Tag Archives: Sharia law

Saudi court sentences poet to death for renouncing Islam

Wonder if Hillary believes that “human rights” are to be applied to those with different religious beliefs as well? No worries, more donations should keep her quiet on this matter.


The Guardian reported yesterday that Ashraf Fayadh (35), a Palestinian poet and leading member of Saudi Arabia’s nascent contemporary art scene, has been sentenced to death for renouncing Islam.

A Saudi court ordered the execution of Fayadh, who has curated art shows in Jeddah and at the Venice Biennale. The poet, who said he did not have legal representation, was given 30 days to appeal against the ruling.

Fayadh is a key member of the British-Saudi art organisation Edge of Arabia. He  was originally sentenced to four years in prison and 800 lashes by the general court in Abha, a city in the south-west of the ultraconservative kingdom, in May 2014. After his appeal was dismissed he was retried last month and a new panel of judges ruled that his repentance did not prevent his execution.

If you are aware of human rights (such as they are) in Saudi Arabia, this should come as no surprise. Systematic discrimination against women and religious minorities is prevalent. “I was really shocked but it was expected, though I didn’t do anything that deserves death,” Fayadh told the Guardian.

Ashraf Fayadh/Photo from his Instagram account

Ashraf Fayadh/Photo from his Instagram account

A migrant rights activist from Kuwait, Mona Kareem, has led a campaign for the poet’s release, said: “For one and a half years they promised him an appeal and kept intimidating him that there’s new evidence. He was unable to assign a lawyer because his ID was confiscated when he was arrested [in January 2014]. Then they said you must have a retrial and we’ll change the prosecutor and the judges. The new judge didn’t even talk to him, he just made the verdict.

Fayadh’s supporters believe he is being punished by hardliners for posting a video online showing the religious police (mutaween) in Abha lashing a man in public. “Some Saudis think this was revenge by the morality police,” said Kareem. He also believes that Fayadh has been targeted because he is a Palestinian refugee, even though he was born in Saudi Arabia.

Fayadh was first detained in August 2013 after receiving a complaint that he was cursing against Allah and the prophet Muhammad, insulting Saudi Arabia and distributing a book of his poems that promoted atheism. Fayadh said the complaint arose from a personal dispute with another artist during a discussion about contemporary art in a cafe in Abha.

After one day in jail, he was released on bail but the police arrested him again on January 1, 2014, confiscating his ID and detaining him at a police station until he was transferred to the local prison 27 days later. According to Fayadh’s friends, when the police failed to prove that his poetry was atheist propaganda, they began berating him for smoking and having long hair.

You are not allowed to practice or preach a different religion in Saudi Arabia other than Islam. Hence Fayadh is in the position he is in now. “They accused me [of] atheism and spreading some destructive thoughts into society,” said Fayadh. He added that the book, Instructions Within, published in 2008, was “just about me being [a] Palestinian refugee … about cultural and philosophical issues. But the religious extremists explained it as destructive ideas against God.”

During Fayadh’s trial in February 2014, complainant and two members of the religious police told the court that Fayadh had publicly blasphemed, promoted atheism to young people and conducted illicit relationships with women and stored some of their photographs on his mobile phone. He denied the accusations of blasphemy and told the court he was a faithful Muslim. According to the court documents, he said: “I am repentant to God most high and am innocent of what appeared in my book mentioned in this case.”

The case highlights the tensions between hardline religious conservatives and the small but growing number of artists and activists who are tentatively pushing the boundaries of freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia, where cinema is banned and there are no art schools.

Saudi Arabia has a complete intolerance of anyone who does not share government-mandated religious, political and social views. But that is not unexpected from those who adhere to Sharia Law.

sharia law


Home Depot trains employees on “sensitivities” to Islam

Home DepotDo you know of any American business bending over backwards to please Christians?


Despite the fact that nearly 8 out of every 10 Americans are Christian?

In fact, these days we are more likely to find Americans businesses that do their best to offend Christians.

According to a website on Islam in Europe and North America, estimates of the percentage of Americans who are Muslim vary:

  • A 2007 survey by Pew Research Center places the figure at 0.6%.
  • Preceding surveys fall somewhere below that estimate: Baylor (2006) at 0.2%; Pew (2000-2007) at 0.5%; General Social Surveys (1998-2006) at 0.5%; Gallup (1999-2001) at 0.3%; American Religious Identification Surveys (2001) at 0.5%; and the National Election Study (2000) at 0.2%.
  • Not surprisingly, estimates by Muslim American groups are higher:
  • 1.5% (or 4.7 million), according to the 2005 Britannica Book of the Year.
  • 2.1% (or 6.7 million), according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the premier Muslim-American “civil rights” organization in the United States which the FBI had identified to have ties to terrorists. In 2007, U.S. federal prosecutors named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.

Even if we take the most generous estimate, CAIR’s, that still puts Muslims at 2.1% of the total U.S. population, which is miniscule when compared to the number and percentage of U.S. Christians. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008), the majority of U.S. adults — 76% — identified themselves as Christians.

And yet, the 2% of Americans who are Muslims manage to wield grossly disproportionate power and influence.

Amy Elizabeth reports for GOPTheDailyDose that on March 19, 2014, a Home Depot in Dearborn, Michigan, succumbed to the demands of CAIR and subjected its employees to “cultural awareness training” in order to accommodate the “religious sensitivities” of Muslim employees and customers,” and to “help corporate managers gain a better understanding of Muslims and Islam.”

Not just in Dearborn. CAIR Michigan says it also “has provided similar trainings in the past to other Home Depot locations in southeastern Michigan.”

CAIR MichiganCAIR even has a 19-page An Employer’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices, with demands that are quite discriminatory to other religions. For example:

  • Friday is the day for congregational worship, called Jum’ah. The prayer generally takes place at a mosque during the noontime prayer and includes an address or sermon, and lasts a total of 45 to 90 minutes.
  • Performing the rituals of the pilgrimage may last five days during the second week of the twelfth month of the lunar calendar. However, considerable variations exist in trip arrangements, and group travel may take 10-21 days. Muslim employees may choose to make pilgrimage using vacation time.
  • Employers may wish to modify dress code policies so that religiously-mandated attire is addressed as a diversity issue. For example, many corporations have a policy forbidding the wearing of hats. This rule may be amended to exempt items such as Muslim head scarves and skullcaps.
  • A Muslim employee should not be asked to serve or sell religiously offensive products, such as alcoholic beverages.

Amy Elizabeth points out these so-called Muslim “accommodations” are nothing more than forcing American businesses to comply with Islam’s sharia law, which is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws.

Elizabeth rightly asks: In a world where Christians are being slaughtered by Muslims, how can any American, let alone an American corporation like Home Depot, bend over backward to accommodate the enemy?

H/t my friend John Molloy

See also:


One-year jail term for father who whipped son to death rejected by Abu Dhabi court


The National: (Abu Dhabi) A father who whipped his 12-year-old son to death has had his one-year jail sentence overturned by the court of cassation.

Emirati R M admitted repeatedly hitting his son with an electrical wire and a cane, claiming he only wanted to discipline him for poor school grades.

The beating was so severe the son was left unconscious and covered in blood. He was driven to hospital by his mother where he was declared dead.

Prosecutors originally charged R M with causing death by beating, which holds a maximum jail term of 15 years. At the first trial in Abu Dhabi Criminal Court, the charge was changed to premeditated murder.

As the boy’s heirs, the father’s parents, waived their rights to a death sentence, R M was sentenced to three years in jail and a blood money settlement of Dh200,000.

His sentence was later reduced by the appeals court to one year, as the boy’s mother also waived her right to blood money.

On Wednesday, the court of cassation ruled that the heirs should not have been consulted in this case.

The law states that a father cannot be charged with premeditated murder unless he confesses, which R M did not, or if it was a straightforward murder act.

In this case, as the tools he used to kill his son were not weapons, it proved it was an attack driven by anger and not planned.

Also, Sharia states that a parent cannot be executed for killing his or her own child. Hence, there was no death penalty to waive anyway, so the charge should have been beating that led to death.

Also, the medical report showed there was not a fatal blow from the father, as the boy died from shock caused by the pain of the beating.

The cassation court therefore rejected the appeals court’s sentence of one year for premeditated murder and bounced it back for another hearing.


Move over Columbus. Muslims first discovered America!

ColumbusChristopher Columbus (l); Nihad Awad (r)

With the constant barrage of grim news, we can sure use some comic relief.

Neil Munro reports for The Daily Caller, Jan. 4, 2013, that Nihad Awad, co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said Muslims had discovered the Americas long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492.

