In a post full of fatal, fetid falsehoods, Qanta Ahmed advances Allah’s War Against Humanity by feeding one half-truth after another to non-Muslims. (Thanks to CNN for helping her!) Here are a few of the more criminal bits, with commentary:
A judge in Saudi Arabia has said husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi newspaper reported this past weekend. In one fell swoop, the judge debased Islam, vilified the kingdom and disregarded the ideals the Saudi monarch himself embraces.
That’s reassuring! Islam and true Muslims are against wife-beating, right? Here comes more of the dissembling non-Muslims afraid to examine Islam’s texts, tenets, and timelines for themselves swallow whole:
Islam is very clear on this issue: Both a husband physically chastising his wife for “overspending” and a judge “upholding justice” by sanctioning this abuse would be acting counter to Islam’s ideals of compassion and justice.
How can a “religion” which commands the slavery or slaughter of all who refuse the “invitation” to convert be considered either “compassionate” or “just”? Regardless, Muhammad claimed that his god told him, “. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . ” (Qur’an 4:34).
The good doctor continues:
There is no basis in Islamic theology to support domestic abuse of any kind and specifically none pertaining to the matter of a wife’s spending pattern.
Of course, Muhammad’s wife-beating is not “abuse,” it’s Allah-pleasing, since Islam’s deity calls the prophet from hell “a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah” (Qur’an 33:21).
Last year, in his annual speech marking Saudi Arabia’s National Day, the king first described threats to Islam from within its ranks.
By which he meant either truly decent people who through no fault of their own find themselves Muslim and work against its monstrous doctrines, or those devout Muslims waging war against hypocrites like him.
In March, more than 1,600 academics from more than 30 countries convened in Riyadh at the first symposium studying domestic violence in the kingdom. Together, international academics examined, measured and evaluated the growing reports of domestic violence and child abuse in the kingdom with a view to formulating solutions.
How does a Muslim “solve” what Muhammad and his allah committed, commanded, and condoned? Here is one of Islam’s “solutions”:
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).
“Narrated ‘Aisha [Mohammed’s six-year-old “bride” and nine-year-old sexual “partner”]: ‘Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, ‘She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).
The prevaricating practitioner adds the old “slavery is freedom” line:
In my time working in Saudi Arabia as an intensive care specialist, I came to learn that for most Saudi women, the abbaya is not a tool of oppression but rather one of liberation.
And that “freedom” is due to the insanely insecure and jealous Muhammad’s hiding his property from others’ view, realizing that since he desired to rape anything that moved, so must his followers:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).
“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).
[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: “This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?”]
Here’s more insulting nonsense, as if being able to work as a physician negates centuries of absolute barbarism and degradation of women and little girls:
For the observant Saudi lady who has often been raised in an environment that highly prizes securing the beauty and guarding the modesty of their womenfolk, donning abbayas allows them to work as chemical engineers at Aramaco or as fellow intensive care physicians in intensive care units at the nation’s state-of-the-art hospitals.
My Saudi female colleagues could therefore replace valves and fix aneurysms even if they couldn’t make a three-point turn. I found them perfectly capable of managing the critically ill on mechanical ventilators and dialysis machines, all the while uncompromising of their values, maintaining their privacy in their veiled garments underneath their sterile gowns.
And a last insult. To Ahmed, it is the victims of 9/11 who are guilty of persecuting Muslims (“Islamophobia”), rather than Islam itself being directly and solely responsible for one-and-one-half millennia of sending Muslim souls to hell and creating hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims:
This act of stupidity unfairly depicts the kingdom as draconian at a time when the tides of progressive reform are now waist-deep and rising. Such narrow perspectives only serve to fuel global Islamophobia that has greatly increased in the West post-9/11. Muslims around the world and within the kingdom can no longer tolerate this stance, and the king, the Custodian of the Two Holy Sites of Islam, isn’t likely to, either.
Considering Muhammad’s words and deeds and the totalitarian, savage ideology derived from them, “Islamophobia” is only possible among devout Muslim males. To non-Muslims, apostates, Muslims who are not Muslim-enough, women, and little girls, no “fear” of Islam can ever be considered “irrational.”
The world is “waist-deep and rising” in something from Islam, but that is neither “progress” nor “reform.”
Amillennialist Contra Mundum 