Friday, November 28, 2014   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » General

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s War

21 February 2012 General 38 Comments Email This Post Email This Post
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker

For a couple of centuries now, we have had to make due with Samuel Johnson’s famous phrase: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Thanks to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, we can now revise this phrase for the twenty-first century. Tthe last last refuge of a scoundrel, it appears, lies in taking up the battle against something called “Christophobia.”

Hirsi Ali coins this term as part of her alarmist and deeply hateful cover story for Newsweek. “The War on Christians” is splashed across the cover, but the actual target of Hirsi Ali’s piece becomes more clear in the title provided for the online version of the piece: “The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World.”

The terms of Hirsi Ali’s argument, such as it is, are all set out in her opening paragraph:

“We hear so often about Muslims as victims of abuse in the West and combatants in the Arab Spring’s fight against tyranny. But, in fact, a wholly different kind of war is underway—an unrecognized battle costing thousands of lives. Christians are being killed in the Islamic world because of their religion. It is a rising genocide that ought to provoke global alarm.”

The criminally careless tossing out of the term “genocide” gives us a clue about what is to come. So too does the style, which is a classic version of her usual mode, that of the lone brave voice crying out about injustice in the wilderness, surrounded by dupes who are too busy portraying Muslims as “victims or heroes.” Fortunately, Hirsi Ali is prepared to offer us “a fair-minded assessment of recent events and trends,” leading to what she sees as her inevitable conclusion and allowing her to coin her useful new term: “the scale and severity of Islamophobia pales in comparison with the bloody Christophobia currently coursing through Muslim-majority nations from one end of the globe to the other.”

Having already reached her inevitable conclusion in her opening, Hirsi Ali appears to feel little need to support it with anything so mundane as actual facts. Instead he offers a loosely-connected cherry picking tour that ties together incidents of violence against Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, and Indonesia. All the instances she references are real and terrible acts of violence. And all of them are symptoms of complex political and social situations that need to be analyzed and addressed. This makes it all the more horrible that Hirsi Ali treats them as mere data to be added to her deeply simplistic argument. Indeed, she raises the same two points in each case: first, that Muslims are killing Christians; second, that the world (by which she means “the West”)—apparently distracted by its uncritical admiration for the revolutionaries of the Arab Spring and its obsession with stamping out Islamophobia—stands idly by and watches. So Hirsi Ali is forced to beg her readers to help break what she refers to as a “conspiracy of silence.”

Were the consequences of such an argument not so grave—and I will come to those consequences shortly—it would be possible to simply dismiss this article as the nonsense that it is. To reduce the complexity of the political violence in Nigeria and Sudan to instances of “Christophobia,” for example, is simply ludicrous, as is the suggestion that somehow Western political and media figures have been “reticent” or “silent” when it comes to Darfur. This is in no way to downplay the full horror of these situations; indeed, what is most disturbing here is Hirsi Ali’s cursory citing of them—Nigeria merits just two paragraphs of her article, Sudan just one—in the service of her hateful argument.

In other cases, what is striking is the utter thinness of the arguments she tries to marshal. When, for example, she tries to make the case that “not even Indonesia…has been immune to the fevers of Christophobia,” she cites data complied by the Christian Post suggesting an increase in violent incidents against religious minorities of nearly forty percent between 2010 and 2011. Again, this is certainly a cause for concern, but it would be interesting to ask Hirsi Ali how she would compare this increase to the more than fifty percent increase in hate crimes against Muslims in the United States between 2009 and 2010, as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. She might also have turned to data on Indonesia produced by Human Rights Watch rather than that of an obscure Christian website, which would have confirmed her point about an increase in attacks on religious minorities (including Ahmadis) in Indonesia—except that rather than attributing this increase to the rise of “Christophobia,” HRW’s conclusion about this key US ally is quite different: “The common thread is the failure of the Indonesian government to protect the rights of all its citizens.”

Of course, these sorts of fact-free claims about the “Muslim world” by conservative commentators are nothing new. What is more worthy of note, however, are those claims by Hirsi Ali that suggest a number of moves taken out of the contemporary neo-conservative playbook. Hirsi Ali’s connections to the neo-con movement—she is, among other things, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute—have been widely noted. For example, Hamid Dabashi lists her prominently among the “comprador intellectuals” who have helped sell the neo-con agenda in the United States and Europe. (Indeed, it is clear that the title of her article is meant to resonate in this election season with the claims being made by conservatives about an alleged“war on Christians” here in the United States.)