CAIR is America’s largest Muslim “civil rights” lobby group, headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., with regional offices nationwide. In 2009, the FBI called CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Five of CAIR’s former employees have been jailed or deported for terror offenses, and FBI officials refuse to meet Awad because of his ties to jihadi groups, such as Hamas.

Last December 27, Awad told a Saudi TV station in an interview in a New York studio, recorded by the Middle East Media Research Institute: “There are historical accounts according to which the Muslims preceded Columbus, who is said to have discovered the U.S. Some documents and accounts indicate that Muslim seafarers were the first to reach the U.S., [so] the bottom line is that Islam played a part in the establishment and development of the U.S.”

Awad then argued that Muslims can settle in the U.S. without violating Islam’s myriad Sharia rules about religion, diet, speech, friendships, work and political loyalty. But Islam’s Sharia laws curb religious freedom, speech, and political activism, and also subordinate non-Muslims and women to orthodox Muslim men. Sharia is enforced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, much of Afghanistan and increasingly in Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia and Libya, all of which were recently governed by secular laws.

Awad’s claim is part of a broader campaign by Islamist groups to encourage Muslims to settle in the United States and Europe. From 610 to 632, Islam’s founder, Mohammad, reputedly urged his followers to spread Islam by both conquest and emigration.

The Islamic civilization did enjoy a “Golden Age” beginning in the middle of the 8th century with the ascension of the Abbasid Caliphate and the transfer of the capital from Damascus to Baghdad. Lasting five centuries, Islam’s Golden Age came to an abrupt end when the Mongols invaded and conquered Baghdad in 1258 — 234 years before Christopher Columbus found America.

Muslims “discovered” the Americas first?

Yeah right. [smirk]

On a more ominous note, there may be a method to Awad’s madness.

Fundamentalist Islam sees the world as divided between the part already won for Islam and that which remains to be conquered. They believe that once a land has become part of the dar-al-Islam (House of Islam), it cannot be allowed to revert to infidel rule and Muslims have the irredentist right to reclaim the land for Islam.

Does this mean CAIR, with its cofounder Awad’s ludicrous and wholly without-evidence claim that unnamed Muslims had discovered the Americas before Columbus, is “reclaiming” America for Islam?

See also:


Insane Muslims are now cutting off tongues

In addition to their “standard” practices of stoning and beheading, FOTM has been chronicling the insanities of radical Islamists, from the ludicrous–

— to the grotesque beyond-belief barbarisms:

Add the cutting out of tongues to the list of grotesque barbarisms.

Abdullah Badr threatens to cut off the tongue of anyone who mocks Islam

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Ibrahim reports for the Gatestone Institute, November 12, 2012:

Was Islam’s founder Muhammad a real man or an invention?

Robert Spencer is an authority on Islam and the author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. He is also the director of Jihad Watch.

In his new book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins, Spencer asks if Muhammad was a real man or a later invention by those who had fashioned an Arab empire via wars and conquer.

Writing in American Thinker, April 23, 2012, Spencer makes a case for Muhammad being more fictive than real:

Why would it matter if Muhammad never existed?  Certainly the accepted story of Islam’s origins is taken for granted as historically accurate; while many don’t accept Muhammad’s claim to have been a prophet, few doubt that there was a man named Muhammad who in the early seventh century began to claim that he was receiving messages from Allah through the angel Gabriel. […]

Yet the numerous indications that the standard account of Muhammad’s life is more legend than fact actually have considerable implications for the contemporary political scene. These are just a few of the weaknesses in the traditional account of Muhammad’s life and the early days of Islam:

  • No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
  • The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an.  They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,” “Muhajirun,” and “Hagarians,” but never “Muslims.”
  • The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests.  Mentions of “Muhammad” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross.  The word can be used not only as a proper name, but also as an honorific.
  • The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s.  Casting into serious doubt that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention its existence until the early eighth century.
  • We don’t begin to hear about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself until the 690s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik.  Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.
  • In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik.  In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Muhammad began to proliferate.  The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era-at least 125 years after the traditional date of his death.

The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more, suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

How to make sense of all this?  If the Arab forces that conquered so much territory beginning in the 630s were not energized by the teachings of a new prophet and the divine word he delivered, how did the Islamic character of their empire arise at all?  If Muhammad did not exist, why was it ever considered necessary to invent him?

Every empire of the day had a civic religion.  The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was Christian.  Its rival Persia, meanwhile, was Zoroastrian.  The Arab Empire quickly controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of territory where different religions predominated.  The empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power.  But at first, it did not have a compelling political theology to compete with those it supplanted and to solidify its conquests.  It needed a common religion — a political theology that would provide the foundation for the empire’s unity and secure allegiance to the state.

Toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the leaders of the Muslim world began to speak specifically about Islam, its prophet, and eventually its book.  Stories about Muhammad began to circulate.  A warrior-prophet would justify the new empire’s aggressive expansionism.  To give those conquests a theological justification — as Muhammad’s teachings and example do — would place them beyond criticism.
This is why Islam developed as such a profoundly political religion.  Islam is a political faith: the divine kingdom is very much of this world, with God’s wrath and judgment to be expected not only in the next life, but also in this one, to be delivered by believers.  Allah says in the Qur’an: “As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them” (3:56).  Allah also exhorts Muslims to wage war against those infidels, apostates, and polytheists (2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 9:29).

There is compelling reason to conclude that Muhammad, the messenger of Allah came into existence only after the Arab Empire was firmly entrenched and casting about for a political theology to anchor and unify it.  Muhammad and the Qur’an cemented the power of the Umayyad caliphate and then that of the Abbasid caliphate.

This is not just academic speculation.  The non-Muslim world can be aided significantly in its understanding of the global jihad threat — an understanding that has been notably lacking even at the highest levels since September 11, 2001 — by a careful, unbiased examination of the origins of Islam.  There is a great deal of debate today in the United States and Western Europe about the nature of Islamic law; anti-sharia measures have been proposed in at least twenty states, and one state — Oklahoma — voted to ban sharia in November 2010, although that law was quickly overturned as an infringement upon Muslims’ religious freedom.  Others have been successfully resisted on the same grounds.

If it is understood that the political aspect of Islam preceded the religious aspect, that might change.  But that will happen only if a sufficient number of people are willing to go wherever the truth my take them.


Muslim clerics issue “Adult Breastfeeding” fatwa

What would you say if I told you that women in America are told that, if they want to work outside their homes, they must breastfeed their male co-workers?

Yes, I’m serious: Adult women are to breastfeed adult men who are not their sons. (Never mind the fact that women breastfeeding adults sons is itself a repugnant thought.)

But that’s exactly what fatwas (legal decrees) issued by clerics of that Religion of Peace and Reason and Enlightenment and Human Decency are saying.

Barenakedislam reports on April 16, 2012, that this absurdity began in May 2007, when a Dr. Izzat Atiya, the chair of the Department of Hadith at Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, issued a fatwa saying that female workers should “breastfeed” their male co-workers “directly from her breast at least five times” in order to work in each other’s company.

Posted: April 16, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: IslamoMania |30 Comments »

The great and wise Dr. Atiya based his fatwa on a hadith—a documented saying or doing of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and subsequently one of Sharia law’s sources of jurisprudence. 

The breastfeeding subject was revisited three years later in 2010, when a high-ranking Saudi, Sheikh Abdul Mohsin al-Abaican issued a fatwa confirming that “women could give their milk to men to establish a degree of maternal relations and get around a strict religious ban on mixing between unrelated men and women.”

The new fatwa, however, differed slightly from Dr. Atiya’s, insisting that “the man should take the milk, but not directly from the breast of the woman. He should drink it [from a cup] and then [he] becomes a relative of the family, a fact that allows him to come in contact with the women without breaking Islam’s rules about mixing.”

Two years later, adult breastfeeding once again raises its ugly head, but now it pertains to a wife breastfeeding her husband.

A report titled “Kuwaiti Activists: Husband Breastfeeding from Wife not Prohibited,” published earlier this month by Arabic RT (see also Garaa News) opens by announcing that “The adult breastfeeding fatwa has returned once again to the spotlight, after Kuwaiti Islamic activists supported the adult breastfeeding fatwa issued by the Egyptian Salafi, Sheikh Jamal al-Murakbi [different from Al Azhar’s Sheikh Atiya].  This time around, the Kuwaitis examined the adult breastfeeding fatwa in the context of relations between a man and his wife.”

The mental images conjured by this insanity are too horrible for a Wednesday morning.

Oh, the horror! The Horror!

H/t beloved fellow GrouchyFogie.