Thursday, August 13, 2009

Teenage Girl in America Threatened with Death for Converting to Christianity

Rifqa Bary, 17, said she was threatened by her family because she converted from Islam to Christianity. This is happening in AMERICA! See these articles and videos:

YouTube Video: Rifqa Bary

Robert Spencer on A Slow-Motion Honor Killing

Pamela Geller on Atlas Shrugs

Jihad Watch: Please help Rifqa Bary

If You Convert You Die

By Nonie Darwish

Very few people in the West know what is going on inside the Muslim world and what it portends for them. The fact is that through the dominant media, such as CNN, Americans are subjected to much of the same misinformation with regard to Islam that I grew up with inside the Muslim world. The result is that Americans are in the dark attempting to formulate their strategy of how to defend themselves against the threat of terror, domestic jihad and Sharia. While Americans get ridiculed for being “Islamophobes,” the Muslim world itself is undergoing a huge and painful awakening.
For instance, a prominent Egyptian lawyer and women’s rights activist, Nagla Al Imam, recently announced her conversion to Christianity in Cairo, Egypt. The announcement brought shock waves in and beyond Egypt. This is perhaps the first case ever of its kind, where a Muslim woman, who is also a Sharia expert, has openly challenged Islamic apostasy laws from within the Muslim world.
Ms. Al Imam’s incredible courage was on display in an internet chat room, where she announced that she is not afraid, will stand up for the human rights of apostates and refuses to leave her homeland, Egypt. This was immediately followed by attacks and calls (‘fatwas’) for death of the 36 year-old graduate of Al Azhar Islamic University.
Egyptian media not only reported the threat but also participated in the attacks. Ms. Al Imam was literally entrapped by a TV station ‘Al Mihwar’ with the pretext of inviting her for an interview. Upon arrival to the TV studio she was told the show she was to appear on was cancelled. She was then taken forcibly to a room where she was held against her will for hours inside the studio. She was assaulted, threatened and insulted by several people. She was able to escape, and went to her internet chat room telling the world what happened and said she will demand protection from the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Such action is common not only against apostates but anyone who deviates from the dictates of Islam or demands reform. Many Muslim journalists, intellectuals and feminists who consider themselves Muslims but are critical of Sharia are often intimidated, threatened or even killed for the slightest independent views using the apostasy card to keep them quiet.
Another recent case in Egypt is that of a brilliant intellectual by the name of Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany. He was recently accused of apostasy even though he denied it on TV and insisted he is still a Muslim. But fatwas of death were immediately issued against him. Mr. El Qemany recently wrote the following:
“I was granted the State Award for Social Sciences, on June 25th 2009. The hard-line radical militant groups considered that the state has adopted this intellectual secular trend
officially, infuriating the mentioned group which called on the State to withdraw the prize with the declaration of my defection from Islam and excommunication which means in our country, I could be slain; any citizen is allowed to kill me and be awarded by God in Paradise. The following parties have participated in the statements of atonement:
1 - Al-Azhar Scholars Front headed by Yahya Ismail Habloush, which issued the first statement of atonement on July 10, 2009.
2 – The Islamic Group (condemned terrorist group) issued a statement of atonement on July 10, 2009.
3 - The Muslim Brotherhood hailed the atonement, and were presented at the parliament by Hamdi Hassan requesting the withdrawal of the award and the declaration of religious-defection and excommunication on July 7, 2009. The Muslim Brotherhood also declared my excommunication on Mohwar Channel on July 11, 2009 and on Al Faraeen Channel on July 13, 2009.
4 - The Salafi (Fundamentalist) Group (condemned terrorist group) dedicated its Internet site named "The Egyptians" for excommunicating me and incitements to kill me, since the date of obtaining the prize until today.
5 – Al Nas channel, which represents the theoretical side of bloody terrorism which declared excommunication and demanded “all citizens who can” to kill me immediately, on July 24 and 25, 2009.
6 - The Hisbah Sheikh Youssef Al Badri in Egypt declared on the channel "ON TV" on July 3, 2009 that I have cursed God and the Prophet Mohammad in my books even though I have challenged him and others to refer to a single text written by me where such claims were made. Due to this proclamation, he has issued an incitement to kill me.
7 - A member of the Al-Azhar scholars, Sheikh Mohammed El Berry, on Mihwar TV Channel on July 11, 2009 announced my atonement as he also said that he did not read any of my writings since he does not read "garbage”. He repeated the same words on the channel "ON TV" on July 22, 2009.
8 - Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the former Chairman of the “State Religious Affairs Advisory Board”, issued a statement declaring my infidelity and calling for slaying me for "insulting the Prophet of Islam, the God of Islam” on July 24, 2009.
9 - The Sheiks of more than 5000 mosques on Friday prayers on July 24, 2009 declared the incitement to kill me, especially in my hometown, which led to the rampage against my family and relatives, and that could possibly evolve to some serious consequences in the coming weeks.
Due to the above, I call upon the conscience of all humanity in the free world to come to me and my children’s rescue by providing moral support and the condemnation and denunciation of the radical thinking with quick solutions to save us from the danger that is luring around us. This is a distress call to all bodies and individuals. A call to the consciences of every free individual in the world.
Signed: Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany- Researcher.”
In spite of the cover up, this is perhaps the first time in the history of Islam that Muslims finally have access to the truth about their own religion, thanks to the Internet and satellite dishes (invented by infidels). There are daily news reports of heart-broken Muslims who say they cannot believe what is written in Muslim scriptures and say that Muslims have been living under the greatest lie in human history. Others simply deny and say that it can’t be so. While Saudi Arabia is spending billions to Islamize the West, many Muslim prisoners of Islamic submission are dying or leaving the religion quietly.
The relatively few number of Muslims who dare to convert to Christianity do it in extreme secrecy. That is because the penalty for leaving Islam is death in all schools of Sharia, both Sunni and Shiite. Those who wrote Sharia centuries ago knew that keeping Muslims in total submission would be very difficult to maintain, and thus they established barbaric laws condemning Muslims to death for exercising their basic human rights to choose their own religion. Sharia never entrusted its enforcement only to the formal legal system. Islam promises heavenly rewards to individual Muslims who take the law into their own hands. Sharia also states that the killers of apostates and adulterers are not murderers and therefore are not to be punished. That is why, for Islam to achieve 100% compliance to Sharia enforcement, Muslim individuals are encouraged to take matters into their own hands.
The end result is a chaotic society where everything happens behind closed doors but at a very heavy price to interpersonal relationships. Fear and distrust of others exists in all Muslim societies. Muslims are not just distrustful of the West, but they are distrustful of one another. In Muslim society, people are often more afraid of their neighbors and family members than of the police. Thus, we see husbands or fathers pressured to apply Sharia by killing an adulterous wife or daughter, or a perfect stranger participate in the killing of an apostate in the public square. Very few get arrested or punished for such crimes across the Muslim world. The ingenious Sharia uses vigilante street justice to bring about Islamic submission. That is why civil unrest and honor crimes go wherever Islam goes. The power of Islam comes from turning Muslim against Muslim -- with a reward in heaven.
The above two examples of Islamic tyranny are not unique to Egypt, but exist in all Muslim countries. Islamic tyranny is encapsulated in a law that some Muslims claim to be their religious right in America. Many American citizens who left Islam are living in constant fear from Islamist individuals and groups right here, in the land of the free and home of the brave. I am one of them.

See also: This article on

Recent Interviews with Nonie Darwish

CBN: Sharia Law: Tearing the West in Two

Radio America podcast MP3 with Frank Gaffney

Sunday, August 2, 2009

The Silencing of Soraya M.

Why would a human-rights activist oppose a film exposing human rights abuse?

On June 24, 2009, the Huffington Post ran an article, Sensational Film Exploits Human Rights Issues in Iran by Elise Auerbach, Amnesty International USA’s Iran specialist. The author criticizes the new film, The Stoning of Soroaya M., arguing that it does more harm than good. But perhaps she should tell that to her own organization, which recently hosted a screening in supporting the film. To Ms. Auerbach, I would like to say that the act of stoning is sensational to all those who cheer and participate in it. As a “specialist,” perhaps she can compare the movie to videos of actual stonings, noting not just the horrific violence upon the victim, but also the chilling enthusiasm of the crowd.
The director of the movie, Cyrus Nowrasteh, simply showed the truth that no one in Hollywood dares to touch. Stoning is one of the most horrific acts committed against humanity. I want to thank Mr. Nowrasteh from the bottom of my heart, not just for the realistic stoning scene, but also for his portrayal of the Muslim culture of secrecy, pride and shame which condones, indeed encourages, such actions.
When I lived as a Muslim in the Middle East, I personally knew victims of honor killings, and heard about the bodies of women floating in the Nile that no one cared to report. Even the police ignored such horrific murders. In Muslim culture, women’s bodies belong to men. If they are shamed, men cannot live with dignity and respect in society unless they kill the suspected wife or daughter. One of the most moving parts in the movie was the pressure placed on Soraya’s father to throw the first stone. That father could not have survived in dignity if he had refused. It was brilliantly done and so true.
Speaking as though the defense of human rights in Iran are the exclusive right of one group or another, Auerbach sounds like an Iranian official when she say, “Iranians don't need people from outside Iran telling them what is good for them.” Accordingly, since Amnesty International is an outside entity, can she say the same thing applies to both her and her organization? Indeed, it has been external pressure applied by that very organization and others which has compelled Iran to place moratoriums, however brief, on stoning in the past.
Ms. Auerbach also writes, “It is very unusual to see issues that Amnesty International has worked on appear on film.” Again, she speaks as though independent efforts to expose women rights violations in Iran must receive her stamp of approval, as if she and her organization have an exclusive right to comment on these issues. Even though Mr. Nowrasteh and cast are almost all of Iranian origin, she said that “Iranians themselves -- and in particular Iranian women's rights activists -- have organized and carried out a vigorous campaign against the practice of stoning and have themselves been actively documenting the practice.” Does she mean that since there are such Iranian organizations (almost all working with support from the West), there is no need for the film? In fact, in the July 12 Washington Times, Manda Zand Ervin, president of the Aliance of Iranian Women, wrote an op-ed piece praising The Stoning of Soraya M, where she wrote, “this movie can help our cause of human rights awareness” and suggested the U.S. Congress, the White House, the United Nations, and the European Parliament must see the film.
Even though death by stoning is still the written law of Iran today, Ms. Auerbach says that three men were stoned to death in Iran since last August. Is this a ‘gotcha moment’ because the victims were men instead of women? Does that somehow mitigate it? She ignores the fact that the film discusses a larger Sharia problem. The rest of the Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia, still practices this barbaric behavior, both officially by a few governments and more often unofficially and unreported, by street vigilante justice. I wonder if Ms. Auerbach knows that ‘murderers of adulterers’ are excused from punishment by Sharia, thus allowing vigilante justice free reign against adulterers (or alleged adulterers)
Auerbach also criticizes the film’s main character, the stoned woman Soraya, as “merely a mutely suffering victim,” an odd interpretation by anyone who’s seen the film. Regardless, would that change the injustice? She also stated that women stoned have usually committed multiple crimes and not just adultery. This is immaterial and rejects the key fact that the laws of Islam regarding adultery clearly state that adulterers will be stoned, period. The laws never state that adultery must be linked to another crime as the Iranian “expert” claims.
Furthermore, it’s clear that Ms. Auerbach is unaware of the famous book of the same title upon which the movie is based. Written by French-Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam in 1990, it became an international bestseller. All those who follow human rights and women’s rights issues in Iran are aware of the book and its impact.
Ms. Auerbach is apparently very concerned that the film portrays Iranians “as barbaric, bloodthirsty savages.” I cannot understand why she is more concerned about the reputation of Iran than the atrocity of stoning people to death there. The movie never generalizes about Iranians. It’s a cheap shot by her to criticize a well-done movie that stands for human rights.
Auerbach stresses that “we must look at stoning in the overall context of executions in Iran.” Wow. Is she talking about the slow hangings of homosexuals in public squares? I don’t think so. Execution of murderers is swift, but perpetrators of “moral” crimes are killed torturously. Ms. Auerbach must understand that the barbaric, cruel and slow death by stoning in which fathers, sons and husbands participate is not equal to execution of mass murderers which must still be done humanely.
Amnesty International, a noble and well-intentioned organization, has less impact on ending tyranny in the world than a great and courageous film like “The Stoning of Soraya M.”
See also: This article on

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Cruel and Usual Punishment reviewed in the National Post

Patrick Keeney of the National Post reviews Nonie Darwish' book Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. Video: Tarek Fatah, Frank Gaffney, Robert Spencer and Nonie Darwish

FoxNews Strategy Room: Heather Nauert explores Islamic Fundamentalism within the United States
with Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Tarek Fatah and Nonie Darwish

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Prosecuted for Stating Truths

Muslim scholars agree with Geert Wilders
By Nonie Darwish

Dutch MP Geert Wilders is being prosecuted in Holland for ‘inciting hatred and discrimination’ and for insulting Muslims by comparing Islam to Nazism. But how can Muslims be offended with such a comparison when one of the most prominent 20th century Muslim scholars, Sheikh Abul Ala Maududi, himself made a similar comparison describing the Islamic State in his book “Islamic Law and Constitution”? Maududi said: “It [Islamic State] seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity…. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states.” [1] Maududi’s characterization of the Muslim State was not meant as a negative and was never challenged by any Muslim scholar or institution as wrong or unfair.
Wilders’ crime then is not so much what he says but how he dared to point out and criticize basic basic values in Muslim scriptures as dangerous to Western democracies and freedoms. Many Muslims are extremely offended by any questioning, criticism or exploration of Muslim scriptures because, simply put, Muslims themselves are not allowed to do that. Under Islamic Law, a Muslim will be considered an apostate if he questions or denies any thing in the Quran, Hadith or Islamic Sharia Law. Muslims who have been brought up to never to question Islam are suddenly facing a lot of questions from the West, but instead of answering questions that deeply and rightfully concern Western citizens, they demand to silence their speech, which in itself is taking away a basic value of Western culture. That is a violation of Western value system rather than a violation to Muslims simply because this is happening on Western grounds or in Muslim terms Dar Al Harb (house of war). Do offended Muslims understand how scary it is for a Westerner to invite people to live inside their democracies who wish to turn it into a house of war?
To the offended Muslim, it seems to not matter how worried non-Muslims are. It does not matter if Muslim scriptures have thousands of references to hate, condemn to doom, curse, boycott, humiliate, subjugate and even straightforward holy commandments to kill non-Muslims. Such scriptures are not just in an old book on a dusty shelf that is never read, but is commanded and recited daily by Muslim preached in mosques throughout the world and molds the outlook and lives of millions of Muslims. To the offended Muslims in Holland it does not matter that mainstream Islamic law books state that jihad is the main duty of every Muslim. And let us be clear, we are not talking about some introspective self-improvement struggle; the definition of ‘Jihad’ in mainstream Sharia books is: “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion.” [2] It does not matter if Sharia states that jihad is not just the main duty of an individual Muslim, but it is one of the main duties of the Muslim head of State, “A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive jihad. He must organize jihad against any non-Muslim government, which prevents Muslim da’wah (meaning preaching and spreading Islam) from entering its land.“ [3]. To the offended Muslims, legitimate Western concerns and fears must be silenced and it does not matter how many people in the West are under Muslim fatwas (warants) of death issued by Muslim Imams and never challenged by mainstream Muslims as a violation of human rights of non-Muslims. It does not matter that Muslim law exempts Muslims from the death penalty if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim. It does not matter if imams and Muslim politicians throughout the world curse non-Muslims, call them enemies of Allah, must be killed, and refer to them as filth, apes and pigs. It does not matter if Muslim holy books order Muslims to be harsh and humiliate non-Muslim ‘dhimmies’ who must never be allowed to rule themselves. Through all this, Muslim law forbids non-Muslims from insulting a Muslim or exposing any weak points in Islamic scripture or philosophy; that is considered an (enormity) intolerable sin under Islamic Law.
By the logic of those muslims calling for Wilders’ prosecution for hate crimes, western citizens must sacrifice their own values of freedom and equality and tolerate hatred, threat, jihad and their own demise in Islamic jihad laws and never expose the violance directed at them. Apparently western citizens have reached such sophistication and higher level of civilization they must respect those poor third worlders’ mentality at their own risk and demise. Thus the vulnerable non-Muslim citizens in their own countries must show the world they are above it all even above fear and beyond any need for self-protection. They need not complain or seek protection from Islamic law which condemns them to dhimitude and even death.
European governments today are forbidding their citizens from expressing fear of those Muslim scriptures which demand Sharia law, Islamic Jihad or the killing of non-Muslims. Any criticism of the above is considered hate speech against a religious ideology. The protection of Islamic ideology has become more important than the safety and security of their own citizens. Case in point: the actions of the British courts when they gave protection to Muslim scriptures from being sued under its religious hate speech laws, as reported by CNS News on July 12, 2005: “In a victory for British Muslim campaigners, the House of Commons passed a bill aimed at curbing religious hatred, despite critics’ warnings that it could worsen relations between religious communities...In an earlier Commons debate, a Conservative MP raised the possibility that the law, if passed, could outlaw the reading of passages of the Qur’an that called for harsh treatment against Christians and Jews…The delegation suggested that it may be preferable to ‘totally exempt’ Islamic texts from the bill.”
I don’t necessarily blame the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference's efforts to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam. Muslim leadership are doing what their religious laws tell them to do: kill those who "defame Islam." But what is appalling and frightening is that Western courts are buying it; giving aid and comfort to a hostile ideology whose aim is nothing less than the complete overthrow of western constitutional democracy and its replacement with a totalitarian religious regime. Sheik Maududi and Geert Wilders are correct and in agreement, and that is why we must defend Wilders and ourselves.
Nonie Darwish
Author: Curel and Usual Punishment; the terrifying global implications of Islamic Law

[1] Sheikh Abul Ala Maududi, “Islamic Law and Constitution”, p. 262.
[2] Ahmad Ibn Al-Naqib al-Misri, “Reliance of the Traveler” p. 599.
[3] Ibid, o25.0 to o25.9

Thursday, January 8, 2009

The Gaza Conflict Rooted in Sharia

By Nonie Darwish

With the explosive current events in Gaza, the world needs to understand the roots of this eternal conflict, otherwise we are all kidding ourselves with hopes of peace.

For decades, Arabs had demanded that Israel end the "occupation," and in 2005, Israel did so, disengaging unilaterally from Gaza. With their demands met, there was no ‘cycle of violence’ to respond to, no further justification for anything other than peace and prosperity. With its central location and beautiful beaches on the East Mediteranean, a peaceful and prosperous Gaza could have become another Hong Kong; a shining trade and commerce center. But instead of choosing peace, the Palestinians chose Islamic jihad. They rolled their rocket launchers to the border and started bombing Israeli civilians.

Understanding the reasons why the Palestinians chose violence over peace requires connecting the dots from the behavior of Muslim states back to the laws of Islam: Sharia. Mainstream Sharia books define Jihad as: "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion." (Shafi’i Sharia o9.0). Jihad is not just the duty of the individual Muslim, but it is also the main duty of the Muslim head of State (the Calipha):

"A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive Jihad. He must organize Jihad against any non-Muslim government, which prevents Muslim da’wah (meaning preaching and spreading Islam) from entering its land." (Shafii Law o25.0 to o25.9).

Sharia law# o25.9 states:

"(When the caliph appoints a ruler on a region, his duty includes) if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, (he will) undertake Jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants and setting aside a fifth for deserving recipients."


"The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax provided he has first invited them to enter Islam or pay Jizya, the non-Muslim poll tax, (in accordance with the word of Allah Most High Chapter 9 verse 29)."

Zia-Ul-Haq, former President of Pakistan, said "jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim Ummah."

One of Islam’s eminent 20th century scholars, Sheikh Maolana Maududi said:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program … the objective of Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish instead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Some people seem to think that such laws are just historical relics, on the books but not in practice or in control of the minds of Muslims. But that is the kind of denial we cannot afford; these laws rule the hearts, minds and actions of a majority of Muslim individuals and states around the world today. These scriptures are taught, preached and promoted as the incontrovertible and eternal word of God and funded by Saudi petrodollars throughout the world, including Western nations such as the U.K. and the United States.

No Muslim leader can survive in a Muslim country if he announces the end of Jihad against non-Muslim countries and states that all references to Jihad in Islamic law do not apply today. Treating non-Muslim neighboring countries and individual as equals, with respect and in peace without trying to convert them to Islam, is simply against Islamic Law.

Muslim leaders who dare to go against this theology are called traitors and puppets of the ‘Great Satan’ West. That is a description that no Muslim leader wants to be labeled with. When president Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979, he told his confidants that he knew he was signing his own death warrant. He understood that under Sharia he must have permanent war with non-Muslim Israel.

How can a Muslim leader or individual avoid the hundreds of Quran and Hadith commandments to Muslims to kill Jews and Christians? Q 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." Q 9:5: "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them". Q47.4: "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads."

A Muslim leader cannot face his devout Muslim subjects after making a decision to engage in friendship and peace with Jews. Mosques all over the Middle East, after all, recite Mohammed’s commandment to Muslims:

"The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!" (Sahih Muslim 41:6985, also Sahih Bukhari 4:52:177)

This Hadith, issued by Mohammad, makes a whole group of people illegal to exist. It was issued in the 7th century, not after the 1948 creation of the State of Israel. It is not a response to modern-day grievances; it is a permanent commandment.

Many Muslims claim that Arabs and Jews lived well together for many years before 1948. But that claim ignores the fact that Jews had to live as ‘dhimmies’ under Islamic Law and were never allowed to rule themselves separate of the Islamic Sharia. When Muslims were weak they often treated their dhimmi subjects well and ignored the commandments to kill, subjugate and humiliate them. But Jew hatred is intrinsic to Islamic scriptures that do not permit reformation under the penalty of death.

This is the real basis of the Arab/Israeli conflict: not a conflict over land or occupation, but a divine obligation to destroy neighboring (non-Muslim) Israel, where Jews are no longer dhimmis but are free to rule themselves. We cannot ignore the root of the problem in Muslim scriptures. That is the true force behind the hate and propaganda Jihadist machine against Jews in the Muslim world.

Some Muslims tell me that they don’t believe in Sharia and question why am I making a big deal about it. My answer is that Sharia is the law of the land in 54 Muslim countries and many Muslim groups are demanding Sharia in the West. In 1990, 45 Muslim countries signed the Cairo Human Rights Declaration which stated that Sharia has supremacy over the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Muslim world must look within to its sacred laws, scriptures, sermons, teaching and preaching, and reform the obstacles for peace that have condemned them to a permanent state of jihad. The non-Muslim world must have no illusions.