Top Menu

Rev.Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Awkward for Islamophobes


Two Extraordinary Men: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X

The day when we are supposed to commemorate Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy and struggle for civil rights, justice and freedom is marked today, January 16th, 2012. It goes without saying that everyone owes MLK Jr. a debt of gratitude. Reflecting on his life the past few days, I have re-read the “Auto-biography of Martin Luther King, Jr.” edited by Clayborne Carson, mostly using material from his collected letters, speeches and writings.

There are innumerable ways in which we can remember his legacy, but there is a specific context and relevance that I want to highlight, one that American Muslims and all despised minorities can relate to and understand.

It begins with first acknowledging that, as Svend White noted, Martin Luther King, Jr. wasn’t exactly the universally loved and admired individual that we honor today. In his time, MLK was reviled, considered by some in their hysterical conspiratorial craze “a Communist,” the FBI followed his every movement, and while he was alive he was considered a national security threat.

…contrary to the comforting revisionism that reigns, King was not universally acclaimed and supported after his advent in American national consciousness, even a decade after his legendary speech.

It’s relatively well-known that elements in the government—especially J. Edgar Hoover, who was convinced that he was a Communist plant—ignored the fact that by the end of his life he was a radical social critic who applied his vision to far more than race relations. As he began to apply his values holistically and across racial lines, he lost support among many erstwhile allies.

King’s bravery and vision did not end at “race relations,” his dream was larger, that is why he condemned the Vietnam war and joined striking sanitation workers in Memphis.

MLK day is an awkward day for Islamophobes. His life stands in sharp contradistinction to their hate-filled polemic and activism. While MLK waged jihad for civil rights and freedom, anti-Muslims lobby to restrict freedoms, while MLK pushed for non-violence and opposed aggressive wars, Islamophobes stand in support of such wars–or at least the by-product of slaughtering “towel-heads.”

Can you imagine what their reaction would be to one of King’s most famous, if less well known statements given during his “Beyond Vietnam” address,

 The USA is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.

If MLK said that today (and it is as true today as it was in his time), rest assured he would be called a leftist, terrorist sympathizer, or perhaps even a “secret Mooslim.”

MLK represented the highest qualities of his Christian faith, but this did not lead him to exclusivist narrow mindedness, instead it opened doors of knowledge and reflection upon unifying principles between the various world religions:

‘I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate — ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: ‘Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.’ If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.”

For saying the above MLK would be considered a “dhimmi” by the radical anti-Muslim Islamophobes. That is why a commemoration of MLK is awesome, it exposes the futility of hate, the absurdness of it, while also reminding us that there is much work to be done to reach a dream that has not been understood or realized.

, , , , , , ,

  • Proverb

    @ Jakc Cope

    Yes, I am busy. I note that you claim: “I’ll also add that certain Christian teachings state that after the Jews are gathered into Israel, most will be killed with the remainder converting to Christianity which of a similar vein of thought. Very few Christians are out there trying to slaughter all Jews based on this…”

    COMMENT: There is no such teaching in Biblical eschatology. Kindly provide the Biblical references for you claims. Not even Pre-Millennialists (who believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture) teach no such things. There is no Biblical eschatological teaching that Christians will kill Jews for no converting to Christianity as you imply. There is a Chiristian eschatological teaching that haters of the Gospel (including Muslims) will slaughter Jews and Christians (who were “left behind”).

    But, as I said, kindly provide the Biblical references for your claims.

    You wrote: “On the topic of Christianity and its attitude towards the Jews I think it is important to highlight that many ‘modern Islamic’ antisemitic viewpoints do come from translated Christian texts.”

    COMMENT: Which “Christian texts” are resposible for “modern Islamic anti-semitism”? Please list them.

    Furthermore, the constant referral by Muslims ALL OVER to Jews as “apes and swines” comes directly from the quran. There is no such reference in the Bible. Also, claims that the Jews corrupted their own Torah is an Islamic claim – nothing to do with Christianity. Feel free to search the internet for numerous videos of imams expounding on Allah’s hatred for Jews as they quote Islamic sources. Feel free to watch the famous videos of imams praying curses upon the Jews and Christians.

    Furthermore, as I started this commentary with MLK, go and read his clear quote, which I gave above. Anti-Zionists are simply anti-semites. So, your claim that Muslims oppose Zionists and not Jews is pointless. They hate Jews. They call them apes and swines. It is pointless claiming to be anti-Zionist as all true Jews have ALWAYS longed for Zion (i.e. Jerusalem). The Book of Psalms is clear “May my right hand lose its cunning if ever forget thee, Jerusalem”. ALL true Jews long for Zion. ALL so-called anti-Zionists seek to deligitimise this aspect of Jewish faith and hope, claiming it is “political”. MLK saw through all that trash. It is simply the pure, abiding hatred for Jews.

    The problem here is one, Jack, you suffer from denialism. The danger with denialism is that leads an individual to deny even what is obvious to a sane, moral person. It leads the German man living in Nazi Germany to deny that his Jewish neighbours who were rounded up the day before have been taken to concentration camps by Nazis. It makes a person call evil “good” and good “evil” – inviting the judgment of God upon such person.

    To whitewash evil (as you constantly attempt in your responses) even to extent of pretending that Islamic anti-semitism (which relies heavily on the quran and hadith) somehow originates from “Christian Texts” (even though the commonly used Islamic anti-semitic expressions cannot be found in Christian Texts) is surely absurd.

    Stick to your Islam, if you wish, but kindly dissist from whitewashing its immoral stances. Rather openly declare that you agree with its hatred for Jews, its jizyah payments, its persecution of non-Muslims, etc. That’s a lot more honest than attempting to create a fictional, whitewashed Islam.

  • Jack Cope

    Well by my timing that is nearly two days and there has been no response, considering the last responses were at times within hours of each other I won’t hold my breath for another. Yes, I understand that people get busy but I did expect this… anyway since I won’t be around much in the coming week(s) I do request that Proverb inform me if his comments have been ‘blocked’ by contacting me:

    I say this partly to remove the excuse that ‘I was blocked’ and partly in the interest of debate.


  • Jack Cope


    Why are you surprised that your posts aren’t being censored? As I warned in my reply to you it is unfortunate that your posts only serve to make a fool of yourself and highlight both the weakness of your arguments (relying on a single line) and your non existence grasp on Islamic thought (relying on said line despite being told why it is stupid to do so). Please also drop the stuff about having posts censored, I expect you might have had one or two removed in the past for the reasons Sir David points out, but as llisha confirms there has been nothing in the past month.

    Now back to your post… sadly I am unable to ask Yusuf Al-Qaradawi directly since he obviously gets a lot of messages coming his way. Instead I recommend you follow the steps I detailed in my other posts and read some other Fatwas to understand their structure and why said line was included. I’ll also add that Al-Qardawi does have an unfortunate habit of leaving his points open to doubt or misinterpretation when he writes or speaks which is one of the reasons I don’t consult with him.

    However overall as I said above, it just shows how weak your argument is in that for ‘evidence’ you pull out a single line from a Fatwa as proof.

    Now your ‘eschatological teaching on Muslims slaughtering Jews’ is one that I deal with a lot. In a nutshell it refers to the end of times, not to present day life, and comes from a whole list of ‘signs’ for the end of this world. I’ll also add that certain Christian teachings state that after the Jews are gathered into Israel, most will be killed with the remainder converting to Christianity which of a similar vein of thought. Very few Christians are out there trying to slaughter all Jews based on this, the same goes to Muslims becuase, as I will point out, most ‘Islamic antisemitism’ stems from what is happening vis a vis Israel and not a theological viewpoint.

    On the topic of Christianity and its attitude towards the Jews I think it is important to highlight that many ‘modern Islamic’ antisemitic viewpoints do come from translated Christian texts. There was very little in the way of antisemitism within Islamic thought for most of our history. Jews were/are considered a protected people and that was that, but the rise of Nazi Germany changed this and a flood of antisemitic texts from Christian Europe flooded into Arabia as part of Mr Hitler’s ‘final solution’. It is this sad legacy that still exists in Muslim thought which is why most if not all ‘Muslim antisemitic’ views are near identical to the Christian ones with a few changes to make them more palatable to a local audience. The situation in Israel is of course the main reason behind all this, combining nationalistic tendencies with antisemitism but it is also interesting to note that most Muslims will draw a line between ‘Zionists’ and ‘Jews’. Unfortunately there is a tendency to confuse ‘Israel’ with ‘Jews’ and tie all Jews to what happens in the Middle East.

    But anyway, you have yet to make your point stick, please try again. Trying to link ‘dimminitued’ to Jew hatred misunderstand the very meaning of the word ‘dimmini’, please consult an Arabic dictionary.


  • Ilisha


    I searched the trash and spam going back at least a month. There’s not a single post of yours in either folder.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony

    Why is it that loons seem surprised that they can post there childish rants here without being censored ? Or are things different on the other side of the fence over in Loonland ( Jihad botch, Atlas does Drugs , Bare naked Lies and other such sites ) I think they are .
    Here Loons need no help with their arguments as given enough space their irrelevence shines :-)
    Actually I also think it is very important that if you want to know about a religion you talk to a normal person who practices, so I will take Jacks views over yours anyday . As for mentioning Hamas etc Should I ask the IRA, the KKK , those Abortion Clinic Bombers, Nigerian Witch Hunters , the Lords Revolutionary Army etc etc about Christianity ??
    I think not
    Have a nice day old chap toodle pip

    Sir David

  • Proverb

    @ Zakariya Ali Sher

    Honestly, I did not even bother reading your post to the end, as I began to lose interest when I saw your bizarre misrepresentation of my comments. If you cannot even present the gist of my comments accurately, but rather chose to make up your assumptions and impose your misrepresentations, then rather talk to yourself. I, for one, have no interest in what you have to say to me.

    I also do not grasp what Geller and Spencer fit in here. If you wish to discuss them, try their websites or something. Are you implying that al-Qaradawi is, in fact, Spencer?

    Furthermore, it is largely irrelevant that Jack Cope is a “practising” Muslim. If this fact alone lends credibility to every utterence he makes and every view he promotes regarding Islam, then please note that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, etc also have “practising” Muslims as members. I must assume, then, you place a lot of weight on their anti-semitic and Christophobic rants. I must, therefore, conclude that the doctrines and beliefs of these terrorists are Islamic practice, as they keep uttering.

  • Proverb

    @ Jack Cope

    My assertion stands. If you claim that I am misrepresenting al-Qaradawi’s exposition, then kindly present a clear quote wherein he says that the MAJORITY view is wrong and/or merely historical.

    Furthermore, every point I have raised has a DIRECT bearing on Islamic hatred for Jews. For every discriminatory provision applicable to dhimmis affects Jews. Every discriminatory practice, including qisas, applicable to non-Muslims affects Jews.

    I also made reference to the eschatological teaching on Muslims slaughtering Jews.

    Finally, I am quite AMAZED that my posts have not been censored by LW…yet.

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    @ Proverb:

    > as you hold no recognised position to declare what is ” historical” or of
    > applications under Islam. Islamic scholars today still refer to what YOU
    > consider “historical”.

    And you do hold a recognized position to declare what is ‘historical,’ or even ‘Islamic?’ If you are going to pull that sort of crap here, then we may as well hold you to the same standard. As I recall, you do not speak Arabic, which raises the question of what kind of ‘scholar’ can claim to have any background on a subject without being able to read the first hand materials for himself. Or herself. Sorry, I forget your gender.

    The funny thing is, you openly ignore the beliefs and practices of PRACTICING Muslims like Jack Cope here, and instead believe every single lie told by Robert Spencer, Pamella Geller and other non-academic popular writers, none of whom have any recognized degrees in appropriate fields. None of them have doctorates, none of them speak Arabic, and as far as I’m aware, none of them have ever even BEEN to the Middle East to do research on the subject for themselves. Funny that, right? I suppose I should take the word of a random stranger on the street when I need legal or medical advice going by that standard.

    But getting onto something more pertinent here, you claim that Islam does not value human life… what then should we make of the western model. The supposed ‘universal values’ in reality favor the imposition of western culture and belief over centuries of tradition. Did you know that many Buddhists reject the so-called ‘universal human rights’ call too? On a less abstract level, western culture has imposed itself through little more than military might across the world. There are American military bases all over the place. American and British troops kicked the entire population out of Diego Garcia in 1971. American ‘private contractors’ have been given blanket immunity from prosecution for killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, including one blackwater employee who shot an unarmed Iraqi soldier on Christmas and then was flown to Seattle (ostensibly for his ‘protection’).

    It seems to me that western culture only values human life when it is convenient, and even then, white Christian life is considered more valuable than that of everyone else. Most Americans are more than comfortable fighting proxy wars to ensure that the standard of living here remains higher. Most Americans are willing to look the other way when black, brown and yellow people are slaughtered. Millions of people were dying in the Congo Civil War, and nobody said a word. Yet when a westerner dies or goes missing, we have days of coverage on it. Why, I wonder? Is it because the culture that you seek to defend is just as corrupt and xenophobic as any other?

  • Jack Cope


    The reason I ask you what are your qualifications is becuase it is clear that you are misrepresenting a scholar’s opinion, either from ignorance or willfully.

