muhammad. Once again, the arrow goes in one direction when it comes to insulting Islam or offending Muslims. It is perfectly acceptable to insult other religions, but lay off Islam.

Khan, directly following his election this past summer, vowed to take his campaign against blasphemy to the United Nations. He was referring to a planned Muhammad cartoon exhibit by Geert Wilders. Khan stated that “few in the West understand the pain caused to Muslims by such activities.”

But those rules of offense to one’s religion are exclusive to Islam. Khan plans to take the issue of offense to Islam to new heights worldwide. Right after his unprovoked comments about Christianity, he announced that Pakistan would spearhead “an international campaign against the defamation of Islam and make using freedom of speech as a pretext to commit blasphemy a crime.”

This brazen incursion against the freedom of speech is nothing new. The West has long been a target of Islamic blasphemy laws, and fatuous Western leaders have been genuflecting before Islamic supremacists in so-called “diversity” meetings that aim to force the “Islamophobia” agenda onto Western societies. The charge of “Islamophobia” is intended to silence critics of Islam.

Pakistan is a world leader in enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws. The US Department of State has put Pakistan “on a special watch list for ‘severe violations of religious freedom.’”

“Pakistani PM: ‘There Is No Mention of Jesus in History,’” by Edwin Mora, Breitbart, December 3, 2018:

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan recently remarked that, while the life of Islam’s Muhammad “is part of history,” there is no “mention” of Jesus in human history, the Times of Israel (TOI)reported on Friday.

“There were prophets of Allah other [than Muhammad], but there is no mention of them in human history. There is negligible mention of them. Moses is mentioned, but there is no mention of Jesus in history,” Khan proclaimed, TOI revealed, citing a translation posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

“But the entire life of Muhammad, who was Allah’s last prophet, is part of history,” the Pakistan leader added.

The Muslim premier’s comments came during an event marking Muhammad’s birthday on November 20, when Khan declared that Islamabad would spearhead an international campaign against the defamation of Islam and make using freedom of speech as a pretext to commit blasphemy a crime.

Nearly a year earlier, the U.S. State Department placed Pakistan on a special watch list for “severe violations of religious freedom.”

The campaign “would prevent people using freedom of speech as a cover for hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims around the world. Pakistan will spearhead the signing of this convention and make using freedom of speech to commit blasphemy a crime,” Khan said.

During his speech at the convention, Khan expressed anger over the publication of cartoons and other satirical portraying Muhammad in the West, arguing that the outrage that tends to ensue soon after the images are published are used to tarnish Islam.

Khan observed:

Every few years, in some Western country, our dear Prophet is blasphemed against and dishonored. What is the consequence of this? Muslims become angry. We take to the streets in protest, [protesters] break things in our country … It enables the enemies of Muslims to tell people in the West: ‘See, Islam is a big religion that spreads violence.’ They get an opportunity to spread propaganda against Islam.

The PM claimed that the European Union has admitted that no one can use freedom of expression as a pretext for blasphemy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Muhammad, The Adult Infant by Joshua Winston

David Wood has made a great video on the hadiths (Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari) that claim Muhammad was a cross-dresser who would receive his revelations whilst dressed in the garments of his favourite wife, the child-bride Aisha.

One more thing to be noted in relation to Muhammad’s alternative lifestyle choices is that he was also an adult infant. People seem to overlook the fact that Aisha was a child, so her clothes would not have fit him properly. There’s a name for this fetish: it’s called paraphilic infantilism or psychosexual infantilism. Essentially, it’s when an adult chooses to dress like a child. In major cities today, there are clubs where grown men can go and walk around with diapers on whilst sucking on oversized pacifiers. They can ‘goo’ and ‘gaa’ and roll around on the floor and soil their diapers if they so please.

