What “Counts” as a Hate Crime? (RPT FLASHBACK)

  • (Reason for the FLASHBACK) I was invited to a Facebook group regarding recalling George Gascon (SITE | Facebook Group). While I support that, enthusiastically, I have seen a passion for hate-crimes… which I do not support enthusiastically. And it was then that I realized I had no real discussion or presentation of hate-crime legislation that was pushed through by Harry Reid back in the day. So this post is a combination of stuff from my BLOGSPOT days.

I want to lead with some articles and excerpts, interrupted by some media. I realized I hadn’t done much on “hate-crime” legislation on this .com — but I was posting on the issue on my old BLOGSPOT (hate-crimes posts) site because that is the time it was being put into law. This post is a FLASHBACK of sorts, and has to do with how hate-crimes are “interpreted,” which makes them a weapon for the social-justice warriors whims. For some background, I was writing on this more in 2009 because this legislation was passed then. Here is Star Parker noting the change in law:

President Barack Obama has signed into law the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Actually, he signed into law the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act tacked onto which was the hate crimes legislation.

Sen. Harry Reid, our brave Democratic majority leader, slipped the hate crimes bill into the defense authorization bill to avoid having to have our senators consider the controversial hate crimes bill on its own.

It’s for good reason that our Democratic legislators wanted to hide under a rock while passing this terrible piece of legislation. It may help them with the far left wing of their party. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.

(STAR PARKER & my old Blogspot)

Here JOHN MCCAIN opines on the issue of Harry Reid shoving that bill into a defense act (VIDEO). You will in the words and media below see how this PC take on what is “equal” actually destroys the premise of “equal under the law.” A good start is this short noting of “hyphenated justice” by Dennis Prager:

So… where do we start. Let us begin with a series of letters I made and put in the break-room at Whole Foods during a “summer session.” It was a newsletter of sorts of ideas I knew my co-workers had never heard of. Here is an excerpt from July of 2003:

Murder – Homosexual vs. Heterosexual[1]

Witness the wall-to-wall coverage generated by the murder of Matthew Shepard, the young Wyoming man who was lured from a Laramie bar by two thugs in the fall of 1998, beaten unconscious and left to die, tied to a fence post in sub-freezing temperatures.  The implicit assumption of the coverage was that Shepard had fallen victim to the often invisible but always sinister homophobia embedded deeply in American society, a pathology that could be cured only by hate-crimes legislation.  On the eve of the killers’ trial, Frank Rich wrote in the New York Times: “What remains as certain now as on October 22, the day Matthew Shepard died, is that this murder happened against the backdrop of a campaign in which the far right[2], abetted by political leaders like Trent Lott, was demonizing gay people as sick and sinful.”

Given the avalanche of press it received, there are probably grounds to wonder whether the Shepard case might have been over-covered, although the gruesomeness of the murder and the hate that drove it certainly raised it to the level of an important national story.  But when homosexuals are the perpetrators of violence instead of the victims, the sense of moral urgency seems to vanish.  This is particularly true when the violence touches on the explosive issue of gay pedophilia.[3] A case in point is the 1999 murder of a thirteen-year-old Arkansas boy named Jesse Dirkhising and the 2001 trial of the two gay neighbors who killed him.

According to prosecutors at the trial, the two men had become friendly with the boy and his mother, their next-door neighbors, and one day invited Jesse over to their house.  During the afternoon, they drugged Jesse, tied him to a bed, shoved his underwear into his mouth to gag him, and added duct tape to ensure his silence.  As one man stood watching in a doorway and masturbated, the other raped the boy for hours using a variety of foreign objects, including food.  The two men then left the boy in such a position on the bed that he slowly suffocated to death.

A Nexis search revealed that in the first month after the Shepard murder, the media did 3007 stories about the killing.  And when the case finally went to trial in the fall of 1999, it was all over the broadcast news, received front-page coverage in all major newspapers, and was featured on the cover of Time magazine.  (In all, the New York Times ran 195 stories about the case.)

In the month after the Dirkhising murder, however, Nexis recorded only 46 stories.  The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored the story altogether and continued to do so through the March 2001 trial of one of the murderers, which resulted in a conviction.  (The other assailant later pled guilty.)  The Washington Post ran but one tiny AP [Associated Press] item about the case, along with an unusual ombudsman’s[4] defensive explanation of the paper’s decision not to cover the case.

Writing for the New Republic, gay journalist Andrew Sullivan had some insight into why there was such disparity between the Shepard case and that of Jesse Dirkhising, and why the press found the latter so difficult to handle.  The answer was politics, Sullivan wrote:

“The Shepard case was hyped for political reasons: to build support for inclusion of homosexuals in a federal hate-crimes law.  The Dirkhising case was ignored for political reasons: squeamishness about reporting a story that could feed anti-gay prejudice, and the lack of any pending interest-group legislation to hang a story on….  Some deaths – if they affect a politically protected class – are worth more than others.  Other deaths, those that do not fit a politically correct profile, are left to oblivion.”

