Sunday, October 29, 2006

Muslim solidarity and veiled threats

British blogpal and member of Joshua's Army Canker does himself proud with an excellent essay that, umm..strips the veil off of Muslim Council of Britain's duplicitous position on the current controversy in his native country over the Islamic femme facemask.

Here's a nice sample:

`The MCB (Muslim Council of Britain [no `Great': clearly, in their opinion that would imply something positive about the country in which they live]) have now had some time to bring forth their considered response to the veils row.

I've just spotted the response on their website. It's very helpful. I don't mean that in the welcoming sense. I mean it in the, deeply revealing, "let's reject all this criticism and see if we can get away with it" sense.'

He then goes on to pick it apart, point by point:

{The site says} "The veil, irrespective of its specific juristic rulings, is an Islamic practice and not a cultural or a customary one as is agreed by the consensus of Muslim scholars; it is not open to debate."

I almost feel that no comment is required. Let's get this straight, the veil or niqab, which is banned in several Islamic countries such as Tunisia, Turkey and (some would say) Egypt [note the casual death threats in the linked article], is not open to debate in the UK. It's an Islamic practice (check that article again and see the claim that it predates Islam by several centuries in the Arab peninsula).


"We advise all Muslims to exercise extreme caution in this issue, since denying any part of Islam may lead to disbelief. Not practicing something enjoined by Allah and His Messenger (Salla-Allahu alaihi wa sallam) - regardless its legal status (i.e., whether obligatory, recommended or praiseworthy) - is a shortcoming; denying it is much more serious. Allah says in the Qur'an: "It is not for a believer, man or woman, that they should have any option in their decision when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in a plain error. [translation of 33:36]"

This is the first/main veiled threat - "you are verging upon apostasy if you deny [any part of] Islam; and the veil is part of Islam. Remember what happens to apostates"

"we urge all members of the Muslim community to keep this debate within the realms of scholarly discussion amongst the people of knowledge and authority in the Muslim community. Allah says in the Qur'an, "When there comes to them news of some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they spread it (among the people); if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have understood it from them (directly)." [translation of 4:83] In another Quranic verse, we read the following instruction, "So ask those who know if you know not" [translation of 16:43 and 21:7]"

Got it? "Muslims will stick together and need to seek guidance from Islamic scholars in authority. To do otherwise is also to reject Islam."

Read the rest of it here.

Since Canker inadvertently supplied a bad link to the Arabic word `taqiyah' towards the end of his essay, I hope he doesn't mind if I define it for those readers who might not understand it.

And no, it's not something you drink with lime and a little salt.

Islam is unique among the world's religions in that it mandates two codes of ethical conduct - one towards fellow Muslims and a very different one towards non-believers..who are going to Hell and will eventually end up as Muslims, corpses or slaves anyway if you read the Qu'ran and the Hadiths.

Taqiyah is the Islamicly sanctified term for lying to non-believers, especially to advance jihad and Islam's eventual takeover of the world. Such dissembling to non-Muslims by Muslims carries no ethical baggage as it would for non-Muslims; nor does the breaking of treaties and agreements.

The statements on the Muslim Council of Britain's website, as Canker has shown are a superb example of taqiyah.

Or, to quote the words of Mohammed `War is deception.'

No comments: