References for Brightwork Islam Articles Part 1
Last Updated on January 17, 2022 by Shaun Snapp
- These are the references that were used for our Islam articles.
Learn why so few entities in the IT space include references in their work.
This is the reference list for the Islam articles, as well as interesting quotes from these references at Brightwork Research & Analysis.
You can select the article title to be taken to the article. This is part one of the references. Part two can be found at this link.
Reference #1: Article Titled:
How Cartoons Anger Muslims More than Boka Haram Kidnappings
Reference #2: Article Titled:
How Islam Views Trading African Slaves the Same as Trading Animals
Reference #3: Article Titled:
How Much Did Barack Obama Really Know About Islam and Lie About Islam?
Reference #4: Article Titled:
How Muslims Killed 270 Million Who Refused to Become Muslim
Under Omar, the caliphate expanded at an unprecedented rate, ruling the Sasanian Empire and more than two-thirds of the Byzantine Empire. His attacks against the Sasanian Empire resulted in the conquest of Persia in less than two years (642–644). According to Jewish tradition, Omar set aside the Christian ban on Jews and allowed them into Jerusalem and to worship. Omar was eventually killed by the Persian Piruz Nahavandi (known as ’Abū Lu’lu’ah in Arabic) in 644 CE.
Omar is revered in the Sunni tradition as a great ruler and paragon of Islamic virtues, and some hadiths identify him as the second greatest of the Sahabah after Abu Bakr. He is viewed negatively in the Shia tradition.
Despite literacy being uncommon in pre-Islamic Arabia, Omar learned to read and write in his youth. Though not a poet himself, he developed a love for poetry and literature. According to the tradition of Quraish, while still in his teenage years, Omar learned martial arts, horse riding and wrestling. He was tall, physically powerful and a renowned wrestler. He was also a gifted orator who succeeded his father as an arbitrator among the tribes.
In 610 Muhammad started preaching the message of Islam. However, like many others in Mecca, Omar opposed Islam and even threatened to kill Muhammad. He resolved to defend the traditional polytheistic religion of Arabia. He was adamant and cruel in opposing Muhammad, and very prominent in persecuting Muslims. He recommended Muhammad’s death. He firmly believed in the unity of the Quraish and saw the new faith of Islam as a cause of division and discord.
Due to persecution, Muhammad ordered some of his followers to migrate to Abyssinia. When a small group of Muslims migrated, Omar became worried about the future unity of the Quraish and decided to have Muhammad assassinated.
On his way to murder Muhammad, Omar met his best friend Nua’im bin Abdullah who had secretly converted to Islam but had not told Omar. When Omar informed him that he had set out to kill Muhammad, Nua’im said, “By God, you have deceived yourself, O Omar! Do you think that Banu Abd Manaf would let you run around alive once you had killed their son Muhammad?
Omar then went to Muhammad with the same sword he intended to kill him with and accepted Islam in front of him and his companions. Omar was 39 years old when he accepted Islam.
In 644, Omar was assassinated by a Persian slave named Abu Lulu by later accounts. His motivation for the assassination is not clear. One possible explanation was that it was done in response to the Muslim conquest of Persia. The assassination was planned several months earlier. In October 644, Omar undertook a Hajj to Mecca, during which the assassins pronounced Omar’s imminent death that year, and the massive crowd of the congregation was used by the conspirators as a veil to hide themselves.
One writer states that Omar was a political genius and, as an architect of the Islamic Empire, rates him as the 52nd most influential figure in history. Omar was one of Muhammad’s chief advisers. After Muhammad’s passing, it was Omar who reconciled the Medinan Muslims to accept Abu Bakr, a Meccan, as the caliph. During Abu Bakr’s era, he actively participated as his secretary and main adviser. After succeeding Abu Bakr as caliph, Omar won over the hearts of Bedouin tribes by emancipating all their prisoners and slaves taken during the Ridda wars.
Reference #5: Article Titled:
How the Muslims Lie About Islam’s Promise of 72 Virgins in Heaven
When they seized Mosul, Isis freed the Sunni Muslims from the city’s Badoush prison and executed 600 Shia prisoners. The group plundered weapons and equipment from Iraqi army bases. Soldiers scattered their uniforms, and half a million civilians fled north and east. Within a week, a third of Iraq was under Isis control. Sinjar district, with a population of around 300,000, was surrounded. Only a thin strip of contested road remained, linking them to the relative safety of the Iraqi Kurdistan in the north – but the journey was dangerous.
“Peshmerga” means “those who face death”, and the word is heavy with the historical import of the Kurdish struggle against oppression. In the south-east of the region, on the Iranian border, part of the peshmerga clashed with Isis, but near Sinjar, an uneasy stillness hung in the air like a tension headache that comes before a storm.
The enslavement, for Isis, is meant to eventually bring the women to Islam, and is part of their ideology of conquest. “[It is] among the greatest forms of the honour of Islam and its sharia [Islamic law], as it is a clear affirmation showing the supremacy of the people of sharia, and the greatness of their affairs, and the dominance of their state, and the power of their might,” according to an Isis pamphlet on slavery.
Dividing up the captive women and children among the Isis mujahideen [holy warriors] and “sanctioning their genitals” is described as a sign of “realisation and dominance by the sword”.
Pleasure Slaves Versus Domestic Slaves
Classical Islamic law allowed men to have sexual intercourse with their female slaves. Legal and literary documents show that those slaves used for sexual service were differentiated at slave markets from those who were intended mainly for domestic services. These slave girls were called “slaves for pleasure” (muṭʿa, ladhdha) or “slave-girls for sexual intercourse” (jawārī al-waṭ).
Converting to Islam Did not Guarantee Emancipation of Slaves
These are originally free non-Muslims who are captured in battle. The entire population of a conquered territory can be enslaved, thus providing women who are otherwise rare on the battlefield. This paves the path for concubinage. The Muslim military commander is allowed to choose between unconditionally releasing, ransoming or enslaving war captives. If a person converted to Islam after being enslaved, their emancipation would be considered a pious act but not obligatory. Islamic law does not allow enslavement of free-born Muslims.
Raiders were free to take and enslave any non-Muslim. However, Islamic jurists held that non-Muslims who lived in areas which had formal pacts with Muslims were to be protected from enslavement.
No Consent Required for Sex With Concubines
Another viewpoint is of Rabb Intisar, who argues that according to the Quran, sexual relations with a concubine are subject to both parties’ consent. Similarly Tamara Sonn, claims that consent of a concubine is necessary for sexual relations. However, Kecia Ali calls such assertions “surprising”  and notes that such views are not found in any pre-modern classical Islamic legal text, as there is no discussion about the topic of consent. Jonathan Brown argues that the modern conception of sexual consent only came about since the 1970s, so it makes little sense to project it backwards onto classical Islamic law.
Some modern Muslim writers seek to defend the notion, by claiming that Islam permits men to have sex with female captives as a way of integrating them into society.
When a Concubine Could be Separated from Their Child
Many of them had been forcibly taken from their homes and permanently separated from their families. They were displayed at slave markets and humiliated and subjected to forced labour, forced marriages and sex. If someone bought a woman, he could not separate her child from her until the stipulated age, which according to Ibn Abi Zayd was when the child became six years old.
Between the 800s and 1200s, the four main ways to enslave a person were kidnapping, slave raids, piracy, and poverty. Islamic law only gave female slaves protection from sexual exploitation by anyone who was not their owner. The owner was obliged by Islamic law to provide his female slaves with food, clothing, and shelter.
The disciplinary hitting of the slave was considered to be for the master’s own good. A prophetic hadith permitted corporal punishment and Ibn al-Jawzi stated that both slaves and wives should put up with physical mistreatment. The slave owner was also encouraged to not use excessive violence. While some idealise the lives of elite female slaves, many in practice suffered from abuse by both their owners and others.