Can Minorities Commit “Hate-Crimes?”[5]

Refusal to acknowledge the reality of anti-white racism is particularly evident in coverage of black-on-white crime.  According to some survey’s, in the 1990s blacks were at least three times more likely to commit hate crimes against whites than the other way around.  Yet in case after case, media coverage either refuses to acknowledge the racial subtext of such crimes, or fails to subject them to the same scrutiny used when the racial roles are reversed.  This is so even in cases where the racial motivation is clear-cut, as in the 1994 case when a gang of black teenage muggers confessed to police that it had intentionally limited its violent attacks in a Brooklyn housing project to elderly whites.  Police reports had one culprit admitting, “We made an agreement not to rob black woman.  We would only take white woman.  It was a pact we all made.  Only white people.”  Yet such details did not find their way into the stories run by the New York Times.  The same omission occurred in coverage of other black-on-white attacks, even when the assailants were heard calling their victims “white bitch,” “white ho” (whore) and “white KKK bitch,” as they were in an April 1997 attack on a white matron by a gang of New York City high school girls on a bus.

[….]

Another recent illustration of the media’s tendency to sidestep uncomfortable realities of black racism involved the case of Ronald Taylor, a thirty-nine-year-old black Pennsylvania man who killed three people and wounded tow others, all white, in March of 2000.  According to authorities, Taylor had grown enraged when managers at his Wilksburg, Pennsylvania, housing project sent white maintenance workers to fix something in his apartment.  He shot the two maintenance workers, killing one.  Then he set his apartment on fire and walked to a Burger King a mile away, where he shot another white person before going across the street and shooting three others at a McDonalds.  After that, Taylor stormed a building used as a senior citizen and children’s day care center, taking hostages before finally surrendering.

It would not take much digging to find a racist antipathy to whites in the background of Taylor’s rampage.  According to the Associated Press, which quoted the surviving maintenance worker, Taylor shouted, “You’re all white trash racist pigs.  You’re dead.”  Other published reports the day after the shootings had him barging into the home of a friend, saying, “I’m not gonna kill any black people.  I’m gonna kill white people.”

[….]

After finding racist and anti-Semitic literature in his home, the FBI finally labeled Taylor’s actions a hate crime, which forced the media to report it as such.  To some, the lag was odd.  As a writer for the webzine salon.com put it: “What took so long?  Why did the media, which normally promote not only the of hate crimes but of hate crime legislation, have to wait for the FBI to make this designation?”

To “Digress”[6]

The double standard slaps you in the face.

Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. Ronald Taylor, a black man, allegedly guns down five whites, killing three. What followed became a textbook case on how contemporary American journalism deals with race.  The suspect’s motive could not have been more clear. A black neighbor quoted Taylor as saying, “I’m gonna kill all white people.”

A white maintenance man described Taylor as disruptive ever since moving into the apartment building, “Whenever he saw me, he’d call me a racist pig, or white trash, or he’d make a point of walking past me and brushing up against me. He just didn’t like me.”  Yet the media leaned over backwards to avoid any appearance of racism. News anchors cautioned that we don’t know whether Taylor’s alleged hatred against whites was the “primary” or “sole” reason for the shootings. Pardon me. When did they add that requirement?

The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act defines hate crime as: “crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.” No mention of hatred as a “sole” or “primary” motive.  Even the police issued mild, tentative statements about whether they considered Taylor’s actions a hate crime. “There’s a lot of hostility in this individual,” said Wilkinsburg Police Chief Gerald Brewer, “so I think it’s a little premature to simply define this as a racist event.” A little premature?

In August, 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow gunned down several people at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, and shot and killed a Filipino letter carrier. In the three days following the shooting, over 150 newspapers wrote nearly 200 articles about the slaughter.

On November 11, 1999, in Kansas City, an Ethiopian man shot and killed two co-workers and wounded a third person. All the victims were white. The Ethiopian shooter, who also shot and killed himself, left a letter referring to “blood sucker” whites. To date, how many newspapers carried a story about this apparent race-based shooting? Eleven.

The killing of Wyoming gay student Matthew Shepherd brought screaming headlines and around-the-clock coverage. So did the dragging and killing of black Texan James Byrd.

Jesse Jackson parachutes into Decatur, Illinois, turning the expulsion of seven high school kids into a referendum on race. Meanwhile, in Missouri, a carjacker steals a car. He tries to push out a seat belt-strapped child, and drives at high speeds, with the boy bouncing to his death along the highway. In Michigan, a six-year-old girl is shot and killed by a six-year-old boy. In these cases, the media informs us much, much later that the bad guys are black. Were it the other way around, how long before Al Sharpton holds a press conference, a somber Kweisi Mfume of the NAACP by his side?

Atlanta Braves relief pitcher John Rocker shoots his mouth off to Sports Illustrated, and everyone from Jesse Jackson to Jesse James piles on. But the same gang seemed strangely AWOL in the case of Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. Where’s the somber gathering of the “black leadership” demanding that Congress pass enhanced hate crime legislation? Where’s the speech by President Clinton asking some blacks to cope with their pronounced and mostly unwarranted anti-white bias?

The double standard simply astonishes. George W. Bush must apologize for speaking at Bob Jones University, given the institution’s anti-Catholic statements and policy against inter-racial dating. And on the question of the Confederate flag, the media filed story after story on the Republicans’ response.

