Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam Calling for the Murder of Salman Rushdie

Today was the first time I had viewed this video, so I thought I'd post it here. The "matter-of factly" manner in which he expresses his hate in front of the police and the entire UK is extremely shocking.

First a little background information from WikiIslam:

Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie caused a storm in 1988, with the release of his fourth novel The Satanic Verses. Muslims were offended even by its title, thinking it implied that the Qur'an was "the work of the Devil." 

It was subsequently banned in India, Bangladesh, Sudan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Thailand, Tanzania, Indonesia, Singapore, and Venezuela following the angry and violent reaction from Muslims.

In America, numerous bookstores received threats, and two bookstores were bombed for stocking the novel. In addition, the Riverdale Press newspaper office was bombed in retaliation for criticising the many stores which decided to pull the novel from their shelves. 

In the UK, there were six separate bombings at various bookstores in London and York, and an additional three stores around the UK discovered unexploded devices on their premises. This unexpected level of violence resulted in almost no-one daring to sell the novel openly in the UK. 

In 1989 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie, and Ayatollah Hassan Saneii in 2003 offered a bounty of $3 million to whomever accomplishes the task. In 2003, the Revolutionary Guards of Iran renewed the fatwa. 

Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) voiced his support for the fatwa, as did many Western Islamic bodies, such as the European Union of Islamic Students` Associations which issued a statement offering its services to Khomeini, and the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain. 

The Japanese translator of his novel was stabbed to death, the Italian translator seriously wounded, the Norwegian publisher seriously injured in a shooting, and thirty-seven people were also burnt to death by a mob of 2,000 Muslims in a Turkish hotel for their refusal to hand over the Turkish translator of the novel.

Fresh protests were sparked around the world following Salman Rushdie's knighthood in 2007. The Pakistani Ulema Council, a body claiming to be the biggest of its kind in Pakistan with 2000 scholars, announced that they had awarded Osama bin Laden with the title Saifullah (Sword of Allah), their highest honour, in response to the knighthood, calling Bin Laden a “ Muslim warrior “. 

Effigies of the writer were publicly burnt in Pakistan and Malaysia, and further bounties were offered from Iran and Pakistan. Some have linked the knighthood to the 2007 attempted car bombings in London.

Video description:

Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam has tried to get this video (in which he clearly calls for the murder of Salman Rushdie) removed and banned from wherever it has been posted on the internet. He also categorically denies ever calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie.

Yusuf Islam commented on this matter by posting the following statement on his own website - "I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini - and still don't. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis."

See the video and decide for yourself whether Yusuf Islam is lying and trying to re-write history.

I do not know how long this video will remain posted until Yusuf Islam has it removed so please post/re-post and forward this video as much as possible so that this man can not get away with such blatant Taqiyya. Please help to show the world what so often happens to a human mind when it becomes infected with Islam.

This is a man famous for the song "Peace Train" - but all we see here is the Islamic version of "peace".

Joseph the Pedophile: A Case of Christian Hypocrisy?

This argument has become very popular with followers of Islam and their non-Muslim apologists. I've seen it posted on many forum discussions and it almost always leads to the critic's silence. When discussing Islam, tu quoque is to be expected. After all, their is no logical way one could defend a faith as flawed as Islam, without resorting to fallacies. It doesn't even surprise me that the accusations against Joseph are patently false, there is no religion out there nearly half as abhorrent as Islam, so it takes a few lies and distortions to even get close. However, what did surprise me is how incompetent many Christians were at defending their own beliefs. American Christians, the group of Christians most active on the net, seem to be collectively suffering from Zion fever, a condition which leaves them able to argue in defense of nothing else but the modern state of Israel.

From WikiIslam:

Mary married 90-year-old Joseph when she was 12-14, so Joseph was a pedophile too

Everyone who makes this claim, cite the same New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia page. What they do not mention is that this page begins by warning readers, "the apocryphal literature is full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents".

According to Wikipedia, apocrypha is defined as "spurious", "of questionable authenticity", and "Christian texts that are not canonical." Thus they can be considered as the Christian equivalent of da`if (weak) or maudu (fabricated) hadith.