Wives Preferred Concubines Over Second Wives
In his sex manual, Ali ibn Nasr promoted experimental sex with female slaves on the basis that free wives were respectable and would feel humiliated by the use of the sex positions described in his book because they show low esteem and a lack of love from the man. Women preferred that their husbands keep concubines instead of taking a second wife. This was because a co-wife represented a greater threat to their position.
Some Muslim Royalty Preferred Having Children with Concubines
Muslim rulers preferred having children with concubines because it helped them avoid the social and political complexities arising from marriage and kept their lineages separate from the other lineages in society.
Slave Women Breaking the Sharia and Have Lesbian Relationships in the Harem
An Ottoman Sultan would have sexual relationships with only some women from his large collection of slave girls. This meant that a lot of the concubines were not given a family life if they were not desired by the Sultan. This effectively meant these women would have to spend the rest of their lives in virtual imprisonment. Some of these women would break the sharia by having homosexual relations.
Enslaving Non Muslims
In Andalus the concubines of the Muslim elite were usually non-Muslim women from the Christian areas of the Iberian peninsula. Many of these had been captured in raids or wars and were then gifted to the elite Muslim soldiers as war booty or were sold as slaves in Muslim markets. Most slaves in the Ottoman harem comprised women who had been kidnapped from Christian lands. Some had been abducted during raids by the Tatars while others had been captured by maritime pirates. Berber pirates trafficked French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese women to North Africa. Christian females were enslaved more than any other religious demographic. It is difficult to track down the experienced of European female slaves because they would have accounted for 5 percent of the slaves trafficked to North Africa and even fewer women were freed from slavery than men between the 16th and 19th centuries.
During those centuries, at least 50,000 to 75,000 European girls were forcibly taken and most of them never returned home. One male English slave narrated an account of a young English girl who was given as concubine to the Moroccan king, Mulley Ismail. She tried to resist his sexual advances. He then ordered his black slaves to whip and torture her until she gave in.
Hypocrisy on Taking POW as Slaves
Muslim historical sources see the capture and concubinage of non-Muslim women as legitimate violence against women. The capture and enslavement of non-Muslim women is described in a matter-of-fact way in the Muslim sources. However, the same practice was criticised when Christians captured Muslim women. In the eleventh century, Christians began an aggressive policy towards Muslims in Andalus.
Enslavement of Muslims
Islamic jurists had completely forbidden the enslavement of Muslims. However, Muslims have still at times enslaved Muslims from other ethnic groups. The Umayyad caliph Muhammad II of Córdoba gave orders that the Berber houses in Cordoba be looted and that Berber women be captured and sold in Dar-al Banat.
Muslim Countries Refuse to Abolish Slavery
Many Muslim governments refused to sign the international treaties against slavery which the League of Nations was co-ordinating since 1926. This refusal was also an issue at the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and at the 1956 Anti-Slavery Convention. It was mostly because of the pressure from European colonial powers and economic changes that slavery was abolished. While the institution was eventually abolished, there was no internally well-developed Islamic narrative against slave-ownership.
There is an academic consensus that the Islamic legal sanction for slavery prevented the emergence of any anti-slavery movement in the Muslim world. But William Clarence-Smith has argued that “Islamic abolitionism” was indigenous and rooted in Islamic tradition. However, Ehud R. Toledano states that abolitionist views were very rare in Muslim societies and that there was no indigenous abolitionist narrative in the Muslim world.
The Involvement of Muslim Women in Sex Slavery
The Ottomans had intended to destroy the Armenians. Derderuan notes that after being separated from their men who were killed, the Armenian women and children were raped, forcibly converted to Islam and subjected to sexual slavery. Eliz Sanasarian also notes the involvement of Turkish women in perpetrating violence against Armenian women by selling them into sexual slavery. Women who were deemed beautiful were sold as sex slaves to military officials. The remaining women would be beaten and raped. The women were also often forced into prostitution or forcibly married with non-Armenians.
Reference #6: Article Titled:
Can You Tell the Difference in How ISIS and Mohammed Behaved?
To Destroy All History of a Culture
UNESCO’s Director-General Irina Bokova has warned that ISIL is destroying Iraq’s cultural heritage, in what she has called “cultural cleansing”. “We don’t have time to lose because extremists are trying to erase the identity, because they know that if there is no identity, there is no memory, there is no history”, she said. Referring to the ancient cultures of Christians, Yazidis and other minorities, she said, “This is a way to destroy identity. You deprive them of their culture, you deprive them of their history, their heritage, and that is why it goes hand in hand with genocide. Along with the physical persecution they want to eliminate – to delete – the memory of these different cultures … we think this is appalling, and this is not acceptable.” Saad Eskander, head of Iraq’s National Archives said, “For the first time you have cultural cleansing… For the Yazidis, religion is oral, nothing is written. By destroying their places of worship… you are killing cultural memory. It is the same with the Christians – it really is a threat beyond belief.”
To finance its activities, ISIL is stealing artefacts from Syria and Iraq and sending them to Europe to be sold. UNESCO has asked for United Nations Security Council controls on the sale of antiquities, similar to those imposed after the 2003 Iraq War.
Bernard Haykel has described al-Baghdadi’s creed as “a kind of untamed Wahhabism”, saying, “For Al Qaeda, violence is a means to an ends [sic]; for ISIS, it is an end in itself”.
ISIL has burned or stolen collections of books and papers from the various locations including the Central Library of Mosul (which they rigged with explosives and burned down), the library at the University of Mosul, a Sunni Muslim library, a 265-year-old Latin Church and Monastery of the Dominican Fathers, and the Mosul Museum Library. Some destroyed or stolen works date back to 5000 BCE and include “Iraq newspapers dating to the early 20th century, maps and books from the Ottoman Empire, and book collections contributed by about 100 of Mosul’s establishment families.” The stated goal is to destroy all non-Islamic books.
An investigation led by the Human Rights Watch disclosed that Al-Hota gorge that was once a beautiful natural site in northeastern Syria is used by the ISIS as a disposal ground for the bodies of people killed by them.
During its occupation of Mosul, ISIL implemented a sharia school curriculum which banned the teaching of art, music, national history, literature and Christianity. Although Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has never been taught in Iraqi schools, that subject was also banned from the school curriculum.
After capturing cities in Iraq, ISIL issued guidelines on how to wear clothes and veils. ISIL warned women in the city of Mosul to wear full-face veils or face severe punishment. A cleric told Reuters in Mosul that ISIL gunmen had ordered him to read out the warning in his mosque when worshippers gathered. ISIL ordered the faces of both male and female mannequins to be covered, in an order which also banned the use of naked mannequins.
ISIL released 16 notes labelled “Contract of the City”, a set of rules aimed at civilians in Nineveh. One rule stipulated that women should stay at home and not go outside unless necessary. Another rule said that stealing would be punished by amputation. In addition to banning the sale and use of alcohol, ISIL banned the sale and use of cigarettes and hookah pipes. It also banned “music and songs in cars, at parties, in shops and in public, as well as photographs of people in shop windows”.
According to The Economist, the group also adopted certain practices seen in Saudi Arabia, including the establishment of religious police to root out “vice” and enforce attendance at daily prayers, the widespread use of capital punishment, and the destruction of Christian churches and non-Sunni mosques or their conversion to other uses.
Executions take various forms, including stoning to death, crucifixions, beheadings, burning people alive, and throwing people from tall buildings. The Islamic State in Iraq frequently carried out mass executions in Mosul and Hawija.
According to UN Reports the price list for IS sex slaves range from 40 to 160 US dollars. The younger the slave the more expensive. Girls and boys between the age 1–9 are referred to as the most expensive, with the cheapest being women between 40 and 50 years old.