Yet the media allows Al Gore’s black female campaign manager, Donna Brazile, to derisively refer to the Republicans as the “party of the white boys,” while suggesting black Republicans J.C. Watts and Colin Powell are Uncle Toms. 

The media sits as both Al Gore and Hillary Rodham-Clinton trek to Harlem and kiss the ring of Reverend Al Sharpton, a David Duke in blackface. Nevermind that Sharpton falsely accused a prosecutor of rape. Nevermind that Sharpton turned a dispute between a black tenant and a Jewish landlord into a racial riff. Stirred up by Sharpton’s rantings, a black man set fire to the building in dispute, and then shot and killed several minorities before turning the gun on himself. Nice work, Reverend.

Sooner or later, the mainstream media and the white-man-done-me-wrong black leadership must face the facts. Black/white interracial crime is almost entirely committed by blacks against whites. By ignoring this, and holding black criminals to a different standard, the media heightens tension and divisiveness. 

[1] Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, William McGowan. Encounter Books; San Francisco: CA (2001), pp. 99-100

[2] Side-note: You rarely hear – if at all –the phrase “far-left,” but you do hear “far-right;” or, you never hear “religious-left,” but always “religious-right;” we hear “hard-line-conservative,” but never “hard-line-liberal.”  For instance, over a period of ten years, the Los Angeles Times used the term “hard-line-conservative” 71 times.  What about “hard-line-liberal?”  Surely such a person exists (Jane Fonda, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, etc.).  Over the same period of time the Los Angeles Times used the phrase “hard-line-liberal” twice.  A Lexis Nexis search of the New York Times archives shows there are 109 items using the phrase “far right wing,” but only 18 items using “far left wing.”

[3] Side-note: Pedophiles seek out positions of authority and seclusion over their victims.  The relaxation of tough moral consensus on these issues (mainly due to the sexual-liberation movement of the 60’s and 70’s), have made institutions impotent (for lack of a better word) in forcefully dealing with this issue.  This is why the Catholic Church and Hare Krishna’s, as well as other institutions, are having trouble currently for crimes committed during the 60’s and 70’s.  The boy-scouts for example have an unofficial saying, “sodomy will not happen if you refuse to allow sodomites in.”  In our politically correct (“diverse”) culture though, this has been a tough road to travel for the Boy-Scouts.  And the “diverse” journalism merely fuels the fire.

[4] A person who investigates and attempts to resolve complaints and problems, as between employees and an employer or between students and a university, or in this case, between readers and the paper.

[5] Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, William McGowan. Encounter Books; San Francisco: CA (2001), pp. 59-60, 67-68

[6] By this I mean I am including an outside article with this Summer Reading SessionWhen the Bad Guy is Black”by Larry Elder (black writer and radio commentator), found at FREE REPUBLIC: and JEWISH WORLD REVIEW: “When the Bad Guy is Black”

Many people have not heard of Jesse Dirkhising. The media was oddly silent at the death of this little boy. Before going further… it was thought that Sheparhd was killed due to an anti-gaye hatred by his killers… a narrative pushed by the media. However, through real journalism, Stephen Jimenez (a gay man himself) wrote an excellent book entitled: The Book of Matt: The Real Story of the Murder of Matthew Shepard (Documentary Narratives) So as you read some of the below, the assumption was that this was a hate crime.

The Dirkhising story never caught on with the major media, which claimed it was not news because it was not a “hate crime.” As Jonathan Gregg wrote then for Time.com:

“The most salient difference between the Shepard case and this one, however, is that while Shepard’s murderers were driven to kill by hate, the boy’s rape and death was a sex crime. ” He continued: “It was the kind of depraved act that happens with even more regularity against young females, and, indeed, if the victim had been a 13-year-old girl, the story would probably never have gotten beyond Benton County, much less Arkansas.

(NEWSBUSTERS: “On ‘Hate Crimes Day,’ Remembering Media Blackout of Jesse Dirkhising’s Death)

  • In the month after Shepard’s murder, LexisNexis Recorded 3,007 stories about his death. In the month after Dirkhising’s murder, Nexis recorded 46 stories about his. … A LexisNexis search revealed only a few dozen articles that appeared only after The Washington Times story on the lack of coverage on October 22, 1999, a month after Dirkhising’s death.(WIKI)

Other articles wroth your while:

  • The Tragic Story Of Jesse Dirkhising (WND)
  • Not a Hate Crime (WND)

Here is some media to show where we are headed, and why we have not zoomed towards it is only because of the First Amendment.

Where Does Freedom of Speech End, and a Hate-Crime Begin?

A Norwich grandmother has had a visit from police after firing off a letter complaining about a gay pride march, broadcast on 26 October 2009

A Christian pensioner was verbally abused at a gay pride parade but, when she complained to her local council, the police investigated her for homophobic hatred.

Placing a Qur’an in a toilet or burning it is not a hate crime, even though it is treated as such.

And crimes like the following… are not treated as hate-crimes when they should be: “Vent with Michelle Malkin covers the Christian-Newsom Murders. The mainstream media finds some crimes more useful than others. Michelle explains.”