Something that is non-canonical is not binding on a follower and can be ignored. There is no authoritative Christian text which state Mary's age. Claims about her age are, at best, educated guesses, but guesses none-the-less. Bukhari and Muslim, on the other hand, are canonical Islamic writings of the utmost religious authenticity, accepted by approximately 90 percent of the world's Muslims.

Even if we do accept this tu-quoque logical fallacy as a valid argument, there remains several problems. The first being the fact that the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia page does not say Mary married Joseph when she was aged 12 to 14.

What it actually says, after warning readers once again that the stories are "unreliable", is that Mary was 12 to 14 at the time of the choosing of candidates, and the Annunciation (the announcement by the angel Gabriel to the virgin called Mary, that she would conceive and become the mother of Jesus) took place two years later. This would make Mary 14 to 16 at the time of her marriage, not 12 to 14, or 9, as was the case between Muhammad and Aisha. She would have been a teenager of child-bearing age, not a pre-pubescent pre-teen child.

Another problem is that the theological significance of Joseph and Muhammad to the Christian and Islamic faiths are incomparable. Unlike the Muslim view of Muhammad, Christians do not consider Joseph to be an uswa hasana (excellent model of conduct). Joseph's moral character holds no importance within Christian theology. He could have been insane and it would not matter to a Christian.

Then there is the fact that, according to both the Christian scriptures and the Islamic ones, Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus; therefore, her relationship with Joseph could not have been a sexual one until after Jesus' birth, making her possibly 17 years of age at the time the marriage was eventually consummated, if ever.

Indeed, the same New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia page continues the narrative of Joseph's life by stating both Mary and Joseph entered the marriage with the understanding that it was never to be consummated.

Mary's Perpetual virginity, the belief that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, is an essential article of faith for the majority of the worlds Christians (including the Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christians). It is even held by some Muslims.

Finally, the most decisive argument against the claim that Joseph was a pedophile is the fact that the same non-canonical writings which are used to gather information on Joseph and Mary's age, also confirm Mary's status as "ever virgin" (in The History of Joseph the Carpenter, Jesus says on Joseph's death "my mother, virgin undefiled").

Catholic & Eastern Churches believe pedophile Joseph is a Saint, that's the same as an Uswa Hasana in Islam

A saint and an uswa hasana are nothing alike. The entire Islamic faith, almost all of its laws, rituals, and moral principles, are defined by the uswa hasana's actions. A saint has no similar function in Christianity. Their actions do not determine Christian laws, rituals, or moral principles in any way. Joan of Arc and countless others are Catholic saints too, but that means very little to how one practices Christianity.

Muhammad is the central figure of Islam, Joseph is not the central figure of Christianity. Islam wouldn't exist if Muslims decided Muhammad was immoral. On the other hand, for Christians of any stripe, Joseph is a "non entity" as far as its theology is concerned. The closest analogy to Muhammad and an uswa hasana in Christianity is the figure of Jesus, and very few non-Christians would argue that their view of Christians and Christianity would not improve if his followers behaved more like him.

In addition, it is the same Catholic and Eastern Churches which consider Joseph a saint, who also hold to the belief of Mary's perpetual virginity. Since Mary's ever-lasting virginity is an integral part or "pillar" of their faith, and most modern theologians think the Pope could reverse a sainthood without undermining the Church's doctrines, it's not hard to imagine what would have become of Joseph's saint status if he did have intercourse with Mary.

Furthermore, as has already been stated in the previous section, Joseph cannot be labeled as a pedophile by anyones standards because there is no authoritative, or even apocryphal, Christian text that state an adult Joseph had sex with a child Mary. Therefore, even if the status of saint was equivalent to that of an uswa hasana, it would not matter to a Christian or help Muslims in excusing the actions of Muhammad.

Adding to the above text:

• A pedophile by its very definition means someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Teenagers of child-bearing age are not pre-pubescent.
• Even if Joseph was a pedophile, a Christian could not be accused of hypocrisy for criticizing Muhammad's pedophilia. For them to be hypocrites, it is Jesus' actions, not Joseph's, which would have to mirror Muhammad's. This is because all critics, including Christians, criticize the founder of Islam, not the founder's father.

The Qur'an CHALLENGE!

This has got to be one of the most funniest videos  (3 min 9 sec)  I've watched so far this year.  Other than the fact that most of the issues discussed here are from the hadith and sira literature, not the Qur'an, I think what makes this video so funny is that it's accurate in its description of Muhammad's behavior. Enjoy.

Jew Quoque: The Truth about Infidels, Lying, Stealing and Pedophilia in the Talmud

These lies were originally compiled at MissionIslam.com from various antisemitic sources, and are being put to use, without attribution, by many Muslims across the net. Most of the claims are in fact doctrines found within mainstream Islam, thus are being used in an attempt to silence critics.

An excerpt from a post by a Muslim on the FFI forum:

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."

Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honour the the dog more than the non-Jew."

Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."

Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."

Sepher ikkarim III c 25

"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah."

Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5

"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."

Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b

"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God."

Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772

Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews

Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

For the sake of brevity, I did not quote all of the text, but, in addition to the above, there are also claims of pedophilia with girls as young as three. What is most shocking about these allegations is the fact that, in some instances, the truth is the complete opposite.

For example, the text I have bolded above, the claim that "Jews May Steal from Non-Jews". In reality, the Jewish writings actually tell us:

Tosefta Bava Kamma 10:8

It is worse to steal from a gentile than from a Jew because of desecration of [G-d's] name.

For Jewish responses to all of these claims, visit The Real Truth About The Talmud.

Israeli troops shoot 15-year-old boy in face with rubber bullet

There may be more to this than what has been reported, however, I can see no excuse for this sort of violence.

From Bikya Masr

CAIRO: Israeli Border Police officers shot a rubber-coated bullet at 15-year-old Ezz Tamimi’s face from a distance of about 20 meters, during the weekly demonstration in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh on Friday, activists said in a press statement.

The bullet, which hit the boy’s cheek, “went through it, gouging a large hole in it.”

The Israeli army’s open-fire regulations forbid the use of rubber-coated bullets against minors.

The incident took place at the center of the village, hundreds of meters away from where a demonstration was taking place, when Border Police officers invaded the village.

For the first time in months, protesters managed to reach the vicinity of the contested water spring, which sparked village demonstrations over two years ago when taken over by settlers.

The protesters, mainly women from the village, managed to confound the soldiers by advancing towards the spring from an unexpected direction. The protesters who were held back by the soldiers meters away from the fountain proceeded to block the road leading to the adjacent Jewish-only settlement of Halamish for some 20 minutes.

The previous night, the Israeli army staged another nighttime raid on the village, an what has become an almost nightly practice in the past three weeks.

Accusations of Bias at WikiIslam: Beheading the Messenger

One of the most common complaints against the use of WikiIslam, and other similar sites, as a source on Islamic beliefs is that it is critical of Islam. The argument used by the more intelligent Defenders of the Faith ™ , rather than the ones who simply cry "hate site!", can be summed up with the following:

WikiIslam, by it's very nature (anti-Islamic), is a biased source.

A more accurate/neutral source that represents what Muslims believe would probably be an Islamic website.

It's easy to argue bias in the first instance, but the only argument in the second instance is humans suffer from universal bias.

I think this response is quite rational and correct, but only up to a certain point. There are many problems with this,  and I shall elaborate on them.


Sites critical of Islam

A site is only as good as the references it provides. If the references are reliable, the perceived bias of the site providing the information is irrelevant. It could be run by the grandmaster of the KKK and all the editors could be his evil minions, and it would not diminish the reliability of the information they provide.

What is being done here in order to defend Islam is "attacking the messenger", a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

For example; I could hate the taste of sugary foods and claim "eating sugary foods can contribute to damaging your teeth". The fact that I hate sugary foods (yes, I'm a hate monger!) does not alter the validity of my claim.


Pro-Islamic sites

Regarding Muslim websites and representing what Muslims believe; anyone can open a website and claim to represent anything, so, knowing the type of Muslim site that is being referenced is more important than who is behind it. Are the sites scholarly or apologetic in nature?

Apologetics sites are hardly a reliable source about Muslim thinking. By their very nature, they are there to defend Islam from criticism, they are not there to reflect current Muslim thought on anything. They are just as guilty of bias as the sites critical of Islam are. For a Muslim to disparage sites critical of Islam, and then to present these sites as an alternative source for learning about Muslim beliefs, is extremely hypocritical.

Additionally, with scholarly sites, you have to consider whether or not the particular site that is being referenced is taken seriously by Muslims. Looking "scholarly" is irrelevant if Muslim in general disagree with the site.


Does WikiIslam accurately reflect Muslim Beliefs?

Putting WikiIslam to the test, I came across a forum discussion which included the discussion of Aisha's age at consummation. Some WikiIslam articles were cited by a user, and the response was:

Wiki Islam? Are you kidding me? Its a hate site.

Aisha's age at marriage.

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

All of those arguments presented in that article, and more, were first popularized by an apologist named Moiz Amjad. They have all been refuted by WikiIslam. Additionally, Shaykh Haddad, one of the most respected Islamic scholars alive today and someone who I respect immensely, replied to his polemics many years ago. His reply was never addressed by Moiz Amjad.

Isn't it strange that a "hate site" more accurately reflects mainstream Muslim beliefs than the site a  Defender of the Faith ™ provided?

It is the same with the issue concerning 72 virgins. Whilst Muslims will often provide you with articles that claim it's all a Jewish conspiracy, WikiIslam provides you with references from scholarly pro-Islamic sources (here, here & here).

Now it's five Muslim on Muslim attacks in nine days

This is an update to the earlier post: First Belgium, then France, and now Australia: Third act of Muslim on Muslim terror in just over a week


Well, I expected this, but preferred not to jump to any conclusions until the facts were in. The recent killings in France were not committed by a Neo-Nazi, but a Muslim terrorist. Considering the similarities between Nazism and Islam, you can be forgiven for thinking it was an adherent of the former who was behind the atrocities.

That takes the number of Muslim on Muslim attacks in secular and liberal "Western" nations to 5 in only 9 days, from the 11th to the 19th of March.

Hitler admired Islam [Hitler: Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115], and actual Muslim Nazis are a little-known historical fact. The Handzar Muslim Division was an SS branch of soldiers who were Bosnian Muslims, and who were responsible for many war crimes, especially against Serbs.

After WWII many 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.

From the BBC:

11 March: Off-duty sergeant shot dead in Toulouse while waiting for a man about a motorbike sale

 15 March: Two paratroopers shot dead and a third injured while waiting at a cash machine in Montauban

19 March: Three children and a teacher shot dead, and a youth injured, at a Toulouse Jewish school

From Forbes:

The Washington Post and France24 have reported that French police have raided a Toulouse home to arrest the suspect in the shooting deaths of three children and an adult at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. The suspect, an Algerian-born French citizen, reportedly told the police that he committed the killings “to avenge Palestinian children” – ironic at a moment when Palestinians have been shooting rockets into Israel.

According to the Washington Post report,

"Gueant described the suspect as a French citizen, 24, who has spent time with Islamic groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan. News reports said he was of Algerian origin and had invoked the al-Qaeda terrorism network in his contacts with police in shouted conversations through the locked door of an apartment."

The rise of Islamic extremism has been a concern in Europe for some years, but so far, France has been spared the horrors of Islamic terrorism. Now it joins Holland, Spain, and England in confronting the dangers posed by radical Islam as it spreads through our communities in the West.

UPDATE

France24 reports that the suspect targeted French Muslim members of the military in his first shootings as “Arab soldiers are prized targets for groups like Al-Qaeda, which regards Muslims who fight for Western armies as traitors.” Having filmed the attacks as he committed them, the suspect has told French officials that he plans to place the films online. With the Internet now the most powerful recruiting tool of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, such films have become standard in the efforts to spread their influence and teachings, and are frequently watched by radicalizing Muslim youth in Europe and elsewhere in the West.