Monday, February 11, 2008

Our Enemies Within: Hesham Islam and Eric Edelman

The following story is like a magic trick: just when it looks like one ordinary stunt it turns out to be a chicken pulled from a hat. A Muslim infiltrator in the U.S. government, Hesham Islam, has been exposed and is soon to leave his post, so far not charged with a crime. Islam, working as an adviser to a high-level U.S. bureaucrat, tried to have a U.S. Army major dismissed from his position in the U.S. military as a lecturer on the nature of jihad. Islam referred to Major Stephen Coughlin as a "Christian zealot with a pen." For Islam's boss, Gordon England, that was criticism enough to have Coughlin's contract ended. Instead, Islam was outed, and Coughlin was reinstalled. So far, very good. But now comes Eric S. Edelman. Our nation is in trouble again, not so much from our enemies this time as from our leaders.

"Pentagon insiders say Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, has sought to stop the awarding of a new contract to Coughlin. Edelman served as ambassador to Turkey from 2003 to 2005."

Embattled Muslim aide to leave Pentagon job
Hesham Islam's 'resume didn't add up,' official says
Posted: February 11, 2008
11:07 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

In a stunning turn of events, a high-level Muslim military aide [Hesham Islam] blamed for costing an intelligence contractor [Maj. Stephen Coughlin] his job will step down from his own Pentagon post, WND has learned.... "He's [Islam] a Muslim brother," an FBI official told WND. "He's a bad actor...." [Steven] Emerson says Islam prescribed a steady diet of Muslim Brotherhood-connected outreach for his unwitting boss, deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.... As WND previously reported, FBI officials believe Islam is involved with the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and is helping its front groups run "influence operations" against the U.S. government....

Meanwhile, his rival, Maj. Stephen Coughlin, a leading authority on Islamic war doctrine, may stay in the Pentagon, moving from the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the office of the secretary of defense. However, sources say a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey [Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy] is trying to block his new contract.

Edelan is not just a typical bureaucrat but is seemingly too a blinkered ideologue who is causing our nation more trouble, perhaps as much as did Hesham Islam.

Mr. Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy


Ambassador Eric S. Edelman is the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.


His last assignment was as Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey from July 2003 to June 2005. .... Mr. Edelman was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy, Prague, Czech Republic, from June 1994 to June 1996.

From April 1993 to July 1993, he served as Deputy to the Ambassador-at-Large and Special Advisor to the Secretary of State on the New Independent States. Mr. Edelman's areas of responsibility were defense, security and space issues.

Mr. Edelman served as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Soviet and East European Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) from April 1990 to April 1993.

From April 1989 to March 1990, he was Special Assistant (European Affairs) to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

Mr. Edelman served at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow 1987-89, where he was head of the external political section. He had responsibility for Soviet policies in the third world in the Office of Soviet Affairs at the Department of State from 1984 to 1986.

Previously, Mr. Edelman served as Special Assistant to Secretary of State George P. Shultz, 1982-84; a staff officer on the Secretariat Staff, 1982; a watch officer in the State.

As Hugh Fitzgerald points out below, this man is well-versed in Sovietology but seems to know nothing whatsoever about Islam, filtering his world-view through the lens of the Cold War, ignoring or not knowing the difference between that war and our current war against Islamic jihad.

Bush Bypasses Senate: Installs Eric S. Edelman as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
AP 9aug2005

[T]he White House announced on Tuesday that Bush named Eric S. Edelman to be undersecretary of defense for policy, the chief policy adviser to the secretary of defense. Edelman replaces Douglas J. Feith, whose battles with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., over the release of documents related to Iraq stalled Edelman's nomination.

Edelman is a career foreign service officer. He served as ambassador to Turkey from July 2003 to June 2005 and he was a national security assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney from February 2001 to June 2003....

As an ambassador he was less than successful.

Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey (July 2003-June 2005): Edelman served as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey after the second Iraq invasion, during which anti-American tensions within Turkey were high. According to Ibrahim Karagul, a columninst with the Turkish Weekly, "Edelman act(ed) more like a colonial governor than an ambassador... (He) is probably the least-liked and trusted American ambassador in Turkish history, and his reputation is not likely to recuperate." [4] [^ Karagul, Ibrahim (March 18, 2005). A Few Notes On President's Visit to Syria and Edelman. Turkish Weekly. Retrieved on 2007-07-26.] ...