In its digital magazine Dabiq, ISIL explicitly claimed religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women. According to The Wall Street Journal, ISIL appeals to apocalyptic beliefs and claims “justification by a Hadith that they interpret as portraying the revival of slavery as a precursor to the end of the world”. ISIL appeals to the hadith and Quran when claiming the right to enslave and rape captive non-Muslim women. According to Dabiq, “enslaving the families of the kuffar and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia’s that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Quran and the narration of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam.”
One 15-year-old victim said that, while she was being assaulted, her rapist “kept telling me this is ibadah”; a 12-year-old victim related how her assailant claimed that, “by raping me, he is drawing closer to God”; and one adult prisoner told how, when she challenged her captor about repeatedly raping a 12 year old, she was met with the retort, “No, she’s not a little girl, she’s a slave and she knows exactly how to have sex and having sex with her pleases God.”
ISIL announced the revival of slavery as an institution. In 2015, the official slave prices set by ISIL were following:
Children aged 1 to 9 were sold for 200,000 dinars ($169).
Women and children 10 to 20 years old for 150,000 dinars ($127).
Women 20 to 30 years old for 100,000 dinar ($85).
Women 30 to 40 years old are 75,000 dinar ($63).
Women 40 to 50 years old for 50,000 dinar ($42).
However, some slaves have been sold for as little as a pack of cigarettes. Sex slaves were sold to Saudi Arabia, other Persian Gulf countries and Turkey.
It has been five years since ISIS brought the Yazidi community in Iraq to the brink of destruction. Some women and children held by ISIS have been re-captured by criminal gangs to be trafficked or sold to their families.
Some modern Yazidis identify as a subset of the Kurdish people while others identify as a separate ethno-religious group. In Armenia and Iraq, the Yazidis are recognized as a distinct ethnic group. According to Armenian anthropologist Levon Abrahamian, Yazidis generally believe that Muslim Kurds betrayed Yazidism by converting to Islam, while Yazidis remained faithful to the religion of their ancestors.
Traditionally, Yazidis in Iraq lived in isolation and had their own villages. However, many of their villages were destroyed by the Saddam regime. The Ba’athists created collective villages and forcibly relocated the Yazidis from their historical villages which would be destroyed.
A large Yazidi community existed in Syria, but it declined due to persecution by the Ottoman Empire. Several punitive expeditions were organized against the Yazidis by the Ottoman governors (Wāli) of Diyarbakır, Mosul and Baghdad. The objective of these persecutions was the forced conversion of Yazidis to the Sunni Hanafi Islam of the Ottoman Empire.
On 7 April 2007, a crowd of up to 2,000 Yazidis stoned a 17-year-old Iraqi of the Yazidi faith, Du’a Khalil Aswad, to death. Rumours that the stoning was connected to her alleged conversion to Islam prompted reprisals against Yazidis by Sunnis, including the 2007 Mosul massacre.
Reference #7: Article Titled:
How Islam is Leading to an OverPopulation Disaster
Reference #8: Article Titled:
Is Islam the Most Pro Woman and Pro Female of All Religions?
Reference #9: Article Titled:
In Islam Marriage is Purchasing the Woman’s Genitals
Reference #10: Article Titled:
Why is Slavery Such a Central Component to the Spread of Islam?
Reference #11: Article Titled:
How Mohammed Received a Revelation to Allow His Muslim Soldiers to Rape POWs
Reference #12: Article Titled:
How Islamic Sex Slaves Received Their Freedom by Giving their Master A Child
Reference #13: Article Titled:
How Many Sex Slaves Did Islamic Leaders Have?
Reference #14: Article Titled:
Why Historically Did So Many Women Globally Commit Suicide Rather Than Become Muslim Slaves?
Reference #15: Article Titled:
If Islam Does Not Support Sex Slavery, Why Did ISIS, Pakistanis and Sudanese Muslims Engage in It?
The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”
According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”
“Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”
“What’s striking about them is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these texts,” Haykel said. “There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness that Muslims don’t normally have.”
Nonetheless, the caliphate has continued to embrace slavery and crucifixion without apology. “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” Adnani, the spokesman, promised in one of his periodic valentines to the West. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”
Tens of thousands of foreign Muslims are thought to have immigrated to the Islamic State. Recruits hail from France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Australia, Indonesia, the United States, and many other places. Many have come to fight, and many intend to die.
Abdul Muhid, 32, continued along these lines. He was dressed in mujahideen chic when I met him at a local restaurant: scruffy beard, Afghan cap, and a wallet outside of his clothes, attached with what looked like a shoulder holster. When we sat down, he was eager to discuss welfare. The Islamic State may have medieval-style punishments for moral crimes (lashes for boozing or fornication, stoning for adultery), but its social-welfare program is, at least in some aspects, progressive to a degree that would please an MSNBC pundit. Health care, he said, is free. (“Isn’t it free in Britain, too?,” I asked. “Not really,” he said. “Some procedures aren’t covered, such as vision.”) This provision of social welfare was not, he said, a policy choice of the Islamic State, but a policy obligation inherent in God’s law.
Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.
Hadith: The body of hadith provides more detailed and practical legal guidance, but it was recognized early on that not all of them were authentic. Early Islamic scholars developed a methodology for evaluating their authenticity by assessing trustworthiness of the individuals listed in their transmission chains. These criteria narrowed down the vast corpus of prophetic traditions to several thousand “sound” hadiths, which were collected in several canonical compilations. The hadiths which enjoyed concurrent transmission were deemed unquestionably authentic; however, the vast majority of hadiths were handed down by only one or a few transmitters and were therefore seen to yield only probable knowledge.
Sharia was traditionally interpreted by muftis. During the first few centuries of Islam, muftis were private legal specialists who normally also held other jobs. They issued fatwas (legal opinions), generally free of charge, in response to questions from laypersons or requests for consultation coming from judges, which would be stated in general terms. Fatwas were regularly upheld in courts, and when they were not, it was usually because the fatwa was contradicted by a more authoritative legal opinion.
How Women Are Treated as 1/2 of a Man
In both the rules of civil disputes and application of penal law, classical Sharia distinguishes between men and women, between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between free persons and slaves. Traditional Islamic law assumes a patriarchal society with a man at the head of the household. Different legal schools formulated a variety of legal norms which could be manipulated to the advantage of men or women, but women were generally at a disadvantage with respect to the rules of inheritance, blood money (diya), and witness testimony, where a woman’s value is effectively treated as half of that of a man..and witness testimony, where a woman’s value is effectively treated as half of that of a man.
In economic terms women enjoyed greater advantages under Islamic law than under other Mediterranean and Middle Eastern legal systems, including the right to own personal property and dispose of it freely, which women in the West did not possess until quite recently. Various financial obligations imposed on the husband acted as a deterrent against unilateral divorce and commonly gave the wife financial leverage in divorce proceedings.
Sharia and Slave Law
Classical fiqh acknowledges and regulates slavery as a legitimate institution. It granted slaves certain rights and protections, improving their status relative to Greek and Roman law, and restricted the scenarios under which people could be enslaved. However, slaves could not inherit or enter into a contract, and were subject to their master’s will in a number of ways. The labor and property of slaves were owned by the master, who was also entitled to sexual submission of his unmarried slaves.
In family matters the Sharia court was seen as a place where the rights of women could be asserted against their husband’s transgressions.
Sharia and Colonial Law
British administrators felt that Sharia rules too often allowed criminals to escape punishment, as exemplified by Hastings’ complaint that Islamic law was “founded on the most lenient principles and on an abhorrence of bloodshed”. In the course of the 19th century, criminal laws and other aspects of the Islamic legal system in India were supplanted by British law, with the exception of Sharia rules retained in family laws and some property transactions. Among other changes, these reforms brought about abolition of slavery, prohibition of child marriage, and a much more frequent use of capital punishment. The resulting legal system, known as Anglo-Muhammadan law, was treated by the British as a model for legal reforms in their other colonies. Like the British in India, colonial administrations typically sought to obtain precise and authoritative information about indigenous laws, which prompted them to prefer classical Islamic legal texts over local judicial practice.