One strand of this neo-conservative reasoning as it can be read out of Hirsi Ali’s article has to do with her references to Egypt. She only devotes one paragraph to Egypt, but the print version of the article includes four images (including the cover image), some quite graphic, of violence against Copts in Egypt. Hirsi Ali preludes her point by noting that the alleged rise of Christophobia in Egypt comes “in the aftermath of the Arab Spring.” Her key example is the attack by security forces on pro-Coptic protesters outside Maspero on 9 October 2011, which killed at least twenty-four people and wounded more than three hundred. From this example, Hirsi Ali moves forward with her relentlessly superficial line of argument: “By the end of the year more than two-hundred thousand Copts had fled their homes in anticipation of more attacks. With Islamists poised to gain much greater power in the wake of recent elections, their fears appear to be justified.”

The first and most obvious problem here, of course, is Hirsi Ali’s attempt to transform an attack by security forces against protesters—the sort of attack that has marked the bloody fule of the Supreme Council of Armed Force (SCAF)—into yet another example of “Muslims attacking Christians,” driven solely by the relentless power of Christophobia. The deeper problem, and the one that betrays the mark of neo-con logic, is her implication that the source of this violence springs from, not the US-supported and armed military junta currently ruling Egypt, but the forces supposedly unleashed by the Arab Spring. This becomes clear in the final sentence, which resonates with the neo-con mantra that has been constant since the beginnings of the popular uprisings: if they get their democracy, we’ll wind up with the Islamists.

This disdain for the forces of democracy in Egypt (as contrasted to the neo-cons’ own preferred model of “democracy promotion” through military intervention) becomes even clearer in the admiring take on Hirsi Ali’s article posted on the blog of the National Review by Nina Shea. Concurring with Hirsi Ali’s thesis regarding the rise of Christophobia in the region, Shea adds, “Unfortunately, Arab democracy in Iraq and Egypt, the ancient homelands of two of the three largest Middle Eastern Christian communities, seems to be exacerbating the religious persecution.” (“Arab democracy,” we are thus invited to conclude, must be quite different from, say, “Western-style democracy.”)

As Shea notes, Hirsi Ali also uses the example of violence against Christians in Iraq, which is again awarded a full paragraph of attention. “Egypt is not the only Arab country that seems bent on wiping out its Christian minority,” she writes, continuing her “fair-minded assessment.” She goes on to note the rise in violence against Iraqi Christians since 2003, and the fact that thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled the country—“as the result of violence directed specifically against them”—leading to what she calls “an incipient genocide or ethnic cleansing of Assyrians in Iraq.”

And then, she moves on. The fact that 2003 is hardly an arbitrary date is not so much as acknowledged. Here we find yet another example of the almost unbelievable gall exhibited by neo-cons, as part of the largerforgetting of the war on Iraq in the United States. That Hirsi Ali—who was, like her neo-con colleagues, a vocal supporter of the war—can avoid not only accepting responsibility for the shattering of Iraqi society, but can actually use this shattering to advance her own hideous Islamophobic arguments, is simply obscene. Just as she fails to acknowledge that the attacks on pro-Coptic protesters in Egypt need to be understood within the larger framework of SCAF’s systematic attacks on all protesters, so she refuses to acknowledge that the thousands of Christians who have fled from Iraq are part of the one and a half million Iraqis who have been made refugees by the war she supported.

This forgetting of the carnage unleashed by the criminal war against Iraq is especially important today, as some of the same neo-con forces have not ceased to bang the drums for a new war against Iran. Hirsi Ali, not surprisingly, whole-heartedly endorses an attack on Iran. This is one of the clear dangers presented by her article in the current moment. I had decided not to mention another, more intimate connection between Hirsi Ali and neo-con ideology, represented by her marriage to the dean of neo-imperialists, Niall Ferguson. But it becomes impossible not to mention this connection when, in the very same issue of Newsweek—in fact, only four pages away from her article—we find an article by Ferguson, arguing vigorously for supporting an Israeli attack on Iran, using logic that could have been lifted straight out of the pro-war op-eds of 2002 (“Sometimes a preventive war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement.”) Hirsi Ali only manages to work Iran into her argument regarding “Christophobia” in an indirect way, but given her long-standing views—she has, for example, argued that the Bush administration should have attacked Iraq and Iran after 9/11—her larger framework is clearly intended to support this march towards a new war.

But this is still not the most insidious aspect of Hirsi Ali’s argument. This becomes apparent only as she reaches her conclusion, which begins with a reiteration of her two theses: “It should be clear from this catalog of atrocities that anti-Christian violence is a major and underreported problem.” Helpfully, she goes on to offer an explanation for both aspects of the problem. This “global war on Christians” is not, she suggests, the result of coordination by “some international Islamist agency.” “In that sense,” she goes on, “the global war on Christians isn’t a traditional war at all. It is, rather, a spontaneous expression of anti-Christian animus by Muslims that transcends cultures, regions, and ethnicities.”

In a word: Muslims are killing Christians because Muslims hate Christians. And if this global war remains “underreported,” Muslims are to blame for this as well: part of the reason for “the media’s reticence on the subject,” she suggests, “may be the fear of provoking additional violence,” but the “most likely” explanation is “the influence of lobbying groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.” Such groups, she concludes, “have been remarkably successful in persuading leading public figures and journalists in the West to think of each and every example of perceived anti-Muslim discrimination as an expression of a systematic and sinister derangement called ‘Islamophobia’—a term that is meant to elicit the same moral disapproval as xenophobia or homophobia.”

We discover a few important things here. The first is that the seeming disconnectedness of Hirsi Ali’s argument is in fact intentional. There is no need to draw logical or factual connections between the various incidents she raises because the logic can be found in the very structure of her thesis: what she cites are simply examples of Muslims attacking Christians, and Muslims attack Christians because Muslims hate Christians. When Egyptian security forces attack Coptic protesters, it is not the army attacking protesters; it is Muslims attacking Christians. When Iraqi Christians flee the violence of a country destroyed by a US-led war and occupation, it is not Iraqis fleeing from carnage; it is Christians fleeing from Muslims. Hirsi Ali has developed the perfect machine for circulating and defending Islamophobia, since it directly implicates every individual Muslim in the actions of every other individual Muslim—not to mention the actions of any government of any Muslim-majority state. And, as an added bonus, it even manages to implicate the imputing of Islamophobia itself as part of the problem, since she sees this as part of the sinister “conspiracy of silence” that allows this global Christophobia to flourish.

Hirsi Ali’s “war,” in other words, guarantees the continuing stigmatization of Muslims in North America and Europe. This is what allows her to speak of a “global war on Christians in the Muslim world.” In addition to resonating with the US’s “global war on terror,” what this phrase signifies is that the Islamic “threat” is a global one. So what might appear to be a minority community under siege in the United States, Hirsi Ali suggests, is in fact part of a threatening wave of genocide; the “spontaneous expression of anti-Christian animus by Muslims that transcends cultures, regions, and ethnicities” exists, in inchoate form, everywhere. No one (Christian) is safe.

Allow me to state the obvious, which is that Hirsi Ali’s argument has an immediately recognizable pedigree. The attempt to justify the oppression of minority groups by producing them as threats to “our way of life”—including the assertion that the same groups have the mysterious power to bewitch, dupe, and silence the unwary through conspiratorial means and shadowy organizations—has been a standard practice of racism and fascism, those precursors of Islamophobia; Hirsi Ali is a connoisseur of all three. Her supposed defense of an embattled minority is a thinly disguised attempt to extend and expand the ongoing repression of Muslim minority communities. The logic of her argument is precisely the same as that which has underwritten the violent policing of Muslim communities in the name of fighting “homegrown terrorism,” which has had such horrific consequences for these communities (not to mention for civil liberties more generally).

Hirsi Ali, like Ferguson and the rest of the neo-con forces, is eager to wrap herself in the mantle of “Western” virtues such as skepticism and secularism, against the forces of sectarianism and fundamentalism that they see as constitutive of the “Muslim world.” But what could possibly be more sectarian and fundamentalist than Hirsi Ali’s vision of the world, with its terrifying simplifications and generalizations, and its reduction of genuine situations of violence and suffering to data whose only purpose is to power her relentless Islamophobia machine?

Original post: Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s War

Share/Bookmark




38 Comments »

  1. No, the last refuge of a scoundrel is denial. Denial that there are problems going on. The scoundrel may then proceed serenely on his way while victims croak at his feet.

    Muslim societies sure are killing and otherwise persecuting non muslims and muslims should address that without blaming everybody else.

  2. Yes, “Muslim societies” (however you define that term in your simple mind) should address this issue. You’re right. But can we in the US as well as the rest of the allied nations address the persecution of Muslims at our hands as well? Which, by the way, happens to radically outnumber the amount of death at the hands of Muslims? Want to show the numbers of civilian casualties caused by the hands of the US in the Iraq war alone? How about both Iraq wars in the last two decades? Could that be a factor at all (again, in your simple mind) in the increase of violence from Muslims or no?

    Anon, just answer that last question for me. Could that be, in any way, a factor? Or no… any pointing to that factor is just Muslims blaming others?

    Your ignorance is disgusting. Your glossing over the violence done by others to Muslims is even more vile and wretched. God save us all from this way of thinking.

  3. By the way, anon, that is not to say that religious bigotry is not a factor as well. That certainly exists among Muslims as it does with any group. But to make it the sole, or even the biggest, factor is vile and hateful. Just as vile and hateful as the religious bigotry from Muslims you and Hirsi claims exist. Actually, IT IS RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY.

  4. Hirsi, Pammy and Spencer, etc. are making a living off cursing muslims and Islam so they may be taken with a grain of salt. Ditto a news media outlet like Fox.

    Plenty of people in US have fled muslim rule, they have for years. Them we can take more seriously.

  5. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a sack of rancid rat fat, to put it politely.

  6. Patriotism is not a bad thing when it’s used for constructive aims, it’s nationalism that’s the refuge of the scoundrel.

  7. WHAT war on Christians? This is far-right balderdash and obfuscation. Shame on Newsweek.

  8. What happened to Newsweek? At one time it was a serious magazine. I can see now the clowns have taken over.

  9. Amen, Melody.

  10. If you look at the article, it’s about Christians in Muslim countries being targeted for violence, not the right wing made up war here.

  11. She is an opportunist, a divisive force and an enemy of Islam. That she is a member of the AEI is no surprise.

  12. No, anon, plenty in the US have fled secular rule in Muslim majority lands. You act like the majority of Middle Eastern nations are some Muslim nations that only govern by the Qur’an and Sunna. If they did apply Sharia correctly, we wouldn’t have those issues which is why the people in those nations seem to always prefer the so-called “Islamist” parties over the secular ones when given a real choice. It’s because those parties are much more just in terms of social equality, not because they want to kill everyone who’s not Muslim like your simple mind would like to think.

    Very few have actually left due to governments applying Sharia. No government exists anyway, except Saudi Arabia which arguably does a miserable job at it to which the vast majority of Muslims you ask attest to. Actually, in terms of the social equality engendered in Islamic jurisprudence Saudi Arabia is perhaps the worst of the worst on this with their class system. Very few Muslims would argue otherwise, even in Saudi Arabia. That being said, Americans in Saudi Arabia get the best treatment only seconded to the Saudi elites. You should be ashamed, as I am, of those Americans who enjoy the fruits of that treatment for being nothing more than American.

    Of course, you don’t even care about that. Probably didn’t even know it. Surprise.

  13. Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious – Oscar Wilde

  14. While I respect many of Ayaan’s opinions, and sympathize with her numerous hardships that would have destroyed a lesser person, these kinds of overstatements and generalizations weaken her valid arguments and concerns.

    While violence against women and homosexuals in the Netherlands is often perpetrated by people of Muslim descent and should be punished harshly, she ignores the fact that most Dutch muslims oppose violence. Yes Theo’s murder is an unspeakable tragedy, but it was committed by one loon (as was Pim Fortuyn’s death at the hands of a liberal animal rights activist).

    She also ignores the relationship between poverty and the social problems she talks about.

  15. Nationalism: What the Nazis were promoting.

  16. I think it’s important to differentiate between patriotism and nationalism. :)

  17. Patriotism can be a beautiful thing. It depends, like religious loyalties and other different aspects of life, on how one uses it.

  18. Patriotism is the last word for which man shall cling. Steal a little and they put you in jail, steal a lot and they make you a king.

  19. Wake up people of the western world, you are being used as a fuel to feed the fire of wars, you are making them rich and you are making yourselves poor.

  20. Patriotism for the United States and its Constitution is a wonderful thing. The U.S. Constitution is the GREATEST document ever written. It brought about and maintained the GREATEST nation that the world has ever seen and will not see again for a long time. It gives religious freedom to all along with freedom for women and all races. It keeps the government out of your house and business (not so much anymore). By the way, my family was not American by choice – they were Confederates but they supported the United States and its Constitution with pride and honor and also served in the United States Military in every war since 1865. Let Freedom Ring.

  21. Since when have humans ever done anything purely and correctly? “Apply sharia correctly?” Why not apply communism and christianity correctly?

    Since when has personal interest and sin not intruded on human affairs?

    Since when has there been a super tribe of pure folks who know how to run things really well?

    There is a legend muslims have that back when they were smashing the Persians, Iberians, etc. the world was really wonderful. That’s like us saying wasn’t it great back when we had slaves and were killing the Amerindians. You really think life under the sultans was a lark?

    People who think they are God are the curse of the world. They think they need no correction or even evaluation.

    People have fled to the US because they were in danger of being murdered for their religion or tribe or their speech if they stayed in muslim lands. Not a new thing. Those countries are famously horrible.

    Crush free speech, crush young people, crush intellectual activity. How many Copts on the plane tonight? How many Chinese fled Malaysia yesterday?

  22. She is trying to make a living by doing what she does best. LIE

  23. this can’t possibly be the ultra left wing liberal rag I subscribe to every week. Newsweek hates Christians AND Muslims. Patriotism is olny for the noble.

  24. Ro Sa, your ignorance is embarrassing. Tribal feuds in Nigeria have nothing to do with religion. Please check your facts before blaming the author.

  25. Well, I don’t think it is right for us Muslims to throw that persecution against minorities under the rug, but to actually put all the horrors of the World on us is ridiculous in my opinion. Muslims also die (and in far greater numbers) due to terrorism, war, failed governments, etc. All she is doing is increasing hatred in the West, and promoting wars in the East. I don’t take her seriously at all, she only ever causes hate.

  26. That’s exactly it, humans are the issue and, therefore, need Divine law to be applied correctly. It’s an Islamic understanding that this could never actually be fully realized under anyone other than a Messenger of God, peace be upon them all, and so Muslims are to try their best to apply the laws with their purport in mind. That is not saying that we can come as close to justice and fairness as possible, which is what legislation (the literal meaning of Shariah in Arabic) is for.

    I agree, people who think they are God are certainly the curse of the world. Especially ones like you who have no system other than their subjective whims. Look in the mirror the same as you want Muslims to do. Look at your life… you’re on a website trying your best to convert people to your way of thinking, yet somehow you managed to make yourself believe it is only Muslims doing that. Poor, deluded mind you have. May Allah (I’m sure calling Him by that most beautiful name just sticks in your craw doesn’t it?) guide you, anon.

  27. Oh, and by the way anon, Muslims don’t believe in some legend that the world was all that much better when “they were crushing Persians, Iberians, etc…” as you claim. What a moronic exaggeration. We do believe it was much better under the four rightly guide Caliphs, however, they even had issues to deal with. That was short-lived however and it was a steady decline after that. The Muslims scholars (Shia and Sunni, in fact) are almost unanimously in agreement of this! To state otherwise is to claim very fringe minorities represent Islam. So even the Muslims who are well-versed in their history don’t subscribe to some idea of political perfection. There certainly was some great times and great strides were made within the Islamic empires that existed, but there was definitely plenty of issues and schisms… no one disputes that.

    That is why there are many Muslims who look forward to the coming of the Mahdi as well as Jesus’ return, peace be upon him. Hopefully we get to live to see the kind of peace and economic stability they’re going to spread to the whole world.

