You are here


  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    A father is on trial for controlling his entire family because two of his eight daughters would not marry the men he had chosen for them. He said they were ‘dead to the family’ and vowed to inflict what he considered a ‘traditional’ Islamic upbringing on two others who wanted to lead western lives, a crout was told. Madina and Maryha Khan were not allowed to go out and he made them cook and clean for him. They described their lives as ‘living in a prison’.

  • Summary: 

    In modern Britain equality is protected and one person's protected characteristics can't be used to subjugate another. The sooner people from all faiths and none realise this the better,  I'm turning 40 this year, having survived numerous suicide attempts in my teenage years, and fragile mental health as an ongoing battle. And I am frustrated and angered that schools across the country are being disrupted by protesters saying that their religious right trumps the teaching of LGBT+ equality. It doesn't, and the sooner people from all faiths and none realise this the better. The government's introduction of LGBT+ inclusive sex and relationship education in all schools regardless of faith is essential for all young people. The suggestion from Muslim activists that parents have the right to decide the curriculum for their school is inappropriate and unacceptable.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    THREE former city Labour party members found guilty of vote rigging have today been jailed.A former Labour mayor was jailed after being convicted of vote-rigging... The trio hatched a scheme to forge votes for the Peterborough city council election in June 2004, prosecutors said.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    Corruption in parts of the Pakistani community is “endemic” and a growing problem that politicians have underestimated, the Government’s chief legal adviser has said. The Attorney General, said ministers should “wake up” to the threat of corruption in public life, which he attributed to “minority communities” that operate a “favour culture”.

    See also: 

  • Country: 
    European Union
    News Date: 
    • [President of the European Council, Donald] Tusk referred to the value gap between the states of the Arab League and those of the European Union as "differences between us". Such euphemisms however, do not explain the evident lack of even the pretense, on the part of the EU, to comply with its own stated human rights policies.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    A primary school teacher says he has received threats from parents amid protests over teachings about LGBT rights and homophobia. Demonstrations against the classes have been held outside Parkfield Community School in Alum Rock, Birmingham. The Assistant head, who is gay, said he had received "nasty emails" and threats, including one which warned he "wouldn't last long".


  • Summary: 

    I am a Canadian ex-Muslim. In  and  of this series of articles, I addressed the harsh realities of Islamic apostasy and the permissibility of rape and pedophilia in Islamic theology. In this segment, I will address the permissibility of wife-beating in Islamic theology and law.

    Sadly, there are numerous passages contained within Islam’s most revered and authoritative texts (the Qur’an, hadiths and sira) that establish wife-beating to be permissible for Muslim men.

    In the above mentioned texts, the Qur’an in particular, Muslim men are instructed to  should they become disobedient. Disturbingly, Chapter 4, Verse 34 of the Qur’an teaches that Muslim men can beat those of their wives from whom they merely “fear disobedience.”

    Admin: See also this from the Council of Europe:  regarding the compatibility of sharia law with the convention on human righs:

    13. In Islamic family law, men have authority over women. Surah 4:34 states: ‘Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.’ 11 While wives clearly have a duty of fidelity, 12 husbands do not. 13 In Sharia law, adultery is strictly prohibited.14 Legal doctrine holds that the evidence must take the form of corroborating testimony from four witnesses15 to prove an individual’s guilt. These witnesses must be men of good repute and good Muslims. The punishment is severe and degrading, namely ‘a hundred lashes’. 16 In the case of rape, which is seldom committed in public before four male witnesses who are good Muslims, punishing the rapist is difficult if not impossible. 17 In practice, this obliges women to be accompanied by men when they go out and is not conducive to their independence. While divorce by mutual consent is enshrined in Islamic law, 18 the application has to come from the wife, since the husband can repudiate his wife at any time. 19 There is also the question of equal rights with regard to divorce arrangements such as custody of children.

  • Summary: 

    I am a Canadian ex-Muslim. In  of this series, I addressed the cult-like nature of Mohammedanism and the harsh realities of Islamic apostasy. In this segment, I will address the permissibility of rape in Islamic theology.

    Rape and pedophilia are considered by most human beings to be the worst of crimes. And yet sadly, Islam’s most revered and authoritative texts (the Qur’an, hadiths and sira), confirmed by the perverse behaviour of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam (the model for Muslim believers to emulate – cf. Qur’an 33:21), record that both rape and pedophilia are permissible for Muslims.