There are also adults who accommodate this, people who do not dress as adult infants, people who will play the role of mummy or daddy. I wonder what role Aisha played while Muhammad was rolling around, squeezing his adult male form into her clothing. Did she wipe his botty? Did he suckle on her for comfort? These are all of the things that adult-infants do. It doesn’t stop at simply putting on a child’s clothing.

In today’s degenerate world of ‘anything goes’ (particularly when it comes to Islamic grooming gangs, which I would say absolutely is inspired by Muhammad’s love of sex with children), we can see Muhammad as being ahead of his time. A trail blazer for sexual degenerates. His own degeneracy knows no bounds. He will thigh children, dive into graves for one last shot at a corpse (claiming he’s sending her on her way to Heaven – any old excuse will do), take his adopted son’s wife off of him, and have more wives than he stipulated was legal.

Why do you think these things are all the norm in Islamic lands? A Moroccan cleric stated that marriage was still valid even after death and that the female could also still have sex with her deceased husband if she so chose (although how that would work, I’ve no idea). Six hours, I believe, was supposed to be the guideline if the law got passed on the deadline for having sex with a corpse. If my loved one died, I’d be overwhelmed with grief. The last thing on my mind would be one last roll in the hay.

When you discuss these things with Muslims, they always say that it’s got nothing to do with Islam and that it’s instead ‘cultural’. Well, Islam is a culture. Cultures are comprised of the religious, legal, and political systems within any given land. The religious element will shape (for the most part) a person’s moral compass and values. The legal element states what’s permissible – rape, robbery, etc. And the political element lets a person know what kind of government he is living under – Marxism, Communism, Capitalism, etc. Islam is all three of these things – a religion, a legal system, and a political system. Islam is a culture in itself. It controls everything a devout Muslim does, from when and how he urinates through to what he eats and how he prays.

Degeneracy can be found everywhere, of course, but it’s important to be able to stand up to and answer Muslims who would seek to erase the degeneracy of their prophet. And it’s also important to know why sex with children is so commonplace in Muslim lands. It’s because Muhammad normalized it.

RELATED VIDEO: Muhammad Was a Sex Addict! (Fun Islamic Fact #8) by David Wood.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video by David Wood and images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission.

Google Translate censors obscene insult of Muhammad, allows it for Jesus

Jihad Watch reader C. Nicholson sent me this interesting message about Google’s automated Google Translate feature. Pardon the language, and the insulting phrases. I don’t condone this kind of speech regarding anyone, but there is an important principle revealed here: more Sharia-adherence from Google.

Message: Look at what I found out:

Arabic for “shit”:

https://translate.google.com/#en/ar/Shit

Arabic for “Jesus eats shit”:
https://translate.google.com/#en/ar/Jesus%20eats%20shit

Arabic for “Muhammad eats shit,” according to Google:
https://translate.google.com/#en/ar/Mohammed%20eats%20shit.

(Be sure to translate in both directions to verify that the word “shit” is being censored when it is used in context with “Muhammad,” and only then. I.E. click the handy swappy arrows)

Evidently Google has no problem allowing its tools to be used to insult Christians, but won’t allow the same tools to be used to insult Muslims. Once again, we see the establishment of Muslims as a special protected class, accorded accommodations not offered to other groups.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured photo is by Benjamin Dada on Unsplash.

The History of Jihad: “A Priceless Opportunity to See Jihad in Practice”

“If history is to inform, then this is great history.”

Chris Salcedo is a nationally recognized radio talk-show host heard on WBAP in Dallas, Texas, and KSEV in Houston, Texas. He is the author of the book “Liberty Rises” and the executive director of the Conservative Hispanic Society. Here he reviews my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, which you can preorder here.

Chris Salcedo

“A Priceless Opportunity to See Jihad in Practice,” by Chris Salcedo, LifeZette, July 1, 2018:

“Who will take care of my children?” asked an unlucky Arab, captured by the self-proclaimed prophet of Islam. “Hell,” Muhammad shot back, ordering his execution. 