More directly: "During his government career, Edelman has shuttled back and forth between the State Department and DOD. His latest assignment was as ambassador to Turkey, where he gained a reputation as a meddlesome critic of the Turkish government at a time when anti-Americanism began flaring up throughout the country."

What does he bring to the job?

Supporter of Turkish membership the European Union.

Claims: 'Terror in the Middle East will continue due to some political balances, poor economic conditions of large segments of the population and high rates of unemployment within the young population.''

And his understanding of jihad is completely missing. He seems to have no understanding of jihad. What is he doing in this job then? Study after study shows clearly to all that economics plays little or no part in the jihadi motivation, that it is jihad ideology based on and rooted in Islamic orthodoxy that propels jihad. Our govenment is losing this war against jihad because it continues to follow the Cold War line of thinking in terms of economics and geopoitical strategizing at the expense of looking to the people and understanding them as they are not as the bureaucrats assume they are. Incomprehensible as it is to the bureaucrats, it's not the money: it's the jihad.

Pentagon insiders say Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, has sought to stop the awarding of a new contract to Coughlin.

In a comment at Jihadwatch:

Embedded in the report is a disquieting fact:

"[S]ources say a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey is trying to block his [Coughlin's] new contract"

"Pentagon insiders say Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, has sought to stop the awarding of a new contract to Coughlin."

Who is this Edelman?

"Edelman served as ambassador to Turkey from 2003 to 2005."

Excerpts from an interview in 2004 with Edelman show his neo-Wilsonian "we-must-use-the-good-Muslims-[who of course are the vast majority]-to-help-save-us-from-the-problem-of-that-pesky-tiny-minority-of -extremists" school of thought:

Clearly, the absence of freedom, the absence of hope, the absence of economic development are the breeding ground of terrorism. So the degree to which we, along with the other G-8 countries, the other partner countries, but most of all the countries from the region are able to address those issues and help countries move forward on a path of reform, both political and economic, that gives hope to people and more opportunity to diminish the pool from which terrorists recruit the disheartened and the hopeless.

From the U.S. point of view, the Broader Middle East Initiative is an effort to build a supportive international structure for the calls for reform that have issued from the broader Middle East region.

The focus is to see what can be done to support democratization, the spread of literacy, better regional financing flows, entrepreneurship, and investment opportunities in the region to deal with both the economic and political reform requirements of the region

And Edelman in that same interview supports the admission of Turkey into the EU.

Posted by: cantor [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 11, 2008 3:36 PM

"Clearly, the absence of freedom, the absence of hope, the absence of economic development are the breeding ground of terrorism."
-- from a posting above, quoting Eric Edelman, who apparently does not like the work of, and would like to block the re-appoint of, Stephen Coughlin

Eric Edelman is one more person -- his background is in Soviet studies -- who has learned all he has learned about Islam from his encounter with Turkey, and not so much Turkey as with secularist Turks, in a still-semi-Kemalist Turkey. In this respect, he is like others, such as Perle and Feith, who were before becoming enmeshed in the Iraq misadeventure, great believers in the permanence of Kemalism, and of secular Turkey, and some even served as agents of the Turkish government. Another example of the phenomenon, though his case is more complicated, is that of Bernard Lewis.

Edelman firmly believes, allows himself to believe, cannot but believe, that "[c]learly, the absence of freedom, the absence of hope, the absence of economic development are the breeding ground of terrorism." This is the world of Muslims without Islam, Hamlet without the Prince. He feels, along with George Bush, that if we cure that "absence of freedom" by transplanting that "freedom" (most crudely defined as vote-counting at election time) to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, and if we bring them "prosperity" and so end that "absence of economic development," and both of those, and so much more, will reverse that "absence of hope" that, the eric-edelmans of this world must believe, have to believe, deeply truly sincerely cannot do other than believe, is the "breeding ground of terrorism."

He's got it wrong. The breeding-ground of terrorism is any state, or people, or society, or community, where Islam, unmediated or undiluted by time or space or other conceivable identities, molds the minds of men, and they take it seriously. They may be as spectacularly rich as Bin Laden (or at least his family), or from as notable a background as Ayman al-Zawahiri. The terrorists and would-be are likely, studies have shown, to be far better educated and better off than the average Muslim.

But that is not all that Eric Edelman gets wrong. He doesn't seem to comprehend the intellectual world, the moral world, of Islam -- and that world can only be conveyed, or rather cannot conceivably be conveyed without, a knowledge of what Islam is all about, what Muslims read in their canonical texts, what they have repeated day in and day out (no, not among the secularists of Turkey, no, but that experience, and not merely in Turkey but in Turkey as the cosseted American ambassador, was as poor a guide for Edelman was was Paul Wolfowitz's experience as the cosseted American ambassador in Jakarta, meeting the most secular locals, and being told what his local interlocutors were sure he would be pleased to here ("yes, we really are looking forward to establishing relations with Israel"), and learning little about Islam, and certainly not learning about it from his charming Muslims-in-exile friends, who were not about to say "you know, the best way for you to deal with Iraq is to allow the ethnic and sectarian fissures to work their magic, and to have consequences beyond the borders of Iraq, because the best thing for you Infidels is to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam" -- no, that is not what Paul Wolfowitz was told by Chalabi, Makiya, or his Arab non-Iraqi companion).

If indeed Edelman thinks it would be best for policy to be made, in dealing with the threat of Jihad, by not studying the texts and tenets, and not listening to those who have studied those texts and those tenets (and are definitely not part of the small army of apologists who have been camped out in the capitals of the West for the past several decades, nicely subsidized by Saudi Arabia and other sweetly disinterested parties), then perhaps his counsel of ignorance entitles him, too, to be shown the door.

There is a limit. And the limit on this kind of thing has been reached.

Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 11, 2008 3:57 PM

Edelman himself sums himself up thus:

Edelman: I think it would have been our preference that Pakistan stay on the course that it was on of having elections and moving towards a more firmly rooted constitutional form of government, rooted in the voice of the people as registered at the polls. And I think what we would like to see now is, as quickly as possible, for Pakistan to get back on that course, to hold the elections that were meant to be held in January, for President Musharraf to give some indication about his intentions in terms of taking off his uniform and returning Pakistan to civilian rule and making sure that this provisional constitutional order is an event of very short duration. Our preference would have been, quite frankly, that he not issue it at all.

Is Washington confident that if we go through elections in Pakistan that the result will be as strong an ally in the war on terror as President Musharraf has been?

Edelman: Well, this is obviously one of those difficult problems in the world, where you have to balance a lot of competing interests.

Naipaul relates the story of a Pakistani peasant who sits in squalor and hates modernity: "His world had shrunk to a hut in a crumbling village. He was prepared for even that to crumble away further, once the faith was served." (Naipaul: p. 89.)

It is the utopian vision of the world as perfectible 'if only we throw enough money at the problem' that prevents our current leadership from understanding the nature of jihad. How much more money would have enticed bin Ladin to remain in the discos and flesh-pots of Beirut rather than going off in search of Jihad in Afgahanistan? How poor were the 19 psychotic jihadis who attacked us on 9/11? How much more welfare money will it take to encourage Muslim rioters across western Europe to quit burning and looting every night? How many immigrant student doctors will quit bombing England and Scotland if only they get... What? What will stop the jihadis? If we turn all hospital beds to face Mecca, stop eating in front of Muslims during Ramadan, rid the world of ceramic piggies on window sills, stop drinking alcohol at sidewalk cafes, become more "inclusive".... What will stop the jihadis?

Our problem with jihad is merely technical. Within a week we in the modern West could rid the world of the threat of Islam without a doubt. We could bomb them out of existence and destroy every vestige of them within a month by stopping our foreign aid to the point they simply starve to death. Our problem with jihad is not our problem with jihad: our problem with jihad is our problem with all primitives: we don't want to understand that they are not like us. We are the problem. Eric Edelman is the problem. He and his counterpart Left Death Hippies the Left dhimmi fascist utopians who have o regard for the otherness of others are the problem we face and that we must confront. Until e face ourselves and our disbelief in the authentic difference between our understanding of reality and that of our enemies, we will be our own worst enemies. Not infiltrators like the Muslim brotherhood's Hesham Islam, but his "unwitting boss, deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England" and Eric Edelman and too many others who simply cannot grasp the reality of others as not us. Until we stop playing this silly magic trick on ourselves we will continuously be surprised by our self-delusion.


Vancouver visitor said...

I don't understand your rationale for calling the problem a "technical" one, since, as you wrote yourself, the West technically has the capability to deal a severe blow to this Jihad silliness in a very short time. The problem as I see it is the reluctance to face the fact that implacable fools with barbaric beliefs, who may be superficially Western in speech and attire, must be ruthlessly dealt with. What's the benefit of having a big stick if one does not wield it?

Anyway, here's some recent history to refresh Canadian minds:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

personalrep1 said...


