Sunday, 6 May 2012

Hypocrite Extraordinaire Part 3: REASON INFUSION, Dutch Apartheid, Nazi Germany & their Inspiration

This is the third part of my response to REASON INFUSION's set of three videos titled, “REASON INFUSION:HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK”. This is in reply to a part of his second video which can be viewed here.

I did plan on covering video number two in a single post but was forced into splitting it due to the unexpected and excessive length. I am not even going to attempt to estimate how many posts my responses will eventually cover. Since these are the last set of videos which I intend to reply to, my answers are more detailed than I originally intended.

My response to the first video can be viewed here, my first response to the second video can be viewed here, and all previous responses from both I and Blackmore can be read here.

I finished off my previous response by addressing REASON INFUSION's ironic attempts at maligning my  nationality/ethnicity, and so will continue on from there. For those who are watching his video, this response deals with everything between 2 minutes 6 seconds and 3 minutes 6 seconds.

After addressing me, he then turns his tu quoque arguments to Blackmore and his nationality/ethnicity as a Dutch. Like his previous attacks on me, he doesn't really add anything new here. He just rehashes his old arguments. He says Blackmore is "proud" of being Dutch and claims he is overlooking the fact that the Dutch were the "first to bring slavery to America", that they " perfected the apartheid system",  and compares its inhumanity to the US Jim Crow laws and Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews, etc.

First, let's make it clear to every body, Blackmore has never said he is "proud" of being Dutch. REASON INFUSION is simply busy building one logical fallacy on top of another. On top of his poor tu quoque arguments that are meant to divert the focus away from the actual topic at hand (slavery in Islam), he is  also constructing a strawman so he can attack and knock down something that was never claimed.

Blackmore has already addressed this claim himself, when he replied to REASON INFUSION and told him quite clearly that he has never said he was proud of being Dutch, but neither is he ashamed of the fact. He has repeatedly condemned the slavery carried out by both his ancestors and every other person of European heritage.

But, as I have previously answered, so what if Blackmore was proud of being Dutch, or if the Dutch were the first to bring African slavery to America? This has no relevance whatsoever in a discussion on slavery in Islam. The Muslim Arabs and then the Muslim Africans who had converted were enslaving black Africans long before the Europeans ever set foot on its soil. Black African Muslims to this day are busy slaughtering other black African non-Muslims, gays, and apostates. So, why is REASONINFUSION so proud of being Muslim and black?

In fact, if there is anything that makes the discussions of Europeans relevant in a discussion on slavery in Islam, it is the fact that these European slavers were actually inspired by the Muslims. Rodney Stark who is an agnostic American sociologist of religion, conservatively notes that by the tenth or even ninth century, slavery had effectively ended in Europe [The Victory of Reason, p. 28]. So is it any surprise that this disgusting trade received a new lease of life, beginning with the Spanish colonization of the Americas? The fact that Spain had already faced its own "colonization" in the form of the Islamic Conquests and had been under Muslim rule for hundreds of years prior to this, and the fact that other European rulers such as Queen Elizabeth I were at first disgusted by the idea of slavery, is just too much of a coincidence.

Not only slavery, but many other infamous things such as the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades bare an uncanny resemblance to all things Islamic. Regarding the Crusades, renowned historian Bernard Lewis notes that even the Western imitation of Holy War fell short of the Islamic original which was put into motion by Muhammad himself:

"Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation…. [F]orgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas … clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad, and are precursors of the Western Christian Crusade. 
But unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory.… The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule.… The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law."

REASON INFUSION compares the Dutch and the apartheid system to the US and its Jim Crow laws, and Nazi Germany and its treatment of Jews, yet fails to mention and condemn the Islamic equivalent, Dhimmitude, something which predates, postdates, and bares a striking resemblance to all of the aforementioned legal systems (see this video for a quick rundown on what is involved). In fact, in several instances, these Western forms of oppression were directly inspired by the Muslim treatment of dhimmis, which is the legal status that the Shari'ah mandates for non-Muslims living in Islamic lands.

