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

Notes:
[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