    The penalty for blasphemy against “Allah and His Prophet” is typically death in Muslim-majority countries. Fortunately, I do not live in a Sharia state or a Muslim-majority country, or I would be hung from the nearest tree by the Islamic government or a Muslim mob, for the crime of leaving Islam.

  • Summary: 

    I am a Canadian ex-Muslim male; I converted to Islam and stayed in the religion for approximately four years, before leaving it due to disbelief and moral disgust. Now I live every day with Islam’s formal and informal death penalty for apostasy, hoping that my former Muslim friends don’t recognize me on the street.

    The majority of the Muslims believe Islam to be a perfect religion of truth. Whereas myself speaking as a former Muslim, I believe Islam to be more of a brutal death cult and a totalitarian political ideology. And while the majority of Muslims believe that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was a righteous man worthy of praise and emulation, I believe him to be an amoral madman who most likely never existed.

    Criticism of Islam is traditionally forbidden for Muslims. The supposedly perfect Qur’an goes so far as to instruct Muslims to not ask certain questions about the religion of Islam, or risk being distressed and becoming hated and doomed unbelievers:

  • Summary: 

    Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK, explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:

    One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur’an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way…

    The statement continues:

    Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”

    Share this:

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    A MAN punched his new partner in the face and then told cops it's part of his "culture" to hit women, a court heard.

  • Summary: 

    No-go zones are already covering whole parts of Western European cities, security policy expert Jozsef Horvath  Hungarian daily Magyar Hirlap.

    According to Horvath, “the main question today for European people is what kind of world we want to live in, to we want to give up our countries, cities, appartments inherited from our parents and grandparents, or do we want to protect them”. Regarding the upcoming Swedish elections he said that if there’s no shift in Western European migration policies, in a few years Sweden can become the first European country with a Muslim majority.

  • Beyond Terror: Islam's Slow Erosion of Western Democracy

    Beyond Terror - Anne Marie Waters

    Western democratic societies are built on an open exchange of ideas.  In recent decades, however, all criticism of one particular topic has been so consistently labeled as ‘racism’ or ‘hate’ effectively sabotaging any dialogue on this topic and making it nearly impossible for the truth to emerge. Anne Marie Waters, a British politician, did the unthinkable. She spoke out, publicly, on the topic of Islam, and having started in the liberal Labour Party (UK) is now mischaracterized as belonging to the extreme right.

    Beyond Terror addresses Orwellian nature of this problem, laying out the facts about Islam's concerted and shocking efforts to undermine the fabric of Western Civilization, and how this broad movement, affecting every Western nation, is being aided and abetted by liberal political parties. This book seeks not to attack an enemy, rather to inform the populations of nations already under attack, to enable a wider discussion about immigration from the non-Western world, the teachings of the religion of Islam, and the collusion of far-left groups with Islamists and jihadists.

    Anne Marie's message is connecting with millions of people.  A majority of Europeans expressed, in a 2016 survey, a desire to ban immigration from Muslim societies altogether. And yet leaders and the media in most of these nations ignore those expressing legitimate concerns about Islam as ‘racists’ or ‘bigots’.  This book reveals the opposite, that what many oppose is the spread of Islamic subversion of the rights and freedoms of women, in particular, and the societal norm of freedom of expression previously considered sacred in Western nations. Her mission is to engage in public discourse on the future of society to ensure that the rights and freedoms that we, in the West, currently enjoy will be passed on to our children. 

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    An Islamic school in Birmingham has warned female pupils not to use tampons, it has been claimed today. The Al-Hijrah School reportedly sent out the guidance in a memo to teachers which called for ‘physical, sexual, moral and emotional development’ of pupils. The school library also allegedly contained a book which said husbands can hit their wives and demand sex at any time.

  • Summary: 
    • The bias of many Americans against American values has blinded them from seeing the reasons we immigrants went through hell to come to this country. Many Americans believe that those who criticize the culture from which we escaped must be "Islamophobic." They seem not to understand why we never again want to see what we have gone through so much to escape from.

    • Such attacks on the white majority in Americans are, bluntly, racist. It is a shame that so many Americans are unable or refuse to see what many immigrants see: that it was under this white majority that millions of oppressed people -- of all colors and creeds -- from around the world were rescued from tyranny, Sharia law, slavery, discrimination, Islamism and a miserable existence under corrupt, war-torn and famine-stricken nations. Instead, many seem to want to bring all that here.