On Saturday January 6, 2007 Hugh Christopher Newsom, age 23 and Channon Gail Christian, age 21, both students at the University of Tennessee went out on a date.

They were driving in Channon’s Toyota 4-Runner when they were carjacked at gunpoint. Suddenly the crime turned far more savage than an armed car theft. Chris and Channon were kidnapped and driven to 2316 Chipman Street where they were forced into the home at gunpoint.

While Channon was forced to watch, her boyfriend was raped prison style and then his penis was cut off. He was later driven to nearby railroad tracks where he was shot and set afire. But Channon’s hell was just beginning. She was beaten; gang raped repeatedly in many ways, had one of her breasts cut off and bleach poured down her throat to destroy DNA evidence—all while she was still alive. To add to Channon’s degradation the suspects took turns urinating on her. They too set her body afire, apparently inside the residence, but for some reason left her body there—in five separate trash bags.

(FLOPPING ACES & LA SHAWN BARBER via SERAPHIC SECRETS and NEWSBUSTERS)

The entire “hate-crime” obfuscates justice rather than achieves it. There are reasons for this, and I will let ROMAN CATHOLIC BLOG from over a decade ago share their reasons why they think it is [or was] all the rage:

….It seems to me that “hate” crime legislation is an attempt to make sure that criminals should always be indifferent about their victims, taking an, “It’s nothing personal, it’s just business,” approach. I think the nature of a crime speaks for itself and its own nature should determine the merited consequence in the justice system. Criminal acts can carry serious penalties for the nature of the acts committed for without worrying about whether the criminal actively “hated” their victim during the commission of the crime.

Here are other reasons not to support “hate crime” legislation:

It is costly and difficult to prove hatred as a motivation.

Hate crime legislation sacrifices equality before the law by treating perpetrators of the same crime differently because they hold different beliefs.

Over time, hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point that speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).

The danger of “hate” crime laws and “hate” speech laws is that they are being used to unfairly suppress religious objections to homosexuality (among other things) in this country and in other countries.

I believe “hate” crime legislation is essentially indoctrination that has been elevated to the status of law, and I do not want to live in a society where the government prosecutes thought crime.

Islam’s Holy Books

These are the main texts in Islam… the three most trusted in a Muslims life are emphasized (and pictured in color below)

  • QURAN – holy book of Islam
    • TAFSIR – commentary on the Quran
  • HADITH – traditions of Muhammad, his words and deeds (refers to the reports of such narrations in the Sunna) [Good PDF]
    • SUNNA – accepted practice of Muslim life (denotes what the Prophet said, did, approved, and disapproved of, explicitly or implicitly)
  • SIRA – biography of Muhammad

The above Holy Texts of Islam are explained well by GELLER REPORT’S author, HUGH FITZGERALD in his piece entitled, “A Vademecum On Islam: Five Pillars, Qur’an, Hadith, Sira

….. The main texts of Islam are the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira. The Qur’an is the Uncreated and Literal Word of God. It cannot be changed. It contains contradictions within itself, which long ago were resolved in favor of what are thought to be the later, and harsher verses. The “harsher” verses are said to date from Muhammad’s time in Medina, after he conquered that city. No longer needing to curry favor with anyone, as he had had to do in Mecca, he could afford to be as harsh as he pleased. The interpretive vehicle for dealing with contradictions in the Qur’an, and favoring the later verses, is “abrogation” or naskh. The doctrine dates back more than a millennium. Nonetheless, some have suggested that the doctrine be abandoned, so that the harsher verses no longer would be held to abrogate the softer verses from Muhammad’s “Meccan” period. This is unlikely to be accepted by more than a handful of would-be “reformers of Islam.”

The Hadith are the written records of what Muhammad said and did. In the centuries immediately following the death of Muhammad, tens of thousands of Hadith were recorded by imaginative Muslims. It became the job of specialists – muhaddithin – to study the existing Hadith, so as to determine with what degree of confidence to believe in the reliability of any given Hadith.  These muhaddithin in the main relied on the study of the isnad-chain – that is, study of the transmission through time of each Hadith. Thus if  A heard a story from B, who heard it from C, who heard from D, back as far as possible, and the closer that chain reached to  the time of Muhammad and an eyewitness to what he said or did, the more “authentic” that story was deemed to be.

The muhaddithin did make the study of isnad-chains into a laborious and, by our lights, sterile pseudo-science, and in so doing did manage to winnow the tens of thousands of existing Hadith down to about 4,000 (the number of Hadith in the two collections deemed most reliable). There are many collections of Hadith. But six collections of them, identified by the word “Sahih,” by different muhaddithin, are regarded as the most reliable. And among those six, the two compiled by Al-Bukhari and Muslim are treated with the greatest respect. Rather than employing an Accept/Reject system, the muhaddithin established categories of likely authenticity, and proceeded to rank each Hadith according to four levels of reliability, based on study of each Hadith’s isnad-chain. A Hadith that is assigned a high rank of authenticity by Al-Bukhari or Muslim will have much greater authority for Muslims  than a Hadith  that is assigned to the lowest rank of authenticity by them, or given a middle rank by one of the muhaddithin deemed less authoritative.