The archetype document for this religious legal system is the Pact of Umar, an agreement between a subdued Christian population and the Muslim invaders lead by Umar, one of the closest Companions of Muhammad and the second Rightly-guided Caliph of Islam. Some secular scholars, and more recently, certain apologists, have doubted the authenticity of this document (as they also have with the hadith literature and the Qur'an itself), but what they do not doubt is that what is described within this document was actually practiced by the early Muslims. For example, the use of distinguishing marks is consistent with documentary and archaeological evidence from seventh and eighth century Iraq and Syria.

Regardless of what secular scholars say, this document is universally accepted as genuine by mainstream Muslims who hold it up with pride, a view echoed by some of its greatest scholars, including al-Khallal (d. 923 AD), Ibn Hazm (d. 1063 AD), al-Tartushi (d. 1126 AD), Ibn Qudama (d. 1123 AD), Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1138 AD), Ibn ‘Asakir (d. 1176 AD), Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350 AD), Ibn Kathir, al-Hindi and ‘Ali ‘Ajin. The eighth-century Hanafi jurist, Abu Yusuf, further noted that the terms in the Pact dealing with dhimmis are clearly in agreement with the Qur'an and hadith literature. Therefore, the Pact "stands till the day of resurrection."

Some of the terms in this pact are truly horrifying and are still widely practiced today in several Muslim countries. For example in Egypt, where Copts are barred from building new churches and are forced to leave old ones in disrepair. Any attempts to the contrary result in jail sentences or the massacre of Copts for breaking the conditions stipulated in the pact, all the while, the Egyptian Muslim police fail to intervene.

One of the conditions which are particularly salient to this discussion include number fifteen, which states "[We non-Muslims will] move from the places we sit in if they [Muslims] choose to sit in them." Now, I don't know about REASON INFUSION, that great condemner of whites, but this brings to mind; a bus, the Jim Crow laws and a certain American civil rights activist named Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks alongside one of my all time heroes, Dr. Martin Luther King jr.

Rosa Parks was an African-American civil rights activist, i.e. "the mother of the freedom movement" who refused to give up her seat in a bus to make room for a white passenger. She is nothing short of a hero, but REASON INFUSION will have to disagree because those racist laws are no different that the Islamic ones. Of course, REASON INFUSION will not disagree because he is a slavery supporting hypocrite who is "slick in his condemnation" and "inconsistent with his moral ethics", something which he ironically, and falsely, accuses me of being.

It is also rather ironic and sad that he would bring Nazi Germany and their treatment of Jews into the discussion, for, among various other issues, some of their practices were directly inspired by Muslims.

Condition number twenty-three states "[We non-Muslims will] wear belts around our waist". The belt being referred to is the zunnār, a wide yellow belt made of cloth. There is little surprise that the yellow star used by the Nazis as a badge of shame against the Jews was actually first introduced by a Muslim caliph in Baghdad in the ninth century as a variant of the zunnār belt. This, as with slavery, holy wars and inquisitions, spread to the West during medieval times. As recently as 2001, the Hindu minority in Afghanistan were forced to wear yellow badges in public to identify themselves as such. This was part of the Taliban's plan to segregate "un-Islamic" and "idolatrous" communities from Islamic ones.



Hitler admired Islam [Hitler: Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115], the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al Husseini was an ally of his, and actual religious Muslim Nazis are a little-known historical fact. The Handzar Muslim Division was an SS branch of soldiers who were practicing Bosnian Muslims, and who were responsible for many war crimes, especially against Serbs. After WWII many German Nazis fled the West to safer and more welcoming pastures in the Muslim world. Some even converted to Islam. Even today, many Neo-Nazis embrace Islam and retain their affections for Nazism and, naturally, their hatred of Jews.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al Husseini with Adolf Hitler.

Likewise, many Muslims love Hitler. Mein Kampf ("My Struggle", or in Arabic a possible translation would be, "My Jihad") is a best-seller in the Muslim World including; Egypt, Palestine, Turkey, and is also selling well in London areas with a large "Arab" population and is often sold along-side religious literature. In my native Bangladesh, Mein Kampf is selling as well as Dan Brown's novel, "The Lost Symbol". And before REASON INFUSION makes himself look like a fool again by attacking Bangladeshis, I can tell you right now that those books are not being purchased by Buddhist, Christian, or Hindu Bangladeshis, because sales of the book soar towards Eid, as it is bought by Muslims as gifts.

A Muslim mother in Melbourne Australia with her daughter (2009)

But why this mutual love and respect? It is obvious, there is simply no other religious texts on earth as antisemitic as Islamic ones. Among other things, the Qur'an tells us Allah has cursed the Jews with enmity and hatred until that Day of Judgment [Qur'an 5:64], and the Sahih hadith tell us that this day will not come unless the Muslims fight and slaughter the Jews [Sahih Muslim 41:6985]. So by default a Muslim has to believe in the "final solution", i.e. the total annihilation of Jews. In fact, the amount of antisemitic text in Mein Kampf is eclipsed by what is found within Islamic scriptures:


In another one of his videos aimed at critics of Islam, REASON INFUSION tells us, "What they don't realize is that America is to blacks what Nazi Germany is to Jews". His hypocrisy cannot be more evident than it is here. Whenever we actually "dare" to discuss the actual topic of discussion, i.e. slavery in Islam, he counters with a tu quoque argument beginning with "they conveniently overlook the fact" etc.

Well, in this case, REASON INFUSION "conveniently overlooks the fact" that Islam was and still is to non-Muslim minorities, especially apostates like myself, what "America was to blacks" and what "Nazi Germany is to Jews". There is plenty of texts which tell us Muhammad ordered his followers to kill any Muslim who "discards his religion" [Sahih Bukhari 4:52:260]. The killing of apostates, both for "normal" apostasy and "treason", has been an accepted part of Islam since its inception and remains to be so. This is something that is agreed upon by all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, meaning you simply cannot be an orthodox Muslim without agreeing. Even the Shi'ite sect, whom together with the Sunnis constitute almost the entirety of the world's Muslim population, agree with this.

This is reflected in opinion polls where, for example, a Pew poll released on December 2, 2010, found that even today “The majority of Muslims would favor changing current laws in their countries to “allow stoning as punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft, and death for those who convert from Islam as their religion”. To give you an idea of the kind of figures we're dealing with, let's use Pakistan as an example; the poll found that 76% of Pakistanis agree apostates are to be killed. In a country with a population of 172,800,000 (96% of whom are Muslim) that would be more than 126 million people in a single country. Conversely only a mere 13% of Muslims opposed killing apostates. We're not even safe in the UK where 1 out of every 3 British Muslim aged 16 to 24 agrees that apostates should be put to death.

As a result of such views, there are laws against apostasy in many Muslim countries, and apostates all over the world are persecuted and killed. This violence is not primarily from Islamic governments, but from family members and individuals from the Islamic communities themselves, who operate very often with impunity from the authorities. This persecution has been documented in many countries, including, but not limited to; Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Comoros Islands, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom , United States, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

As these people, innocent men, women, and children continue to be beaten, raped, abused and slaughtered on a daily basis simply for what they do not believe in, I and every other person of conscience wait with baited breath for self-serving hypocrites like REASON INFUSION to finally take a stand for what is right and voice their holier than thou condemnation at their own brethren.

Okay, I apologize to readers for not covering what I originally said I would, i.e. crime statistics in the West and the conversion, especially of women, to Islam in the West. Hopefully I will cover both in my next post.

1 comment:

IslamoCritic said...

Blackmore wanted to comment on this post but was unable to for some reason or another (not surprising with this damn blogspot setup), so I will post it for him. What he has to say is a great point:

If you only take the anti-Jewish percentages of the holy Islamic scriptures and Mein Kampf in consideration you’re missing what is actually said. The language about Jews in the Quran and what Muhammad said about them is way harsher than what Hitler wrote. The Islam teaches directly to murder. And Muhammad actually preached and did commit murder of the Jews. And I think Hitler mostly talked in vague terms, of which after the war was said, that it was clear what he meant. The difference between the Nazi and Islamic books is like the difference between soft and hard porn.