How Sharia Courts Function
Sharia courts traditionally do not rely on lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves. In Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have preserved traditional procedure in Sharia courts, trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system. There is no pre-trial discovery process, and no cross-examination of witnesses. Unlike common law, judges’ verdicts do not set binding precedents under the principle of stare decisis, and unlike civil law, Sharia is left to the interpretation in each case and has no formally codified universal statutes.
The rules of evidence in Sharia courts traditionally prioritize oral testimony, and witnesses must be Muslim. Male Muslim witnesses are deemed more reliable than female Muslim witnesses, and non-Muslim witnesses considered unreliable and receive no priority in a Sharia court.
When Osama Bin Laden and his associates issued a fatwa in 1998 proclaiming “jihad against Jews and Crusaders”, many Islamic jurists, in addition to denouncing its content, stressed that bin Laden was not qualified to either issue a fatwa or proclaim a jihad.
Erroneous and sometimes bizarre fatwas issued by unqualified or eccentric individuals in recent times have sometimes given rise to complaints about a “chaos” in the modern practice of issuing fatwas.
Reference #16: Article Titled:
Liberals and other Muslim Allies Are Being Used as Useful Idiots for Islam
Also, you might get used, as a naive person,by one of millions of locals who are looking for victims like you to talk to you about love and marriage, so they can simply find their way to immigrate out of Morocco, and they leave you as soon as they get settled at your city! Ask someone who went through it!
If you’re a tourist, then everything’s peachy (apart from the port authorities being a bit too strict at entry and/or departure and the locals mostly being either too ignorant to know much French/English or too pushy with their offers of “friendship” and “service”).
If you live in Morocco, then there’re a few scenarios (scenarii):
– Foreigner with a good job: You’re not living in Morocco, your burst-proof bubble lets you observe the local flora, interact with them, even boss them around. Enjoy the safari
– Foreigner with OK job/no job: as long as you can maintain your facade and/or are Caucasian, you’re golden. Else? Sorry, Moroccans are too casually racist for you to feel comfortable
– Moroccan of the 1% : The country (and world) is your oyster. Just drink, rape, pillage, and get a job at daddy’s (friend’s) firm/Parliament/some ministry, coast by, make beaucoup bucks.
– Moroccan outside the 1% : You’re fucked. The system is gamed against you from day one. may the odds be ever in your favor (hint: they’re not)
I visit Morocco I see an passive population. A lot of morrocans are getting donations from family members who work in Europe or other nations. So those particular moroccans do not work but are eating the donations. Most Moroccan towns have hundreds of cafés. Some moroccan town centers only consist of cafés. All are full of men sitting, doing nothing and drinkkng coffee or thea all day long. What is wrong with these people?
Evorintment. Most moroccans don’t care about the Evorintment and nature. Mistreatment of animals happens all the time. There was an video where moroccan police are shooting stray dogs with hunting riffles and dumping them half dead in a truck. Polution is everywhere. People change their caroil on the streets, beaches are dirty, chemicals are dumped in nature. The most beautiful animal of Morocco, the barbary monkey is danger of extinction.
Thing is, here in Morocco, 78% of those beggars aren’t actually really poor.
This has to do with a lack of values (people have no shame and don’t feel bad about begging, I’ve known schoolmates who do it on their ways home just to earn some more, and they weren’t poor at all and in most cases if a beggar approaches you and you start talking like you know them, they drop the act) and the fact that most people in Morocco give to the poor (which has to do with the people’s generosity and religion).
Islam as a Moral Regression
According to some critics, the morality of the Quran appears to be a moral regression when judged by the standards of the moral traditions of Judaism and Christianity it says that it builds upon. The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, states that “the ethics of Islam are far inferior to those of Judaism and even more inferior to those of the New Testament” and “that in the ethics of Islam there is a great deal to admire and to approve, is beyond dispute; but of originality or superiority, there is none.”
The Interpretation of the Hadith
Hadith are Muslim traditions relating to the Sunnah (words and deeds) of Muhammad. They are drawn from the writings of scholars writing between 844 and 874 CE, more than 200 years after the death of Mohammed in 632 CE.
Shi’i scholars disagree with Sunni scholars as to which Hadith should be considered reliable. The Shi’as accept the Sunnah of Ali and the Imams as authoritative in addition to the Sunnah of Muhammad, and as a consequence they maintain their own, different, collections of Hadith.
How Much Islam Based Upon Christianity
Some scholars have calculated that one-third of the Quran has pre-Islamic Christian origins. Aside from the Bible, Quran relies on several Apocryphal and legendary sources, like the Protoevangelium of James, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and several infancy gospels. Several narratives rely on Jewish Midrash Tanhuma legends, like the narrative of Cain learning to bury the body of Abel in Surah 5:31.
How Far After Mohammed Was The Quran Completed
The written compilation of the whole Quran in its definite form as we have it now was not completed until many years after the death of Muhammad. John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone and Yehuda D. Nevo argue that all the primary sources which exist are from 150 to 300 years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events.
The written compilation of the whole Quran in its definite form as we have it now was not completed until many years after the death of Muhammad.
Iran and Islam
Iranian writer Sadegh Hedayat regarded Islam as the corrupter of Iran, he said:
Every aspect of life and thought, including women’s condition, changed after Islam. Enslaved by men, women were confined to the home. Polygamy, injection of fatalistic attitude, mourning, sorrow and grief led people to seek solace in magic, witchcraft, prayer, and supernatural beings.
Nehru on Islam, Islam as Bringing No Technology of Better Ways of Doing Things
Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, in his book Discovery of India, describes Islam to have been a faith for military conquests. He wrote “Islam had become a more rigid faith suited more to military conquests rather than the conquests of the mind”, and that Muslims brought nothing new to his country.
The Muslims who came to India from outside brought no new technique or political or economic structure. In spite of religious belief in the brotherhood of Islam, they were class bound and feudal in outlook.
How Muslim Was Spread
The church historian Philip Schaff described Islam as spread by violence and fanaticism, and producing a variety of social ills in the regions it conquered.
Mohammedanism conquered the fairest portions of the earth by the sword and cursed them by polygamy, slavery, despotism and desolation. The moving power of Christian missions was love to God and man; the moving power of Islâm was fanaticism and brute force.
View of Islam in the Early 20th Century
In the early 20th century, the prevailing view among Europeans was that Islam was the root cause of Arab and Berber “backwardness”. They saw Islam as an obstacle to assimilation, a view that was expressed by a writer in colonial French Algeria named André Servier. In his book, titled Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman, Servier wrote that “The only thing Arabs ever invented was their religion. And this religion is, precisely, the main obstacle between them and us”.
The commonly held view in Europe during the Enlightenment was that Islam, then synonymous with the Ottoman Empire, was a bloody, ruthless and intolerant religion. In the European view, Islam lacked divine authority and regarded the sword as the route to heaven.
Criticism of Sharia
In 1280, the Jewish philosopher, Ibn Kammuna, criticized Islam in his book Examination of the Three Faiths. He reasoned that the Sharia was incompatible with the principles of justice, and that this undercut the notion of Muhammad being the perfect man: “there is no proof that Muhammad attained perfection and the ability to perfect others as claimed.” The philosopher thus claimed that people converted to Islam from ulterior motives:
That is why, to this day we never see anyone converting to Islam unless in terror, or in quest of power, or to avoid heavy taxation, or to escape humiliation, or if taken prisoner, or because of infatuation with a Muslim woman, or for some similar reason. Nor do we see a respected, wealthy, and pious non-Muslim well versed in both his faith and that of Islam, going over to the Islamic faith without some of the aforementioned or similar motives.