    • We watched American freedoms as a dream: to be able to smile back at a man who opened the door for you without accusations of being a loose woman for smiling. To be able to wear what you want, go out when you want, work or get an education or not, and venture to hope one day to live under a system that respects monogamy and equal rights for women and minorities. Yes, it is the American culture where whites are the majority, no problem with that, that made our dreams come true. Despite its shortcomings no other country in the world offers its citizens the chance to be whatever they would like. We might never get back what we already have.

  • Summary: 

    Tolerance is a virtue and intolerance is hate, or so we are told. This ideology has led to the toleration of evil. After all, who wants to be a hater? Those who condemn the evil caused by the doctrine of political Islam are called intolerant and haters. But we must realize that intolerance of evil is a virtue. Thing is to be intolerant of: killing Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East and Africa; jihad of rape, inbreeding, child marriage and female genital mutilation. To reduce human suffering, we must all become intolerant of evil.

  • Summary: 

    What is authentic Islam? This is a question that Muslims may disagree about too, but it certainly is valid to consider the life of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. In fact, any definition of Islam that excludes Muhammad is false. The earliest biography (sirat) of Muhammad's life is the work of Ibn Ishaq (85-151 A.H.) who was born in Medina. In this we learn how Muhammad dealt with those who opposed him. Here are two examples.


    Abu `Afak was one of B. (tribe) `Amr b. `Auf of the B. `Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Samit and said:

    Long have I lived but never have I seen
    An assembly or collection of people
    More faithful to their undertaking
    And their allies when called upon
    Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
    Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted.
    A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
    "Permitted", "Forbidden" of all sorts of things.
    Had you believed in glory or kingship
    You would have followed Tubba`.

    The apostle said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. `Umayr, brother of B. `Amr b. `Auf one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:

    You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Ahmad!
    By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!
    hanif gave you a thrust in the night saying
    "Take that Abu `Afak in spite of your age!"
    Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
    Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught)

    (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, (tr. A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 675.)

    Here we read of public opposition to Muhammad. Muhammad had killed a leading person in a particularly tribe. Abu `Afak, was a member of this tribe, and an old man, he spoke out against Muhammad and encouraged his tribe to resist him. When his actions were brought to Muhammad's attention Muhammad's response was simple, he said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Salim b. `Umayr fulfilled Muhammad's wishes by killing Abu `Afak.

    Ibn Ishaq's account continues with another example:


    She was of B. Umayya b. Zayd. When Abu `Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. `Abdullah b. al-Harith b. al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:

    I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit
    And `Auf and B. al-Khazraj.
    You obey a stranger who is none of yours,
    One not of Murad or Madhhij.
    Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs
    Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?
    Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise
    And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?

    Hassan b. Thabit answered her:

    Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma
    Are inferior to B. al-Khazraj.
    When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,
    For death is coming.
    She stirred up a man of glorious origin,
    Noble in his going out and his coming in.
    Before midnight he dyed her in her blood
    And incurred no guilt thereby.

    When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her," so `Umayr went back to his people.

    Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of Bint Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed Bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day that Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called "the Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-676.)

    After the killing of Abu `Afak another person dared to publicly speak out against Muhammad. Her name was `Asma bint Marwan. Again we see how Muhammad dealt with opposition. He asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi fulfilled Muhammad's wishes by killing `Asma at night.

    There are several interesting observations from these events. The first is about Muhammad's character. Muhammad was the type of man who used assassinations to remove opposition. Whether it was an old man like Abu `Afak, or a woman like `Asma bint Marwan, if they opposed him he had them dealt with. There are more examples of Muhammad doing this [1] and he also used torture [2]. In this regard Muhammad is just like most rulers who have used murder and intimidation to establish their rule. It is no wonder that as Muhammad conquered he said:

    I extend to you the invitation to accept Islam. Embrace Islam and you will be safe. (Sahih Muslim, book 19, number 4380) [3]

    How can Muslims say Muhammad was a man of peace when he established his rule like this and gave this type of example?

    Secondly, it shows us one way in which Islam spread to the early Arab tribes. The account specifically says that after these two murders, "Islam became powerful among B. (the tribe of) Khatma". In fact, "The day after Bint Marwan was killed ... (the tribe of) Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam." What was the "power of Islam" they saw? It was the power to kill its opponents. In this case Islam clearly spread by fear and intimidation, and Muhammad approved of this.