Robert Spencer displays a particular knack for weaving together multiple disparate threads into a cohesive narrative with his latest work, “The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS.” Spencer has compiled the first complete historical account of jihadi wars in a single volume.

Ranging from Arabia to Europe and India, Spencer recounts the innumerable battles, massacres, victories, and defeats of the jihadi wars that have been waged from Muhammad’s century to the present day, all in the words of the contemporaries who either waged those wars or suffered the consequences thereof.

Heroes and villains, like Saladin and Tamerlane, other lesser-known figures such as the Mughal emperor Jahangir, march across the ages and into history by Spencer’s unique hand. The volume of sources Spencer includes is staggering, and Spencer’s footnotes alone provide enough reading material for a lifetime.

Spencer’s handling of this subject isn’t tainted by bias. In the era of fake news, it’s a standard to be admired. How difficult to read of the gratuitous humiliation of the conquered, as in India where jihadi warriors were wont to tear down Hindu idols and build staircases of them, and not be moved!

Yet Spencer rarely pauses for judgment, passing instead to the next account as crime upon crime is piled up, from Muhammad’s Dark Age executions en masse of the Jews to medieval muezzins announcing the Islamic call to prayer standing atop mountains of skulls to the Armenian genocide and rise of terrorist groups in the 20th century.

Spencer’s “History” is rich in example, allowing great and small figures to speak in their own words. Tariq ibn Ziyad, the Muslim conqueror of Spain, promised his followers lavish wealth and “beautiful Greek maidens,” while the Barbary ambassador of Tripoli threatened the Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that it was Muslims’ “right and duty” to “plunder and enslave.”

Spencer relies whenever possible on contemporary sources, giving a priceless insight into the mindset of people separated by dozens of cultures and hundreds of years and thousands of miles but united by one principle: jihad.

The heroes of this enormous account present an inspiration, from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI’s glorious last stand at the gates of Constantinople to the mountaineer Pelayo’s stubborn refusal to surrender as jihadis subjugated Spain.

Villains sadly are in far greater supply, including not only the bloodthirsty warriors of the jihad but the collaborators, traitors, and renegades who hoped to profit from the slaughter. It is easy to find parallels between the cowardly Bishop Oppa or the scheming, pragmatic British Empire and certain public figures and institutions in our present day.

Also striking is the magnitude of events that were once well-known, but are unknown or forgotten in the Western world. The unmitigated slaughter of the Muslim conquest of India may be familiar to Indian readers, but certainly must come as a surprise to Westerners….

Nowhere before has every jihad in history been combined into a single volume. Spencer’s work is an astounding achievement of staggering ambition, involving 1,400 years of jihadi war across half a dozen continents and providing a cohesive lens through which to view and understand it. Such a history has never before been attempted, but Spencer has succeeded in what many must have thought an impossible task.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Jihad Watch.

VIDEO: What Linda Sarsour won’t tell you about Islamic [Sharia] Law

Last week, while getting my part in David Wood’s “Islamicize Me” project on video, I took a break to film some segments for Jon McCray’s “Whaddo You Meme??” YouTube show. Here is one on Sharia.

RELATED ARTICLE: Video: The Nigerian Persecution (of Christians, by Muslims) No One Is Talking About

EDITORS NOTE: This video originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

‘Historians’ ‘discover’ that Queen Elizabeth is related to Muhammad?

This story is so ridiculous that even Britain’s most ridiculous paper, the Daily Mail, ought to be ashamed to publish it. No one could possibly know with the slightest degree of certainty that he or she is descended from Muhammad, which the dhimmi Daily Mail dutifully always refers to as “the Prophet Muhammad,” as if we’re all Muslims now.

The main reason why this is so is that it is highly doubtful that Muhammad, as least as he is portrayed in the Hadith and Sira, ever existed at all — as I explain at length in my book Did Muhammad Exist?. Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632, but the earliest biography of him dates from around 750 or 760, and most of the hadith literature from the 800s.

