|
The truth getting clearer and clearer
While there’s been a lot of criticism in the U.S. of the Islamic constitution of Iraq, there’s been none of the Islamic constitution of Afghanistan. Diana West, who has emerged as the most truthful commentator in the mainstream press about the realities of Islam, points out that a magazine editor in Afghanistan was sentenced to two years in prison for publishing two articles criticizing the punishing of adultery with 100 lashes and arguing that leaving Islam should not be a crime. At the same time, Muslims in Denmark have been rioting over the visual portrayal of Muhammad in a Danish paper, and 11 Muslims ambassadors to Denmark, many of them from “moderate” Muslim countries, have been trying to meet the country’s prime minister to demand that the newspaper not publish any such images. So far the Danish PM has refused to meet the ambassadors over this issue, regarding the very idea of such a demand as an unacceptable infringement of free speech. It might also be pointed out that under the law of Islam, not only is any visual representation of Muhammad prohibited, but not the slightest critical thing can ever be said about him, on pain of death. I quote from Bat Ye’or, Eurabia, p. 197-98:
Qadi ‘Iyad (d. 1149), the famous Imam and prolific author and scholar of Andalusian origin, studied in Andalusia and was qadi in Grenada and in Centa. [Note: that’s the great medieval Muslim Spain, where cultural pluralism flourished, and which is an ideal for Western liberals.] He described explicitly the various types of blasphemy which deserve death: “all who curse Muhammad …, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his ‘deen’ [religion] or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting of him or finding fault with him or maligning him,” these persons should be killed. In the case that “someone intentionally calls the Prophet a liar in what he said or brought or denies and rejects his prophethood or his messag and its existence of disbelieves in it,” this person is treated like an unbeliever and must be killed. The Imam can choose to cut off the head, burn, or crucify someone who curses or disparages the Prophet. Repentance cannot remove the sanction. If dhimmis curse the Prophet or minimize his message, they should be killed—unless they become Muslims.The conclusion is clear and unmistakable: Islam—not “Islamism,” not “radical Islam,” not “Islamofascism,” but Islam—is incompatible with Western freedom. By admitting Muslims into the West, we have admitted people who are commanded by their religion to kill us if we say anything critical about the founder of their religion.
Of course, they’re commanded to kill us simply for being non-Muslims, if we refuse to convert or to become dhimmis. ‘Iyad’s comments were directed at dhimmis who by disparaging Muhammad lose their protected dhimmi status and must die. But that’s tolerant Islam for you. Islam is not so cruel and brutal as to kill you simply for being a non-believer, of course not. Islam is very tolerant and allows you to escape death by converting to Islam or becoming a dhimmi. But there’s a catch. If, having converted, you then leave the faith, you must instantly be killed. And if, having become a dhimmi, you violate any of the restrictions of dhimmitude, you must instantly be killed. Such was the marvelous range of choices available to non-Muslims in multicultural Andalusia, and which is still the rule under Islam today, wherever true Islam rules. Email entry |