One such Christian was John of Damascus (c. 676–749 AD), who was familiar with Islam and Arabic. The second chapter of his book, The Fount of Wisdom, titled “Concerning Heresies”, presents a series of discussions between Christians and Muslims. John claimed an Arian monk (who he did not know was Bahira) influenced Muhammad and viewed the Islamic doctrines as nothing more than a hodgepodge culled from the Bible.
Islam as Arab Imperialism
Islam has also been viewed as a form of Arab imperialism and has received criticism by figures from Africa and India for what they perceive as the destruction of indigenous cultures.
As of 2014, about a quarter of the world’s countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy and (13%) had anti-apostasy laws or policies. In 2017, 13 nations, all of which were Muslim majority nations, had the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy.
Reference #17: Article Titled:
Why Muslims See Uncovered Women as Unchaste and Sexually Available
Sultaana Freeman gained national attention in 2003 when she sued the US state of Florida for the right to wear a niqab for her driver’s license photo. However, a Florida circuit court ruled there was no violation in the state requiring her to show her face to a camera in a private room with only a female employee to take the picture, in exchange for the privilege of driving. The ruling was affirmed by the appellate court.
Sultaana Freeman gained national attention in 2003 when she sued the US state of Florida for the right to wear a niqab for her driver’s license photo. However, a Florida circuit court ruled there was no violation in the state requiring her to show her face to a camera in a private room with only a female employee to take the picture, in exchange for the privilege of driving. The ruling was affirmed by the appellate court.
In 2012 in Norway, a professor at the University of Tromsø denied a student’s use of niqab in the classroom. The professor claimed Norway’s parliament granted each teacher the right to deny the use of niqab in his/her classroom. Clothing that covers the face, such as a niqab, is prohibited in some schools and municipalities.
The Prime Minister of Norway Erna Solberg stated in an interview that in Norwegian work environments it is essential to see each other’s faces and therefore anyone who insists on wearing a niqab is in practice unemployable.
Reference #18: Article Titled:
According to Muslims, Every Embarrassing Feature of Islam is a Misinterpretation of Islam
Reference #19: Article Titled:
The Islam and the Koran Supports Beating Wives
He also repeatedly threatened to take another wife, which hurt and distressed Noor, not only because they were already struggling financially.
“I’m allowed to marry four women,” he told her. “You have to change your Western mentality.”
Many (women) were threatened, raped or beaten by their husbands after instigating the process; one, a Lebanese Muslim woman living in Melbourne, said she had left her husband nine years ago but had been denied a divorce several times by the Board of Imams Victoria, who said they couldn’t track the man down to seek his approval.
But in practice, advocates and survivors say many imams are denying women the right to divorce, in too many cases detaining them in abusive marriages for years.
This was Noor’s experience. Having presented the Board of Imams with what she believed was sufficient evidence, she was hopeful they’d acknowledge her husband’s violence and swiftly grant a divorce.
Instead they dismissed the tape, she said, and told her to give the relationship another chance. “I honestly thought they weren’t listening to me,” she said. “They wanted me to go back and try again for the sake of the kids.”
When she insisted she had tried, that she had made up her mind, they told her they needed to hear her husband’s “side of the story” and that they’d be in touch after that.
It took six months for the Board of Imams to get back to her, Noor said, at which point they claimed to have forgotten the details of her case and asked her to come back in to retell her story.
Eventually, after a year of waiting, calling, praying, Noor — who had moved in with her parents — withdrew her divorce application, defeated and depleted.
In Islam Are Women Practically Actually Allowed to Initiate a Divorce?
Salma*, who has worked with Australian Muslim women escaping violence for more than two decades, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from imams, says she has never seen a woman get an Islamic divorce easily “unless her husband wants to divorce her, too”.
Trapping women in unwanted marriages is a form of abuse, Salma says, and a violation of human rights: “For women to not have the absolute right to leave a marriage is the very definition of structural violence and it needs to change.”
But an ABC investigation — part of an ongoing series examining the complex links between religion and domestic violence — has found that just in the past few weeks, several women with family violence intervention orders have been told to return to unsafe marriages by the Board of Imams Victoria.
“I told them [the imams] it’s an emotionally, psychologically and financially abusive relationship. But they were like, ‘But he doesn’t hit you’ … Because he wasn’t hitting me they didn’t consider it domestic violence,” Maryam said.
“I’m really upset, and I’m disappointed in them because they’re supposed to be leaders and role models, and instead they’re pushing me back to an abusive relationship and just telling me to live with it.”
Second, imams’ response to women seeking divorce from abusive husbands shows a persistent lack of awareness — or worse, a blatant ignorance or denial — of the dynamics of domestic violence and the legal conditions of intervention orders.
As a result, women are being told by imams who claim to be acting in the name of Islamic law to be patient with violent marriages.
In addition, many Muslims believe Islamophobia in Australia continually distorts any discussion of their religion with an intensity and focus on fringe groups or sentiments that do not represent the whole community.
This, they say, deters them from speaking out about issues like gender inequality and domestic violence and is stifling progress in Muslim communities, by giving cover to imams, and perpetuating the silence among women, leaving them more vulnerable to abuse.
Simply raising the issue is often construed as an attack on Islam, rather than an opportunity to examine cultural factors — or patriarchal structures — within Muslim communities that may be exacerbating or concealing abuse.
A decade ago, imams accused of condoning domestic violence were put on notice when a landmark report by the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria revealed some imams were condoning rape in marriage, hindering police from pursuing domestic violence charges and denying abused women seeking Islamic divorce their rights and entitlements.
If a husband does not want his wife to work, for example, he can, according to some imams, forbid her to.
“If the wife goes to work when the husband tells her not to work,” Mr Alsuleiman said in a 2009 lecture on marriage and divorce, “she’s disobedient, she’s disobeying Allah.”
That alone would give any husband the right to divorce his wife on the spot: “[I]f she’s going to work without his consent, then she’s disobeying him, that’s haram,” he said.
“He could divorce her and give her nothing.”
Reference #20: Article Titled:
How Muslim Ex DNC Leader Keith Ellison Opposes Freedom of Speech and Calls for Amazon Censorship
Reference #21: Article Titled:
How Ex DNC Leader and Muslim Keith Ellison Like Calling Women Bitches and Dominating Them
Reference #22: Article Titled:
How Muslims Lie About The 14 Century History of Forced Conversion to Islam
Reference #23: Article Titled:
Where is Boko Haram Getting its Funding?
This report is based on three trips to Nigeria between July 2010 and 2012 and continuous monitoring of media report of Boko Haram attacks and statements. It explores the crimes committed by the Islamist group and also exposes and sheds light on the underreported role of Nigeria’s government, whose actions in response to the violence have contravened international human rights standards and fueled further attacks. Human Rights Watch’s research suggests that crimes against humanity may have been committed both by state agents and members of Boko Haram.
Nigeria has kept Boko Haram suspects in detention often incommunicado without charge or trial for months or even years and has failed to register arrests or inform relatives about the whereabouts of detainees. In the northern cities of Maiduguri and Kano, for example, Human Rights Watch found that the authorities no longer even bring formal charges against Boko Haram suspects. The fate of many of these individuals after their arrest remains unclear.
Civil society activists in Nigeria say that ordinary citizens fear both Boko Haram and the JTF, whose abusive tactics at times strengthen the Islamist group’s narrative that it is battling government brutality.
A complex mixture of economic, social, and political factors had provided a fertile environment for Boko Haram. These include endemic corruption, poverty (which is more severe in large parts of the north than in other parts of the country), and impunity for violence, including horrific inter-communal killings and human rights abuses by security forces.
Boko Haram’s Official Statement
We want to reiterate that we are warriors who are carrying out Jihad (religious war) in Nigeria and our struggle is based on the traditions of the holy prophet. We will never accept any system of government apart from the one stipulated by Islam because that is the only way that the Muslims can be liberated.