By:Larry Houle

Wherever Muslims live under Sharia law adulterers are publicly flogged or stoned to death, sometimes before thousands of spectators in public stadiums. There are no rights for women or children, with women genitally mutilated, and beaten in the streets for the slightest infraction. They care nothing for other beliefs, about being fair, have no juries, no free speech. Television and radio are forbidden, music and dance prohibited. It is their way or execution, the death penalty, with no appeal, no delay. You are simply shot in the head where you stand, and your children shot before you. And these practices of the Sharia, once largely confined to the Middle East, even though mostly finished in Afghanistan, are now spreading to other parts of the world.

Here are the top eleven reasons why Sharia or Islamic law is EVIL for all societies.


Islam's Black Slaves notes: "the Quran stipulated that female slaves might lawfully be enjoyed by their masters." Mohammad himself owned many slaves, some of whom he captured in wars of conquest and some he purchased. The names of forty slaves owned by Mohammad are recorded by Muslim chroniclers. Islamic law (Sharia) contains elaborate regulations for slavery. A slave had no right to be heard in court (testimony was forbidden by slaves), slaves had no right to property, could marry only with the permission of the owner, and were considered to be chattel, that is the movable property, of the slave owner. Muslim slave owners were specifically entitled by Sharia law to sexually exploit their slaves, including hiring them out as prostitutes.

One reason why very little has been written about the Arab involvement in slavery is that traditional Islamic culture still condones slavery. The Sharia, the codified Islamic law which is based upon the teachings and example of Mohammad, contains explicit regulations for slavery. One of the primary principles of Islam is following the example of Mohammad. Whatever Mohammad did, we must do, what he forbade, we must forbid, what he did not forbid, we may not forbid. As Mohammad himself traded in slaves and owned slaves, accumulating multiple wives, even marrying a six year old, and having concubines - slavery and the sexual exploitation of women is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition. Muslim nations had engaged in the slave trade for over 600 years before Europe became involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.


According to the Hughes Dictionary of Islam, slaves had few civil or legal rights. For example:

a) Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves - Sura 4:3, 4:29, 33:49.

b) Slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God - Sura 16:77

c) According to Islamic Tradition, people at the time of their capture were either to be killed, or enslaved. Shows you that they were at the bottom of the barrel to start with.

d) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves were merchandise. The sales of slaves was in accordance with the sale of animals.

e) Muhammad ordered that some slaves who were freed by their master be RE-ENSLAVED!

f) It is permissible under Islamic law to whip slaves.

g) According to Islam, a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave. Ref. 2:178 and the Jalalayn confirm this.

h) According to Islam, the testimony of slaves is not admissible in court. Ibn Timiyya and Bukhari state this.

i) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves cannot choose their own marriage mate. - Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, part 9.

j) According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves can be forced to marry who their masters want. - Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155.

Slavery continued in Islamic lands from about the beginning to this very day. Muslim rulers always found support in the Quran to call 'jihad', partly for booty, part for the purpose of taking slaves. As the Islamic empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms, and each ruler was able to decide what Islam's theology really meant. Usually, he always found it in support of what he wanted to do. Their calls of jihad against their neighbor facilitated the taking of slaves for Islam. The Quran and Islamic jurisprudence support the taking of slaves, so, those petty Muslim rulers were following the Quran when they needed slaves.


1) Islam allows Muslims to make slaves out of anyone who is captured during war.

2) Islam allows for the children of slaves to be raised as slaves

3) Like #1, Islam allows for Christians and Jews to be made into slaves if they are captured in war. After Muslim armies attacked and conquered Spain, they took thousands of slaves back to Damascus. The key prize was 1000 virgins as slaves. They were forced to go all the way back to Damascus.

4) Christians and Jews, who had made a treaty with the ruling Muslims could be made into slaves if they did not pay the "protection" tax. This paying for 'protection' was just like paying a Mafia racketeer! This allowed Muslim rulers to extort money from non-Muslim people.

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.

In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.
In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry:

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?

The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:

'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.

In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fianc饮

In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.

The Quran says:

5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.
The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.

Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally.

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

This punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.

A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.

The Quran says:

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

The Quran says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.'

These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .
'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.
The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.

The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.


In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:

An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.

She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death. This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death: And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

Here are the classical legal rulings.

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'
It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head.

The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.

Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.

How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.
See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death. Apostates should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.

And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars.

They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.

Therefore, Islam is violent—unjustly and aggressively.


The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries.