Saturday, March 25, 2006

Liberal Islam speaks out on the Apostasy issue

I have been saying this over and over that no matter what you call it, liberal Islam, moderate Islam or fundamentalist Islam, it is all the same. And I will continue to say this until people start paying attention, as it is essential for the West to understand Islam in its true form.

UAE, a country that is quiet on most of the issues around the world, yesterday spoke out officially about the Afghan apostate, Abdul Rahman. A reputed Dubai scholar, Dr. Ahmad Abdul Aziz Al Haddad issued a statement on behalf of the Dubai Department of Islamic Affairs and Charitable Works, a UAE Government department.

The good doctor said:
"This is none of their [the West's] business ... Bush and the West should stay out of personal beliefs. They should not intervene in a purely religious matter of Islamic law [Sharia]… If this penalty is carried out, it will protect many weak-willed people from deserting their religion. If the independence of the judiciary is among the bases of democracy, then it is unjust to interfere in this case. Democracy as practised by the West is fake because it contradicts itself in one of the most important bases.”

Okay, so by killing people, you can frighten the ‘weak-willed’ ones enough to stay in their spiritual and mental prison which is Islam. Fear is to be used so that those who dare to think on their own on even only a semi-regular basis stop doing so. I say that’s one of the beauties of this religion of peace—weak-willed people, you can have Allah do the thinking for you. All you need to do is blow a couple of infidels up from time to time.

Another renowned Islamic scholar here in Dubai, Ahmad Al Qubaisi, had some tactful words on the issue:

"This President bombards thousands of civilians in Iraq. It is not strange that he defies the feelings of a whole nation, which considers a person who deserts Islam an infidel. Bush will immediately declare a man an outlaw if he deserts the US system and spies on America. This is a double standard by the US and the West. This stand is a crusade against the Muslim world."

This is an interesting one. Last time I checked it was roadside bombs placed by jihadists that kill Iraqis, or sectarian clashes between Sunnis and Shiites that slaughter Iraqis, or Moslems who blows themselves up at police recruiting centers that murder Iraqis. Even if President Bush wanted to kill all Iraqis, he wouldn’t need to do much, as the jihadists are doing a mighty fine job there already.

A man ‘who deserts the US system and spies on America’ as the mullah put it is declared an outlaw but a man who goes to, say, Australia and becomes a citizen there is not imprisoned for that. Wrong analogy, Mr. Qubaisi. Even the US Government does not execute Americans that are convicted for spying on the US for other powers, as any number of spy cases in the US can readily prove, like the Pollard case (spied for Israel) or the Walker case (spied for the Soviet Union).

Read the whole story here.

These two sound just like any other mullah, but what’s unique about these mullahs--I mean scholars--in Dubai is that whatever they say must be approved in advance by the UAE government. Only if the government approves are they allowed to say it officially. So these words are essentially speaking on behalf of Sheik Mohammed, the ruler of Dubai and the Prime Minister of the UAE, as well as Sheik Khalifa, the ruler of Abu Dhabi and the President of the UAE. ‘Our allies, peaceful liberal Moslems’… yeah right!!

What does that say about liberal Moslems? How are they different from fundamentalist Moslems? Both want people who don’t agree with them dead. How then can we hope to work with liberal Moslems when we say we can’t do the same with fundamentalist Moslems? This is a matter to ponder over, and one that is crucial for the survival of Western Civilization.

Thank you, ‘liberal Moslems’ for speaking up on this and many other issues. You give me plenty of ammo to prove my point.

Cross-posted at Pedestrian Infidel.


Cubed © said...

Do you suppose that Our Leader may - just may - be beginning to get a clue about the problem presented by unrestrained "democracy"?

Democracy - the rule by majority - is not a valid way to establish the correct way to behave. The majority in Muslim countries, including the ones we have spend money and effort to help, think it's OK to kill the infidel, especially if he happens to be an apostate.

In Germany, a democratically elected government thought it was a GOOD thing to kill off pesky Jews.

To restrain mob rule - that's all pure democracy is - it is required to have limitations on what can and can't be done. The proper limits are defined by a deep and detailed understanding of the nature of human rights, an understanding we have not taught in our schools since the early 1800s.

That's why we are confused, polarized, and uncertain when it comes to deciding whether it is proper to intervene in a case like this.

The only reason for NOT intervening where human rights are being violated is when we have not the ability to do so.

One of these days, we'll stop the backsliding, and we'll learn the objective meaning of "rights" and behave accordingly.

Kiddo said...

Well, sometimes it's just plain fun to bite the hand that feeds you. Cut off foreign aid and oil revenues (if only!) and see how docile and weak-willed they all become.

Anonymous said...

The reason that democracy works in America is that our nation was founded by people who (more or less) subscribed to a Judeo-Christian belief system. To paraphrase Cubed, democracy in a Muslim country is still going to amount to Sharia.

Matt Bracken said it, I borrowed it, and I'll say it again & again: "Radical Islam is an insane death cult, and moderate Islam is its Trojan Horse in the West."