We do not believe in any system of government, be it traditional or orthodox except the Islamic system and that is why we will keep on fighting against democracy, capitalism, socialism and whatever. We will not allow the Nigerian Constitution to replace the laws that have been enshrined in the Holy Qur’an, we will not allow adulterated conventional education (Boko) to replace Islamic teachings.
We will not respect the Nigerian government because it is illegal. We will continue to fight its military and the police because they are not protecting Islam. We do not believe in the Nigerian judicial system and we will fight anyone who assists the government in perpetrating illegalities. —Boko Haram statement, April 2011
Founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002, the group has been led by Abubakar Shekau since 2009. When Boko Haram first formed, their actions were nonviolent. Their main goal was to purify Islam in northern Nigeria. Since March 2015, the group has been aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Since the current insurgency started in 2009, Boko Haram has killed tens of thousands and displaced 2.3 million from their homes and was at one time the world’s deadliest terror group according to the Global Terrorism Index. Boko Haram has contributed to regional food crises and famines. The group is known for its brutality.
Of the 2.3 million people displaced by the conflict since May 2013, at least 250,000 have left Nigeria and fled into Cameroon, Chad or Niger. Boko Haram killed over 6,600 in 2014.
The group have carried out mass abductions including the kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls from Chibok in April 2014. Corruption in the security services and human rights abuses committed by them have hampered efforts to counter the unrest.
In September 2015, the Director of Information at the Defence Headquarters of Nigeria announced that all Boko Haram camps had been destroyed but attacks from the group continue. In 2019, president of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari claimed that Boko Haram was “technically defeated”. However, attacks by Boko Haram have escalated and it still poses a major threat as of 2019.
The name “Boko Haram” is usually translated as “Western education is forbidden”. Haram is from the Arabic حَرَام (ḥarām, “forbidden”); and the Hausa word boko (the first vowel is long, the second pronounced in a low tone), meaning “fake”, which is used to refer to secular Western education.
Boko Haram was founded upon the principles of Salafism which advocates strict adherence to Sharia law. It developed into a Jihadist group in 2009. The movement is diffuse, and fighters who are associated with it follow the Salafi doctrine. Their beliefs tend to be centered on strict adherence to Wahabism, which is an extremely strict form of Sunni Islam that sees many other forms of Islam as idolatrous.
The group has denounced the members of the Sufi and the Shiite sects as infidels. Boko Haram seeks the establishment of an Islamic state in Nigeria. It opposes the Westernization of Nigerian society and the concentration of the wealth of the country among members of a small political elite, mainly in the Christian south of the country.
Nigeria is Africa’s biggest economy, but 60% of its population of 173 million (as of 2013) live on less than $1 a day.
Reference #24: Article Titled:
How Muslims Lie About Islam Respecting Other Religions
Reference #25: Article Titled:
The Case of Loujain al-Hathloul: The Justice One Can Expect in Islamic Societies
Wahhabism is a conservative, puritanical Muslim movement adhering to the Ḥanbalite law, although it regards itself as ghair muqallidīn, non-adherent to parties, but defending truth. It has been variously described as “ultraconservative”, “far-right” “austere”, “fundamentalist”, or “puritan(ical)”; as an Islamic “reform movement” to restore “pure monotheistic worship” (tawhid) by devotees; and as a “deviant sectarian movement”, “vile sect” and a distortion of Islam by its detractors.
The majority of Sunni and Shia Muslims worldwide disagree with the interpretation of Wahhabism, and many Muslims denounce them as a faction or a “vile sect”. Islamic scholars, including those from the Al-Azhar University, regularly denounce Wahhabism with terms such as “Satanic faith”.
The ruler of a nearby town, Muhammad ibn Saud, invited ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab to join him, and in 1744 a pact was made between the two.  Ibn Saud would protect and propagate the doctrines of the Wahhabi mission, while ibn Abdul Wahhab “would support the ruler, supplying him with ‘glory and power'”. Whoever championed his message, ibn Abdul Wahhab promised, “will, by means of it, rule the lands and men”.  Ibn Saud would abandon un-Sharia taxation of local harvests, and in return God might compensate him with booty from conquest and sharia compliant taxes that would exceed what he gave up. The alliance between the Wahhabi mission and Al Saud family has “endured for more than two and half centuries”, surviving defeat and collapse. The two families have intermarried multiple times over the years and in today’s Saudi Arabia, the minister of religion is always a member of the Al ash-Sheikh family, i.e., a descendant of Ibn Abdul Wahhab.
After this, the Wahhabis also massacred the male population and enslaved the women and children of the predominantly Sunni city of Ta’if in Hejaz in 1803.
Saudi Arabia has a decades-long history of mediating disputes between Qatar and its neighbor Bahrain. Relations between the two countries have historically been turbulent due to disagreements over the rightful ownership of several territories.
Saudi Arabia had served as a safe haven for dissidents of Qatar from the mid-20th century onward, ranging from high-ranking members of the Al Thani family to businessmen and common people. Qatar itself had often exiled its most powerful critics to Saudi Arabia. This was usually temporary, with the dissidents returning to Qatar after the Saudi government would negotiate resolutions between the two parties.
The Qatar diplomatic crisis began on 5 June 2017, when Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt severed diplomatic relations with Qatar and banned Qatar-registered airplanes and ships from utilising their airspace and sea routes along with Saudi Arabia blocking Qatar’s only land crossing.
The Saudi-led coalition cited Qatar’s alleged support for terrorism as the main reason for their actions, insisting that Qatar had violated a 2014 agreement with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), of which Qatar is a member. Saudi Arabia and other countries have criticized Al Jazeera and Qatar’s relations with Iran.
Since he took power in 1995, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani believed Qatar could find security only by transforming itself from a Saudi appendage to a rival of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador to Doha from 2002 to 2008 to try to pressure Qatar to curb its individualistic tendencies.
The Arab Spring left a power vacuum which both Saudi Arabia and Qatar sought to fill, with Qatar being supportive of the revolutionary wave and Saudi Arabia opposing it; since both states are allies of the United States, they avoid direct conflict with one another.
Reference #26: Article Titled:
Is it True That Muslims Love and Respect Jesus?
Reference #27: Article Titled:
How The Muslim Jizyah is Identical to Mafia Extortion Racket
Historically, the jizya tax has been understood in Islam as a fee for protection provided by the Muslim ruler to non-Muslims, for the exemption from military service for non-Muslims, for the permission to practice a non-Muslim faith with some communal autonomy in a Muslim state, and as material proof of the non-Muslims’ submission to the Muslim state and its laws. Jizya has also been understood by some as a badge or state of humiliation of the non-Muslims in a Muslim state for not converting to Islam,
In the Indian Subcontinent the practice was eradicated by the 18th century. It almost vanished during the 20th century with disappearance of Islamic states and spread of religious tolerance. The tax is no longer imposed by nation states in the Islamic world, although there are reported cases of organizations such as the Pakistani Taliban and ISIS attempting to revive the practice.
Some modern Islamic scholars have argued that jizya should be paid by non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state, offering different rationales. For example, Sayyid Qutb saw it as punishment for “polytheism”, while Abdul Rahman Doi viewed it as a counterpart of the zakat tax paid by Muslims.
And Incentive to Convert to Islam
Finally, jizya served as a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive for dhimmis to convert to Islam.[need quotation to verify] The Muslim jurist and theologian Fakhr al-Din al-Razi suggested in his interpretation of Q.9:29 that jizya is an incentive to convert. Taking it is not intended to preserve the existence of disbelief (kufr) in the world. Rather, he argues, jizya allows the non-Muslim to live amongst Muslims and take part in Islamic civilization in the hope that the non-Muslim will convert to Islam.