    Have you read a Fatwa before? I suggest reading some of the others presented on that very site and you will note they show the same sort of formula, covering all the bases and then a more relevant interpretation. All you are doing is repeatedly pulling out one sentence and misrepresenting it. Of course the writer is duty bound to repeat every major view that has ever been displayed, even if he feels such a view is wrong! Not doing so would be sloppy work and leave doubt.

    If one reads the Fatwa in full, as I recommend people do, then one will get what I am talking about here. You are just, and I hate to say it, quoting out of context. You are hung up on one sentence while the whole Fatwa actually says, based on both the Quran and the Prophet himself, that such a view is wrong.

    I’ll also add that this does very little to support your first case about Islam giving orders for the slaughter of Jews. Are you going to cover that at any point?

    Anyway to the rest…

    I bought up Saudi as an example since Saudi is well known for following the most ‘extreme version’ of Islam, one they made up themselves, and yet they still place value on human life. But of course, Saudi is not representative in any way which I why I said the evidence that the whole farce of ‘majority view’ is wrong is the legal systems of Muslim majority countries.

    And yes, the Pact of Umar is discredited, even Wiki will tell you that. It was created by fools similar to the Saudis in this day and age to attempt to repress their own rebellious people and has no real place in Islamic cannon. I’m sure the site you link has a Fatwa on it somewhere.

    Again, very little of what you said is really adding up to your main point made in the first post. Cover that please.


  • Proverb

    @ Jack Cope

    1. Nowhere have I told to you that you “should do things the way I do them”. So, once again, please kindly refrain from misrepresenting my statements. I stated that I am not interested in how YOU read any texts and my position is supported by Islamic position on this, as you hold no recognised position to declare what is ” historical” or of applications under Islam. Islamic scholars today still refer to what YOU consider “historical”.

    2. I find it strange, that you casually use Saudi Arabia as an example of correct application of the Islamic sources. It is also Saudi Arabia thar rabidly discriminated and persecutes non-Muslims. If the Pact of Umar is ” discredited”, but yet you refer to Saudi Arabia, then it seems to me that Saudi Arabia must be clearly disagree with your claim that the Pact of Umar is discredited as they clearly seem to implement the prohibition of the public display of, for example, Bibles, crucifixes, etc.

    3. al-Qaradawi does not EVER state in his exposition that the MAJORITY view of Islamic scholars that a Muslim who murders a non-Muslim cannot be killed is outdated or has no basis in Islam or is contrary to the principles of Islam. Yes, he presents examples of incidences where the majority view was not followed. But, exceptions surely do not cancel the majority Islamic position.

    3. Any ideology that cannot provide a clear and unambiguous position on the value of all human life and even deems this most basic of all moral values “debatable” in our time is not worthy of respect. That Islamic scholars even need to debate this basic moral principle is appalling.

    4. I have never stated that I find the immoral and disturbing debate of this issue (and the revelation of the MAJORITY position) “amusing”. You will not find such statement in my comment.

    5. As for credentials… As I have not sought to contradict al-Qaradawi’s clear statement on the position of the MAJORITY of Islamic scholars, nor sought to impose my own “modern” reading of the position by claiming it is merely ” historical”, I do not need to provide any credentials. I have yet to hear a Muslim scholar claim that the majority view of scholars can summarily ignored and dismissed as “historical”. Not even al-Qaradawi makes the claim that you have made.

    6. As for my beliefs being weak… I think Islam displays its weakness and fear clearly in the persecution of non-Muslims and apostates from Islam in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

  • Jack Cope


    He is talking in a historical context as far as I can make out and he also does not agree with the historical view. Proof that his view is the majority? The fact that modern day Islamic legal systems place such equality upon murder, even in Saudi. Again, he refers to historical views from the Shafi’ school when he says of ‘the majority of scholars’ (hence his reference to Al-Shafi’). So no, you really haven’t provided Quadari’s position when you say that. Rather you have misread his position to try and fit it with your view of what the facts are, ignoring the majority of the Fatwa to pick out a single line that ‘agrees’ with you.

    As for the rest of your points, why should I do things the way you do them? It is funny that you ask what my credentials are, really I should be asking what are yours! What are your credentials that give you the ‘right’ to tell me how to interpret Islam in a way that is not recognized by Muslims? You see, we don’t do the whole ‘well, this says A and that says B, let’s stick them together to make C’ as you are doing.