    Theo Van Gogh publicly spoke out against Islam and he was murdered in much the same way as Abu `Afak and `Asma bint Marwan. I believe, and hope, that most Muslims disapprove of Van Gogh's murder, but if we consider the founder of Islam we see that this is how he dealt with those who opposed him. This is not an example we should follow. It is a weak man who has to kill those who speak against him. If you really want to know about the wisdom of peace that can deal with opposition without killing them, then may I suggest you read .





    [1] Other examples of Muhammad having his opponents assassinated or approving of their murder:

    [2] Read about 
    [3] For otther examples see 

  • Summary: 

    Those who promote Islam often do so by proclaiming how wonderful Muhammad was and what a great example his life is to humanity today. Through speaking to many Muslims and non-Muslims about Muhammad it has become clear to me that most of them have never read the original documents on his life, and they are unaware of many things he did. One of these is Muhammad's use of torture.

    The earliest biography (sirat) of Muhammad's life is the work of Ibn Ishaq (85-151 A.H.) who was born in Medina. In this we learn of Muhammad's actions after he had conquered the towns of Khaybar. This event is also accepted and recorded by Ibn Kathir [1].


    Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-`Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, (tr. A. Guillaume), Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 515.)

    This action of Muhammad teaches us a very important point about his character. He was the type of man who used torture to achieve his goals. In this case he wanted the treasure of the tribe of al-Nadir. The custodian of the treasure would not give it to him, therefore Muhammad gave the order to have him tortured. Muhammad's companions knew how to torture someone and proceeded to do so. This is the type of man Muhammad was. He could be merciful and forgiving if he wanted to be, but he could also have someone tortured for money to expand his empire. In this regard Muhammad is like ordinary kings and dictators throughout human history.

    Further Reading
    Read about  to spread Islam.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    Religious extremists are ‘indoctrinating’ pupils and undermining British values, according to the government’s  Amanda Spielman said: “Ofsted inspectors are increasingly brought into contact with those who want to actively pervert the purpose of education.

  • Summary: 

    In 1991 or ’92 I attended a talk by a Muslim academic at the University of Edinburgh on a topic related to Islam, the specifics of which escape me. Relevant is that the talk took place in Ramadan. He started by explaining to his audience, with more than a little pride of distinction, that he had sought and received special dispensation from a local cleric to be exempted from fasting that day on account of the talk he’d have to give that evening. I remember being struck by the idea of an academic at one of the most esteemed universities in 20th century Britain having to beg some mediaeval ignoramus for permission to eat. I wondered whether the one possessed of such power over the one possessed of such learning could even read.

    I was reminded of this proudly-declared indignity again recently, when I came across  an account of Abdulaziz Sachedina’s inadvertent submission to an inquisition by Ayatollah Ali Sistani. On 20 August 1998, with staggering naivety, Sachedina sought out the Ayatollah to clear up a small misunderstanding concerning the former’s lectures at the University of Toronto. If Sachedina were familiar with Galileo’s little run-in with the Pope, he might have thought better of going to any such trouble at all. Galileo, at least, did not kowtow to the Holy See. In a series of deepening humiliations over the course of a “total time of three hours and ten minutes” stretched out over two days, during which Sachedina tried to explain his job as an academic to the Ayatollah and the latter tried, with increasing irritation and rudeness, to prohibit Sachedina from ever saying anything about Islam again. Sachedina, growing increasingly exasperated, recalls:

    I informed the Ayatollah that I was among the seven American professors who were invited …to participate in a workshop in Tehran …on Civil Society and Civilizational Dialogue… He [Ayatollah Sistani] interrupted me saying that I could speak on civilization because that “is not Islam.” “Civilization and Islam are two different things,”

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    Forty-nine per cent of such schools they inspected failed to meet leadership and management norms or teaching fundamental British values. 

    The report I read does not specify which faiths are the problem, and isn’t that a clue? 

    I suspect it almost entirely means those Islamic schools – hopefully not all – where British values are completely absent, an extreme version of the Koran is taught to the exclusion of almost every other subject, the children are indoctrinated to believe that girls are inferior and that their people are in a state of siege. 

  • Is it immoral to hate all Nazis, members of the KKK or other supremacists because of their ideology even though not all Nazis, Klansmen or supremacists have killed someone else? What about hating child-molesters or rapists?

  • Summary: 

    The numbers elsewhere are even higher: 60% in Finland, 59% in Denmark, 59% in Norway and 56% in Sweden believe that Islam clashes with the values of their society.

    Admin: Clearly summed up in this ECHR ruling:

    ECHR Judgement Summary: "sharia law is incompatible with democracy and human rights"

    Source: “Annual Report 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”

    Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

    This article is a reasonable summation of British values and sharia law breaks everyone of them:

    As news of  hit the newspapers over the weekend, we should remember when, last month, the  made British values central to the fight against extremism. He didn’t refer to the abstract values liberals love to promote such as ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance’ that are so vague as to be of limited value. Instead he clearly articulated historically rooted British values:

    • democracy
    • the rule of law,
    • freedom of speech,
    • freedom of the press
    • freedom of worship


  • Summary: 

    FP: So this is why Sharia is the backbone of Islam, right?

    Kasem: Yes, it is the heart and soul of Islam. Without Sharia Islam is a toothless tiger or a poisonless snake. Sharia empowers Islam with the legal power to enforce its draconian, barbaric, uncivilized, and cruel provisions. Sharia gives Islam the arms and legs to force the world to submit to Islam.

    In many verses of the Koran Allah steadfastly announces that whoever deviates from Sharia is a kafir and he/they must be fought upon (i.e., killed) by the Muslims.

    According to ibn Kathir, in verse 2:151, Allah declares that He had sent Muhammad (as a favor) to preach the Qur'an and to teach Sharia laws which the pagans of Mecca did not know

    According to verse 4:64 Allah had sent Muhammad to invite people to obey Allah's orders, that is, Sharia laws.

    To provide more fire power, ibn Kathir say that in verse 5:44, Allah declares that whoever does not want to abide by Allah's law, Sharia, is a kafir. This includes the Christians ( 5:47 ). Mind you, in Islam, a kafir must be fought upon (killed) or forced to submit to Sharia laws.

    In verse 9:73 Allah urges the believers (i.e., the Muslims) to make war on unbelievers and hypocrites and show firmness (be harsh) against them. The eminent exegete of the Qur'an, ibn Kathir writes that Allah has commanded the Muslims to fight with sword the disbelievers, to strive against the hypocrites with tongue and has annulled lenient treatment of them. According to ibn Kathir perform with sword jihad against the disbelievers and be harsh with the hypocrites with words; this means establishing Islamic penal laws, i.e. Sharia laws against them. Ibn Kathir further says that verse 9:73 cancels verse 2:256, the so-called verse on `no compulsion' on religion.

    Here are few more Qur'anic verses which unambiguously declare the supremacy of Sharia.

    Allah will decide by His law (judgment, Sharia) between various sects (between the Jews and the Christians-ibn Abbas).27:78

    Allah is the Law-giver; He has appointed Muhammad to implement the only correct laws (Sharia laws).45:18

    Allah created the heavens and the earth to implement justice to all (Sharia law).45:22

    Muhammad is to strike hard against the unbelievers (fight them with weapons and armaments-ibn Kathir. Fight them with swords-Jalalyn), hypocrites (punish them according to Sharia laws-ibn Kathir) and to be firm (harsh) against them; the abode for the unbelievers and the hypocrites is hell...66:9

    The absolute supremacy of Sharia is upheld in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990). Article 22 of this declaration concludes that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the  , which is the declaration's sole source.

    Strangely, Sharia gets furher boost when the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Willams submits to dhimmitude by espousing that certain provisions of Sharia are inevitable in the United Kingdom .


    Kasem: The most unfair element of Sharia is that it repudiates the fundamental principle of justice, that is: equality in the eye of law. In Sharia, Muslims and non-Muslims are not equal. This inequality extends even to the treatment of Muslim women. Muslim women are not treated as equal to Muslim men in the tenets of Sharia. Here is a glaring example: According to Saudi law (strictly based on Islamic Sharia) the life of a Muslim male is much higher than a non-Muslim man, and the life of female Muslim is much lower than that of Muslim man.

    For instance:

    WALL STREET JOURNAL: - The Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2002). In Saudi Arabia, the concept of blood money as per Islamic Shariat (If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation), as follows:


    100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man

    50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman

    50,000 riyals if a Christian man

    25,000 riyals if a Christian woman

    6,666 riyals if a Hindu man

    3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

    That is, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman

    The inequality of Muslims and non-Muslims is enshrined in the Qur'an and hadis. Here are a few examples:

    A Muslim must not be killed for killing an infidel (Hadis and ibn Kathir's interpretation of verse 5:45 ).

    Believers and non-believers are not equal.6:50, 28:61, 32:19, 35:19-22, 38:28, 39:9, 40:58, 45:21, 59:20, 67:22, 68:35

    That is why Sharia is a great insult to a civilized world

  • Summary: 

    I think the battle we must fight now really has very little to do with sincere religious belief. It’s about social control, repression, misogyny and cruelty. The battle is about Kamaljit, a 14-year-old girl I once taught, who chided me when I read the class a story about snakes in India, like the good, clueless multiculturalist that I was. “Please, Miss, we don’t like that stuff,” she said. “We’re English. We like ice skating.”

    We have to expose Muslim children to as wide a range of experiences as possible so they will feel the gravitational pull of British values. If a Devon primary school recently criticised by Ofsted for not being multicultural enough (yes, really) can arrange a horizon-broadening trip to the inner city, then surely it’s time that Birmingham and Bradford came to Hereford and Hampshire. It was Rodgers and Hammerstein who observed in South Pacific: “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear / You’ve got to be taught from year to year / It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear / You’ve got to be carefully taught. / You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late / Before you are six or seven or eight / To hate all the people your relatives hate / You’ve got to be carefully taught.”

  • Summary: 

    Robert Spencer, Founder and Director of Jihad Watch, delivers his talk entitled "The Theological Aspects of Islam That Lead to Jihad." Mr. Spencer's talk was sponsored by the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville

  • Summary: 

    Hi I’m Abdullah Sameer, and I’m going to be responding to “The Moral Argument” by DrCraigVideos (Reasonable Faith)

  • Summary: 

    With SJWs, the regressive left and the hatred of whites by whites, we are not dealing with something that has the grievances that inspired the French Revolution, nor has it the structure of Marxist ideology. What we’re seeing now is a free Slave Morality. This can be observed at several levels. The glorification of the victim-of-society, most emphatically present in the “oppression Olympics”, seeks glory through an identity which hopes to mirror that of a slave. Hierarchies are invented to revolt against. “Oppressive” actions are invented in the all too familiar form of “micro-aggressions”, redefining regular speech and concepts as iron shackles. Such desperation to be a slave!

  • Summary: 

    As news of fresh Islamist plots hit the newspapers over the weekend, we should remember when, last month, the Prime Minister made British values central to the fight against extremism.He didn’t refer to the abstract values liberals love to promote such as ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance’ that are so vague as to be of limited value. Instead he clearly articulated historically rooted British values:

    • democracy
    • the rule of law,
    • freedom of speech,
    • freedom of the press
    • freedom of worship

    He also insisted that these apply to all regardless of their race, sex, sexuality or faith i.e. in this county we have equality before the law and one law for all, not shari’a for some and British law for others. This of course is not something new: these are historic British values because they have emerged over the centuries and become embedded in our institutions. In that sense they are deeply rooted. But too be honest, we have often lost sight of them.

  • Summary: 


    Indonesia’s government has declared that there is “no room” for gays in the country. This isn’t a surprise. It’s a Muslim country, and gays are starting to realize that they aren’t safe in any society where a majority of the citizens bow towards Mecca five times a day.

    It’s not just gays either. Atheists, Christians, Jews, feminists, and any woman with a skirt higher than her ankles have reason to be afraid in societies dominated by Islam. In Indonesia, Christian Chinese citizens face regular persecution. The country is secular, but they’ve given part of their country to the crazies. Sharia Courts hold sway in the Aceh Region, where only this year a 60-year old Christian woman was caned for selling alcohol.

  • Summary: 

    William Lane Craig was invited by the undergraduate Christian Union at Imperial College, London to give a lunch-time lecture on "The Evidence for God". Dr. Craig presented seven arguments and then invited questions from the student audience. The lecture was web streamed at the time. This is a high definition film recording of the event which includes the previously unseen Q&A session. Imperial College, London, United Kingdom -- October 18, 2011

  • Summary: 

    The Golden Rule, in its negative or positive formulations, is incorporated not only in Christianity (Matt. 7:12), where Jesus declares it is a summary of “the law and the prophets,” but also in other major religions. For example, in Judaism, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor”; in Hinduism, “Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself”’; in Buddhism, “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful”; in Confucianism, “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do unto others.”

    I took this as evidence of the relative universality of rational ethical principles in the world. But in Islam, I could find nothing of the sort, rather just the opposite – a reverse Golden Rule, so to speak: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Be merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers” (Qur’an 48:29); “Never take unbelievers for friends” (3:28). Furthermore, the commands in the Qur’an to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite their heads (47:4) – accentuate distance from the Golden Rule.

Subscribe to Values