The Variable Amount of the Jizyah
The jizya varied in accordance with the affluence of the people of the region and their ability to pay. In this regard, Abu Ubayd ibn Sallam comments that the Prophet imposed 1 dinar (then worth 10 or 12 dirhams) upon each adult in Yemen. This was less than what Umar imposed upon the people of Syria and Iraq, the higher rate being due to the Yemenis greater affluence and ability to pay.
Paying While Being Humiliated
Ann Lambton states that the jizya was to be paid “in humiliating conditions”. Ennaji and other scholars state that some jurists required the jizya to be paid by each in person, by presenting himself, arriving on foot not horseback, by hand, in order to confirm that he lowers himself to being a subjected one, and willingly pays. According to Mark R. Cohen, the Quran itself does not prescribe humiliating treatment for the dhimmi when paying Jizya, but some later Muslims interpreted it to contain “an equivocal warrant for debasing the dhimmi (non-Muslim) through a degrading method of remission”.
Slavery For Those That Could Not Pay Jizya
In India, Islamic rulers imposed jizya on non-Muslims starting with the 11th century. The taxation practice included jizya and kharaj taxes. These terms were sometimes used interchangeably to mean poll tax and collective tribute, or just called kharaj-o-jizya.
Jizya expanded with Delhi Sultanate. Alauddin Khilji, legalized the enslavement of the jizya and kharaj defaulters. His officials seized and sold these slaves in growing Sultanate cities where there was a great demand of slave labour. The Muslim court historian Ziauddin Barani recorded that Kazi Mughisuddin of Bayanah advised Alā’ al-Dīn that Islam requires imposition of jizya on Hindus, to show contempt and to humiliate the Hindus, and imposing jizya is a religious duty of the Sultan.
Jizya was later abolished by the third Mughal emperor Akbar, in 1579. However, Aurangzeb, the sixth emperor, through his compilation of Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, re-introduced and levied jizya on non-Muslims in 1679, and even monks and beggars were not exempted. The jizya rate was more than twice the zakat tax rate paid by Muslims, which led to mass civil protests of 1679 in India. In some areas revolts led to its periodic suspension such as the 1704 AD suspension of jizya in Deccan region of India by Aurangzeb.
After the Norman conquest of Sicily, taxes imposed on the Muslim minority were also called the jizya (locally spelled gisia). This poll tax was a continuation of the jizya imposed on non-Muslims in the Emirate of Sicily and Bari by Islamic rulers of the southern Italy, before the Norman conquest.
Abolishment of Jizyah
In Persia, jizya was paid by Zoroastrian minority until 1884, when it was removed by pressure on the Qajar government from the Persian Zoroastrian Amelioration Fund.
The jizya was eliminated in Algeria and Tunisia in the 19th century, but continued to be collected in Morocco until the first decade of the 20th century (these three dates coincide with the French colonization of these countries).
The Ottoman Empire abolished the “jizya” in 1856. It was replaced with a new tax, which non-Muslims paid in lieu of military service. It was called baddal-askari (lit. ‘military substitution’), a tax exempting Jews and Christians from military service.
Reference #28: Article Titled:
How Allahu Akbar is Both Call to Prayer and Request Not Have the City Attacked by Muslims
Reference #29: Article Titled:
A Lower Degree of Muslim Conquest is Why Southeast Asia Has the More Mild Form of Islam
Islam reached the Philippines in the 14th century with the arrival of Muslim traders from the Persian Gulf, Southern India, and their followers from several sultanate governments in the Malay Archipelago.
According to national religious surveys, there are about 5.1 million Muslims in the Philippines, composing 6% of its population, mainly in the south. However, a 2012 estimate by the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) and the U.S. Department of State, stated that there were 10.7 million Muslims, or approximately 11% of the total population.
By the 15th century, half of Luzon (Northern Philippines) and the islands of Mindanao in the south had become subject to the various Muslim sultanates of Borneo and much of the population in the almost of South were converted to Islam. However, the Visayas was largely dominated by Hindu-Buddhist societies led by rajahs and datus who strongly resisted Islam. One reason could be the economic and political disasters preeuropean Muslim pirates from the Mindanao region brought during raids.
In the year 1498–99, the Bruneian Empire conducted a series of raids against the natives of the Kingdom of Taytay in Palawan and the island of Mindoro which had been subjugated to the Islamic Bruneian Empire under Sultan Bolkiah.
Janjalani, however, was no mere Muslim fighter or mujahideen; he was a charismatic and a serious Muslim scholar. Born on the Philippine island of Basilan (see map), today an ASG stronghold, Janjalani (ironically) attended high school in the Catholic-run Claret College in the Basilan capital, Isabela. Though he did not finish high school, he obtained a scholarship from the government of Saudi Arabia to the Ummu I-Qura in Mecca, where he studied Islamic jurisprudence for three years. Later he studied Islamic revolution in Pakistan, becoming attracted to the concept of jihad. In 1984, Janjalani went back to Basilan and became an avid preacher, if to limited audiences, in the Santa Barbara madrassa in Zamboanga City. His various theological statements and public proclamations revealed a deep grasp of Islam, particularly Wahhabi theology, which considers other Muslim communities heretical. Janjalani delivered at least eight discourses, or khutbah, within a radical framework based on the Quranic concept of jihad fi-sabil-lillah (fighting and dying for the cause of Islam). His discourses indicted both Muslims, even mullahs, and non-Muslims for superficial knowledge of the Quran and the Hadith (the collected tradition of Muhammad and his sayings). One of his discourses vehemently condemned the Philippine constitution as a guide for Philippine society and asserted the Quran “as the only worthy guide for human life since it is perfect creation of Allah who cannot err and who knows everything.”32 He lamented the sufferings of Muslim Filipinos as victims of oppression, injustice, and lack of development, urging them to fight and die for Islam, thus to deserve “paradise as martyrs.”
Reference #30: Article Titled:
How Muslims Justify Violence by Saying it is In the Koran
Reference #31: Article Titled:
How Islam is a Socialization System for Creating Psychopaths
Reference #31: Article Titled:
A List of Terrible Islamic Quotes
Reference #32: Article Titled:
The Islamic Requirement to Perform Taqiyya and Lie to Non Muslims
Reference #33: Article Titled:
The Lies and Horrible Accuracy of Muslim Scholar Zakir Naik
Reference #34: Article Titled:
How Muslims Lie and Deliberately Understate the Percentage of Muslims that Identify with Extremist Views
Reference #35: Article Titled:
How Muslims Lie and Deliberately Understate the Percentage of Muslims that Identify with Extremist Views
Reference #36: Article Titled:
Are Muslims Lying About the Penalty for Apostasy or Leaving Islam?
Reference #37: Article Titled:
How the Koran and Hadith are Filled With Hate Speech
..beneath the rosy assurances from Muslim apologists that Islam is about peace and tolerance lies a much darker reality that better explains the violence and deeply-rooted indifference. Quite simply, the Quran teaches supremacy, hatred and hostility. It dehumanizes and stigmatizes non-believers, making it easier to rationalize (or ignore) their mistreatment in the name of Islam.
The Inferiority of Non-Muslims
Far from teaching universal love, the Quran incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah’s hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture. Muslims are told that they are destined to dominate non-believers, against whom harsh treatment is encouraged.
Polished Muslim pundits in the West are fond of using the word ‘bigot’ to describe critics of Islam, but they are rarely challenged on their own view of the Quran. What does the book they claim to be the literal and eternal word of Allah really say about non-Muslims?
Forbidding Charity Towards Non Muslims
Islamic law actually forbids formal Muslim charity (in the form of the zakat payment) from being used to meet the needs of non-believers.
Non-Believers Between Feces and Camel Sweat
The Ayatollah Khomeini, who dedicated his entire life to studying Islam, said that non-Muslims rank somewhere between “feces” and the “sweat of a camel that has consumed impure food.” Small wonder.
Christians and Jews Not Considered Fully Human
Christians and Jews are not considered fully human in Islam. The penalty for killing one of them is limited to one-third of the compensation due for unintentionally killing a Muslim. Muhammad made it clear that a believer cannot be put to death for killing a non-believer, since they are not equal (see Conclusion).
Allah Does not Love Nonbelievers
In Christianity, punishment in the hereafter is directly tied to sin and ‘wickedness.’ There is relatively little said about Hell, but the emphasis is on personal suffering for selfish or cruel deeds. In Islam, Hell is a punishment for merely not believing Muhammad’s personal claims about himself. In contrast to the Bible, every 12th verse of the Quran speaks of Hell and vividly describes Allah’s wrath on unbelievers:
But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning. (22:19-22)
Christianity teaches that God loves all people, but hates sin. The Quran never says this. Instead it explicitly declares that Allah does not love those who do not believe in him:
He (Allah) does not love the unbelievers (30:45)
At War With All the World’s Religions
Buddhists in Thailand, Jews in Israel, Christians in Indonesia, Hindus in India… Why is Islam at war with every major world religion, when none of these religions are at war with each other? Part of the reason is that the Quran is specific about the inferiority of other faiths relative to Islam (see 61:9) and the hatred that Allah harbors for their people.
Hindus are polytheists. Although Muhammad didn’t know any Hindus (and neither did Allah, apparently) the Quran still manages to lay the groundwork for the 1000-year ethnic cleansing campaign against the Hindu people that is estimated to have taken tens of millions of innocent lives. In Islam, polytheists are worse than all other religion. Those who join idols (11:14) to Allah also invent a lie about Him (29:17) and will burn in Hell. Even believing in other divine entities along with Allah is an unforgivable crime (4:48, 40:12).
Islam is a supremacist ideology in which the role of non-believers is subordinate to the position of Muslims. Those who resist Islamic rule are to be fought until they are either killed or fully humiliated and forced to acknowledge their inferior status by converting to Islam or by paying a poll-tax and otherwise accepting the subjugation of their own religion.
There is simply no other religion on earth that draws such sharp distinction between its own members and others, or devotes as much of its holiest text toward condemning and dehumanizing those who merely choose not to follow its dogma.
So much about Islamic terrorism and the general indifference of the broader Muslim community toward the violence makes sense only against this dual nature of Islam – as does the strange willingness of Muhammad’s followers to tolerate their own subjugation under Ottoman or Arab tyrants, such as Saddam Hussein, while being violently opposed to a Jewish neighbor state.
The apologists are correct in saying that Islam teaches love and kindness, but they fail to add that this applies only to the treatment of those within the Muslim community. Loyalty to one’s own identity group is valued above all else and empathy for those outside the faith is optional at best – and even explicitly discouraged in places.
In his later years, Muhammad directed military campaigns to subjugate other tribes and religions, “inviting” them to Islam at the point of a sword and forcing them to pay tribute regardless. He set in motion the aggressive military campaigns that made war against all five major world religions in just the first few decades following his death.
Reference #38: Article Titled:
How Google Censors Accurate Results About the Muslim Practice of Taqiyya or Lying to Non-Believers
Reference #39: Article Titled:
How Muslims Lie About the Term Jihad
Reference #40: Article Titled:
Are Muslims Right That Rape Victims Should be Stoned to Death?
Two people guilty of illegal intercourse are brought to Muhammad, who orders them both stoned to death. Apparently their act was out of love, since the verse records the man as trying to shield the woman from the stones. – Sahih Bukhari 6:60:79
Adultery is one of three justifications for killing a person, according to Muhammad. – Sahih Bukhari 83:37
This hadith clarifies the different penalties for adultery (when the subjects are married), and fornication (when they are not): “in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year” – Sahih Muslim 17:4192
In practice, women are executed far more often than men, since they are presumed to bear the burden of sexual responsibility (in Islam’s male-dominated outlook) and are, perhaps, more likely to confess their indiscretion. Rape victims are sometimes convicted if they speak out. Reporting a rape can mean a confession of adultery under Sharia law if four male witnesses cannot be found to confirm the victim’s claim.
Unable to get around the fact that stoning adulterers is very much a part of Islam, apologists typically travel the familiar path of claiming that Christianity is no different. They are wrong. Not only is the Old Testament rule of stoning anyone explicitly done away with by the example of Jesus (see John 8:1-11, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”) but the episode itself is proof that Christianity is not under the same law as Islam.
While the teachings and example of Jesus stand between Christians and Old Testament law, Muhammad skipped straight back to the harshest of rules (which even the Jews of his day were reluctant to enforce so literally – see Bukhari 6:60:79). As with so much else – from forgiveness to waging war – the contrasting personal example set by Jesus and Muhammad with regard to killing adulterers could hardly be more different.
A prominent leader of CAIR, the Council on Islamic-American Relations, openly advocates stoning as prescribed by the Sharia. More candid than many of his peers, Imam Saraj Wahhaj has said, “If Allah says 100 strikes, 100 strikes it is. If Allah says cut off their hand, you cut off their hand. If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it’s the obedience of Allah and his messenger”
Likewise, a leading theologian in Iran defended a recent stoning sentence simply by reminding his audience that “Democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place in Islam.”
Reference #41: Article Titled:
How Big Tough Raging Feminists Are Absolute Cowards in the Face of Islam
Slavery as a Favor for the Slave?
Some contemporary apologists interpret sex slavery as a favor done to the subject – a way in which women and children are taken care of in exchange for their sexual availability to the pious Muslim male. Although morally repugnant in its own right, this is easily belied by the fact that slavery would be unnecessary if the arrangement were of benefit to the slave.
Muslim Slavery as Race Based
Another myth about Islamic slavery is that it was not race-based. In fact, it was. Muhammad’s father-in-law, Umar, in his aforementioned role as caliph, declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves and even had all Arab slaves freed on his deathbed. This helped propel the vast Islamic campaign to capture slaves in Africa, Europe and Asia for import into the Middle East.
The Largest Slave Revolt of All Time
The greatest slave rebellion in human history took place in Basra, Iraq beginning in 869. A half-million African slaves staged a courageous uprising against their Arab-Islamic masters that lasted fifteen years before being brutally suppressed. (See Zanj Rebellion)
How Many Christian Slaves?
Literally millions of Christians were captured into slavery during the many centuries of Jihad. So pervasive were the incursions by the Turks into Eastern Europe, that the English word for slave is based on Slav.
How Many African Slaves Taken by Muslim Slave Traders?
The Indian and Persian people suffered greatly as well – as did Africans. At least 17 million slaves (mostly black women and children) were brought out of Africa by Islamic traders – far more than the 11 million that were taken by the Europeans. However, these were only the survivors. As many as 85 million other Africans are thought to have died en route
Sex Slavery as a Virtue of Slavery
In 2016, a British imam who claims to be anti-extremist, affirmed the legitimacy of sex slavery to his followers. The next year, a Kuwaiti Sheikh called enslaving unbelievers “one of the virtues of Islam.” There have also been several modern-day fatwas endorsing the sexual abuse of non-Muslim women following capture.
In 2016, a scholar at Egypt’s al-Azhar, the most prestigious Islamic school in the Sunni world, stated that non-Muslim women could be captured in a time of war become “property” and can be raped “in order to humiliate them.“
Reference #42: Article Titled:
Understanding Islam As Being Perpetually At War With the Infidel
Reference #43: Article Titled:
Do Muslims Understand Western Debate or Think That You Dominate and Insult to Others to be Right?
Reference #44: Article Titled:
How Mohammed Said His Followers Can Rape Slave POW In Front of Their Husbands
Reference #45: Article Titled:
According to Google Hate Speech is Entirely Based Upon Who is a Protected Group
Reference #46: Article Titled:
How Muslim Countries Persecutes Other Religions When They Are In the Majority