    Also, why are you still bringing up the discredited Pact of Ummar? Is the far more valid Treaty of Medina to much of an inconvenient truth? And why is ‘Dimminitued’ even coming up? It was expunged by most Muslims over a century ago, relevant for its time but not so relevant now.

    Finally, why do you find it so amusing that scholars debate the value of human life? They should debate it, for that is how we learn. As you can see by the Fatwa you quoted, by debating the matter we bring our faith into line with so called ‘modern’ practices, our faith is neither static nor monolithic. Of course, I don’t expect you to want to see this but anyway, that is a fact.

    And no, I won’t mock you, but I will feel sorry for you. It seems whatever you believe in is so weak that its strength can only come from misreading my belief system to make what you believe is true. That is truly sad and I hope you find peace one day.


  • Proverb

    @ Jack Cope

    I have read the full fatwa and stand by my quote, for al-Qaradawi clearly states: “The MAJORITY of scholars including Ahmad and Ash-Shafi MAINTAIN THE VIEW that a Muslim cannot be killed for a non-Muslim”. Calling the killing of a Dhimmi “heinous” does not detract from the fact that no death penalty is applied to the Muslim murder, while the death penalty is applied where a non-Muslim kills a Muslim.

    All attempts to mock me are rather silly and childish on your part, as I have CLEARLY provided al-Qaradawi’s exposition.

    1. Are you, Jack Cope, therefore, trying to claim that you have superior knowledge of Islamic texts than al-Qaradawi and the MAJORITY of Islamic scholars he mentions, including Ahmad and Ash-Shafi, which MAINTAIN that a Muslim who murders a non-Muslim cannot be sentenced to death?

    2. If so, please state your Islamic scholarship credentials or are you perhaps al-Qurtubi, that we might marvel?

    3. I am not interested in YOUR reading of anything. I am interested in the majority and prevailing Islamic scholarly position. Now, unless you can provide evidence that your comment outweighs that of al-Qaradawi and the MAJORITY of Islamic scholars he referred to, I will happily ignore your claims.

    4. Please do not try to misrepresent my assertions on the Dhimma Pact. Go re-read my post and some of the clauses taken from the Pact of Umar. Then, apply al-Qaradawi’s exposition and the MAJORITY Islamic scholarly view on Muslim murdering a non-Muslim and qisas. Then, use logic to comprehend what decent, moral people will natural comprehend: qisas and discriminatory Dhimmitude are bigotry and persecution. They also encourage the slaughter of non-Muslims.

    5. If you wish to really grasp what should be embarassing to YOU is that there is a religion (i.e. Islam) that is so immoral, that its “well-known” scholars still grapple with and have to write expositions, even in this day and age, on something as basic as the equal value of all human life.

    Mock me all you want. That will never add an ounce of respectability to the fact that there is even a debate of this nature in Islam.

  • Jack Cope

    Let’s take it from the top Proverb;

    Now, I notice that you start of by trying to ‘prove’ that Islam allows the ‘

    Yet even with your sources, you cannot prove this, you are making very vague connections to unrelated topics in a rather lackluster attempt. And you can’t prove it simply becuase such a concept does not exist. You have failed, as expected, from the outset purely because of this fact. But let us examine what you bought to the table.

    First of all, the Pact of Ummar is a well known forgery, forged by certain Muslims who wanted to go against Islam by oppressing their non-Muslim subjects. It is incorrect to state it is ‘treasured by Muslims’ and I’d ask for something to back up such a sweeping statement.

    If one were to comment on Muslim to Non-Muslim relations, it would be far better to bring out the Constitution of Medina, a pact that was in fact drawn up by Muhammad himself and goes against what the Pact of Ummar states.

    You link this to the rather vague statement that ‘[Dhimmitude] is so well-known that I feel I do not even need to provide links’ while also falsely stating that ‘Dhimmitude’ allows ‘slaughter of Jews (and Christians)’. Clearly you *do* need to provide links since the actual meaning of ‘Dhimmi’ is ‘protected’, i.e. one who cannot be killed since they are to be defended by Muslims, the opposite of what you are saying. I would suggest that before I go on you re-examine your statements on ‘Dhimmitude’ lest you are made a fool off by making basic errors such as the two I have picked out.

    Now on to your next bit… did you in fact read the Fatwa you linked? Especially the bit;

    “This may explain why Muslim jurists both in past and present times have unanimously agreed that killing a dhimmi is one of the most heinous crimes in Islam.”


