What would Muhammad do?

He would ask ‘where is my 20%?’….

blow-mohammed

He certainly wouldn’t ask that lying weasel Qasim Rashid for advice:

Muslim leader claims Muhammad would reject Boko Haram, doesn’t mention that he approved abduction and enslavement of women

QasimRashidThe only way that future abductions and enslavements can be prevented is by confronting their Islamic justification, and working for reform. So why would a putative “moderate” like Qasim Rashid want to obscure the Islamic justifications for the abduction of Infidel girls, instead of confronting them and refuting the jihadist interpretations of the Qur’an and Hadith passages they use to justify the practice? One clue may be in the fact that, although he is an Ahmadi, and thus a member of a group that mainstream Muslims violent persecute as heretical, he consistently carries water for his persecutors, whitewashing the reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression. Rashid has lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of taqiyya, the deception of unbelievers; lied about the presence of violent passages in the Qur’an; lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of beating disobedient women; lied about the nature of Sharia; and called for limitations on the freedom of speech and expression to outlaw behavior and speech some Muslims may find offensive. So it is hardly surprising, given these revealing indications of his true sentiments, that he would publish this cynical and deceptive piece. And why is Fox so clueless as to publish it?

“What Prophet Muhammad would say to Boko Haram,” by Qasim Rashid, FoxNews.com, May 8, 2014: (Robert Spencer, JW)

I found myself awake at 3 am, reading the names of my Nigerian daughters—hundreds of them. Some shared the same name as my wife, Ayesha. Others shared the names of co-workers and friends, cousins and acquaintances.

I call them my daughters because as a parent I don’t know how else to think of them—girls whose only crime was education.

As the international community finally expresses outrage and multinational efforts ensue to #BringBackOurGirls, I’m forced to remind everyone that I condemn this act not only as a father and a human being, but also as a Muslim.

Boko Haram’s claim that Islam motivates their kidnappings is no different than Adolf Hitler’s claim that Christianity motivated his genocide. This terrorist organization acts in direct violation of every Islamic teaching regarding women.

Rashid is trying by this sly and cynical rhetorical strategem to suggest that Islamic terrorism is Islamic in just the same way was the Holocaust is Christian, but you’ll notice that he doesn’t quote Hitler claiming that Christianity motivated his genocide. He didn’t do so for a good reason: no such quote exists. Hitler did say this, however: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” And: “If Charles Martel had not prevailed in Poitiers…we would have better received Mohammedanism, those doctrines of the reward of heroism: combatants alone have the seventh heaven! With that the Germans would have conquered the world. It is only by Christianity that we have been held distant.”

Boko Haram violates the Koran 24:34 which commands, “and force not your women to unchaste life,” i.e. a condemnation of Boko Haram’s intention to sell these girls into prostitution. They violate Koran 4:20 which declares, “it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will; nor should you detain them,” i.e. a specific repudiation of Boko Haram’s kidnapping and detention.

Here again we see an Islamic apologist ignore the verses that Muslims like Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau point to in order to justify kidnapping young girls and selling them into sexual slavery — even to offer a mitigating explanation of them:

“If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial.” (Qur’an 4:3)

And:

“And also prohibited to you are all married women except those your right hands possess.” (Qur’an 4:24)

See also 33:50-52 and 70:29-30. In light of these verses, Rashid’s next claim is flatly false:

The Koran could not be clearer that no person has the right to force any woman for any reason. I delve deeper into this topic in my upcoming book, Extremist.

This claim is obviously false because those women whom “your right hands possess” are slave girls, and slave girls by definition are forced to do whatever they are told, and their own will counts for nothing. Maulana Maududi, an internationally respected Qur’an scholar, explains that “this expression denotes ‘slave girls,’ i.e. female captives of war who are distributed by the state among individuals when no exchange of prisoners of war takes place.” The twentieth-century Qur’an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph — an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

Ignoring all this, Rashid then turns to Muhammad:

Prophet Muhammad’s dying words embodied these commandments. He implored, “Do treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers.” While he came to an Arab society entrenched in patriarchy and misogyny Muhammad instead taught, “It is the duty of every Muslim male and every Muslim female to attain education.”

Rashid then goes on to expatiate on how Islamic tradition values education, even for women. That’s fine. He glides by, however, the fact that Muhammad is depicted as saying in the hadith he quotes that every “Muslim female” should “attain education.” What about non-Muslim females? Rashid doesn’t quote this hadith, which — unlike his about female education — is in Sahih Bukhari, the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable:

“Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus. The Prophet said, ‘It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’ Qaza’a said, ‘I heard Abu Sa’id saying that the Prophet said, “No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.”‘” (Bukhari 9. 93.506) Note that Muhammad doesn’t say, “You shouldn’t be taking female captives, much less having sex with them.” He takes that for granted as acceptable. The only open question is whether they should practice coitus interruptus when they rape these women, and Muhammad says that it is better that they don’t, because if the women get pregnant, it is Allah’s will.

Rashid doesn’t quote that because it would explode his entire case, and show that Boko Haram is on perfectly firm Islamic ground when it captures and enslaves schoolgirls. Until Muslims confront and reject or reform such passages, they will continue to inspire such behavior, Rashid’s smooth deceptions notwithstanding.

Here’s Mark Durie’s piece on this:

Boko Haram and the Dynamics of Denial

by Mark Durie/Frontpage Magazine

3 thoughts on “What would Muhammad do?”

  1. Western nations need an ‘anti-Ahmadiyya Ordinance XX’, but unlike Pakistan’s, which forbids them ‘posing as Muslims,’ it should clearly identify them as the lying, phony-moderate, supremacist Muslim snakes that they are.

    1. All you need to know about these fiercely proselytising fanatics is that their top dog, Mirza, threatened Geert Wilders with destruction for opposing Islam. That’s how ‘moderate’ these animals are.

      Addressing Wilders directly, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad said:

      “Listen carefully — You, your party and every other person like you will ultimately be destroyed. But the religion of Islam and the message of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) will remain forever. No worldly power, no matter how powerful and no matter how much hatred they bear towards Islam, will ever succeed in erasing our religion.”

  2. There is a simple solution for this problem. Make it punishable to tell lies about Islam. Capital punishment for Muslims and imprisonment for life or till they tell the truth for Non- Muslims. Muslims cannot object to such a law without admitting that they want to lie

Comments are closed.