Brave News World

Exactly what kind of message is that expected to send to Britons in general, and to the Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims who probably ought to be outraged at this sort of thing?

You may want to read this one sitting down — especially the part about the Muslim Safety Forum sharing offices with the Islamic Forum of Europe. An update on this story. “Police Muslim forum headed by Islamic extremist,” by Andrew Gilligan for the Telegraph, July 24 (thanks to Twostellas):

An Islamic extremist who has described al-Qaeda as a “myth” and justified the killing of British troops in Iraq has been chosen as the main link between the Metropolitan Police and the Muslim community.

Scotland Yard will now face pressure to renounce Azad Ali, the new chair of the Muslim Safety Forum, which is recognised by the Met under a formal written agreement as “the principal body in relation to Muslim community safety and security”.

The deal says that the Met will “use the MSF as a consultation body to help formulate policy or practice”. Mr Ali was the founding chair of the MSF in 2006, but left that job in 2008 and resigned entirely from the group last year after publicity over his extremist comments. Last week, he was quietly reappointed as its chairman.

Reappointed by whom?

Mr Ali is a senior official of the fundamentalist Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), which works, in its own words, to create an Islamic state under sharia law in Europe. The IFE and the MSF share the same offices.

He has previously praised a key mentor of Osama bin Laden. Earlier this year, he was filmed by an undercover reporter from Channel 4′s Dispatches stating: “Democracy, if it means not implementing the sharia, of course nobody agrees with that.”

When the documentary was aired, Mr Ali attacked the reporter on the IFE’s official radio station, saying: “We’ve got a picture of you and a lot more than you thought we had. We’ve tracked you down to different places. And if people are gonna turn what I’ve just said into a threat, that’s their fault, innit?”

Mr Ali’s comments about terrorism were made on his official blog on the IFE website. Earlier this year, he lost a libel action against a newspaper which reported them. The judge, Mr Justice Eady, said that Mr Ali “was indeed taking the position that the killing of American and British troops in Iraq would be justified”, describing his claim as “bound to fail” and having an “absence of reality”.

Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP and counterterrorism expert, said: “It beats me why the police should want to take the advice of this man. They should have nothing to do with him. I know for a fact that there are just as knowledgeable members of the Muslim community who do not share his subversive views.”

Go to Source

Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

“Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal,” by Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, July 23 (thanks to CameoRed):

From today’s opinion in S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), a domestic restraining order case:

The record reflects that plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. [FN1] The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant’s employment in this country as an accountant….

[Long discussion of the wife's allegations of abuse, which included several instances of nonconsensual sex as well as other abuse, omitted for space reasons. -EV]

Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her

this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.

After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in nonconsensual sex while plaintiff cried. Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant’s mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff….[...]

While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.

Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff’s domestic violence action….

The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

A close call. But no doubt more of this is to come.

Go to Source

By T. Omar Moros (BNW contributor)

In recent years, Islamists have been promoting a hoax in order to make Islam appear modern and progressive to the un-indoctrinated. It began with a spurious translation by Syed F.H. Faizi of the famous Last Sermon of Mohammad. His version (oddly, there are more than one) is used today to cast Islam as a universal, peaceful faith, instead of—as critics argue—a violent, deceitful, Arab-centric ideology used by powerful clerics to control the masses.

Faizi’s translation of the sermon (khutba) is rather long, but the following key paragraph presses the right progressive buttons:

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves. “

You might think this sounds very modern. Did Arabs use black and white as racial identifications, as opposed to name calling, which they did robustly? Wasn’t it western orientalists who first use Arab to describe a diverse collection of linguistically-related people? Is this sermon what professional anti-racists to alienated prisoners say gives Islam its street credentials? By nature, translations are problematic. A shade of meaning can be impossible to capture. But among translators of the Last Sermon, only Faizi employs black and white, and he admits his sources are dubious, as we shall see.

The Faizi translation and adjoining commentary is cut and pasted on Islamic websites across the Internet. Unlike most Islamic primary and respected secondary texts, virtually no root source is given. Very strange, you might think; certainly this sermon is in an authenticated hadith (traditional story of Muhammad) collection or the Sira (biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq) if not in the Koran. Why wouldn’t it be sourced?

I finally tracked down the origin of the translation from a cryptic “Faizi 145” reference—the only one among dozens of postings I checked. Searching an online bookstore, I guessed this must be S.F.H. Faizi, an Indian, later Pakistani, Islamist who wrote “The Sermons of the Prophet,” first published in 1991. I ordered it. I was right; the sermon is indeed on page 145, translated as “The Farewell Pilgrimage Address.” Yet, even Faizi does not provide his source. Highly unusual, considering how popular this version is with modern Muslims.

As close to a source Faizi gives us is in the introduction to Sermons. He writes:

 “This book is a collection of some of the selected sermons of the Holy Prophet which include long as well short ones as the situation demanded. They were not available in the form of Khutbas but have been derived from various books of Ahadith and history. It is only recently that some of these have appeared in book-forms along with original texts and translation in Urdu; but the authenticity of the texts thereof is still doubted by ulema. 0n English language, they are hardly available. So an attempt has been made not only to have them translated in English but also to find out circumstances under which they were delivered so that their delivery date could be ascertained and an elucidation made thereof. How far I have succeeded in my undertaking rests to be adjudged by the readers. Any suggestion or comment shall, however be welcomed to improve upon it.” (emphasis added)

In other words, Faizi “derived” sermons from various obscure, unnamed books rejected by the ulema (scholarly Muslim clerics), and translated them into English. Without core sources, Faizi has petitioned his readers to help. As a reader of Faizi, I’m happy try. I’ll be adjudged by the readers. Continue reading The Phony Last Sermon of Muhammad