That’s a century-and-a-half gap between the man and the first details of his life. It would be as if the first biography of Abraham Lincoln had just been published a few decades ago, and there were no older written records about him. No one would be able to be sure what was fact and what was legend, and that is exactly the case with Muhammad. His genealogy is as legendary as he is. In light of that, to say that Queen Elizabeth is descended from Muhammad is like saying she is descended from Robin Hood, or Macbeth.

Also, given the status that Muhammad holds in Islam, it became an honor to be descended from him, and numerous people fabricated genealogical records to show that they were of Muhammad’s family. Pakistan, Iran and other Muslim countries are full of sayyids, i.e., people claiming to be descended from Muhammad, but Muhammad is supposed to have been an Arab from Mecca. His descendants may have traveled into Asia and intermarried with Persians and Indians, but it is far more likely that all these sayyids are trying to get ahead in their societies, and that is the sole reason and justification for their claim.

What this story is really all about is the ongoing attempt to make Britons accept Islamization. See, Queen Elizabeth is a relative of Muhammad, old boy, so why are you so “Islamophobic” and opposed to jihad terror, Sharia courts that oppress women, Muslim rape gangs, and the rest of the cultural enrichment that Islam has brought to Britain? Relax: jihad is as British as bubble and squeak!

“Is the Queen related to Prophet Muhammad? Historians believe Elizabeth II is a descendant of the founder of Islam after tracing her family tree back 43 generations,” by Katie French, Mailonline, April 6, 2018 (thanks to Tom):

Historians believe the Queen is a descendant to the founder of Islam – after tracing her family tree back 43 generations.

The claim makes the British monarch a distant ancestor of the Prophet Muhammad.

The findings were first published in 1986 by Burke’s Peerage, a British authority on royal pedigrees.

But the claim has recently resurfaced after a Moroccan newspaper said it had traced the queen’s lineage back to the Prophet.

According to their findings, Elizabeth II’s bloodline runs through the Earl of Cambridge in the 14th century, across medieval Muslim Spain, to Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter.

Although disputed by some historians, genealogical records of early-medieval Spain also support the claim and it has also been verified by Ali Gomaa, the former grand mufti of Egypt….

The study from Burke’s Peerage first officially suggested the Queen’s connection to the Prophet Muhammad.

They claimed the Queen descends from a Muslim princess called Zaida, who fled her home town of Seville in the 11th century before converting to Christianity.

Zaida was the fourth wife of King Al-Mu’tamid ibn Abbad of Seville. She bore him a son Sancho, whose descendant later married the Earl of Cambridge in the 11th century.

But British magazine the Spectator points out Zaida’s origins are ‘debatable’. Some historians believe she was the daughter of a wine-drinking caliph descended from the Prophet. Others say she married into his family….

Abdelhamid Al-Auouni welcomed the news in his piece in Moroccan newspaper Al-Ousboue, writing: ‘It builds a bridge between our two religions and kingdoms.’…

One person on internet forum Reddit rubbished the claims however, writing: ‘This is just propaganda used by the British monarchy to appease the growing number of Muslim subjects.’…

RELATED ARTICLE: New York Times’ Laurie Goodstein attacks Pompeo and Bolton for daring to notice there’s a jihad threat

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Swedish government commissions, then withdraws under pressure, leaflet approving of child marriage

Why would the Swedish government issue this leaflet in the first place? Because child marriage is approved in Islam, and the Swedish government knows who the new masters of Sweden are.

“Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this” — Ishaq Akintola, professor of Islamic Eschatology and Director of Muslim Rights Concern, Nigeria

“There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law.” — Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-‘Ubeidi, Iraqi expert on Islamic law

There is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.” — Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council

“Islam does not forbid marriage of young children.” — Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology

Hadiths that Muslims consider authentic record that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).

Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).

Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.

Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:

The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.

Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”

According to Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (pp. 90-91), Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.

“The National Board of Social Affairs withdraws ‘pedophile leaflet’ – was commissioned by the government,” translated from “Socialstyrelsen drar tillbaka ‘pedofilfolder’ – togs fram på uppdrag av regeringen,” Fria Tider, March 29, 2018 (thanks to Denny):

Domestic. After the morning’s quick and very powerful reactions to the National Board of Health’s new folder “Information for you who is married to a child,” the authority now withdraws the information sheet, which in social media has been accused of being a brochure for pedophiles.

It was on Thursday morning that it was discovered that the National Board of Health and Welfare published a leaflet entitled “Adapting to adults who are married to a child”.

The folder states, among other things, that it is “inappropriate for you to live together if the child is under 15 years” because it is forbidden to have sex with children under 15 in Sweden.

Nowhere in the text is there anything about prison.

In the magazine you can also read that “The Social Service may suggest that you do not live together for a shorter or longer period.”

The National Board of Health and Welfare also writes in the magazine that: “Both the Social Service and the Migration Board will work to give the child the opportunity to express his or her own opinion, where to live and how it wants it.”

“The illustrations are insensitive, it might have been suitable for information about school start or something else neutral,” says journalist Sakine Madon to SVT, pointing out that formulations like being “inappropriate if you live together” are far too soft, because child marriage is such a serious phenomenon.

After very strong reactions, the National Board of Health has decided to withdraw the material.

“The material has raised strong reactions and many views. We pull back the material and look over it, “said Petra Rinman, Unit Manager for Knowledge Center for Single Children, in a press release.

According to the National Board of Health and Welfare, the material has been developed within the framework of a government assignment to develop and disseminate information to children who are declared married, spouses, parents and other related persons with information about current laws and practice in Sweden.

The material is said to have been developed based on existing legislation.

“Sweden does not allow anyone under the age of 18 to be married in this country. However, according to current legislation, the main rule is that a marriage valid under the law of the country in which it is concluded is to be recognized in civil law in Sweden. New legislation is currently being prepared by the government, “said Pär Ödman, Chief Legal Officer of the National Board of Health.

The proposed preparation proposes “additional restrictions” for child marriages, the National Board of Health and Welfare writes. However, not a total ban.

In social media, many responded vigorously to the folder, and claimed, among other things, that it is a brochure for pedophiles….

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Catholic Church sets out a vision for closer ties with Islam

Had Charles Martel and the Franks lost their battle against the jihadis at Tours in 732, the eighteenth-century English historian Edward Gibbon envisioned the continent’s complete Islamization:

A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.

And now here we are: the jihadis lost at Tours, but their defeat was not complete, and now victory is at hand: “the interpretation of the Koran” is now “taught in the schools of Oxford,” or at least at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. Is there a Center for Christian Studies at al-Azhar? Of course not. Has any Islamic entity ever sought improved ties with the Catholic Church? Don’t be silly.

“Dialogue” and interfaith outreach always and in every case go only one way, with fond Christians such as Vincent Nichols appealing for peace and friendship to Muslim leaders, who use the resulting “dialogue” to silence Christians who are talking about Muslim persecution of Christians and the Qur’an’s teaching regarding Christianity, and to engage in subtle dawah, Islamic proselytizing, with the participating Christians, and in any documents resulting from the “dialogue.”

So Vincent Nichols is pictured here planting a tree at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, but that isn’t the only hole he is digging.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

“Catholic Church sets out a vision for closer ties with Islam,” by Michael Binyon, The Times, March 3, 2018 (thanks to David):

How can dialogue between faiths lead to a deeper spiritual understanding? Is there not always a danger that both sides will talk across each other without listening or just agree on the bare minimum they have in common?

These questions were raised this week by Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, when he made the first visit by the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, the dazzling new college that aims to become the country’s principal centre for the academic study of Islam.

He said that dialogue between faith and society would be “significantly impoverished” if dialogue between faiths were characterised by suspicion and hostility or were simply non-existent….

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.