The Sira is the name given to the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. The Hadith, which are stories, not in chronological order, about the acts and sayings of Muhammad,  also contain miscellaneous information about everything from the treatment of women, to the origin of the universe, to music and musical instruments, to the correct methods of bathroom hygiene, to views on dogs and statues, and much more. The Sira, by contrast,  tells the story of Muhammad, in chronological order, and in particular, it tells of the progressive revelation, over 23 years, by the Angel Gabriel, of Allah’s Message to Muhammad, Messenger of God, Seal of the Prophets. The very first, and indispensable, contribution to “the Biography of Muhammad” is believed to be that by Ibn Ishaq, who lived some 150 years after Muhammad had died. And that biography is preserved thanks to one Ibn Hisham, who copied it down and incorporated it into one of his own works. Non-Muslim scholars differ as to how much faith can be put in a biography composed 150 years after the death of its subject, and preserved in a copy written by someone else (and possibly subject to scribal error), but Muslims do not question what is contained in the Sira, just as they believe in the Hadith and in the ranking systems for the Hadith by those they consider the most authoritative muhaddithin.

All the biographies of Muhammad by Muslims are hagiographical; no matter what he did, Muhammad could do no wrong. He is for Muslims the Model of Conduct (“uswa husana”) and the Perfect Man (“al-insan al-kamil”). The Sira is, in large part, based on the information contained in the Hadith, but aside from its chronological organization (lacking in the Hadith), the Sira offers other information, not to be found in the Hadith, about the times in which Muhammad lived, just as the Hadith contains much information not to be found in the Sira. There is considerable overlap between the Hadith and Sira, but they are not the same.

The texts – Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira – have been the subjects of generations of commentators. A commentary  on the Qur’an is called a tafsir, and the commentaries are particularly important because the language, and meaning,  of much of the Qur’an require elucidation; some passages are simply unfathomable. The scholar Christoph Luxenberg (an alias), is a philologist who is a native speaker of Arabic, and a great authority on Syriac (the version of Aramaic spoken in the region of Edessa). For years he has been startling the world of Qur’anic studies by claiming that 20% of the Qur’an is incomprehensible even to native speakers familiar with classical Arabic. Luxenberg believes that the Ur-text of the Qur’an is Syriac, possibly the language of a Christian lectionary; he argues that many of the knottiest philological problems in the Qur’an are susceptible of solution if one posits such an Ur-text, written not in Arabic but in Aramaic, or rather in that version of Aramaic known as Syriac. He has been winning converts to this view among non-Muslim Qur’anic scholars, but few Muslims, obviously, can allow themselves to accept Luxenberg’s view. Even without the Luxenberg controversy, It is not possible to read the Qur’an, even its seemingly least difficult verses,  and grasp their meaning without making use of the most authoritative Muslim commentators. They serve as the indispensable guides to the meaning of many passages that cry out for exegetical glosses.

The Sunna – essentially, the manners and customs and ways of being of the Arabs in the days of Muhammad – matters to Muslims, or most Muslims, as much as the Qur’an. It has even been said that the Sunna could exist without the Qur’an, but not the Qur’an without the essential gloss of the Sunna. And the Sunna is founded on, consists largely of, what is in  the Hadith and the Sira, that is the life – words, deeds, and stories about – Muhammad. He, not Allah, is the central figure in Islam. Muhammad is mentioned four times as often as Allah in the Qur’an. He is the Model of Conduct – uswa hasana – a phrase used in the Qur’an exactly three times, the other two times both used to describe Abraham. He is, furthermore, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and everything he did, as a consequence, was Perfect. Whatever he did was right. Some of what he did is exclusive to him – he had nine wives and two concubines, but ordinary mortal Muslims are allowed four wives only. However, much of what he did is not limited to him but is worthy of emulation. Little Aisha caught his fancy when she was six,  the daughter of his good friend, and was considered betrothed at that point, but Muhammad contained himself, waiting until she reached the reasonable age of nine before consummating, with sexual intercourse, his marriage to her. That might have been thought one of the details of his life – such as nine wives – that ordinary Muslims would not have been allowed to emulate. But it turns out that the age of the child bride, little Aisha, is not regarded by Muslims as embarrassing – though with Westerners who raise the matter of Aisha, in a manner that suggests dismay or horror, they have started to offer various strategies of pretend denial: she wasn’t really nine years old, but possibly as old as nineteen, we are told, offered preposterously by apologists as the age at which she reached puberty. But we know from reliable Hadith that she was called by her mother when she was on her swings with playmates, and then later,  when she went to Muhammad’s house, she brought her toys with her. Swings and toys suggest nine years, not nineteen.

If the subject of little Aisha comes up – and in any conversation or discussion of Islam between Muslims and non-Muslims the latter should be sure to raise the subject,  non-Muslims should understand that Aisha matters because she is not merely a figure in the distant and unrepeatable past. Her example affects Muslim girls today. Under the secularizing Shah, the marriageable age of girls in Iran had been raised to eighteen. That learned theologian of Islam, the Ayatollah Khomeini, managed in 1982 to lower the marriageable age of girls from thirteen to nine years. Since Khomeini died in 1989, the legal age has again been raised, to thirteen. A piquant detail: Khomeini married his wife when she was ten years old. And if it worked for him, and for Muhammad, why not allow it for everyone?

video break

(Many videos below are from Nabeel Qureshi… his insights are dearly missed)

SAME GOD?