    “In addition, it was reported that a Muslim was brought before `Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) for murdering a Dhimmi. As the man was proven guilty, `Ali ordered for his killing. Then the brother of the man slain came and said: “ I have waived my right (to retaliation).” `Ali asked him: “ Have you been subject to pressure or threat?” The man answered: “No, but killing him will never bring my brother back to me and they have given me a good compensation.” `Ali commented: “It is up to you anyway. But it should be known that he who has a covenant with us is equal to us in terms of the retaliation and blood money.” (Reported by At-Tabarani and Al-Bayhaqi)

    It was for this that the scholars agree that a Muslim’s hand is cut off in case he steals the property of a Dhimmi. As for the Prophet’s saying that a Muslim should not be killed for a non-Muslim, it relates to non-Muslim combatants who are at war with Muslims. ”

    I would suggest that everyone here read the whole Fatwa, but clearly it is against everything that Proverb has put out.

    Seriously, Proverb, the mistakes are becoming so embarrassing on your half that I feel unable to continue as I don’t want to belittle you further. I have pulled out three very basic errors in about three readings of your post and thus I feel there is no need to go on further.

    Please restudy and reevaluate your stance before you reply, or I will go on and fully disassemble your post in front of everyone.


  • Proverb

    @ CentristAmericanMuslim who wrote:”Could you please point to us where Islam teaches persecution or slaughtering of Jews?”

    COMMENT: While I do not who the “us” is your statement refers to (i.e. whether you are a representative of LW and/or Muslims generall), I will point out the clearest and undeniable Islamic teaching that FULLY SUPPORTS AND PROMOTES DISCRIMINATION, BIGOTRY AND PERSECUTION AGAINST JEWS (AND CHRISTIANS).

    The Islamic concept of Dhimmitude is a clear principle supporting persecution and slaughter of Jews (and Christians). This concept is so well-known that I feel I do not even need to provide links.

    Here are some the provisions (look up the Pact of Umar, which is treasured by Muslims):

    1. Dhimmis shall not build, in their cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall they repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims. [Islam does not impose a similar restrictions on Muslims]

    2. Dhimmis shall not manifest their religion publicly [Yet, Muslims can manifest theirs publically];

    3. Dhimmis shall rise from their seats when Muslims wish to sit;

    4. Dhimmis shall not bear arms;

    5. Dhimmis must dress a particular way and have discrimatory identifying dress [This is no different from the Yellow Star imposed on Jews by the Nazis];

    6. Dimmis shall not display their crosses or their books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. Dhimmis shall use only clappers in their churches very softly.

    7. Dhimmis shall not bury their dead near the Muslims, etc, etc

    Let us also not forget that while a Muslim may be put to death for killing a fellow Muslim, Islamic law devalues the lives of non-Muslims in that “no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of a disbeliever.”

    Now, you may very well argue that there are “differing views” on this. Point taken. I would like you to read the findings by Al-Qaradawi

    I am more than happy to provide you with this link to pro-Islamic propaganda (which includes the whitewashing, by Al-Qaradawi, of the Dhimma Pact). You might wonder why… Simple really, because in the midst of all that pro-Islamic propaganda and whitewashing of Dhimmitude, lies a GREAT revelation of the CURRENT immoral standards in Islam in that here we have a religion that claims it values ALL life, yet its scholars (in examining its sacred texts) cannot even agree on the basic principle of equal protection of the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims. This irony will, undoubtedly, be lost on Muslim.

    In the midst of all long finding we fall upon the prevailing position in Islam, as explained by Al-Qaradawi: “It was for this that Muslim jurists unanimously agreed that killing a Dhimmi is one of the most heinous crimes in Islam. However, they differed on whether a Muslim should be killed if found guilty for that crime or not. The MAJORITY of scholars including Ahmad and Ash-Shafi` maintain the view that a Muslim CANNOT BE KILLED for a non-Muslim. They support their view with the Hadith that reads: “A Muslim is not to be killed for a Kafir (unbeliever).” (Reported by Ahmad, Al-Bukhari and An-Nasa’i) They also quoted the Hadith that reads: “A believer is not to be killed for a disbeliever or for a person enjoying protection under a covenant.” (Reported by Ahmad, An-Nasa’i and Abu Dawood)”.

    This means: Muslim can kill Jew, Christian or other non-Muslim (it is a non-event, as such life has less value than that of a Muslim). YET, a non-Muslim must be killed for killing a Muslim.

    I cannot even begin to imagine any moral person supporting this, but hey, it is Islam…

    Finally, there is the little Islamic eschatological teaching that the last day will not come until Muslims slaughter Jews…

Powered by Loon Watchers