    But, yeah, just fairy tales to you I’m sure. Too bad.

  28. That saying could apply to several presidential candidates.

  29. Melody. I agree that there is no war on Christianity. Just like when Dessert Storm, and the other American aggressions over there, started, somebody said America is declaring war on Islam.

    Unfortunately, propaganda is a politician’s tool. I’m glad most of us see beyond the mist of that, but there are those suckers who’ll agree. The outcome is the victim who’s a Muslim or Christian that is injured or killed just for being whatever.

  30. oh please muslims are attacking everyone including there own

  31. Fairy tales indeed, Ro Sa. Yes, I am on the web here to poke holes in fairy tales.

  32. RoSa,

    “If they did apply Sharia correctly”??????? seriously. so how many correct lashes for drinking, fornicating? how many stones for leaving islam. you are infavor of rajm? sharia is cruel and unusual punisment, and has no place in the world. off with their hands and heads. it is sexist and discrimator towards disbelivers. it is intolerant by it’s very nature. the “path to water” i full of pit falls.

    social equality, surely you jest. the bangledeshis want social equality, sharia style.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxvjfE0_Eko

  33. sharia

    Volume 8, Book 82, Number 806:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    A man came to Allah’s Apostle while he was in the mosque, and he called him, saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.’” The Prophet turned his face to the other side, but that man repeated his statement four times, and after he bore witness against himself four times, the Prophet called him, saying, “Are you mad?” The man said, “No.” The Prophet said, “Are you married?” The man said, “Yes.” Then the Prophet said, ‘Take him away and stone him to death.” Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said: I was among the ones who participated in stoning him and we stoned him at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but we over took him at Al-Harra and stoned him to death.

    Volume 8, Book 82, Number 821:

    Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid:

    A bedouin came to the Prophet while he (the Prophet) was sitting, and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Give your verdict according to Allah’s Laws (in our case).” Then his opponent got up and said, “He has told the truth, O Allah’s Apostle! Decide his case according to Allah’s Laws. My son was a laborer working for this person, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, and the people told me that my son should be stoned to death, but I offered one-hundred sheep and a slave girl as a ransom for him. Then I asked the religious learned people, and they told me that my son should be flogged with one-hundred stripes and be exiled for one year.” The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge you according to Allah’s Laws. The sheep and the slave girl will be returned to you and your son will be flogged one-hundred stripes and be exiled for one year. And you, O Unais! Go to the wife of this man (and if she confesses), stone her to death.” So Unais went in the morning and stoned her to death (after she had confessed).

  34. linda,

    how’s this for freedom of religion:

    Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

    Narrated ‘Ikrima:

    Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

  35. To all you who say “lashes punishment etc)

    Muhammad always said to use the lashes as a last resort. Repentance was what Muhammad stressed on. Repent and Allah will forgive you, as we will. Hed say.

    A group of companions came to complain to the Prophet. “so and so was drinking again. And was found lying in the street.” Muhammad calmly told them to take him home and let him sleep it off.

    But the lashes/stoning is seen as a cleansing aka they die with no sins. But Muhammad still stressed on repentanced. He hated violence a lot more than you think.

    woman came to him and said “i committed Adultery. Tahirni, purify me. (stone me) Muhammad denied it, saying “come back in a few months” he hoped she would change her mind. She came back pregnant. She still said “stone me. Purify me.” muhammad said, “have your baby and nurse it for 2 years.” he still prayed she wouldnt come back. She did. Finally Mohammad said, “you will be cleansed.” so he gave her child to a group of woman to care for and he didnt watch when they stoned her. Then as they carried her body away, some blood landed on a Sahabis shirt and he cussed the dead Muslimah out, and Mohammad was PISSED at him. He said “nobody say a bad thing about this woman, she is purer than any one else.”

    If the Middle East does things differently now is it really Islam’s fault? The Quran specifically states that for God to forgive you, you must be forgiving.

  36. *repentance

  37. Mike

    The reason y he was stoned is cuz he kept repeating his deed and he knew hed be stoned. Just like the woman, he felt bad and wanted his sins gone so he couldmeet God in a pure state. Its the same with buddhist monks who lower themselves into the ground and starve themselves to death.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>