PILLARS

VIOLENT?

ANSWERING ISLAM has a good response regarding REAL ISLAM:

REAL ISLAM – How do we define “Muhammad’s Islam?”

Muhammad’s Islam is mandated in the Quran, portrayed in the sira and hadith, and codified by the Islamic books of law and theology.  The men who compiled the sira and hadith devoted the majority of their adult lives to the study of Muhammad and Islam.  Many lived during Islam’s geo-political power heyday and they did not need to play to a Western audience’s proclivities, preferences, and appetites.  Instead, they wrote confidently and strongly; they told it like it was.  No apology was needed.

Although there are multiple Qurans in existence, and there are thousands of “sahih” hadith that contradict each other, and there are multiple contradictory stories in the sira, and the four major Sunni schools of Islamic law do not agree on every principle, it is still possible to confidently draw and define “real Islam” which allows for minor variations.  Those minor variations are not the issue.  Muhammad actually allowed for minor variations within his faith, (take prayer or Quranic recitation for example), so real Islam allows for minor variations as well.  Throughout Muhammad’s life Islamic variations occurred but they were minor and did not contradict his teachings and commands.

The Quran, hadith, and sira, give us a composite, and detailed, description of Muhammad’s teachings and actions, and they provide the context behind his words and deeds.  We are not operating in a vacuum.  With these we can define real Islam.  We are not wrestling with a Zen “kōan,” we do not have to approach this topic like a Sherlock Holmes’s mystery, we are not starting from scratch.  We have substantial material in our hands; we only need to study and understand it.  The study of these texts gives us Muhammad’s Islam.

Muhammad’s Islam

A man is known by, and defined by his actions.  If these correspond to his words or teaching, then we can paint a harmonious picture of a man who not only talked the talk, but also walked the walk.  Muhammad talked and he walked his talk.  His actions were in agreement with his teachings.  He did what he said he was going to do and he performed what he expected others to perform.

The first 13 years of his “prophetic” career occurred in Mecca, where he was very weak and persecuted.  Had he been violent his opponents would have had just cause to kill him.  Consequently Allah told him not to use force, (Quran 10:99).  After 13 years in Mecca he fled for his life to Medina.  However, just before he fled to join his armed followers in Medina, Allah commanded him to use violence to spread Islam’s rule.

In Medina, he quickly used violence and the trail of blood behind him grew ever wider. Muhammad grew in power and he liked it.  As time when on, the scale of attacks against non-Muslims grew in magnitude.

As the pre-eminent Muslim, Muhammad did many things, some good, some evil.  He prayed often, in poverty he shared his food, in hard times he shared his money.  He worked side by side with his followers.  I believe he loved his followers and I know that they loved him.  They would not only willingly die for him, they would gladly kill for him.  In doing so, they earned Muhammad’s praise.

Real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam, requires legitimate good works.  That is commendable.  However, it also requires oppressive, aggressive, violence.  That is Satanic, dark, and evil.  Of course there is good, but we are focusing on the bad, negative, violent facts of real Islam.

There is no shortage of articles on the web about Muhammad’s acts of oppression and violence.  He was a slave trader, he allowed his men to rape captured slaves, he robbed and plundered others, he had his opponents tortured, assassinated, and massacred.  Here are some suggested websites and articles where you can read about Muhammad’s evil and violence in Islam:

1. RELIGION OF PEACE
2. ISLAM and VIOLENCE (WIKI)
3. Top Ten Reasons Why Islam Is NOT The Religion Of Peace
4. ANSWERING ISLAM (JIHAD)
5. ANSWERING MUSLIMS (JIHAD)
6. Top Indonesian Muslim Scholar Says Stop Pretending That Islamic and Violence Aren’t Linked

Better yet, read the hadith and sira for yourself!  All of Muhammad’s vile actions detailed by the sites and articles above are drawn from the hadith and sira.  Torturing for money?  Check.  Rape of female slaves? Check.  Extortion, robbery, murder, massacre?  Check.  Sex with children?  Check.  All of that comes from the Quran, sira and hadith, but the sira and hadith provide the contextual details.

Jesus taught that the thief comes to kill, steal, and destroy; Muhammad killed, stole, and destroyed.  Satan demanded worship; Muhammad demanded that all people worship his Allah and recognize his prophethood upon penalty of death.3  Until his dying day, Muhammad did not let up on spreading his power by force and destroying those who rejected his claim of prophethood.  That was real Islam in action back then, and it is real Islam in action today.

Bear this historical fact in mind: the pattern of Islam that followed Muhammad’s death is repeated over and over again within the Islamic world today.  The early Muslims had their first internal violent power struggle the day after Muhammad died.  Once the new king was identified, (Abu Bakr), he then used his power to attack and kill people who wanted to leave Islam, (The Wars of Apostasy). Today, throughout the Muslim world, similar internal power struggles continue.  Violence is often used.  Once settled, the Muslims then turn their attention against the non-Muslims.  Islam is a religion of power, power of one Muslim man over other Muslims, the power of Muslim husbands over their wives, and the power of Muslims over non-Muslims.

Muhammad taught that his followers were to believe in him as prophet and obey him as Allah’s voice to mankind.  Therefore, “Real Islam” is believing what Muhammad believed, obeying Muhammad as Allah’s voice to mankind, and doing the things Muhammad did and commanded.  All of this is documented in the Quran, hadith, and sira.

Jesus Versus Muhammad by Papa Giorgio on Scribd

Hillary and Obama Embolden Modern Slavery In Libya

John and Ken discuss Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s actions in Libya creating modern day slave bazaars. Obviously what happened in the vacuum was Islam was just given space to apply the Quran. Take note that the five nations in this article are Muslim: “Top 5 African Countries Where Slavery Is Still Uncontrolled.”

CNN – video: Migrants being sold as slaves in Libya
African migrants seeking Europe sold as ‘slaves’ for $200

Some Basic Differences Between Islam and Christianity

Among the major differences between Islam and Christianity is that of the character and nature of God as understood by the Bible and the Qur’an. For the Bible, Yahweh is a relational God, a God who appears to his people throughout the Old Testament, who took on flesh in the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and who will be present, the Bible claims, in heaven with us once again: “For now we see through a glass, darkly,” wrote the apostle Paul; “but then face to face.” [76] This is very different from Allah in the Qur’an, a God who is distant and remote, transcendent and lofty, who does not deign to step down into his creation, and is not present in Paradise. As Muslim theologian Isma’il al Faruqi writes:

Allah does not reveal Himself to anyone in any way. Allah reveals only his will… Allah does not reveal himself to anyone… that is the great difference between Christianity and Islam.[77]

Central, too, to the Christian understanding of God is that Yahweh is loving; indeed, the Bible goes as far as to boldly make the claim that God is love,[78] the one whose character and nature define what love actually is. You will commonly hear people opine that all religions teach that God is love, but this is simply not true – for instance, nowhere does the Qur’an claim that “Allah is love.”[79]

Finally, at the heart of Christianity stands the belief that, in Jesus, God has experienced suffering, paying the price of the cross in order to reconcile humanity to himself. Now atheists may choose to dismiss, laugh at, or even scoff at that claim, but it is a claim unique to Christianity.[80] It is certainly not an idea found in Islam, where the Qur’an goes as far as to deny that the historical event of Jesus’ crucifixion ever happened.

It has long fascinated me that when Christianity talks about the cross and the suffering of God, it is doing something quite startling, namely reversing the traffic pattern of every other religion, world view, and belief system. All other religions of which I am aware tend to work in one of three basic ways: they claim that if you know the right things, do the right things, or experience the right things, then you will achieve paradise, nirvana, wisdom, a higher state of consciousness, good teeth — whatever it is you are looking for. Islam adopts this model (“Keep the commandments”), as does, incidentally, the New Atheism, whose message is that if you think the right way — think good, secular, scientific thoughts — you’ll be one of the smart ones, one of the brights,[81] one of the elite, the elect.


[76] 1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).

[77] Isma’il al Faruqi, Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings of the Chambésy Dialogue Consultation, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1982, pp. 47-48.

[78] 1 John 4:16.

[79]  And many Muslim theologians argue that Muslims should not use the word “love” when talking about Allah; see e.g. Murad Wilfried Hofmann, “Differences between the Muslim and the Christian Concept of Divine Love” in 14th General Conference of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan, 2007. See also Gordon Nickel, “The Language of Love in Qur’an and Gospel” in Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala and Angel Urban, (eds), Sacred Text: Explorations in Lexicography, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009, pp. 223-248.

[80] If you wish to understand this idea (which, whatever you make of it, is the central claim at the heart of Christianity), a great place to start is John Stott, The Cross of Christ, Leicester: IVP, 2006.

[81] A nauseatingly self-congratulatory term coined by some of the New Atheists to mark themselves off from the rest of the world, whom they clearly perceive as dimwits. See Daniel Dennett, “The Bright Stuff“, The New York Times, 12 July 2003.


Andy Banister, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist: Or, The Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments (Oxford, England: Monarch Books, 2015), 62-63.

“This will be a revolution in studying Islam” ~ Oldest Qur’an Found

This post is an important part of this post detailing the differences in how the Bible and Qur’an were transmitted.

(Via Jihad Watch) “This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Quran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from Heaven.” Or that others later used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda — which is what I argue in my book Did Muhammad Exist?.

(Via The Telegraph) …The Prophet Muhammad is thought to have founded Islam sometime after 610AD and the first Muslim community was founded in Medina in 622AD.

During this time the Koran was memorised and recited orally but Caliph Abu Bakr, the first leader of the Muslim community after Muhammad’s death, ordered the Koranic material to be collected into a book.

The final authoritative written form was not completed until 650AD under the third leader Caliph Uthman.

Professor Nadir Dinshaw, who studies interreligious relations at the University of Birmingham, described the discovery as ‘startling’.

When it was found last month he said: ‘This could well take us back to within a few years of the actual founding of Islam.

‘According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad received the revelations that form the Qur’an, the scripture of Islam, between the years AD 610 and 632, the year of his death.

‘At this time, the divine message was not compiled into the book form in which it appears today. Instead, the revelations were preserved in ‘the memories of men’…

Prior to this new find, this fragment was the oldest:

(Via Breitbart) …Some academics now say that the impact of the text could be comparable to finding a copy of the Gospels dating back to before the time of Christ.

Historian Tom Holland told the Sunday Times that evidence was now mounting that traditional accounts of Islam’s origins are wrong.

“It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged — and that in turn has implications for the historicity of Muhammad and the Companions [his followers],” he said.

Other very old Korans also seem to confirm that written texts were circulating before Mohammed’s death.

Needless to say, Muslim academics have disputed the claims. Mustafa Shah of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) said: “If anything, the manuscript has consolidated traditional accounts of the Koran’s origins.”

[….]

“If the [carbon] dates apply to the parchment and the ink, and the dates across the entire range apply, then the Koran — or at least portions of it — pre-dates Muhammad, and moves back the years that an Arabic literary culture is in place well into the 500s.

“This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.

“This would radically alter the edifice of Islamic tradition and the history of the rise of Islam in late Near Eastern antiquity would have to be completely revised, somehow accounting for another book of scripture coming into existence 50 to 100 years before, and then also explaining how this was co-opted into what became the entity of Islam by around AD700.”

Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology ~ Raymond Ibrahim

Is radical Islam our generation’s most dangerous ideology? Is it comparable to what Nazism and Communism were in the 20th century? Or are Islamists no more dangerous than extremist Christians, Jews, and Buddhists? Raymond Ibrahim, author of “The Al Qaeda Reader,” explains what radical Islam is, and shows how Muslims and non-Muslims alike can help defeat it.

Islamic State Destroys Embarrassing Pagan Roots of Muhammad

A quick history of the Satanic Verses:

Dr. Thies has a great short article on the Islamic State destroying historical evidences of the Pagan roots of Muhammad’s faith:

…Sura 53:19-20 According to Islam, the Koran contains a revelation from Satan. An entreaty concerning three lesser deities, al-Lat, al-‘Uzza and Manat, worshipped by the people of Mecca. As a result of Muhammed invoking these gods, the people of Mecca no longer opposed him. Then, in a later revelation, Muhammed revoked this revelation, and recommenced prosecution of the people of Mecca.

The entire incident has been one of great controversy in Islam, although the logical implications of Satanic Verses being admitted to being included in the Koran has become taboo. Well, one of the remaining physical evidences of the gods of Mecca has been destroyed by ISIS: the statute of al-Lat, in the form of a lion, in the Syrian city of Palmyra, and dating back to the 1st Century AD. But, not to worry. ISIS isn’t destroying all the archeological treasures of this ancient city. Instead of destroying the 2,000 year old Roman theater, they are using it for public executions…

Jihad Watch notes that this incident led to the Islamic tradition of later verses in the Qur’an abrogating earlier ones, and why Islam practices “religious” violence.

…Incidentally, that passage in the Qur’an’s 53rd sura is the only trace left of the celebrated “Satanic Verses.” Long before the novel of the same name by Salman Rushdie, this term referred to an incident recorded in Islamic tradition, in which Muhammad tried to achieve reconciliation with the Quraysh by a “revelation” in which he declared, “So have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza? And Manat, the third, the other one? They are the exalted cranes (gharaniq), worthy of veneration.” The Quraysh, hearing this, prostrated to Allah with the Muslims, who accepted the three goddesses as Allah’s daughters. But Muhammad soon realized that he had thus compromised the absolute monotheism that he had preached up to that point, and so he reneged, and claimed that Satan, not Allah, had inspired those verses, which were then duly replaced by the “revelation” recorded in Qur’an 53:19-22. The concept of abrogation, which ultimately led to the idea that the Qur’an’s violent passages take precedence over its peaceful ones, justified this change in still another “revelation”: “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth  better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (Qur’an 2:106)…

Jihad in the UK Deconstructed via Acts 17 Apologetics and Pat Condell

Via Creeping Sharia:

Video Description:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com

British soldier Lee Rigby was murdered and beheaded on a London street by two Muslims. Prime Minister David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson have assured the world that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. Yet the Qur’an clearly states that the penalty for “making mischief” in a Muslim land is death (5:33), and Rigby had served a tour in Afghanistan and was actively recruiting more soldiers for the British Army. How can Western leaders deny the obvious?

Egyptian man living in Egypt and watching the takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood shows his disgust with Radical Islam ~ tears up a Koran

Via Libertarian Republican:

…There really isn’t any translation necessary. But to add some context, the Egyptian man living in Egypt and watching the takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood, shows his disgust with Radical Islam. He expressed disdain for the violence inspired by the Koran, its anti-modernity, and its attacks on reason. He tears out some pages, and then slams the book to the ground.

Editor’s comment – So, next time you hear some liberal calling Terry Jones a “racist” point them to this video link.