Australian Politics Wiki - User contributions [en-gb]

Main Page

2024-05-09T02:45:33Z

Freediver:

Test

Welcome to the Australian Politics wiki. You can use this wiki for just about anything you want, so be creative and bold.

I am restricting editing rights to cut back on spam. New accounts require admin approval. Anonymous editing is not allowed.

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl]

You can add articles about yourself, your party or an issue you are interested in, no matter how minor. You can add blogs. You can even use this wiki to make yourself a home page for the OzPolitic forum. This wiki is intended to fill any useful purpose. Note that if blogs are popular I can also add a proper blog facility to OzPolitic.

Please delete or undo any spam that you see. Be ruthless with it.

[[Rotation_of_senators_after_a_double_dissolution]]

[[Fishing Party courts Coalition]]

[[Lefties take over]]

[[Political Animal]]

[[Australia]]

[[Politics of Australia]]

[[List of political parties in Australia]]

[[Islam]]

Main Page

2024-01-24T02:09:53Z

Freediver:

Test.

Welcome to the Australian Politics wiki. You can use this wiki for just about anything you want, so be creative and bold.

I am restricting editing rights to cut back on spam. New accounts require admin approval. Anonymous editing is not allowed.

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl]

You can add articles about yourself, your party or an issue you are interested in, no matter how minor. You can add blogs. You can even use this wiki to make yourself a home page for the OzPolitic forum. This wiki is intended to fill any useful purpose. Note that if blogs are popular I can also add a proper blog facility to OzPolitic.

Please delete or undo any spam that you see. Be ruthless with it.

[[Rotation_of_senators_after_a_double_dissolution]]

[[Fishing Party courts Coalition]]

[[Lefties take over]]

[[Political Animal]]

[[Australia]]

[[Politics of Australia]]

[[List of political parties in Australia]]

[[Islam]]

Islam and Australian values

2022-06-18T11:28:20Z

Freediver: /* Racism and antisemitism */

[[Islam]]

= What real Muslims think =

This article was put together following interesting discussions with several Muslims on the OzPolitic forum. Follow the links for more information. This article has been criticised as being unrepresentative of the views of Muslims. However, surveys by the Pew society show that around the world, many Muslims support the most barbaric aspects of Islam. In many countries, the majority of Muslims support stoning people to death for adultery, the death penalty for apostasy, and believe that women must obey their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/570][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388997344] That is why Islam is the greatest modern barrier to freedom, democracy and human rights, and why the threat posed by Islam to these fragile [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet] ideals must not be understated out of a misguided sense of political correctness.

= Conflicts =

This is a list I am putting together of apparent conflicts between Islam and Australian values, or between Islam and 'western' values. It comes from this discussion:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243

Islam differs from what most Australians typically think of as religion in that it doubles as a system of government.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/144#144]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
Islam holds that the legal standards developed in 7th century tribal Arabia are eternal and unchanging. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/76#76] Islam is an outright rejection of concepts like freedom, democracy, and human rights [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327799946][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008], though it is rare for a Muslim to directly acknowledge this and they often attempt to create a different impression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826] Muslims are commanded to live by the local laws if they are living in a non-Muslim state, but are also obligated to attempt to impose Shariah law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367461526]
The appropriate mechanism for turning a non-Muslim state into a Muslim one is ambiguous (or at least, not openly discussed).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/129#129]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1262474745/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353933060]
Hostility towards Islam is considered justification for conquest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/91#91]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/116#116]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Such hostility seems inevitable if a large group of people try to undermine our values and system of government. Muslims are forbidden from voting in 'secular' elections, so the overthrow of non-Muslim governments is presumably by force, either external or internal, as soon as they are powerful enough.

The vast majority of the world's Muslims share the interpretation of Islam described below, even though it appears 'extremist' from our perspective.

[[Deception of Non-Muslims]]

[[Faith Ratchet]]

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

The list is currently split into three groups - Freedom and Human Rights, Justice, Sex, and Other.

== Freedom and Human Rights ==

=== Freedom ===
Islam means 'submission'. It is a rejection of individual freedom and human rights. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332061805][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]

=== Slavery ===
Islam permits the enslavement of people captured through military conquest [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434/68#68] and the children of slaves. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332196921][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392646116/59#59] In addition, Dhimmis risk slavery for not following a complex and arbitrary set of discriminatory rules. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] Female slaves become concubines. Slavery was gradually outlawed towards the end of the Ottoman Empire, partly due to pressure from Great Britain, though it still occurs in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, slavery of women has been the last form to die out. Several African states still practice slavery under Islamic law. Many Australian Muslims support slavery.

=== Freedom of religion ===
Islam has spread primarily through military conquest followed up by the denial of freedom of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216] Islam is extremely intolerant of polytheism, non-Abrahamic religions, atheism, agnosticism, or new Islamic 'cults' that are based on Islam but claim new prophets since Mohammed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Incorrect interpretations of Islam are not tolerated and freedom of speech is openly rejected. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214785726/1#1] 'Shirk' (idolatry, polytheism etc) is considered the worst possible crime in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6] Islam shows limited tolerance towards Christianity and Judaism. The construction or repair of churches, synagogues etc is banned. Islam encourages a parent to beat a child for not praying [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231993677/44#44]. Blasphemy and apostasy attract the death penalty. The sections on apostasy, discrimination, justice, theocracy and blasphemy/free speech outline other ways in which Islam denies people freedom of religion. Any 'cultural heritage' associated with other religions must be destroyed on the grounds that it has no value and may encourage idolatry (eg the recent destruction of the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan). Muslims consider this a favour to mankind. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334996843]

=== Blasphemy/free speech ===
The penalty for blasphemy is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/23#23][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/33#33] Islam forbids criticism of God, Muhammad or Islam. It also restricts other areas of free speech. Phone sex lines for example would be illegal. The punishment for talking or acting gay is death by stoning (see section on homosexuality). Muslims often attempt to portray the death penalty for blasphemy, apostasy etc as being a different 'take' on freedom of speech, rather than an outright rejection of it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944] Muslims have threatened to sue OzPolitic to get it shut down.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/81#81]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/15#15]
Even apparently progressive Muslims support the erosion of freedom of speech and consider it inevitable that Muslims will be violent in response to mockery of Islam or Muhammad in the west.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Blasphemy laws make any kind of progressive reform within Islam very difficult. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360382901]

Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but seek out the flimsiest excuses to support the denial of free speech to Islam's critics, for example by insisting that a citizen journalist should have been banned from walking down streets with mosques on them, from talking to Lakemba residents and from criticising Islam, because she was "accosting" people. This was based on a single media report that quoted a member of the public accusing her of "baiting" people - ie asking difficult questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1533643370/197#197]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1532831241/536#536]
They will then turn around and equate a ban on face coverings in a courtroom with support for a nationwide ban on wearing burkas in public.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1533809902/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1531979449/165#165]

Muslims will claim to be the standard bearer for freedom of speech [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/236#236]
and western liberal morals [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/221#221]
and that Muslims share our exact views on this issue, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/43#43]
while also mocking the Charlie Hebdo solidarity movement and insisting that the right to draw pictures of Muhammad, and the defence of that right in response to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, is a 'distortion' of the true meaning of freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/234#234]
The Charlie Hebdo terrorist "attacks reflect genuine grievances felt by" terrorists and the broader Muslim community that should be addressed first, along with other grievances such as alientation (which causes terrorism). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
Instead of considering the cartoonists martyrs for freedom of speech people should act more respectfully instead. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were hate mongers who were merely victims of their own bigotry and it is a distortion of freedom of speech to suggest it involves standing in solidarity with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/248#248]
The majority of Australians want to ban criticism of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
Anyone who supports the right to criticise religion is an extremist. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/354#354]
People being afraid to mock Islam is an "oversimplistic dichotomy". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
The cartoons are "offence for offence's sake". This, and other unidentified forms of expression are "wrong and should be avoided." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
This view "just happens to coincide with the terrorists campaign to force them to stop." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
The theats posed by Islamic terrorism to freedom of speech represent "faux threats" and "fake, wishy washy western liberal morals" that are used to cynically smear Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/121#121][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/148#148][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/186#186][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910]
Muslims are intolerant of a "free market" of political and intellectual ideas, particularly from white people. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Self censorship is "absolutely" a reasonable course of action when it comes to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/105#105]
It is unclear whether existing laws make it illegal to mock Muhammad, or whether they should be changed to make it illegal. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/1#1]
When the media refrains from publishing Muhammad cartoons, it is because they are being "considerate and responsible" rather than because they might get killed, and it is hysterical and pointless to discuss the matter any further. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/2#2]
The Jews in the Australian Labour Party are trying to censor criticism of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/3#3]

An organisation of Australian Muslim women who petitioned to stop Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a famous women's rights campaigner) visiting Australia called it a 'victory for free speech' when she had to cancel her visit due to threats to her life. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491466442] Her colleague Theo van Gogh was assassinated in response to a video they made together calling for women's rights in Muslim countries, and the assassin left a message pinned to the corpse threatening Ali, western countries and Jews. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491382260]

Muslims and their apologists will deny that Islam is he greatest modern threat to freedom and democracy without being able to identify a single other threat. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626/14#14]

=== Apostasy ===
The penalty for a Muslim who rejects Islam is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1409475944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329307987/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434596646/3#3]
The term 'shirkh' encompasses many of the sins that are considered to put a person 'outside' of Islam and thus subject to this penalty [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6], however it has been hard to get more details on this.
For Sunnis, this includes Shiites and other 'heretics'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583/0#0] Rejecting Islam is interpretted broadly. Acting gay for example is considered apostasy (see section on homosexuality). Some Muslim scholars tried to change this (most recently in 1839) so that the death penalty only applied to treasonous apostates. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy] However mainstream Islam still considers the death penalty for apostasy to be correct. Also, since Islam is both a state (or form of government) and a religion, many Muslims consider apostasy itself to be treason. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25] Muslims often portray the penalty as being limited to treason, even though they have a very broad interpretation of apostasy,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1316600915/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1254303083/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1236559378/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280880642/11#11]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/38#38]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/45#45]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
or to attempt to justify the death penalty for apostasy on the grounds that some countries execute traitors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/32#32]

=== Women’s rights ===
Muslims see no contradiction in stating that men have authority over women and also claiming that men and women are equal under Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302027801/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/154#154]
Muhammad allowed men to beat their wives until they were 'green'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/105#105]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338868086/39#39]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
According to Islam, all women are stupid, deficient of mind, like domestic animals, lack common sense, lie, fail in religion, rob the wisdom of the wise and should never be trusted.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Women make up the majority of people in hell (hanging by their breasts), because they were not grateful of the favours their husbands did for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Muslims often claim that the treatment of women in Islamic cultures is superior. It is frequently claimed that denial of basic rights such as freedom of dress [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] is liberating. Women are required to start covering their bodies from puberty, apparently to prevent the objectification of women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/74#74][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26] Muslims often claim that the downsides associated with personal freedom in the west are actually the purpose of personal freedom – ie that women are only allowed to do as they please to facilitate men who want to take advantage of them. Women may be subjected to domestic violence (see separate entry). Wives are expected to ‘hasten to satisfy’ their husbands sexual appetite on demand. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] The testimony of a woman in court is considered half that of a man. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1] Women are not allowed to mix freely with men who are not relatives and must have their husband’s permission to leave the house. Women may not travel without a close male relative or shake hands with a man who is not a close relative. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Islam stipulates the minutia of a woman's life, including how she must breastfeed her children [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294] Women are discriminated against in inheritance law, getting half the inheritance of a man (on the grounds that some other man will look after her). Muslim men may marry four wives, including non-Muslims (Christians and Jews only [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]), but a woman can only have a single husband, who must be Muslim. In addition, Muslim men may take female sex slaves and have sex with ‘whatever their right hand possesses’. Islam rejects the concept of a man and woman falling in love and getting married. Rather, an old man may marry a child bride, who is expected to ‘grow to love’ him in humble servitude during the course of the marriage.

=== Economics ===

Islam has it's own peculiar economic system. The Muslim community has a 'difficult' history with, and philosophical approach to, the use of government funds. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1534310293] When foreign governments set up regional monopolies within Australia to approve Halal meat for export (and charge extortionist prices for doing so [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468052946/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468233758][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378852212/25#25]), Muslims attempt to pass this off as an example of how capitalism is supposed to work. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1393493672] This money supposedly goes to educating children. Similar excuses are made when the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils siphons off millions of dollars from the Australian government that should have gone to educating their own children in private Muslim schools. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30]

== Justice ==

=== Justice ===
Islamic courts consider the testimony of non-Muslims to be inferior, on the grounds that non-Muslims are inherently dishonest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223872802]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317211760]
Women are also considered inferior witnesses, and some crimes require male witnesses for a conviction, on the grounds that the witnesses must be reliable.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
A non-Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225427458]
Islamic etiquette requires Muslims to extend to other Muslims the benefit of the doubt, to make excuses for them, and to conceal their faults.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/32#32]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170/39#39]
"Whosoever conceals the faults of a Muslim, Allah will conceal his faults in this world and the Hereafter. Allah will aid a servant (of His) so long as the servant aids his brother." This, combined with other forms of discrimination, would cause problems that further undermine justice and erode the rights of non-Muslims.

=== Equality ===

Muslims try to spin the various discriminatory aspects of Islam into a narrative of equality and social justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395533499] The reality is that there is only tentative equality and justice (of a sort) for male Muslims. Muhammad created a pernicious caste system in a society where Pagans, Jews and Christians previously interacted as genuine equals.

=== Death Penalty ===

Islam prescribes death by stoning, a particularly cruel punishment, to many crimes. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1383609440] These include adultery, incest, prostitution, female genital mutilation (see clarification below), sex with a pre-pubescent girl, apostasy, heresy, paganism, banditry (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft Theft]) etc. Lesser crimes, such as fornication and masturbation, are punished by whipping. Homosexuality is punished the same way as adultery or fornication. Death by stoning involves burying men up to their chests and women up to their necks and stoning them to death. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/43#43] There are rules regarding the size of stones and distance of throw to prevent a quick death. I have not been able to get a straight answer on which crimes invovle death by stoning and what the other methods for carrying out the death penalty are. Muhammad appears to have preferred decapitation by sword when a large number (hundreds) of people needed to be killed (see collective punishment - not usually the case with crimes of sexual nature).

=== Collective Punishment, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing ===

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

All Muslims Support Genocide[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1543371381].

Islam supports the collective punishment of non-Muslims, particularly Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354282385/24#24]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_antisemitism]
This includes slaughtering and expelling entire Jewish tribes in response to crimes against individual Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894]
Muslims will argue that neither the execution of every single man from a defeated Jewish tribe, nor forcing all the women into sexual slavery is an example of collective punishment. The sexual slavery is even described as "protective custody". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/1#1]
Muslims will argue that it was the Jews who were intent on committing genocide.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/213#213]
Muhammad "prophesied" the ethnic cleansing of all non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula by his second successor Umar. He told Umar of this prediction in person. Umar partially fulfilled this prophesy, expelling all non-Muslims from the Hijaz area. Of course, all the non-Muslims brought this upon themselves by breaking covenants with Muhammad, and the harsh punishment was necessitated by the dire threats posed by the Jews and others to the Islamic state, and by the hostility of the Pagans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/4#4] Muslims will also attempt to pass this off as 'voluntary' conversion to Islam by every single pagan on the peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Christians were also expelled as collective punishment, resulting in the population of a large area (around modern day Saudi Arabia) becoming 100% Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288] Geopolitical strategy is cited as an excuse for forced relocation from the Arabian peninsula, and Muslims consider that the people involved were lucky not to meet a worse fate. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894] Muhammad used pillage and murder as a form of punishment. Muslims justify Muhammad 'putting down' people by citing later examples where non-Muslims were the perpetrators. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] Muslims will attempt to derail discussing of collective punishment under Muhammad into a debate about the meaning of the term, without offering an alternative meaning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantics]

Muslims will also try to justify Muhammad's career robbing Meccan caravans from his base in Medina as collective punishment of the Meccans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/136#136]

=== Torture ===

Muhammad often used torture and beating to extract information from people and to punish them (eg for consuming alcohol). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392514541]
Muhammad ordered the torture (and then beheading) a Jewish man by lighting a fire on his stomach. The purpose of this torture was to make him reveal where the Jewish gold was hidden. Muhammad then married the man's wife as a "gesture of goodwill" towards the Jews (the woman was regarded as being very beautiful). The men of the tribe were then killed and the women and children sold into slavery.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/28#28]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367418236/260#260]
Muslims will often attempt to justify the decade or so in which Muhammad robbed caravans and then conquered the Arabian peninsula by insisting early Muslims were tortured and mistreated, however no details have been made available.[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft]

=== Domestic violence ===
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48] Muslims will also say that Islam permits them to slap their wife to keep them in line, but will deny that this is domestic violence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70]
There is disagreement over the extent to which husbands are allowed to beat their wives, ranging from wife beating being ‘permissible but not advisable’ to a husband being permitted to strike his wife with a miswak so as not to leave bruises, but in a sufficiently violent demonstration of anger and frustration to break the woman out of her ‘nasty mood’. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227877786/35#35] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] Humiliation is also often stated as the goal of domestic violence in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70] Obviously, once you permit domestic violence, whatever moral limits that are placed on wife beating are bound to be breached in the heat of the moment even by a pious man, and completely ignored by others, especially as the wife must cover her body in public and may not leave the house without the husband’s permission. Absurdly, one legal recourse for a wife who has been beaten beyond ‘legal limits’ is to gain a court order to be allowed to beat her husband in retaliation. Muslims cite this as a demonstration of the fairness of Islam towards women.

There are several accounts of Muhammad beating his wives and laughing when other Muslims beat his (Muhammad's) wives. There are verses in the Quran the specifically permit wife beating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/197#197]

=== Discrimination ===
Islam preaches the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/4#4]
Islam's economy is essentially a protection racket targetted at non-Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225870861]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/310#310]
Non-Muslims must pay a special tax for the privilege of not having to slaughter other non-Muslims on Islam's behalf. This tax is applicable at all times, not just times of war. In Islamic society, Christians and Jews are referred to as 'Dhimmis'. Limited tolerance is extended to them, conditional upon a number of seemingly arbitrary discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/2#2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39] This is to force Dhimmis into a condition of humiliation, segregation and discrimination, so that even the lowliest Muslim may feel superior to them and thus not feel tempted by their material success. These rules extend to greetings, behaviour, clothing, transport, employment, trade, housing etc. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887] Dhimmis risk death or slavery for violating these requirements. Limited autonomy in the form of Christian and Jewish civil courts and administrations are allowed, but this is not extended to non-Abrahamic religions. All other types of non-Muslim people are treated far worse. Fellow Muslims who follow a different branch of Islam are considered non-Muslims and risk the death penalty for apostasy, especially if they promote their views in any way.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/59#59]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
Non-Muslims face institutionalised injustice (see justice above).

=== Democracy vs Theocracy ===
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]
Islam requires establishment of theocracy. Democracy is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/64#64]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/145#145]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
Secularism is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Islam combines what westerners typically consider to be religion and politics.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]
Muslims may elect a representative to implement Islamic law, but this is not required and the representative has no mandate to implement anything other than Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1] Candidates are limited to the most learned Islamic Scholars. Islam even forbids the 'Islamic' party of Australia and forbids people from voting for it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232631004/14#14] Islam also requires the resurrection of the Caliphate, which would mean a return to the bad old days of expansionist military empires trying to take over the world.

=== Treason and national allegiance ===
There is currently no Caliphate, but as soon as one is (re)created, Muslims are required to abandon the countries they live in and move to the Caliphate, which is where their true allegiance lies. This is likely to be in the context of a war between the Caliphate and other nations. If Australia was at war with the Caliphate, Australian Muslims would be required to take up arms against Australia. There is no clear guideline for identifying when this should occur, however many Australian Muslims believe that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

=== War ===

Muhammad executed or oversaw the execution of approximately 700 prisoners of war from a single Jewish tribe after defeating them in battle. Muhammad and modern Muslims attempt to "wash his hands" of this extreme punishment. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476] Even apparently progressive Muslims will describe criticism of this episode as "cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam", [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910] as well as try to justify it as necessary defense of a (then non-existent) Islamic state. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392294329] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabaian peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375266038][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604]

Islam requires its followers to establish an empire called a Caliphate. The religion itself is based on Muhammad's rule over his empire. All Muslims are required to return to this empire and to perform military service on its behalf [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66], unless they can buy their way out of it.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344740521]
Islam’s history was dominated by the rise and gradual collapse of a Caliphate. It is only recently that they have been without a ‘homeland’. If an Islamic empire wins a war, it can take all of the land and possessions from the people. The victors get to choose, based on what is most beneficial to the empire, whether the conquered people have to flee their land with nothing, remain with no land or possessions, or become slaves to the invaders.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61]
Situations like Israel and Northern Ireland, except more extreme, are the norm rather than the exception.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581]
Muslims often claim that the empire only spread through self defence, but this is clearly not true. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/44#44] For example, at the height of the empire, Muslims crossed the Mediterranean to join in a war in modern day Spain. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/14#14] After their initial victory, they turned on their one-time allies and slaughtered them also. They then proceeded to conquer the entire peninsula and send raids into modern day France. Muslims expect an Islamic empire to one day recapture Spain.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345026756/87#87]
In dealing with prisoners of war, Islamic doctrine permits a ruler to choose the most profitable or beneficial of four options: killing them, enslavement and possible sale, ransom or pardon.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234931054]
Many Muslims believe that the west has been in a state of war with the Muslim world since the 1920's.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128]
Muslims oppose any 'surrender' by Palestinians after losing a war decades ago on the grounds that a military victory by Muslims is imminent. They support peace treaties in this situation, but do not see them as a form of surrender. Rather, they are merely an agreement to temporarily halt the war and restart it later.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1406593144/49#49]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279]
Any treaty can be broken in this context as Islam encourages deception. Islam only permits its followers to obey a peace treaty for a maximum of ten years, after which war must resume.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232015305]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345155967/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145]
Muslims even equate refusal to surrender with not actually losing a war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/31#31]
Like the German people afer world war one, Muslims will also reject the legitimacy of any modern peace agreement.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315637372/10#10]
Muslims consistently seek out historical military losses by Muslims to use as justification for past, current and planned future aggression against non-Muslims, no matter how disconnected the events are.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/9#9]

=== Racism and antisemitism ===

Muslims believe that in historical conflicts between Jews and Muslims, the Jews were always to blame. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294] Muhammad set many examples of blaming Jews when he in fact was slaughtering or ethnically cleansing them. (See also Collective Punishment [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing]) At the same time, Muslims will insist that Islam is tolerant towards Jews and even encourages the protection of Jews.

Racism is technically against Islam, yet it is widespread, especially among politically active promoters of Islam. Nazis toured the middle east prior to WWII to drum up support for Hitler's cause and win allies. They brought the fervent antisemitism with them, which proved very popular with the locals. While the west was repulsed by the consequences of Hitler's antisemitism, the middle east and Muslims held onto it. The middle east had suffered a similar defeat to Germany, being part of a once glorious empire that slowly crumbled and was eventually dismantled by foreign powers. As always, Jews were an easy scapegoat for their misery. Having a tiny corner of 'their' territory handed over to Jews after WWII fueled the antisemitism among Muslims all over the world, to a far greater extent than the amount of land involved would suggest. Modern conspiracy theories about Jews are rife in the Muslim community and have not progressed very far beyond the crude style promoted by Hitler. Muhammad himself used anti-Jewish propaganda to further his political career and slaughtered many Jews. The justifications that modern Muslims give for the historical slaughter of Jews by Muhammad and for modern antagonism towards Jews is eerily similar to Nazi propaganda.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327483631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1343475620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212726620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338504963]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299483524]

Many Muslims consider Israel's destruction to be inevitable and oppose any surrender to Israel for this reason (see war [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War]). Muslims often portray Israel as being inflicted on the middle east by Europe and insist the Jews be sent back to Europe, however the greatest contributor to Israel's Jewish population were Jews that were expelled by Muslims from middle eastern countries - thus nearly completing Muhammad's prediction that this ethnic cleansing would happen. Those countries then attempted to invade Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372552172][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434]

Islam is not antagonistic towards Jews alone. Jews supposedly receive a measure of protection in Islam. Atheists, polytheists etc receive far worse treatment (see freedom of religion [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_of_religion]), while Shiites and any other Muslim groups that stray outside of what is considered mainstream Islam receive the death penalty for apostasy (see above).
Anti-white racism is also common and provides an easy way to blame non-Muslims for the collapse of the Islamic empire and the current state of affairs in the middle east. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330731658]

Muslims will also 'play the race card' to promote Islam. For example, they often insist that all criticism of Islam is based on racism, rather than a rational or moral objection to the teachings of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416194100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1319026216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231418706]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1437265164]
The same Muslims will also insist that calls to move Israel's population out of the middle east, justified on the basis that "Arabia is for Arabs" (and a clip from Lawrence of Arabia to show us what proper Arabs look like) is not in fact racism.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1461906947/332#332]
The explanation for why this is not racist included the fact that 'Arab' is a reference to a linguistic (and not racial) group, that the ethnic cleansing of the middle east can be justified by its history, and that critics of Islam were not sufficiently critical of other instances of racism directed at Muslims.

Muslims often fuel existing or historical racial hatred in order to create a sense of solidarity with a group of people through a shared victimhood narrative. For example, Muslims have claimed that Australian Aborigines had universities, embassies and effective quarantine programs for imports prior to the arrival of Europeans, thanks to the influence of Muslim traders from Indonesia. These Muslims also taught the Aborigines to violently repel Europeans and inspired them to several great military victories over European farmers. Part of this narrative is that Aborigines should have been more violent and that this would have led to a better outcome for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341787168]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338172056]
Muslims will attempt to sanitise racism in support of Australian Aborigines, by using propaganda that is almost identical to that used by modern neo-nazis, but with the identities swapped around. They will attempt to replace racial identities with "distinct societies" and ancestors from 200 years ago in an attempt to make racism appear more benign.
[https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1655551245]
In the USA, the Nation of Islam is a racist Muslim 'black power' movement - ironic given that the biggest racism problem in Islam's heartland is against Africans.

==== The Jewish tribes of Medina ====

Early in his career, Muhammad was expelled from Mecca. He was later invited to broker peace in nearby Medina, a city with diverse groups that were frequently in conflict with each other. Muhammad was seen as being independent. However for Muhammad, Medina was of strategic military importance. It was a stronghold from which he could rob caravans trading with Mecca, and he wanted to obtain absolute control of it. At the time there were three powerful Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad saw them as a strategic threat. Muhammad soon started openly preaching hostility towards the Jewish tribes, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/145#145] and within a few years had gotten rid of all three of them, on weak pretexts. After each major battle, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of some form of treachery and used this as an excuse to reneg on his agreement with them. The first tribe to be expelled were the Banu Qaynuqa, who as artisans and traders were in close contact with Mecca. After being strengthened by victory in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad publicly demanded they convert to Islam or meet the same fate. Muhammad besieged them and they surrendered after a fortnight. Muhammad wanted to slaughter them, but was convinced by a Muslim convert to be 'lenient' to them. This succeeded, however the convert was forever dubbed 'leader of the hypocrits'. Muhammad expelled the tribe, and kept all of their posessions. The other two tribes either remained neutral or supported Muhammad. After losing the battle of Mount Uhud, Muhammad accused members of the Banu Nadir of plotting to assassinate him (apparently an angel warned him of the plot). Muhammad expelled them also, again keeping their property. He became personally very wealthy by taking a large amount of their land for himself. The tribe initially agreed to leave, then refused, believing the third Jewish tribe would assist them. This help did not materialise and they surrendered after Muhammad besieged them for a fortnight. Muhammad later attcked them again, forcing them to become his subjects, hand over all the new land they had acquired, and pay 50% of what they grew as tax. In the battle of the trench, members of the third tribe (Banu Qurayza) assisted Muhammad, however the tribe entered into failed negotiations with the enemy. After the enemy departed, Muhammad was directed by an angel to attack the tribe, again besieging them for about a month. They surrendered, and Muhammad had all adult men in the tribe executed. The women were taken as sex slaves. Muhammad forced other Jewish tribes to pass the judgement and carry out the executions in order to distance himself from it and make it harder for the other Jews to hold it against him. Muslims will insist that the Jews were a borg-like, mindless collective in order to justify the collective punishment (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing Collective Punishment]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/122#122]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/9#9]

Thus, Muhammad established a pattern of behaviour of claiming victimhood while slaughtering Jews, taking Jewish women as sex slaves, confiscating their property, all the while while blaming Jews for their own mistreatment.

Muslims will attempt to 'flood' a discussion about the Jewish tribes a Medina with a long list of excuses and justifications. None of these justifications stand up to scrutiny, however Muslims will change between them rapidly in order to avoid detailed consideration of any one of them, in the hope that people will loose interest before gaining an appreciation of what happened. Some examples:

Jews were tribal and had no concept of individuality. The Jews were a 'mindless collective'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544]
The fact that there were only 700 of them shows they had a collective mind. The Jewish tribe failed to act consistently as a collective.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/22#22]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
The 'tribe' was punished for it's actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
The Jews were to blame for every conflict between Muslims and Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Muhammad needed a 'permanent solution' and it was impractical to continue detaining them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
Cricising this action is 'cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
The actions of Muhammad are morally equivalent to modern punishments for treason.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/27#27]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/24#24]
Current anti-terror and bikie laws also invoke guilt by association.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/35#35]
Their presence at the time of surrender proves their guilt, because they previously had the opportunity to commit treason by turning against their own tribe and joining the enemy that had laid siege to them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
Muhammad had learnt his lesson about the dangers of letting Jews live.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It is reasonable to ascribe collective guilt if they had the opportunity to distance themselves from the actions of other Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The Jews violated a treated that compelled them to come to the defence of the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
The fact that many of them actually helped Muhammad and the Muslims defend themselves is irrelevant to their guilt, because the tribe also acted against Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
Their treachery had nothing to do with refusing to help the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The tribe was judged by a Jew, according to Talmudic law and thus Muhammad was not responsible for the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
There was an ongoing war and the Muslims were fighting for their very existence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
One of the tribes had 'effectively declared war'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
The Jews and their allies were planning genocide of the Muslims, so it is only reasonable for Muhammad to commit genocide in anticipation of this.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
It is OK because Muhammad was not motivated by racism (he 'had Jewish friends').
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler was much worse, even if you adjust for the number of Jews available for slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler actually acted irrationally and undermined his quest for power by dedicating so many resources to slaughtering Jews, whereas Muhammad did it for more practical reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
You need to consider the historical context.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
The enslavement of all the women after the men were slaughtered was actually a form of protective custody.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
Sex slavery does not necessarily mean serial rape and there was a possibility of emancipation (eg by bearing a male child to their Muslim owner).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Other, more evil rulers, would have slaughtered the women and children also.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Only the Jewish POWs who had participated in fighting against Muslims were executed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
It just looks bad because of the holocaust, and thus Muslims are being blamed for the attrocities of Europeans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
The leaders had conspired against the fledgling Islamic State which had to be protected.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
By remaining in Medina, the Jewish tribe posed an ongoing threat to the new Islamic State, which was surrounded by enemies.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/6#6]
The tribe was too powerful and autonomous and acted beligerantly.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Primacy of self preservation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It was a serious situation and the Jews could not be handled with 'kid gloves'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/15#15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It doesn't matter whether their actions were right or wrong.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
It was not actually about punishment and it does not matter who was actually to blame.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
It is irrelevant whether they deserved the punishment. It's like a Clint Eastwood movie.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15#15]
The 'proper meaning' of collective punishment somehow excludes mass executions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
Collective punishment is an overly emotive term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
Collective punishment is a meaningless term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There is no point discussing whether it was collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Collective punishment has a different meaning today.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/98#98]
It was collective punishment, but it was justified.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
Punishing a group collectively is not the same as collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/49#49]
It has nothing to do with slaughtering POWs.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/239#239]
The expulsion/eradication of all three large Jewish tribes should be viewed as 'power-politics' rather than religious persecution.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/71#71]
Merely banishing two of the tribes instead of slaughtering them was a level of mercy previously unheard of.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/15#15]
Slaughtering 800 Jews in one day cannot be seen as intimidating.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There are significant differences between practicing and achieving ethnic cleansing.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/68#68]
Muhammad merely 'prophesised' the ethnic cleansing of Arabia, which is different from commanding it, and it was not completed until after Muhammad died.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was 'forced' to remove all non-Muslims from the Hijaz. Non-Muslims were given a 'chance' to live in peace with Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was committed to living peacefully with non-Muslims but was force to change for strategic reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Only those who actually fought the Muslims were killed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/61#61]
Punishing a group for a crime commited by their leader is perfectly consistent with punishing them for their own actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
Muhammad offered to let them go if they promised not to do it again, but they refused.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
It is not up to Muslims to back up any of the claims they make to justify the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/65#65]
It's OK because they were not bona fide Jews.

==== Blaming races for diseases ====

Muslims will hold Europeans collectively accountable for 'European' diseases introduced to the Americas. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/348#348][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1576746962/0#0] Arabs are also collectively accountable for 'Arab' diseases introduced by Arabs, but generally get an exception because their diseases were introduced "as a result of friendly traders making contact with natives in good faith and instigating trade based on mutual respect" (in fact the main item traded by Muslim Arabs were female sex slaves). Europeans get no such exemptions because European diseases were introduced to the Americas by Spaniards with the intention of raping the locals (Europeans were actually trying to discover an alternative trade route to Asia after the Muslim Ottomans made the land route too dangerous). Europeans are to be blamed regardless of whether the introduction of diseases was intentional. Muslims will even argue that the native Americans would have somehow avoided introduced diseases were it not for the sinister intentions of Europeans.

=== Honesty ===

Muslims often attempt to conceal aspects of Islam that they believe their audience will object to, or to mislead them about it
(see [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712]
Islam even forbids Muslims from making inquiries about Islam where they may feel uncomfortable with the answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360487801]
Muslims will insist that lying is permissible in a very limited set of situations, such as war (Muslims refer to this as taqiyya [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348]). They will attempt to argue that this means lying is not permitted in Islam, but also claim that they believe the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595] Historically (during the Caliphate) Islam divided the world into two parts - the house of peace and the house of war (outside the Caliphate, where lying about Islam is presumably permitted). Muslims are also encouraged to deceive in order to achieve peace, in particular by inventing 'good' information. However such fabrications are considered by Islam to not be lies, thus allowing Muslims to lie about Islam at the same time as insisting Islam forbids lying, without actually lying. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/79#79]
Sunni Muslims will also claim that Shiites permit themselves to lie, but not Sunnis.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583]

=== Honour ===

Islam regards honour highly, placing it above truth, compassion, freedom etc. A key reason given for the standards of evidence and for the death penalty by stoning for crimes of a sexual nature is to conceal people and to "make societies avoid accusations against people’s honour and aspersions on their lineages." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48] This is taken to the extent of claiming that they are liars in Allah's eyes (an issue of truth) if they cannot produce witnesses to back up their claims of sexual indiscretion, even if they know the claim to be truthful. A Muslim's honour is considered to be of 'grave sanctity'.

=== Theft ===

The penalty for theft is getting your hand cut off. Kleptomaniacs would get their hand cut off. If a weapon is used, then the punishment for 'banditry' applies: "they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474]

Although Muhammad forbade theft on a 'personal' level, he engaged in theft as part of his nation-building process, by robbing caravans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604] Muslims justify this theft by arguing that they felt persecuted by the people they were stealing from. They will also insist Muslims were tortured and mistreated by the people they were stealing from, however no details are ever provided to back up these claims. In a broader sense, this theft was performed by the Muslim community as a whole (often by a few hundred men) against non-Muslims. Muhammad later commanded his followers not to fight Jews and Christians if they paid a special tax (jizya).

== Sex ==

=== Sex slaves ===

In addition to their wives, Muslim men may have sex with female slaves (concubines [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1326238283/15#21]). Islam "abrogates" the marriage of captured (non-Muslim) women to make this permissible. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887]

=== Rape ===

Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332074116] Where sex is not permitted, rape is punished the same way as consensual sex. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/27#27][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474/13#13] Muslims reject the concept of 'consenting adults' and do not consider sex to be consensual unless God (ie Islamic law) permits it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/43#43] Islam requires a wife to satisfy her husband's sexual desires and does not recognise the need for consent based on the wife's choice.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/60#60]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
In other words, for a woman sex is either completely forbidden or obligatory at the whim of the man, depending on the context. Muslim men may have sex with slaves or 'whatever their right hand possesses', however Muslims distinguish between slaves that you have sex with and 'sex slaves', presumably on the grounds that only the owner of the slave may rape her legally.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330835332]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566]
Women caught through conquest may also be raped. Muslim's consider the rape of their slaves as a 'right' and even go so far as to describe it as liberating for captured women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/15#15] Rape of a non-Muslim woman under other circumstances is technically illegal under Islam, but the courts discount the testimony of non-Muslims as unreliable. In addition to the punishment for consensual sex, an 'illegal' rapist must also pay a dowry to the victim. If the victim is a slave, the rapist must reimburse for the reduction in value of the slave (presumably to the owner of the slave). This payment must be made regardless of whether the victim is a virgin (though this would presumably have an impact on the value of a slave). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Muslims often claim that the low rate of reporting of rape and pedophilia in Islamic societies is evidence of low occurrence, rather than legalisation of rape, the difficulties in achieving conviction and the barriers to reporting (many women who report rape often get convicted of sex related crimes). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773]

=== Pedophilia and child brides ===

Pedophilia was apparently common in Muhammad's time, and Muhammad is considered by Muslims to have been within his rights (according to the customs of the time [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/141#141]) to have sex with his child bride before she reached puberty. The most reliable sources explicitly state that she was 9 years old when he had sex with her. Despite numerous later references to her menstruating, there is no record in any Islamic texts of whether she had reached puberty at this time. Aisha possessed dolls at the time Muhammad had sex with her, but this is not proof she was prepubescent, as the ban on dolls for post-pubescent girls applies to playing with them, not possessing them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176] The meaning of 'maturity' in terms of age of consent depends on the context. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/174#174] In Muhammad's time girls were 'conditioned' to grow up quickly. Muhammad and Aisha were 'in love' when they married (when she was 6 years old and he was about 50). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176]

Although many Muslims insist that the age of consent in Islamic law is puberty, the concept of age of consent is not mentioned in any Islamic texts, despite for example puberty being stated as the age at which an orphan may be given rights to his property. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/225#228] There are some verses regarding the withholding period for divorced women that condone sex with prepubescent girls. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/144#144] These have been used by some Muslim clerics to specifically permit sex with pre-pubescent wives and even issue instructions on how to "deal with them" during the consummation. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/228#228] Child brides, including pre-pubescent child brides, are still a big problem in many parts of the Middle East and North Africa where Islam has had a strong influence on the culture.

Even where Muslim leaders rule that a husband must wait until his wife reaches puberty to have sex with her, Islam still effectively institutionalises pedophilia in marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057] A pedophile may have up to four prepubescent wives at any time, and as many slave girls as he can get his hands on. He does not have to marry the girls for life but can divorce them and get a new prepubescent wife as soon as they become too mature for his taste. The only caveat on this is that society trusts him not to actually have sex with them until they reach puberty. However, he may live with the girls and move wherever he wants. This, combined with the Islamic requirement for women to cover themselves from head to toe, the dislocation imposed on their lives, and the strict control that men exert over the women they own (eg, a wife requires her husband's permission to leave the house) means that institutionalised pedophilia is impossible to eradicate within Islamic law. Pedophilia outside of marriage is punishable the same way as consensual sex, however given the severe punishment for this and the pedophile-friendly marriage laws it is likely that many pedophiles will satisfy themselves within the confines of marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28] Attempts to eradicate organised 'extra marital' pedophilia (ie, pedophile rings) would be hampered by the same laws that prevent the discovery of pedophilia within marriage.

Pedophile marriages among Muslim communities within the west can go largely unnoticed, due to lack of interest within the Muslim community in preventing it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391854581][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773/10#10]

=== Incest ===

Muhammad married his first cousin. In Islam's traditional heartland the practice is common and causes many problems - both biological, in terms of congenital abnormalities, and social, in terms of arranged marriages, child brides, women's rights, etc. Up to 80% of marriages in some places are blood related. The level drops for immigrant Muslim groups in the west, but can still be as high as 40%. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1382857194/32#32] Muhammad's example no doubt makes it hard to advise people of the risks, given the inevitable hostility to the suggestion that Muhammad did something wrong and that his example should not be followed. The penalty for incest outside of marriage is the same as for consensual sex (death by stoning). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Arranged marriages ===

Islam prescribes arranged marriages. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196/15#15]

=== Polygamy ===

A man may have up to four wives (at a time) in addition to sex slaves (see below). A woman may have only one husband. She only needs one, as he provides whatever she needs. A Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but not an atheist one or one from a 'non-Abrahamic' religion. A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man. Muhammad was permitted roughly 11 wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480/3#3]

=== Love ===

Islam does not accept the conventional view of love, which is discarded as nothing more than infatuation, which disables reason and logic. Instead, women grow to love the husband who was chosen for them. This love is based around a belief in Islam as the one true religion. For this reason it makes no difference if a girl is married at the age of 6, 12 or 18, or how much older her chosen husband is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196] Islam facilitates domestic violence, and women are expected to be subservient to their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/9#9] If she cheats on her chosen husband, she is stoned to death (see adultery below). Muslims believe that this facilitates 'normal and healthy relationships within the confines of marriage'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

=== Adultery ===

The penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753]
No concessions are given in the case of organised marriage, which is the norm.

=== Fornication ===

The penalty for fornication (premarital sex) is 100 lashes. The penalty may be waived if the fornicators were not given the opportunity to marry before sex (eg because they couldn't afford it).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/5#5]

=== Prostitution ===

The penalty for prostitution is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Homosexuality ===

The penalty for acting gay or talking in an effeminate or gay manner by choice (ie excluding physical 'defect') is death by stoning. This is considered to be apostasy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/3#3]. The penalty for homosexual sex itself is the same as for adultery or fornication, depending on whether you are married.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28]
Apparently, very few gays would actually be executed because homosexuality simply disappears under Islam. That is, it is not driven underground by the death penalty; rather men just stop having sex with each other because they are Muslims and they live under Shariah law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11]
This can be contrasted with modern Saudi Arabia, where men can often be found having sex with each other in public toilets. Apparently, this can be attributed to the laws governing the lives of women being slightly stricter than the correct Islamic standards.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/15#15]
Such men are using other men as a substitute for women and are thus not gay, merely have gay sex. However the penalty for gay sex is the same regardless of whether you are actually gay. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11] An Islamic society that permits four wives per man, requires women to cover everything except their face and hands, to get permission from a man to leave the house and that bans unrelated women and men from interacting socially would apparently not run out of women and lead to the same situation as Saudi Arabia because not every man would have four wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24]

=== Masturbation ===

Masturbation is forbidden in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] The punishment is of a broad category called "ta'zeer". In the later Ottoman times, ta'zeer punishments ranged from fines and mild lashings to short prison terms.

=== Bestiality ===

The penalty for bestiality is death by stoning. The animal must also be killed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170] Some Muslims believe there is no punishment, except for killing the animal and selling it to a neighbouring village. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511]

=== Necrophilia ===

Necrophilia is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted, with the added restriction that the corpse has to be fresh. The Arab spring gave birth to serious efforts to legalise necrophilia (with a 6 hour time limit) and reduce the age of consent in Egypt. The legislation is currently before parliament. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1310028601/21#21]

=== Privacy ===

Muslims believe that what happens in the bedroom rarely stays in the bedroom and is harmful to society. They also believe that the law cannot be separated from morality on this or any other issue. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]

== Other ==

=== Art ===
Islam specifically forbids any depiction of any of the prophets (including Muhammad, Jesus, Moses etc). This includes pictures and statues. It also forbids any depiction of any revered person, or any person at all. Islam still permits art, but it is strictly abstract. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/20#20]

=== Alcohol ===
All intoxicants are forbidden. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347337305/7#7]

=== Circumcision ===
Circumcision of both men and women is practiced under Islam, though there is disagreement over whether it is required, recommended or merely permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215611509/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395430570/82#82]. The extent of female genital mutilation is controlled and those who cut too much off are punished with death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/7#7]

=== Clothing ===
A woman must cover everything except her face and hands. Her clothes must not be too tight fitting, in case her figure can be made out. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] Penalty????

=== Music ===
Musical instruments are generally forbidden, as they are 'pure evil'. Some Muslims consider singing to be illegal, while others will accept singing and possibly instruments provided the message of the song is acceptable, and also depending on the occasion (eg a wedding).

=== Personal hygiene ===
Muslims are required to remove all of their public hair, but no facial hair. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225352862] Islam provides detailed instructions on ablutions, wiping yourself with your hand, drinking camel urine etc.

== Achieving Change ==

I am still not sure how 'hard' Islam requires its followers to 'lobby' for these changes. There appears to be some confusion on this issue. The general rule seems to be for Muslims to peacefully tolerate modern laws until they are in a powerful enough position to force the adoption of Islamic law.

Wikipedia has a series of articles on controversies related to Islam and Muslims. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_related_to_Islam_and_Muslims]

= Can Islam Adapt? =

It is important not to view Islam, or compare it with other religions, in a historical vacuum. The rampant conservatism in the middle east is no doubt attributable to the longevity of the Ottoman empire and recent western 'progressive' influence which has been just as negative as positive. The 'closure of the gates of ijtihad' (cessation of religious enquiry) some time during or after the 10th century no doubt played a role. However this closure was more by consensus than by Quranic decree, so ultimately there is nothing ruling out a reopening. Western society took a long time to adopt separation of church and state as a core value. Islam appears to rule this out, which poses perhaps the biggest barrier to reform.
Islam requires its followers to contribute productively to any new society they move to. While this may be reassuring for the short term outlook, in the long term it does nothing to rule out a return to military conquest, terrorism and violent struggles for power.

On the upside, the abolition of slavery creates a valuable precedent for modern theologists to challenge what seem to be core tenets of Islam. Another factor in favour of change is that Islam has no generally accepted clerical hierarchy or bureaucratic organization. Thus, liberal movements can arise easily within Islam, as is currently happening. The same problem that allows extremists and terrorists to go relatively unchallenged also allows for progressive reform. Inevitably, Islam will undergo significant reform at some point in the future, or drag the rest of the world back into barbarism. It is crucial that the west allow this to happen, and not 'poison the well' by making the Muslim world associate western values with oppression and decadence.

= European Court of Human Rights and Sharia Law =

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the '''European Court of Human Rights''' determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-RefahPartisi2001jude.html

On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving the RP on the ground that it had become a "centre of activities against the principle of secularism". It also declared that the RP’s assets were to be transferred by operation of law to the Treasury. The Constitutional Court further held that the public declarations of the RP’s leaders, and in particular Necmettin Erbakan, Sevket Kazan and Ahmet Tekdal, had a direct bearing on the constitutionality of the RP’s activities. Consequently, it imposed a further sanction in the form of a ban on their sitting in Parliament or holding certain other forms of political office for a period of five years.

The Court considered that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions: (1) the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and (2) the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognised could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

= OIC vs Freedom of Speech =

In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination.

A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call “Islamophobia.”

Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own “ten-year program of action” which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan’s Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, “Fitna” — Wilders’ short documentary film that ties certain Quranic passages to Islamist terrorism —

is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code.

Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign” which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has “confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.”

In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned “Islamophobes” like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as “dhimmitude.”

Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from “politically incorrect” to “criminally punishable” activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do.

We are witnessing the spectacle of authors’ books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called “Human Rights Councils” on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other “Islamophobic” conduct.

Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of “Shariah-Compliant Finance.”

Let’s be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22:

If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.

On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don’t, you can legitimately be killed.

It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies’ demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today’s totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah —

and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.

www.rashmanly.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/7616/

Faith Ratchet

2021-01-08T23:20:17Z

Freediver: /* Islam as a ratchet */

[[Islam]]

Discussion: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1357182115]

= Cultural Memes =

The analysis of culture, religion and other societal norms from a Darwinist perspective has lead to the term ‘cultural memes’. These are analogous to genes or competing organisms undergoing a process of natural selection. This has lead to insight into the alternative ways that ideas can spread. This article deals with one particular way, for which the analogy of a mechanical ratchet is used.

= What is a ratchet? =

A ratchet is a mechanical device, usually used to prevent a wheel from turning backwards. Familiar examples include a boat winch and the handbrake on a car. You can pull the handbrake on easily enough, but you have to release the ratchet mechanism before it will go the other way to release the break. Zip ties (cable ties) are also a type of ratchet. The analogy of a ratchet is often used in economics, for example to describe a fee, tax or salary that can be increased under certain circumstances but never decreased.

== Ratchets in nature ==

Ratchets also occur in nature. The closest to a mechanical ratchet is a snake jaw. Snakes open their mouth very wide to swallow large prey, but do not have the ability to do this unless they have something to get their mouth around. This can be contrasted with a fish mouth, with has a bone structure and muscles that allow it to be rapidly forced open, sucking prey in. A snake’s top and bottom jaw are mechanically separate, as are the left and right jaws. A snake’s teeth point backwards, so food can only travel easily in one direction. A snake forces one jaw forward at a time, then uses it to pull the other jaws forwards. In preparing to eat a mammal or bird, a snake carefully orients the prey so that it is swallowed head first. Otherwise, the hair on the animal may prevent it from passing easily, causing it to get stuck and potentially trapping the snake with a meal in its mouth that cannot move forwards or backwards.
A ‘wait-a-while’ bush is similar to a ratchet, though the intention is not to trap, just irritate. Even a cobweb can be compared to a ratchet, as a fly tends to get itself stuck faster the more it moves.

== Faith ratchet ==

A faith ratchet, or ideological ratchet, is a belief system that incorporates a mechanism for preventing dissent. A faith ratchet grows in a fundamentally different way to most ideological movements. Rather than being adopted at a faster rate than it is abandoned, it grows by preventing people from abandoning it, meaning that the idea will spread no matter how slowly it is adopted, or how limited the circumstances are in which it is appealing. A faith ratchet typically presents two faces, one to the outside world to which it is attempting to appeal intellectually, and the other internally, where it employs a very different technique to maintain its grip. That is, the mechanism by which it spreads is very different to the mechanism by which it prevents abandonment.
This article explains the analogy to a ratchet, then gives examples of a ideological ratchets in action, including the historical spread of Islam, Nazism and Communism.

== Non-ratcheting ideologies ==

The concept of an ideological ratchet is perhaps best introduced with examples of ideologies that do the opposite. Many successful ideologies actually contain the seeds of their own destruction. They only succeed in being adopted on an individual basis and enacted collectively with significant support from people. The best example is pacifism, which is unlikely to last in the face of a competing ideology or institution that permits the slaughter of its opponents. Pacifism only gained broad support relatively recently. Other examples include democracy and freedom. Democracy is fragile in the sense that with every election cycle, any group that is intent on destroying democracy is given the opportunity to gain power in a bloodless coup. Freedom has even bigger problems, as it protects the rights of people to promote far more sinister ideologies. This explains the phrase “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance” and also the familiar arguments over whether it makes sense to restrict people’s rights in order to protect freedom. Birth control, women’s rights and population reduction movements have the potential to ‘breed themselves out of existence’ over long time scales, though they generally spread much faster and bring other advantages.

= Islam as a ratchet =

Islam can be considered an ideological ratchet because it incorporates several mechanisms for preventing dissent and anchoring the ideology in a way that allows people to adopt Islam but prevents people from rejecting it [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1609978609]. Note that this explanation should be interpreted in the context in which Islam grew – as a single, expansionist, military empire, rather than as the fragmented movement it is today. In fact, the fragmentation and internal violence we see today is analogous to the catastrophic failure of a ratchet when it is forced to move backwards.

The Quran contains direct instructions to convert people to Islam by the sword. This is consistent with Muhammad's actions. In the brief period at the end of his life when he was able to wage offensive war, he sent out several war parties to slaughter pagans and destroy pagan shrines. Entire communities were wiped out. Those who declared a political allegiance to Muhammad and Islam in order to avoid being slaughtered quickly found themselves under pressure to convert to Islam in the spiritual sense. Muslims will actually try to pass these verses off as a just war doctrine of self defence and proportionality.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Oppression]

== The geopolitical ratchet ==

Islam spread in a fundamentally different way to other historical religions. To begin with, we introduce the concept of the house of peace and the house of war. This is how Islam views the world, with the house of peace being the Caliphate (historical Islamic empire) and the house of war being everything outside the empire. The borders of this empire are the first ratchet, and they mark the boundary between two fundamentally different faces of Islam.
Outside its borders, Islam spread in a similar way to political parties. Islam permits lying and deception in the context of war, and the only limitation to this appears to be what Muslims can get away with (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims Deception of Non-Muslims]). The ratchet-like nature of the political boundary of Islam resolves any theological problems that would otherwise arise with encouraging followers to deliberately lie about the religion. In effect, it does not matter what lies were told, because once a region is incorporated into the empire, the ‘correct’ version of Shariah law is imposed and people figure out soon enough what Islam is really like.
Muslims often promote the idea that the Islamic empire spread due to the popularity of its lower taxes, even though non-Muslims pay extra tax.

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

=== Exploiting disaffected minorities ===

Muslims exploit disaffected minorities and often promote stories of the slave becoming the master. Obviously this applies to racial groups, but not social groups such as homosexuals. In Australia, Islam busily recruits in jails
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395023877]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214780471]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214780471/6#6]
and aboriginal communities. Similar patterns are seen in the US. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395023877/4#4] Islam’s laws regarding arranged marriages with pre-pubescent girls are no doubt popular in the pedophile wings of modern prisons. Islam’s laws regarding women’s rights would be popular with wife beaters and many rapists. It would also appeal to men who have had their children taken away from them. Muslims have attempted to re-write Australian history to a version that paints aborigines as
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337937414/49#49 glorious victors]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338172056]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/31#31],
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341787168 academics],
worldly travellers etc, all with the assistance of friendly Muslim visitors. According to this story, aborigines should have been more violent and hostile to European immigrants.

=== Conquest ===

The Islamic empire spread in a similar way to other historical empires, by taking advantage of every opportunity that arose. It showed now particular preference for militant conquest, threat of force, or diplomacy. Muslims often attempt to misrepresent the militant expansionism as entirely peaceful and based purely on self defense, no matter how absurd the argument becomes. (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Revising_history:_science_and_the_.27peaceful.27_empire_fairytale Rewriting history]) They paint Islam and Muslims as the perpetual victims or the glorious victors, depending on the impression they are trying to paint at the time, but never as an aggressor or oppressor. This allows Muslims to replace their history and identity with an elaborate fantasy, and to present this fantasy to the rest of the world.
Muhammad and his successors slaughtered anyone who changed their mind about Islam once faced with its reality. (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide]). Muslims consider any land that was once incorporated in the empire as still belonging to the empire and consider it natural that it will one day be recaptured in a military sense in the name of Islam. This includes Spain, Israel, India etc. Muslims consider peace treaties to only be temporary and Islam compels them to resume hostilities after 10 years of peace (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War War]).
Any mistreatment of Muslims is considered to be justification for invasion. Muslims would not tolerate the kind of treatment they impose on non-Muslims within the empire if they were in a position to invade.
These ‘rules’ create conditions where the empire will spread outwards far easier than it will contract – thus the analogy of the ratchet.

== The legal ratchet ==

Just because a region comes under Shariah law does not mean that the people become Muslim immediately. No doubt Shariah law was implemented gradually and spearheaded by local converts, to avoid a sudden shock between how Islam was promoted outside the empire and how Shariah law is enforced from within. A brutal death awaited anyone who openly campaigned against Islam or Shariah law (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Blasphemy.2Ffree_speech Blasphemy/free speech]). Islam’s legal and economic system employs every trick in the book to disadvantage non-Muslims (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice Justice]).

== The faith ratchet ==

The grinding oppression of non-Muslims creates an incentive for people to at least pretend to be Muslims. Whether the conversion is genuine or fake does not matter to the outcome – the individual now faces the death penalty for apostasy if he changes his mind. Children of Muslims inevitably become Muslims themselves and it is hard to imagine a child standing up to his community and rejecting Islam before being faced with the death penalty for apostasy (if this is even possible). Islam considers that people are born Muslims. They do not ‘convert’ to Islam, but rather ‘revert’. Obviously the death penalty for apostasy only applies to Muslims who abandon Islam. The abandonment of other religions and political ideologies is encouraged, if not imposed - hence the analogy of the ratchet.
In this way Islam moves from underhanded political tactics, to military tactics, to legal tactics to grow as a political movement, as an empire, and then as an ideology or faith. At each stage, anyone who goes against the flow faces the death penalty (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy apostasy], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Blasphemy.2Ffree_speech blasphemy] and [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide collective punishment]). There are several additional mechanisms employed by Islam to spread for which a ratchet makes a good analogy.

== The sex ratchet ==

Islam uses sex as a weapon both for internal control and for militant expansionism
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape rape] and
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Love love]).
It creates a
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330835332 slavery - rape and pillage complex]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224649993]
that further facilitates the spread of Islam. Islam permits men to marry up to four wives. Muslim men may marry non-Muslim women, but not vice versa. Muslim men may also have sex with their slaves (concubines). The offspring of such rape are considered to be Muslims. A slave woman may gain her freedom by bearing her owner a male son. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332196921] The age of ‘consent’ is usually set at puberty (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia pedophilia]), though Muhammad never made any attempt to prevent pedophilia during his reign. Islam permits arranged marriages of pre-pubescent girls, considers marriage itself to be a form of consent to sex, and considers God’s consent to sex to be more important than that of the woman involved. The only legal way to obtain slaves under Islam is through war. Muslims will point out that many men are inferior and simply not up to the job of looking after a wife.

The impact that this has on society would be dramatic and the problems it creates are still evident across much of the middle east, including sex slavery and large numbers of men being unable to afford a wife. To start with, if men can marry up to four women, there will not be enough women to go around and there will be large numbers of young men to whom the situation seems hopeless. These men are the cannon fodder of Islam. Islamic society rejects the western view of love and replaces it with arranged marriages and large dowries. This means that the rich and well connected (ie upper class, Muslim) men are likely to have multiple wives. In fact, even Australian converts to Islam adopt the belief that many men are simply too inferior to have and support a wife. For the desperate men, one way out of this is to capture a wife or sex slave in battle. In this way Islam can produce large numbers of young men to fight wars. Fighting in these wars is compulsory under Islamic law – unless of course you are rich enough to buy your way out of it. So as well as being able to afford multiple wives, the upper class avoid military service. The empire has a seemingly endless supply of soldiers and the family units (harems) are not broken up by war, thus ensuring the women continue to produce offspring (who are Muslim by definition if the father is Muslim, regardless of the mother’s opinion). This is facilitated by strict control of women’s lives, including covering their bodies in public, not leaving the house without a man’s permission, and not interacting socially with an unrelated male (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Women.E2.80.99s_rights Women’s rights]).

Islam’s rules regarding war create the antidote to the problem of a shortage of women. Women captured during battle can be taken home as sex slaves, and the children born from the sex slavery must be raised as Muslims. Many men from both sides will die. Prisoners of war may be executed en masse if it suits the interests of the empire. Muslims also have the choice of expelling the people they conquer, allowing them to remain in the land after forfeiting possession of everything they own, or allowing them to remain as slaves, with the women inevitably becoming sex slaves. So for the most part women are faced with a choice of sex slavery or death by starvation and misadventure. Again, the decision is based on what is in the interests of the empire at the time. Muslims consider it a generosity on their part to take the women from the other side as wives.

In addition to compulsory military service, the prospect of sex itself is used as a recruitment tool for new soldiers, and Muslims go to extreme lengths to hide their women away from unmarried fellow citizens. Even today, "sex Jihad" is a real problem, with Muslim women freely signing up to travel to war zones to have sex with Muslim soldiers, often returning pregnant and with diseases such as AIDS. All wealth is also taken by the empire – the whole gamut of rape and pillage is permitted, so a Muslim man with no hope of marriage, family or wealth can achieve all these things by slaughtering non-Muslims.

This facilitates the geopolitical ratchet by providing a steady supply of cannon fodder. If all else fails, Muslim men are still compelled to perform military service. It also facilitates the ideological ratchet within the borders of the empire. Allowing Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women (but not vice versa) and also to take sex slaves, and demanding that the children all be raised as Muslims (and thus face the death penalty for apostasy) provides an additional mechanism by gradually breeding out other religions. The deprivations imposed on non-Muslims and the eagerness of Muslim men for multiple wives through arranged marriages ensures that some of the non-Muslim citizens will be forced into effective prostitution by marrying off women in exchange for a large dowry, in order to survive.

Muslims also use sex to attract newcomers to the religion, by claiming that there are many women converting. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390714478/22#22]

== The incest ratchet ==

Islam encourages and facilitates consanguineous marriages (ie incestuous, between blood relatives). These cause a number of health issues among children of these marriages, as well as a significant reduction in IQ. This reduction in IQ is likely to make Islam more attractive as an ideology. See [[Islamic Incest Ratchet|main article]]. This article presents the Quranic support for incest, evidence of the actual rate of incest by country, the health effects on children of incestuous marriage, the impact this has on IQ in Muslim countries, and an argument for how this lowering of IQ makes Islam more popular.

== The slavery ratchet ==

In addition to sex, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Slavery slavery] itself is a form of ratchet under Islam. The only way for a man to escape slavery is to convert to Islam. Women may also escape slavery by bearing their owner a son. Whether Muslims, slaughter, expel, impoverish or enslave people conquered in war is dictated by the needs of the empire at the time. Both expulsion and slavery enable forced dislocation of conquered people, as slaves can be sent to any part of the empire.

== Some more history ==

Islam is a political system similar to a dictatorship or theocracy that maintains a tight grip on power. For most of its history, Islam existed within an empire, taking whatever opportunities arose along its borders to spread. The spread of the ideology followed the political borders. Once incorporated into the borders, a community was effectively trapped. Note that the ratchet analogy applies more readily to the land than to the people, as the people were not prevented from fleeing.
No other ideology in history had its growth so closely aligned to the growth of a state. In contrast, most other successful ideologies spread fluidly and were adopted across a variety of cultures and nations. The Islamic empire grew from AD 622 to 750 to incorporate Spain, north Africa, the middle east, and into Pakistan, after which it’s growth was much slower and the vast empire was subject to internal fractures. Where the borders of the Islamic state stopped growing, Islam stopped spreading. However, within those borders, Islam gradually established itself in a religious and cultural sense and then maintained a tight grip on power. Some Christian and Jewish communities survived, as these are specifically ‘protected’ by Islam. However most of them disappeared. Muhammad himself slaughtered many Jews on the weakest of pretexts. Other religions and cultures mostly vanished (paganism is a crime in Islam).
One notable exception to this general rule is the far east of the empire, where Islam spread into modern day Indonesia. The Islamic movement in this region was more recent, far more fractured and did not persist long enough to eradicate other religions (not for lack of trying). Modern Muslims in this area tend to be far more tolerant of others.
Around its borders, Islam presented its two faces. Outside, it used every political trick available to drum up support and undermine confidence in neighbouring state governments, as many Muslims do today. Muslims had over a thousand years to get this down to an art form, and the modern promotion of Islam reflects an astute political movement that makes other religious leaders look politically naive. Of course, this did not always work. Conveniently for Islam, it considers any mistreatment of or hostility towards Muslims as grounds for military invasion. On this pretext, Muslims often attempt to characterise the growth of the empire as growth through continual self-defense and voluntary surrender to the Islamic empire by neighbouring people who preferred its taxation or economic arrangements. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493]
Part of the political face Islam projects externally is that of the perpetual and hypersensitive victim. Modern Muslims attempt to portray Islam as the historical victim even as the empire spread across most of the known world within a few centuries. They use any incorrect criticism of Islam to perpetuate the image of victim-hood, while at the same time refusing to clarify unpopular aspects of Islam, again playing the victim card with accusations of unfair questioning, unfair hostility etc.
Muslims reinforce any misconception about Islam that might make it appeal to non-Muslims. For example, modern Muslims may constantly attack freedom and democracy and portray the intention of freedom as the encouragement of bad choices. For example, they claim that anyone who speaks out for women’s rights is only doing so because they want to be able to take advantage of vulnerable women. They may even concede that Islam is hostile to freedom and democracy. Yet the same Muslims will turn around and pretend that Islam is tolerant or even supportive of freedom and democracy if they find an audience willing to believe this.
Inside its borders, Islam uses every trick in the book to suppress dissent. These mostly revolve around discrimination against, or outright hostility towards non-Muslims, and very severe punishments for saying or doing the wrong thing. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice]
Worshiping the state, and demanding such worship, is a good way to maintain patriotism. The death penalty for apostasy or paganism is a good way to establish the state religion. Islam replaces private banking with Islamic banking on the pretext of outlawing usury. However, this makes obtaining a loan very difficult and subject to the whims of Islamic community leaders. Muslims tend to be hypersensitive to criticism or mockery, as the global outrage over the Muhammad cartoons demonstrates. Lynch mobs can be very effective at discouraging the promotion of any political, economic, religious or cultural idea that is at odds with Islam.
Islam outlaws genuine democracy. It does permit consensus or voting to choose leaders, however, only Muslim men are allowed to vote and the winner only has a mandate to implement Islamic law. Islam even incorporates procedures for deposing any Caliph who strays from Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice]
Women are treated as second class citizens, as are non-Muslims with ‘protected status’ (ie, Christian and Jews - Muslims must refrain from killing them). For example, the testimony of a non-Muslim in an Islamic court is considered inherently untrustworthy, putting justice out of reach of non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are forced to pay a special tax. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice]
These various forms of discrimination no doubt resulted in many people claiming to be Muslims just to get by, however the price was very high. It included the death penalty for changing your mind, compulsory military service, 5 prayers a day, Islamic schools and a myriad of laws governing the minutia of everyday life.

== The ratchet in action ==

=== Malaysia ===

Malaysia is a good example of the Islamic ratchet in action in modern times. Malaysia lies on the eastern extremity of Islam's historical reach, and is often cited by western Muslims as an example of a liberal Muslim society. The need to survive among politically strong Hindu populations in India as they moved east made these Muslim communities some of the most tolerant and savvy in the world, yet the nature of Islam is still revealed through their actions.

Ethnic Malays are mostly Muslim and make up roughly 61% of the population. Ethnic Indians and Chinese make up the rest of the population and are mostly of other religions. Malaysia was part of the British empire and inherited a secular Westminster style democracy as well as constitutional protection of freedom of religion. Most of the Indian and Chinese immigration occurred during the British rule. Though they only barely form a majority of the population, those Muslims who support Shariah law are gradually using their power base to undermine democracy and the rights of non-Muslims, using many of the techniques described above. Some examples:

* Islam is the official state religion.
* The Malaysian government forces all citizens to carry identification cards that state their religion. The Malaysian government considers all ethnic Malays to be Muslim. Thus the figure of 61% Muslim may significantly over-estimate the number of Muslims. As an indication, a recent Pew survey showed that 86% of Malaysian Muslims support Shariah law, though it is unclear whether the Pew survey used self-identified Muslims as the basis or the Malaysian government's classifications, or how much difference that would make.
* For the most part, Muslims are forbidden from apostasising (rejecting Islam). Conversion to Islam is a simple and quick process. It takes only a few minutes and converts are given a financial allowance. Conversion from Islam is effectively impossible. Apostates are currently sent to 're-education' camps. In the 1990's, one state with a high proportion of Muslims even passed a law (with democratic support from locals) to execute apostates, however this was struck down by Malaysia's federal government on constitutional grounds.
* Malaysia has two separate, parallel legal systems - one for Muslims based on Shariah law (as defined by the religious leader in each state) and a secular law for non-Muslims. Where there is a jurisdictional conflict, Muslims usually force non-Muslims into the Shariah system.
* Non-Muslims are actively discriminated against by government employment rules. The judiciary, civil service and police have quotas for the ethnic majority Malays (who are considered Muslim by the government). Prestigious government run residential schools only offer places to ethnic Malays, and they are also favoured in tertiary education.
* Muslims cannot marry non-Muslims. Given that it is impossible to renounce Islam, Muslims seriously suggest that one of the spouses convert to Islam, despite the fact that in such circumstances it is likely that both people are not Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1389655854/8#8]

If pro-Islamic movements gain strength, the Malaysian example of Muslims tolerating multiculturalism and freedom of religion has a very bleak future (not that it is a particularly good example to begin with). The British democratic and constitutional heritage can not survive against a population that is hostile to democratic ideals.

Malaysia also provides an interesting demonstration of the two faces of Islam. Outside of Malaysia, Muslims work tirelessly to misrepresent what Malaysian Muslims are doing in the name of Islam. For example, when presented with evidence in the form of a survey that that majority of Malaysian Muslims support the execution of apostates and stoning adulterers to death
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1386405172/161#161]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/499#499]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387333750/33#33],
an Australian Muslim claimed to know from personal experience how Malaysians "really felt" about the issue.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1480455429/15#15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388997344]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388619982]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/659#659]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1460714356/150]
This is despite the fact that this person had never actually asked any Malaysian Muslims what they think about applying the death penalty to these "crimes". '''Correction and apology: Gandalf now insists that he did ask them what they think, but refuses to reveal what the response was, preferring instead to explain why it is not necessary for him to actually ask them, and to pretend I never asked him whether he put the question to them in person.''' [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522/116#116]

Some of the claims made include:

* Malaysian Muslims only indicated support for these barbaric laws because they were presented in an abstract sense. They would have a different view if they were actually voting on the issue.
* Although the majority of Malaysian Muslims support the punishments, it would never become law because they are not motivated to achieve that.
* There is no serious debate on the issue in Malaysia.
* The laws have never come to pass because Malaysian Muslims do not actually support them (although just over 50% of Malaysian Muslims support these laws according to the survey, they make up less than 1/3 of the total population).
* If they truly supported these laws, they would have achieved them by now.
* If there ever was a serious attempt to introduce these laws, the public debate would expose Muslims to the true barbarity of them and they would change their mind.
* Non-Muslim Malaysians support the "right" of Muslims to apply these laws to "themselves" (even in the context of executing apostates). One cannot assume that they oppose them without evidence. This argument was made to support the case that it is lack of motivation or lack of actual support among the 1/3 of the population who support the laws (according to the survey) that is the real reason that Malaysia does not have these laws.
* An explanation is needed for why Malaysia has not already passed these laws (other than the fact that Malaysia is a democracy in which 2/3 of the population oppose the laws).
* Malaysia only has a "handful" of rehabilitation camps for apostates, and the laws are easy to get around. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1389655854/8#8]

These points were strongly argued until it was pointed out that one particular state with a higher proportion of Muslims had already passed the death penalty for apostasy into law during the 1990's (it was struck down by the federal government on constitutional grounds).

=== Aceh ===

The spread of Islam west across North Africa and into Spain, as well as east to Pakistan, closely reflects the 'faith ratchet' presented here. Islam did however spread much further east, and today there are large numbers of Muslims in places like Indonesia and Malaysia. This eastern spread lacks the initial military conquest and 'top down' imposition of Islam that makes the current Western extent of Islam match the original Caliphate so closely. The more recent spread into Southeast Asia may be partly due to a clash of cultures in which Muslims from the west had more advanced technologies - similar to European conquest of the new world, but on a much smaller scale due to the less significant cultural differences. Islam has a much shorter history in the east than it does in the territory captured by the first Caliphate.

The spread of Islam without political imposition is not without doctrinal precedent. Muhammad's early career shows his effective promotion of Islam from a very weak political position. During this time Muhammad preached what could (very loosely) be described as pacifism and tolerance. Modern (and historical) Muslims that find themselves as small minorities tend to present this face of Islam. It was not until Muhammad gained unchecked power that the 'rape and pillage' aspects of Islam were revealed. There is clear doctrinal guidance for interpreting the apparent contradiction: the later, more violent aspects 'abrogate' (ie, replace) the earlier more tolerant aspects. Although the illusion of pacifism is shattered by terrorist attacks in the west, modern Muslims spreading Islam in the west employ many of the strategies used in Muhammad's early career, as did those who spread Islam east from Pakistan. Modern Muslims for example manage to claim victimhood status in the west despite the high death toll from their co-religionists.

Aceh province in Indonesia is a good example of this process. Aceh was the first place that Muslims settled in South East Asia. Although modern Aceh is associated with violent Islamic separatist movements and one of the most traditional and conservative Islamic societies [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1470125988], it was originally settled by Sufi Muslims. Sufism is the 'inner, mystical dimension' of Islam. Sufis are generally regarded as more peaceful and tolerant - almost the 'Hare Krishna' version of Islam (with some notable exceptions [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1459123428]). It is ironic then that today, Sufis in Aceh face the dual threat of bans on their schools (and the basis of blasphemy) and terrorist attacks [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1456110277/25#25].

= Nazism and Communism =

Though less successful, Nazism and Communism are also ideological ratchets. Nazism has clear mechanisms for destroying dissent. Although communism and socialism are predominantly economic ideologies, as a broader movement communism incorporated the suppression of dissent. In contrast, aspects of socialism have been adopted to varying extents by all modern democracies.
Nazism has a lot in common with Islam, though it rose and fell on a much smaller time frame. The Nazi party rose to power democratically, which is not too dissimilar from the narrative of Muhammad’s initial rise to power. The Nazis then disbanded democracy and killed or threatened political opponents, much like Muhammad. Under Hitler, the Nazis expanded their reign further in a military sense, while at the same time cementing their internal control. The anti-Semitism of the Nazis is also eerily similar to that of Islam. A key difference may be that Hitler did not confine his expansionism within achievable limits, however this may have more to do with his opponents allying against him rather than over-ambition. Divide and conquer was not as simple to implement in 20th century Europe as it was in Muhammad’s time. Had Hitler been able to hold onto power, he may have established his desired thousand year reign, much like Muhammad’s, particularly if he had put his plans into a book that could later be turned into a state ideology that combines religion, politics, economics, culture, law etc.

= Pushing the ratchet beyond its limits =

Obviously no ratchet is perfect. If it actually works, then it will continue to grow until something snaps, or until it takes over the world. Fortunately for us, something has always snapped. Like the failure of a mechanical ratchet, this was not always a pleasant event, though it was better than the alternative.
Communism’s failure is largely attributable to the economic failure of the economic system, which weakened the USSR and made people reluctant to adopt the ideology.
Both Nazism and communism simply grew too big in a geopolitical sense. Despite the genuine success of the Nazis, they tried to take over too much and spread themselves too thin.
The Islamic empire grew to take over much of the known world. Unlike Hitler, Muhammad achieved his ‘thousand year reich’. This was in a time where practical limitations on communication and transport made the management of such a large empire difficult. Thus it was inevitably subject to internal fractures resulting from power struggles and different versions of the ‘one true faith’. If your religion incorporates politics and tells you to kill anyone who attempts to misrepresent your religion, then arguments over religion and government inevitably turn nasty. Islam was a victim of its own success in other ways. The communities at the heart of the empire did not face war for many centuries. When the Mongols broke through the hostile border of Islam, they easily marched into Mecca. However, they too fell victim to the faith ratchet and the Islamic empire rose from the ashes. It did not completely collapse until relatively recently.

== Unravelling the Islamic ratchet ==

The ongoing violence across the middle east and beyond is the unravelling of the Islamic faith ratchet. The first nail in the coffin was the abolition of slavery, which occurred in the dying decades of the empire under pressure from Great Britain. Islam is a religion of power and success, and did not have any robust means of handling the obviously far more powerful and successful nations of the world, including Great Britain, the US and even Russia and China. Earlier defeats of Islam were almost always followed with a reconquest and victory (Spain being a notable exception). Islam even has a rule that a negotiated peace treaty with non-Muslims may only be honoured for up to a decade – the only options are victory or ongoing war (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War war]). However, for the last few centuries Islam has known nothing but serial defeat. The response in many parts of the Muslim world has been to continue to fight in the face of defeat and abject suffering, with faith in an inevitable, if distant victory for Islam and the re-establishment of the empire.
The internet and rapid communication is making traditional methods of suppressing dissent difficult. Where stoning an apostate to death in the past may have frightened everyone else into submission, today it gets posted on the internet and the whole world criticises Islam. Now, Islam is faced with the establishment of democracy and individual freedom in its traditional heartland. Conservative Muslims are not going to let this happen without a fight.
It would be naive to assume that this will be a peaceful transition, or even that the violence will end as quickly as it did elsewhere in the world (eg the French revolution, the American war of independence). The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are turning into protracted civil wars between fledgling democratic governments and various Islamist groups (mostly Sunni and Shia) pushing competing versions of Islamic utopia. Muslims are still terrorising people into submission within Islam’s borders, for example by openly threatening with death anyone who uses the new justice system in Afghanistan. Outside of Islam’s borders, they are still presenting Islam as the eternal victim, claiming that the Iraqi and Afghan people simply want to be left in peace to return to their preferred method of government and that the election outcomes are rigged and not a true representation of the will of the people.
The faith ratchet still has a tight grip on these pieces of land and will take a lot of skin with it as it unravels.

== Democracy ==

Modern Muslim communities still seem lost without the Caliphate. So many Muslims are openly hostile to democracy (which is forbidden by Islam) that it is virtually impossible for democracy to gain a foothold in the middle east. There are many groups attempting to impose their own version of Shariah law. Unfortunately these laws include killing anyone who openly promotes alternative versions of Shariah law. The outcome is of course that dictatorship eventually prevails and different Muslim groups undermine or openly attack each other as soon as one groups appears close to impose their own version of Islamic utopia. Islam forbids the very mechanism that would allow these people to get along in peace.
In addition, Islam was a complete political, social and economic system that guided Muslims on every aspect of their lives. However, without the structural support of the state, modern Muslims are at a loss as to how to behave. For example, Islam forbids democracy, compels Muslims to rebuild the Caliphate, compels them to perform military service on behalf of the Caliphate, but also commands them to achieve these goals using the same methods that Muhammad used 1400 years ago when he was bringing together warring Arab tribes. Perhaps it is no surprise that conservative Islam has survived so well in the tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Elsewhere, Muslim countries are basket cases with few prospects. Muslims reject the dictatorships they live under, but also reject democracy, and the alternatives provided by religious extremists of the ‘wrong’ variety. Any interference by foreigners is rejected, even if it is to help the locals or to prevent home grown problems from spreading (eg terrorism). To keep this in perspective, many Muslims do support democracy and socially progressive movements, but there are far too many conservative Muslims who oppose these things on religious grounds and are willing to kill to get their own way.

Deception of Non-Muslims

2020-08-05T21:31:56Z

Freediver: /* Statistics */

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

Muslim spokesmen employ a peculiar style of deceptive propaganda that so far has caught western media off-guard. It takes advantage of a common assumption among those who have only been exposed to other religions – the assumption that the statements of religious leaders can be taken at face value because religious leaders want people to understand their religion. It takes advantage of western ignorance of Islam while at the same time seeking to maintain that ignorance. It takes advantage of people's tendency to see Islam as a religion in the traditional sense, rather than as a combination of a militant political ideology and a religion. Thus a Muslim religious leader should not be seen in the same way as most religious leaders. He should be viewed as a combination of politician and religious leader. When addressing a western, non-Muslim audience, he should not be viewed as a typical missionary, but as an astute politician addressing a hostile audience who won't like all of his policies - he will tell you what you want to hear. Viewing them as a politician can be a difficult task as they often combine this with a hypersensitivity to criticism or direct questioning that a politician could not get away with. 'How dare you accuse me of lying' is a powerful challenge coming from a cleric with his 'religious leader' hat on, but would be ridiculed if it came from a politician.

Muslims use a number of strategies to either conceal the more barbaric aspects of their religion or to deceive people about Islamic doctrine. The initial deception is semantic. Literally, they say one thing and mean another, the opposite of calling a spade a spade. This typically involves using a dual meaning that is generally only understood by Muslims, or using Arabic terms. The initial deception is followed up with a number of rhetorical techniques that create a barrier to effective communication. These are essentially a form of diversion. While some of these tricks are familiar to a western audience, some are largely unfamiliar and play on Islamic concepts with which the west is unfamiliar.

Muslims will discuss with each other deliberate attempts to strategically generate propaganda for the political aspects of Islam. This looks far more like the actions of a political party intent on winning at all costs rather than a religion trying to promote the truth. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276]

= Textual justifications for deception =

There are several textual sources of that justify deception by Muslims. Some are given below:

''Abu Hurairah narrates that the Prophet said: “One who keeps the faults of a Muslim secret in this world, Allah will keep his faults in the Hereafter and Allah remains in the help of the (Muslim) man until he is in the help of his brother.”'' (Musnad Ahmad: 274/2)

Muslims have built a strong tradition and culture around this hadith that places reputation above truth and calls on Muslims to, first and foremost, protect the reputation of other Muslims. Muslims who become aware of illegal or immoral behaviour by fellow Muslims are severely restricted, by Islam, in how they can respond. The inevitable result of this is an oppressive, corrupt society that is completely unwilling to have an open dialogue about it's own oppression and corruption.

Another interesting verse, this time directly from the Quran, forbids Muslims from asking questions about troubling aspects of Islam:

''O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.'' (Surah 5:101-102).

A similar verse:

''The clerk of Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba narrated, "Muawiya wrote to Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba: Write to me something which you have heard from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ." So Al-Mughira wrote: I heard the Prophet saying, "Allah has hated for you three things: ... 3. And asking too many questions (in disputed religious matters)'' (Bukhari vol. 2, Hadith#. 555)

Although this is a call to self-delusion, it is a necessary psychological strategy for the deception of others - both Muslim and non-Muslim - regarding Islam. Feeling constantly pressured to knowingly deceive others might cause Muslims to lose faith. But if Muslims never inform themselves of the troublesome aspects of Islam in the first place, they will have at best only a vague awareness of them, and will more likely accept outright lies about the matter. The version of Islam they pass onto fellow Muslims and non-Muslims will be appropriately 'cleansed' according to whatever the society wants to hear, based on the values of the time. While this may appear to be a recipe for the destruction of Islam from within, it must be remembered that Islam requires its spread to be followed closely by the imposition of a militant Islamic state that is utterly hostile to any 'incorrect' versions of the religion being promoted. This includes the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy, where apostasy is taken to include adopting the 'wrong' version of Islam. Thus, Islam spreads through a combination of willful self-delusion, concealment and deception, followed by the ruthless imposition of the harsh realities of true Islam.

One last example from the Quran:

''And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.'' Qur'an (3:54)

Ironically, many Muslim websites translate this as "plan" rather than "scheme". Technically, the Arabic term can be translated as plan, but only in the context of planning to do someone harm through deceipt.

= Lying about the Quran =

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]]

Muslims will lie about the Quran, primarily to whitewash the promotion of violence.

For example, Chapter 9 of the Quran is entirely devoted to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Muslims will claim that the fist verse of the chapter states that the entire chapter is restricted in context to pagans who violate their treaties with Muslims. Not only does the first verse not actually say this, there are verses in the chapter that clearly go beyond this scope, as well as other broad contextual statements similar to verse one that have a broader scope.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/212#212]
Muslims will argue that a reference to a subgroup of pagans (those with a treaty) must imply that all references to pagans in the chapter must refer to those with a treaty (even when it does not make sense), because the it does specifically mention pagans without a treaty. It was never explained why this was necessary in order to refer to pagans in general.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/223#223]

Muhammad committed genocide by wiping out the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe - the last remaining of three large tribes of Jews in Medina. Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran states that members of the tribe were freed, in order to contradict other Muslim sources who state that all 'adult' (those who had pubic hair) men were killed and the rest taken prisoner. They will 'paraphrase' the Quran to insert the claim that some were freed. The Quran does not state that some were freed, but does confirm they were either executed or taken prisoner.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran forbids rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Sex_Slaves]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran is not anti-semitic (despite clearly anti-semitic content) on the grounds that Jews are technically considered to be Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Religious_Motivation]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Islam.E2.80.99s_Just_War_Doctrine_is_a_Lie]
that the Quran limits war to situations of self defence, without ever mentioning self defence,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]
that quoting chapter 9 of the Quran in its entirety is actually taking it out of context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Context]
that a verse saying to convert people to Islam by the sword actually means war can only be fought against oppression,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Oppression]
that a verse promoting violent retribution is actually a statement of proportionality in war, despite not making even a subtle reference to proportionality
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Proportionality]
Note that the Quran does explicitly limit war to self defence and also offers a clear an unambiguous statement of proportionality in war, but limits these restrictions to the 'holy months'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#When_the_Koran_does_impose_self_defence_and_proportionality]

Muslims will attempt to justify lying about the Quran to non-Muslims by insisting it will make Muslims more peaceful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Justifying_Lies_about_the_Quran]

Muslims have a broad variety of more subtle ways of distancing themselves from their religion
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Disowning_Islam]
or misleading people by changing the meaning of words.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantic_deceptions]

= Some common strategies =

== Exploiting positive assumptions ==

One of the most irony-laden discussions with Muslims revolved around the concept of taqiyya. This rule permits Muslims to deceive people, break the law or commit blasphemy under certain circumstances. When asked whether this gives Muslims free reign to lie to non-Muslims, several Muslims pointed out that it only applies in certain circumstances, such as war. This was an indirect response that relied heavily on the assumption that we are not at war. One of those Muslims later explained that he believed that the West had been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920’s and that the west had declared and carried out this war. This is a good example of a very subtle deception taking advantage of positive assumptions, in the context of discussing deception itself. This strategy works well when combined with hypersensitivity to discourage people from seeking a more direct response when only an indirect response was given. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

== Islamic law follows belief ==

Islam requires the imposition of Shariah law on both Muslims and non-Muslims. Having the law imposed on you is considered necessary and an integral part of Islam. Islam also requires Muslims to follow Islamic law in foreign countries. The process for turning a foreign country into an Islamic one has always been through a process of empire building, often through outright violence, but always with the threat of violence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924] Muslims see no contradiction between this and the 'peaceful empire' fairytale. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581] Muslims will go so far as to insist they are not allowed to lobby for Islamic law and that it merely 'follows naturally' after everyone has converted to Islam, even though this never happened historically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

== Revising history: science and the 'peaceful' empire fairytale ==

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims have created an elaborate fantasy about Islam restricting war to self-defence. This relies on misleading people about trends in historical military strategy, misleading people about Muhammad's actions, and misleading people about the content of the Quran.

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine]]

Revising history appears to be a favourite pastime of Muslims. This usually involves going to absurd lengths to overstate the contributions made by Muslims (especially to science) and undervalue the contribution of non-Muslims, or to pass blame for every historical evil by Muhammad and his successors to the non-Muslim victims. This can in part be attributed to the obligation of Muslims to look more favourably on fellow Muslims than non-Muslims
(see for example
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2 Justice] and
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty Honesty]).
Apparently Muslims made vast contributions to science. For example, the bloke who jumped off a tower with feathers glued to his arms, making a nasty stain on the pavement below, made a valuable contribution to our understanding of flight.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1362655638][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218803024]
One of the most outrageous claims is that the Caliphate (Islamic empire) was peaceful and spread only through self defense, even when it crossed the Mediterranean to invade modern day Spain and France. Muslims actually expect people to take this absurd version of history seriously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493]
A favourite justification for this claim is that Christians welcomed Muslims into Spain with open arms, in order to get lower taxes. What really happened is that the Muslim hordes allied themselves with one Spanish kingdom so they could cross a massive natural protective barrier (the Mediterranean) and slaughter another Spanish kingdom. Then they turned their swords on their allies and slaughtered them too. Then they slaughtered their way across the whole peninsula. Then they started sending raids into modern day France. Eventually the French and Italians booted them out of Europe.
Muslims frequently claim that various towns and Kingdom's welcomed the Empire with open arms. They will describe an offer to submit to the caliphate as entirely peaceful, even when there was a naked threat of violence if the town did not submit. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]

Muslims will deny that Muhammad committed genocide when he exterminated an entire tribe of Jews by killing 800 innocent people (almost all of the post pubescent men) in a single day, and taking the women and children as slaves. They will falsely claim that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina and deserved to die for violating it. However, the tribes concerned were not even a part of the treaty, and in any case the treaty stipulated that members would maintain freedom of religion, which Muhammad had long since abandoned when he started threatening Jews with violence if they did not convert to Islam. A few members of the tribe were allowed to live if they converted to Islam. Rather than acknowledging this as an example of forced conversion, Muslims will try to spin it as Muhammad generously pardoning them for their 'crime' if they disowned their treachery. The Jews surrendered unconditionally when Muhammad laid siege to their fortress and were taken prisoner. Muslims will argue that there was no war and they were thus not prisoners of war and not to be granted any protection as such, on the grounds that they did not notify Muhammad that they were reneging on their treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/145#145] Muslims will falsely claim that only 'warriors' were executed, despite the victims including old men and young boys. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1488589434/18#18]

Muslims will make particularly ludicrous and misleading claims about history, then later justify this by claiming that they made more accurate statements elsewhere and blaming their critics for not quoting the statements that 'matter'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1508378680/261#261]

Muslims will claim that Dhimmitude is specifically against oppression of non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1535727444] The reality is that Muhammad's system of government created a caste system where there was previous Pagans, Jews and Christians living side by side as political equals. Under Dhimmitude, Muslims are on top, Christians and Jews are next, but suffer a variety of deprivations, including genocide when convenient, while pagans are at the bottom and were wiped out very quickly.

== Statistics ==

Muslims believe it is not lying to completely make up statistics, based on nothing more than assumption. They consider it nitpicking if you claim that it is lying. This appears to be related to the Islamic requirement to automatically assume the best of their fellow Muslims. They will try to pass it off as being no different to the legal convention of presuming innocence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1587328751/285#285]

Muslims often attempt to misrepresent the threat posed by Islamic terrorism with statistics that equate attacks such as 9/11, the London bombings, Madrid and Bali with vandalism attacks by other extremist political groups. They do this by measuring the 'rate' of terrorism by the number of individual events, rather than a more appropriate measure of risk, such as death toll.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340791727]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294223444]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1349425752]

Muslims will also often misrepresent crime statistics, for example by attributing differences in reported rates of crime with actual rates of crime, when there is an obvious difference in reporting patterns. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/225#225] This is most pronounced with crimes such as rape, which are obviously less likely to be reported in middle eastern countries, where the rape victim often ends up being punished. Muslims will often claim that certain crimes were almost non-existent in the historical Caliphate (common examples are [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Homosexuality homosexuality], murder, rape, apostasy etc). They will use their inability to find evidence of successful convictions as evidence that the convictions and punishments were rare, particularly when insisting that the punishment of death by stoning would only be implemented rarely (the classic logical fallacy of equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence). They will then turn this reasoning on it's head and demand that people who disagree with them produce crime statistics from 1000 years ago. On another tangent, apparently a Muslim country will not 'run out of women' until all men have four wives. If not all men can afford four wives, it will not be a problem. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24] (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape].)

Muslims will claim that a survey shows a majority of Australians supporting them in their efforts to make it illegal to mock religion or depict historical religious figures
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that the survey shows them supporting that right. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]

Muslims will offer endless explanations for global surveys revealing the opinions of Muslims - anything other than the survey reflecting what Muslims actually think.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#Malaysia]

= Deflections =

== Simple diversion ==

The first trick usually employed on forums is a simple diversion. If you ask 'do Muslims think it is OK to do this?', they will respond by listing examples of where something similar (no matter how remote the similarity) has been done to Muslims. This shifts the debate away from Islamic doctrine and how it seems immoral to most westerners, to a blame game over who is responsible for past atrocities. Thus Islamic doctrine is not exposed and the debate switches to from moral standards to politics or history.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390612677/11#11]

The most obvious example of this is terrorism. Most Muslims will say that terrorism is wrong, but they then go on to list all the grievances of the middle east. They may also deny that Muslims bear any responsibility for reigning in Islamic terrorists. Many claim that the reigning in of terrorists should not be a first step in the peace process, but rather a last step. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224827866] That is, we must first satisfy all the grievances of the terrorists and give Muslim extremists whatever they want (mostly more political power and geopolitical restructuring of the middle east), and only after that can they be expected to stop slaughtering people. However that is where the explanation stops. Muslims will not explain why they think this. Instead they will bring up some media report of an accidental civilian death attributable to a western army. I suspect that Muslims think this way because they see all non-Muslim lands as being a place of war. One hint of this is that they will refuse to distinguish the deliberate mass murder of civilians by terrorist organisations for which no person or nation can be held accountable, and the accidental death of civilians in an armed conflict with a guerrilla army that hides among civilians. Thus, destroying the twin towers is an act of war in a place of war and is no different to the death of civilians in a 'real' war zone. However, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get a Muslim to either admit to this or to offer some other explanation for why terrorist organisations should be given free reign until their various (largely unspecified) demands have been met.

== Et tu ==

'Et tu' is a reference to a logical fallacy. It refers to the debating strategy of accusing your opponent of something that you yourself have been accused of (or something worse). It is a logical error in the sense that it is used to justify your own actions. In the case of Islam, this tactic is used in an astonishingly predictable manner every time historical injustices committed by Muslims are brought up. The response is to ignore the injustice and how it may relate to Islam (or not) and instead give examples where non-Muslims have done similar things. There does not have to be any causative relationship. For example Muslims have attempted to justify mass murder by Muhammad himself by citing an example of non-Muslims doing something worse in the same town 600 years later (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). This of course helps to completely avoid the issue of whether such behaviour should be incorporated into timeless religious law, or whether it is even endorsed by Islam.

Muslims will falsely claim that Jesus stipulated the inferior status of women in order to insist that Muhammad's Quranic command to beat women, and the account of Muhammad himself beating his favourite child bride for leaving the house without his permission, place no more of a barrier on Muslims stamping out domestic violence than Jesus' teachings place on Christians. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/107#107] They will insist that Muhammad beating his wife is nothing like modern domestic violence because he was not a drunk bogan, and that beating his wife was merely a way of asking her what she was thinking. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/36#36][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/309#309]

== Moral equivalence ==

Arguing moral equivalence is similar to 'et tu'. It is most commonly used in discussing the incident in which Muhammad executed approximately 700 Prisoners of War (POWs). The deception comes in the misleading or missing details required to make the comparison stick. Muslims will argue for example that only combatants were killed, or that only those found guilty of treason were executed (and thus the incident is morally equivalent to the death penalty for treason in some western countries). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/6#6] Muhammad apparently punished them for either assisting his enemies in an earlier attack, not coming to his aid to the extent required by an agreement with them, conspiring with the enemy, or because the angel Gabriel told him to. The excuses offered omit or misrepresent key facts, such as:
* Many of the tribe members actually assisted Muhammad in defending against the earlier attack.
* Muslims will accuse the tribe members of attacking Muhammad when his army was under siege from a different group, however these attacks never actually happened.
* Muhammad attacked the tribe in question.
* The tribe surrendered unconditionally.
* After the they surrendered and were taken away, all able bodied male prisoners of war (and one female) were executed.
* The rest of the women ended up us sex slaves, though some were purchased by another Jewish tribe who felt guilty over their involvement in Muhammad's slaughter.
* Even the children ended up as slaves.
* Muhammad took all the land and possessions also.
Muslims will also attempt to argue that this incident is similar to various atrocities committed during recent wars, completely ignoring the point that we do not worship the soldiers involved as God's messenger and do not condone the execution of POWs, sexual slavery, the enslavement of children, or collective punishment in general. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/37#37]

Some other examples:
* Wife beating is morally equivalent to smacking a child to prevent the child from running onto the road, putting his life at risk. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/227#227]
* Muhammad spent approximately 6 years robbing caravans on their way to Mecca. Muslims will argue that this was just compensation for earlier persecution by Meccans, or that it was a legitimate act in an ongoing war that had been declared but not actually begun. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/4#4]
* Forbidding all non-Muslims from Mecca is no different to being unable to purchase land privately in Vatican city, or to the creation of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374893194/8#8]

Muslims will attempt to make the Allies in WWII morally equivalent to the Nazis, Hirohito and Mussolini. They will argue for example that Hitler was a mere puppet to a grand conspiracy run by the "Christian Establishment". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1550232167] They will also argue that the outcome of WWI and WWII had no implications for freedom and democracy, implying that westerners only fought for greed and self interest and never actually fought to defend freedom and democracy. The implication is that they acquired freedom and democracy instead through some kind of historical accident - thus the large wars fought in the west only differ from Muslims slaughtering each other in that they were on a larger scale. In order to deflect criticism for the various wars fought by Muslims to impose religion on people and acquire sex slaves for the purpose of rape evangelism, as well as the wars that the west had to fight to stop slavery in the Muslim world, Muslims will attempt to blame Christianity for Nazism and deny any broader benefit to the world from defeating the Nazis.

== Victimhood ==

One of the most common responses from Muslims to accusations is to cry victimhood. Muhammad lead the way in this. Shortly after moving into Medina and making peace agreements with the other three Jewish tribes there, Muhammad managed to get rid of all of them by preaching anti-semitism, executing their leaders, expelling the first two, then attacking the last and executing 700 prisoners of war and enslaving the women and children. Muslims (and Islamic doctrine) claim they were victims of Jewish treachery at every step along the way. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475] Muhammad "predicted" even more widespread ethnic cleansing and slaughter of Jews and non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Prediction_vs_order] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabian peninsula, again because they were victims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft] Although Muhammad tortured a Jewish man to get his gold, Muslims will use a fabricated story of torture and mistreatment of early Muslims to justify Muhammad's career of caravan robbing. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Torture] Muslims will even attempt to argue that the rapid expansion of the militant Islamic empire over most of the known world was entirely in self defense, even while acknowledging aggressive military tactics and invasion of lands with which they had barely came into contact with previously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War] This attitude is reflected in the handling of conflicts and disagreements by the modern Muslim community. It is reinforced by Islamic doctrine encouraging Muslims to look favourably upon and only see the best in other Muslims, and to conceal their faults. The principle is also reflected in Islamic concepts of justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Already answered ==

The next trick is usually to claim that the question has already been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224424523/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224359891/80#80][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/54#54][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224071707/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711/3#3][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216217395/104#104][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/69#69][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/6#6] This is usually combined with the implication that you are stupid for having to ask for clarification. This trick is basically a throwback to the deceptive use of dual meanings and unfamiliar terminology, except that it avoids the need to explain it again and risk giving away too much information. This trick is usually first used when you start asking more specific questions that are getting closer to exposing the particular deception.

== Hypersensitivity ==

The next trick is usually employed if you try to justify a request for clarification after Muslims insist that questions have already been answered or that you have no reason to be interested anyway. The Muslim will become hypersensitive at the suggestion that you do not trust them to give you a straight answer. Alternatively, they will accuse you of asking 'loaded' questions, as if there is something wrong with discovering the truth about Islam. Curiously, the more specific and direct the question is, the greater the tendency to claim it is loaded, even if it carries no assumptions at all, or only assumes what has just been verified. That is, a question is loaded if it is a simple, direct question about Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223943323/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/7#7][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226113417/37#37]

'Impure' motives are behind the question. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503891772/39#39]

=== Criticising Islam is racist ===

Muslims will argue that criticising Islam is racist. When it is pointed out that Islam is a religion, not a race, they will make the absurd argument that traditional concepts of race (black, white, asian etc) do not exist, and for this reason the meaning of racism must be changed to include religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504875360][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504234775/71#71] They will also argue that if Jews and Sikhs can get away with self-identifying on racial grounds, Muslims should be able to also, even if they are recent white converts.

== Dummy spit ==

If all else fails, spit the dummy. Make more accusations of ulterior motives, stirring up trouble, asking loaded questions etc. Then, simply refuse to answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155] After one such dummy spit I started a new topic specifically about concubines and after more criticism of my questioning style, I got a limited affirmative response, but no more questions about concubines and their treatment have been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224649993] Yet I have been told in great detail how badly the west treats women.

== Accusations of Insincerity ==

Muslims will use an accusation of insincerity as a justification for refusal to answer simple questions about Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]

== Answering a question with a question ==

For example, demanding to know how elections are run before saying whether Islam supports democracy [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/11#11], demanding to know what the law is before saying whether Islam supports justice, demanding to know what the truth is before giving an honest answer.

== Me no speaka da english ==

Muslims will occasionally find it extremely difficult to comprehend simple questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504877081]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/301#301]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454967711/170#170]
They will even ask questions that they later decide make no sense if asked of them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/155#155]

== Silence ==

Silence as a tactic is reserved for the more disturbing aspects of Islam. While it was employed to a limited extent on the issue of sex slaves, it was employed far more diligently for the issue of the treatment of Hindus, atheists, pagans etc. Muslims will go to great lengths to put a positive spin on Dhimmitude – the institutionalised humiliation of Christians and Jews. However if you ask them about the treatment of those who are not ‘people of the book’ they will likely pretend you don’t exist. The issue of sex slaves was generally avoided, partly by accident. However, numerous questions were asked over a long period of time about the treat of non-Dhimmi non-Muslims. Even when I started a new thread asking specifically about the treatment of these people, it was ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000] I started raising the issue in a few other related threads and posting links. It was still ignored. Only after I posted evidence that Islam promotes wholesale slaughter of these people, and others began complaining that they can’t get a straight answer either, was a response posted by resident Muslims. Of course, these responses did not answer the question about Islamic doctrine regarding the treatment of these people. For the most part, the actual question was ignored, as best it could be. When it was approached, the reverse “Islam does not exist” argument was the most common tactic (after the obvious deflections to the ‘evil west’). Where Muslims will usually respond that the various unfortunate situations across the middle east have nothing to do with Islam, in this case the argument was that the situation in the middle east is the only valid indicator of what Islamic doctrine is. Thus the mere presence of these other religions in the middle east is now ‘proof’ of the positive approach to them in Islamic doctrine.

== Outcomes vs ideology ==

Muslims will argue that an outcome strongly linked to Islam (eg Afghans stoning people to death without the appropriate paperwork) has nothing to do with Islam because it did not occur under official Shariah law. They will also argue the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
- that for example the failure of Muslims to wipe out Hindus in India (despite conceding that they tried) is evidence that Islam does not support this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] This is a strategy of 'shifting the goal posts'. If you ask a Muslim about Islamic doctrine, they will tell you about an outcome that makes Islam appear more benign to you (usually a long way from the Arabian peninsula where Islam only reached in later centuries). If you ask them about the actions of Muslims that are apparently identical to the actions decreed by Muhammad, they will complain about how it differs from doctrine - for modern examples the most convenient is the 'Islam does not exist' argument. Another example of shifting the goal to 'outcomes' is this claim that Islamic lands have more religious diversity. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/3#3] This is from the same Muslim that conceded that Islam was successful in wiping out every single non-Muslim in the Arabian peninsula (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). The relative diversity further from the heart of Islam can be attributed to two fairly obvious reasons: the relative youth of the religion, and the aggressive empire building that was characteristic of it's spread - Islam would first conquer a land in a military sense, then set about making the people convert to Islam using whatever means worked best. This of course worked to avoid the actual question, which was specifically about doctrine, not outcomes. In the same thread, this argument claims that remaining a Muslim is evidence that Islam is not brutal [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/7#7] rather than the more obvious reason that apostasy attracts the death penalty.

== Changing the question ==

If you ask a Muslim a question about Islam, he may go to some lengths to 're-interpret' the question so it is no longer about Islam in order to avoid discussing Islam. This example is from an eight page thread about the penalty for blasphemy where several Muslims attempt to change the topic to anything except the punishment for blasphemy: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347783816/10#10]. This strategy is also often used in response to questions about whether Muslims want Shariah law implemented in the west and how they ought to go about achieving this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]

== Prove the existence of a question ==

Muslims will often demand proof of something before answering a simple question. This can be taken to absurd lengths, for example effectively demanding proof that a question exists. The demands are often for evidence of historical events, where the evidence is highly unlikely to exist. This is often in the context of Muslims claiming for example that the lack of surviving documentation of people being stoned to death for homosexuality is evidence that this did not occur, and even that homosexuality did not exist and that Shariah law is a 'cure' for it. It is similar to the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, except that it is often in the form of a demand for evidence as a way of avoiding directly addressing a topic or question.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

== Lobbying ==

A typical response to what societal changes Muslims should lobby for is that it is pointless to lobby for an activity to be punished if it is still encouraged by society (never mind that making an activity illegal, and lobbying for this discourages it), and to equate the question with an accusation of being a fanatic. Another common angle is that Islam is an 'all or nothing' system, which means Muslims cannot lobby for any specific change as it is invalid in isolation (you will not get a straight answer on how to implement everything all at once either). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

= Semantic deceptions =

Many deceptions rely on manipulating the meaning of words. Some examples:

== Dual meaning ==

A common tactic is to attach a dual meaning to common English words such as war, peace, slave, innocent, rape, domestic violence etc. This tactic is so successful because it is so different from the typical 'western propaganda' approach of inventing new jargon. For example, where a deceptive western leader may talk about 'collateral damage' to make civilian deaths in war sound more benign, a deceptive Muslim leader may say 'no one was murdered', on the grounds that the killing was legal. In this case, the deception is obvious because most English speaking people understand the subtle difference between murder and kill. However, by carefully controlling how Islamic doctrine is translated into English, Muslim scholars have created a situation where many common words have an entirely different meaning when used in the context of Muslims or Islamic law. This is combined with an insistence that to 'truly understand' the Quran one must study it in Arabic [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/146#146], thus putting the context or meaning of the words used beyond the reach of most non-Muslims. Thus, Muslims will understand what their leaders are saying, even if most westerners do not. This can be quite blatant manipulation, such as when some UK clerics stated in public that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then said to their followers in private that only Muslims can be considered innocent. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224813886/0#0][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224158764/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/141#141][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/119#119][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116]

Being so simple, this tactic is most often employed in press releases. As an example, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens appeared to support the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie during question time after giving a lecture at a western university. The next day he released a statement to the press reassuring the public that he does not support vigilantism. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/2#2] Of course, he was not available to give any further details. Most assumed he did not want Rushdie dead. However, closer inspection appears to show that Cat Stevens did not actually oppose the death penalty for Salman Rushdie. He did think it would be wrong to shoot Salman in the back of the head in some dark alley. Rather, Salman should have been hauled before the relevant cleric, who had already found him guilty, so that he could be stoned to death in an orderly, 'civilised' manner.

Another common example is the claim that Islam is peace, or is peaceful. The ultimate objective of Islam is indeed a peaceful existence, however this peace is achieved by Islam conquering the world. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] Until that time, all non-Muslim areas are considered to be at war. Those areas that are ruled by Islam are by definition at peace, even if Shiites and Sunnis are blowing up each others' Mosques. Thus, 'Islam is peace' is a technically correct statement about the 'final solution' of Islam and about those lands that are ruled by Islam, but is totally deceptive to those who do not already know what it means.

Muslim leaders will claim in public that Australia shares a lot of values in common with Islam, or that Australia is a Muslim nation, or that Australians already practice Muslim values. In private, they will call for the destruction of western decadence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/106#106][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] They will express outrage at new citizens being expected to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition as the basis of Australia's values system. They will claim that Muslims strive to obey local laws, but will also call on other Muslims to reject anything other than Sharia law as heresy. They will claim friendship with non-Muslims, but privately preach that friendship with non-Muslims is wrong and should lead to ostracism. They will claim that Islam is peace, but privately preach that there can be no peace until the entire world has been subjugated to Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] They will make friends with Christians, then preach in private that Christianity is vile. There are even passages in the Quran that promote the use of terror. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] By redefining equality, Muslims will claim that Islam creates equality between the sexes, even though it gives men authority over women and allows them to be beaten until they are 'green'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/106#106]

Rather than making a plain English translation available to the general public along with explanations, the Quran is made impenetrable by mixing up the verses so that they are out of order and the context is lacking.

An article was presented on our forum claiming, among other things, that the Islamic ban on mutilating bodies makes suicide bombing illegal under Islamic law. Any rational interpretation of the law confines it to the mutilation of corpses, as Muhammad himself did a lot of mutilating of bodies in the process of killing people. Although unwilling to directly support the argument, the Muslims present took rather elaborate measures to indirectly support it or create the impression that they support it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1407127340]

== Arabic terms ==

Rather than inventing new jargon, Muslims insert Arabic terms into English. These terms have a complex meaning that is relatively well understood to most Muslims, but is totally unknown to the target audience. A Muslim spokesperson can thus make a statement that appears to be a universal principle, but which Muslims understand only applies to certain situations.

Taqiyya, ironically enough, refers to deception. A Muslim may say for example that taqiyya forbids lying, which is technically true, depending of course on the context. However it does not appear to forbid deception. Furthermore lying is only allowed in certain situations, such as war. But remember the dual meaning – any non-Muslim land is a place of war. Using the word Taqiyya in public carries all of these complex and contradictory connotations, which are known to Muslims. Thus Muslims are not lied to even when non-Muslims get the wrong idea.

These two tactics are usually sufficient to dupe most disinterested audiences. They work well in press releases where further explanation is not available, as the media has no choice but to pass them on as-is, leaving the public unaware that the true meaning is totally different from the face value. However several more interesting techniques are used in online forums where dialogue is inevitable. Even though this medium encourages direct questions and the resolution of ambiguities, it can still be remarkably difficult to get the real story from a Muslim. Muslims achieve this by creating as many barriers to effective communication as possible. Again, this relies on the underlying assumption that a Muslim would want you to know what Islam is really about. However, in reality a Muslim is more than happy to wait until some time in the future when your country has been conquered by Muslims before you find out how nasty it can be. All of these strategies have been observed on the OzPolitic forum.

== Semantics ==

If both of these tricks fail, the next option is another diversion. This time instead of diverting to politics or history, the Muslim diverts to semantic issues. This takes advantage of the control that Muslim scholars have over translation of the Quran. It works in a similar manner to criticising someone's spelling in the middle of a heated debate – except of course that it is part of a broader strategy. First, they simply point out that you used an incorrect term. The correct term is not suggested and the actual question is ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134] If you ask for the correct term they may suggest you ask someone else. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/1#1] They cannot possibly 'just answer it anyway' and explain what the issue is. One example is a Muslim starting a discussion about collective punishment to argue that it did not happen under Muhammad, then attempting to turn the discussion into a disagreement about the meaning of the term collective punishment when it became obvious that Muhammad did indeed engage in it, by vaguely alluding to possible alternative meanings. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]

Muslims steering a topic to a discussion of the meaning of:
spineless [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/185#185],
retarded [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376013300/170#170],
child (in the context of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl) [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/219#219],
moral standard [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/128#128].

== War ==

Muslims will use war as an excuse or justification for abandoning every moral principle they espouse. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1397466069] For example, Muslims may only lie in the context of war. In a completely unrelated matter, the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. Muhammad's early career robbing caravans traveling to and from Mecca is justified by some Muslims either on the grounds that the Meccans had declared war on the Muslims, or the Muslims were waging war on the Meccans. No evidence for either of these claims is available. The evidence makes it clear that it was a clear case of robbery and murder. Later, when the real wars began, Muslims use the opposite argument to justify slaughtering POWs - on the grounds that it was not war (and the prisoners captured were thus not POWs), even though it was a clear case of genuine warfare. In one event, Muhammad slaughtered 800 such prisoners of war in one day.

== Clerics don't exist ==

One favourite term for this diversion tactic is cleric, which is used in the media to refer to Muslim religious leaders. If you ask why a cleric said something, or why a person is still a cleric after doing or saying something objectionable, they will simply respond that there is no such thing as a cleric.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/0]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225010762]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222556298/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/355#355]
Technically this can be true, but only if you assume that cleric means clergy, rather than the currently accepted additional meaning of Muslim religious leader (as is used by the media). The absence of an 'official' clergy has another advantage for Muslim propagandists, in that it allows total diffusion of responsibility. There is no leader or institution to be held accountable, therefor Islam is not to blame. More specifically, a Muslim leader who does or promotes evil acts can be simply dismissed on the grounds that they are not a 'genuine' Islamic leader, while at the same time denying any responsibility among the broader Muslim community for actually preventing it or disowning the leader. Despite direct requests, I have still not been able to get a straight answer on how a non-Muslim should go about verifying what is a 'genuine' Islamic law (other than not asking direct questions in the first place. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225588455]). Muslims will even claim that there is no such thing as a Muslim leader in the absence of a perfect Islamic state.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367751235]

== Prediction vs order ==

Muhammad "predicted" that his followers would do a lot of evil things. Even in a situation where Muhammad tells a man in person that he will do something (eg ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the Arabian peninsula [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]) and the man does it, or attempts to, Muslims will accept no moral responsibility on Muhammad's part. They will insist that the obvious chain of causation simply does not exist. In this way, Muslims can abandon any moral responsibility for the more ominous predictions made by Muhammad, for example that Muslims will slaughter every last Jew [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/91#91], or that the "last times" will not come until (variously) Muslims slaughter Muslims in pursuit of gold in a large scale massacre in which 99% of people die, Muslims slaughter non-Muslims and Muslims slaughter every Jew. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354839800]

== Sex slavery ==

On another issue, I had been asking a group of Muslims for some months about two issues – slavery [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] and sex (eg [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480 Polygamy], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027 women in Islam], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650340 Sufism, sodomy and Satan]). I had been lead to believe that sex outside of marriage is punishable by death, and that Muslims are only allowed four wives. This had covered just about every conceivable 'crime', including prostitution, extramarital affairs [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753], homosexuality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962], bestiality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511], pedophilia, masturbation [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] etc. Naturally it eventually came up in one of the slavery topics, as a simple question about sex slaves, which had been mentioned in a media article. The usual tricks were employed – diversion to examples of sex slavery in non-Muslim countries, insisting all my questions had already been answered, accusations of ulterior motives and 'loaded questions'. When I still kept asking, I was told that sex slave is the wrong term, so there are no sex slaves. Eventually I figured out what the correct term is – concubines. By this stage it was fairly obvious that Islam does permit concubines, but I had no idea under what circumstances.

== Rape ==

Muslims will change the definition of [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape rape] to match Islamic law and to create the impression that Islam is strict when it comes to rape. Islam permits rape wherever sex is permitted. Where sex is forbidden, rape and consensual sex receive the same punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
Islam permits the capture of sex slaves in battle. Muslims will argue that Islam forbids 'battlefield rape' or any rape at all in this context, on the grounds that the women must first be removed from the battlefield to become sex slaves. Muslims will attempt to portray the serial rape and enslavement of captured women as 'liberating'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654] Muslim men are specifically permitted to have sex with 'whatever their right hand possesses', and this rule alone is regarded as sufficient consent.

Muslims go to some length to characterise rape as a western problem, effectively blaming rape and domestic violence on rights and freedoms that the west permits but Islam forbids, and will use absurd demands for evidence to back up claims that rape is rare under Islam.

Muslims will also misrepresent a command by Muhammad forbidding Muslims from forcing their sex slaves into prostitution as a blanket ban on the rape of sex slaves by their owners. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/63#63]

== Domestic Violence ==

As with rape, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Domestic_violence domestic violence] to match Islamic law and focus on portraying it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Consider this classic quote from a Muslim on our forum: "Domestic violence is a disease which must be stamped out of all societies. But it has nothing to do with giving your wife a 'smack' when she's gotten out of control" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47] Muhammad pardoned a man who had beaten his wife until her skin was green with bruises.

Muslims will claim that Muhammad never beat his wives, despite documented cases. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/49#49]

== Pedophilia ==

Again, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia pedophilia] to match Islamic law, then attempt to portray it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Islamic law effectively institutionalises pedophilia within marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Apostasy vs Treason ==

Under Islam the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning. Muslims often attempt to disguise this unpalatable fact by confusing it with treason and equating it to the death penalty for treason in some western countries. This takes several forms. The Muslim may insist that the punishment only applies to treason - ie that the apostasy is irrelevant and the punishment only applies when there is also an act that is commonly regarded as treason. The Muslim may attempt to justify the punishment by pointing out that some western countries have the death penalty for treason, while ignoring the difference between apostasy and treason. The Muslim may simply attempt to confuse the two 'crimes'. Yet these Muslims believe that the penalty should apply for apostasy alone, including crimes that take you outside of Islam (eg acting gay), and may concede that they believe apostasy itself to be a form of treason - another example of self delusion reinforcing the deception of others.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy Apostasy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/251#251]

== Freedom ==

Muslims will often attempt to portray the oppression of non-Muslims under Shariah law as being merely a different 'interpretation' of freedom.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom Freedom]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/4#4]

Muslims will misrepresent the opinions and values of the non-Muslim and the Muslim community in order to cover up significant differences on issues such as freedom of speech. They will claim that the Australian public supports them in their efforts to make mockery or even criticism of religion illegal
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416042880/50#50]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that Australians support people's right to say things they find distasteful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]
Muslims will claim that mainstream Australians think it is foolish to say we have the right to draw cartoons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
Muslims will present an example of a Muslim leader failing to mention freedom of speech as an example of a Muslim leader expressing support for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/48#48]
Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but qualify this heavily, then refuse to explain their qualifications. For example, they will insist they support the right to depict and mock Muhammad (even more so than mainstream Australians) but add the qualification that no Muslims feel vilified by such a depiction.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/161#161]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
In attempting to justify lack of direct support for freedom of speech from the Muslim community, Muslims will equate support for freedom of speech with 'jumping up and down demanding people insult them'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/157#157]
Muslims will justify opposition to freedom of speech by saying that victims of physical assault by neo-nazis are not suffering discrimination, prejudice or intimidation, but that Muslims are or will be if people are free to mock religion or depict religious figures.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
Muslims will insist that restrictions on journalists publishing details of ASIO's intelligence operations (as well as several other laws that are even more irrelevant to freedom of speech) are "are some of the most egregious and effective attacks on our freedom of speech we have ever seen," while downplaying the significance of Muslims successfully making people fear for their life if they are involved in making a video, cartoon or book that criticises or mocks Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/211#211]
Muslims will insist that George Brandis and his "merry band of fringe ideologues" (ie, the government) were the only people who wanted to water down Australia's section 18c legislation on the grounds that it restricted freedom of speech, that the heated debate over the implications for freedom of speech are not evidence that mainstream Australians value freedom of speech, and also that the civil libertarians who entered the debate in support of watering down the legislation did not have genuine concerns for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/226#226]
Muslims will claim that merely living within the law is sufficient to protect freedom of speech and deny that others have even suggested otherwise [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/280#280], at the same time as insulting others for not doing enough to protect freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/283#283]

== Temporary rights are human rights ==

When discussing human rights with Muslims, and Muslims claim to support rights, Muslims will assume the discussion is about temporary rights granted only while Muslims are not in a position to take them away, unless you specifically state that you do not mean temporary rights. For example, Muslims will argue that Dhimmitude is against oppression and that Muhammad granted rights to pagans, Jews, etc. They will provide 'evidence' for this in the form of specific examples of Muhammad negotiating rights with a small group of people from a position of weakness, then later discarding them when in a position of power. They will insist that it is honest to claim, based on these limited examples, that Muhammad granted rights to Jews and pagans, and that Dhimmitude is against oppression, unless it is specifically stated that "rights" does not mean "temporary rights," or rights granted only in a position of weakness. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1535727444/144#144]

== Democracy ==

Muslims will often attempt to claim that Islam is democratic, a different 'interpretation' of democracy, or attempt to argue that western countries are not in fact democratic either.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Democracy_vs_Theocracy Democracy vs Theocracy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]

== Secularism ==

Muslims will claim to personally support secularism, insist that Islam is compatible with secularism and claim that the Muslim community supports secularism. But they will also claim that Muhammad himself was a secular leader and that his Islamic state was in fact a secular one. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]

== Citizenship ==

Muslims will attempt to portray Dhimmitude as 'full' citizenship, despite the denial of justice, fundamental human rights, democracy, freedom etc and living under a different set of rules to Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Discrimination]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/53#53]

== Compulsion ==

Muslims will often claim that Islam supports the concept of 'no compulsion in religion'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/281#281] The stretches the definition of compulsion to absurd lengths, given the inevitable 'problems' of trying to live as a non-Muslim under Shariah law (see for example [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_and_Human_Rights Freedom and Human Rights] and [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice Justice]). Muhammad himself would often put people in a position of convert or die, as a last resort when other methods failed.

== Vigilantism ==

Muslims often interpret a question about the death penalty (see Cat Stevens example above) as a question about vigilantism. That is, they will avoid giving an answer about whether a crime attracts the death penalty in Islam by insisting that you are instead asking whether Islam permits them to conduct extra-judicial executions. More subtly, questions about introducing Shariah law are replaced with hypersensitivity to accusations of vigilantism. This can even be taken to the extent of equating any political lobbying with vigilantism. How Muslims ought to achieve the change they want is one of the hardest topics to get a straight answer from and this is one of the most common ways of avoiding it.

== Extremism ==

In an effort to portray non-Muslims as extremists (and in order to argue that 'mainstream' Muslims are 'holding hands' with the non-Muslim community on issues such as freedom), Muslims will attempt to redefine extremism as any view that is not shared by 50% or more of the population, essentially building a rather convoluted 'et tu' fallacy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414661030]

== Peace treaties ==

Islam forbids Muslims to be at peace with infidels (non-Muslims) for more than 10 years (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War war]). Muslims attempt to justify this by redefining the concept of a peace treaty as only a temporary agreement. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145] Islam even redefines the concepts of war and peace, by dividing the world into two regions - the house of peace and the house of war (where all the tactics of war are permitted). By this definition, the entire world is currently at war. Modern Muslims will argue that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century (ie since the final collapse of the Caliphate). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Muslims ==

Muslims will even use the definition of what is a Muslim to deceive people, for example a Sunni Muslim may insist that Muslims are not killing Muslims in North Africa, and that the Muslims are blameless victims, because he blames the conflict on Shiite Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

= Disowning Islam =

Misrepresenting the Quran: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]]

Justifying and misrepresenting Muhammad's genocide of Jews: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims disown Islam in many subtle (and not so subtle) ways when it assists in creating a false impression about Islam, see for example 'Muslims' above. Some other examples:

== Islam doesn't exist ==

This is a more interesting form of diversion. If you ask why something happens in a specific Muslim country, you will be told that that country is run by a western imposed dictatorship, monarchy, democracy or whatever. Even though the particular barbaric practice strongly resembles Islamic law, it is the west's fault for preventing Muslims from setting up a 'prefect' Islamic state. For example, it is the west's fault that Saudi women must cover up from head to foot because they are responsible for the Saudi royal family, which prevent the 'correct' Sharia law that allows women to expose their face and hands, provided other standards of dress are met. It has nothing to do with 1400 years of Islamic law that instilled a belief that women are responsible for their own rape if they act like a 'piece of flesh'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225800482/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/149#149]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/62#62]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/65#65]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/100#100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/113#113]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650747/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220167584/12#12]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225865544/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315482532]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]

In an amazing feat of mental gymnastics, Muslims will also do the opposite, sometimes even in the same discussion. If you ask them about an aspect of Islamic law they wish to hide, they will claim that it is irrelevant because there are no true Islamic states. That is, if no country in existence today is ruled totally by Sharia law, you have no reason to be interested in what Sharia law is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]

== Islam won't exist ==

A slightly different approach is taken when Muslims insist that their only goal is the short term goal of converting a few people, while pretending that the long term goals of Islam do not exist. They will conveniently deny that they seek to overthrow the Australian government and destroy personal freedom and other Australian values, and justify this by claiming that they aren't in the process of plotting the actual takeover. Yet it would be an inevitable outcome if they were sufficiently successful with their short term goals. They expect to openly promote an ideology of dictatorship and servitude, but not get criticised for it because they don't yet have the numbers to follow through with it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233236170/21#21] It is as if the Nazi party started recruiting in your neighbourhood, but insisting they don't want to kill Jews because they're only goal at the moment is to recruit more members.

== Denying personal responsibility for the consequences of Islam ==

An even stranger tactic is attempting to play down the significance of support for the unpalatable aspects of Islam (particularly stoning people to death) by denying direct responsibility for the consequences, for example by arguing that support for the death penalty is irrelevant unless you have a job as an executioner. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/242#242]
Islam does not actually have a role of state executioner. Stoning people to death is done publicly [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/107#107], with as many members of the public as possible encouraged to join in. The size of the stones is limited to prevent a quick death.

== Equating impotence with benign intent ==

Muslims will often answer a question about what they want to achieve or what they want their society to look like with an explanation of what they are able to achieve or a complaint about being unable to achieve what they want. This is a strategy to avoid admitting to wanting something that their audience is likely to find unpalatable. This is often used in the context of reinforcing positive misconceptions about Islam, for example if a person claims that a Muslim does not actually want Shariah law, the Muslim will avoid correcting the misconception and do everything to reinforce it, short of outright lies that they can be held accountable for. The Muslim attempts to equate their inability to achieve Islamic law with lack of desire for Islamic law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344636735]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/214#214]
This can be taken to the extreme, in arguing that it is somehow only valid to discuss what is achievable in the short term,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/4#4]
even from a Muslim who considers it inevitable that Islam will come to dominate the world and who also considers it his religious duty to help bring this about.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876/1#1]
This is often accompanied by an attempt to rephrase a simple question, for example by equating a question about what sort of Australia a Muslim would like to see with a question about whether that Muslim is about to take over the country in a military sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
The Muslim may switch between admitting to wanting Islamic law and refusing to discuss it, depending on context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99] and may also claim Islamic law to be inevitable
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16],
then change tack and play down it's likelihood.
A slightly different approach is to claim to not intend to impose shariah law on people as a way of implying they do not want to impose it on people, or would not do so if the opportunity arose. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/243#243]

== Denying personal responsibility for Islamic politics ==

Muslims will often refuse to answer direct questions about Islam and deny any personal responsibility for the consequences of Shariah law or the process of re-establishing a Caliphate (a 'proper' Islamic state) and expanding the Caliphate as a militant empire. They offer the excuse that the law is the responsibility of the state, not the individual. This is particularly common when it comes to stoning people to death as a punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Death_Penalty Death Penalty]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/101#101]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/106#106]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257]
Muslims will use this reasoning to argue that Shariah law is 'irrelevant', but in the same sentence argue that Islamic economic policy or historical scientific achievements are relevant.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]

== Encouraging useful idiots ==

A common tactic is to encourage non-Muslims who make false claims about Islam that suit the Islamic agenda, creating the impression that the Muslim agrees with the claims, and not correcting obvious errors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying following the Quran ==

A Muslim will even find a way to claim that they do not follow the Quran, if there is someone around who is willing to believe it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying significance of Muhammad's example ==

Muslims will describe Muhammad's slaughter of 800 POWs as an "excellent example to follow", at the same time as distancing themselves from his actions by describing them as "merely the earthly actions of a statesman protecting his people" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226].
Muslims will claim that Muhammad specifically instructed his followers to do what he says, but not what he does. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412650210]

== Reinterpreting Muhammad's commands ==

Muslims will claim that Muhammad's order to execute gay people was not in fact an order to execute gay people.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226/14#14]

= Lying about other religions =

Muslims will lie about other religions. This applies particularly to Christianity and Judaism. A central tenet of Islam is that these religions are essentially corrupted versions of Islam. Muhammad himself was not afraid to tell Christians and Jews what they believe and what their religion is, though he was largely ignorant of them. This earned him mockery at first, then hostility when he attempted to force Jews to accept his version of their religion. See [[Political_History_of_Islam#Hostility_towards_Jews]] for more info.

Today, Muslims will lie about Christianity in an attempt to make it appear as misogynistic as Islam, for example by misquoting a Bible verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head as actually saying that they must cover it or have their hair cut off.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491114010/10#10]

= Contradictory spin =

Obviously with so much spin it is inevitable that different Muslims will contradict each other with different stories or excuses, or individual Muslims will contradict themselves. Some examples:

== Slaughtering pagans ==

Were the pagans on the Arabian peninsula slaughtered for reasons of geopolitical strategy, because they were hostile to Islam, or did they in fact all suddenly 'see the light' and voluntarily convert to Islam after Muhammad decreed they should be wiped out? If they did convert voluntarily, why the attempts to justify the slaughter?
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide])
A Muslim will also argue that the fact that paganism was not eradicated in the middle east is evidence that Islam did not decree its eradication, in the same post as claiming that Muhammad did in fact decree it and that the outcome was 'successful' due to every pagan voluntarily converting to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] All other religions were also wiped out from the area.

== Antisemitism ==

Islam inculcates a particular hatred of Jews (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_anti-semitism] Racism and antisemitism). Yet Muslims will also argue that Islam saved Judaism itself. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338909288] Muslims will even argue over the definition of antisemitism to deflect from the mistreatment of Jews under Islam.

= Other examples =

== Editing News Articles ==

To start with, an example of a more direct and traditional form of deception from a Muslim on our forum: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339540208]

== Claiming to represent Australian values ==

One of the more absurd claims: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20] [[Islam and Australian values]]

== Marriage prior to puberty ==

Muhammad married one of his wives prior to her reaching puberty, and this is permitted under Islam provided that the husband does not have sex with her until she reaches puberty (but they may live together... [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia Pedophilia]). However Muslims will often claim the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/71#71]
or refuse to answer and offer every other deflection mentioned above.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Four witnesses for the death penalty ==

Muslims will often claim that people can only be stoned to death for sexual crimes if there are four male witnesses,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
however there are several other ways to satisfy evidentiary requirements.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/52#52]

== Islam stricter than the Geneva convention ==

A quote should do for this one: "Islam recognises this, and lays down strict rules of conduct during conflicts between states, it is most certainly not a violence-oriented doctrine as you've claimed. No more than the Geneva convention is a violent doctrine, because it lays down a code of conduct for nations at war. In fact the Qur'anic rules of conduct in conflict are probably the strictest in human history, to the point that even trees are not permitted to be damaged during war." Remember that Muhammad himself slaughtered prisoners of war, displaced entire tribes, permitted his followers to capture and rape women as part of war and took plenty of captured wives for himself, and completely eradicated every religion except Islam from the Arabian peninsula. (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War War]) Not killing trees is about as generous as not killing the women, and certainly not out of concern for either.

== How hard may I beat my wife? ==

There is genuine disagreement among Islamic scholars as to hard hard a man may beat his wife, and it runs the full gamut. When addressing people who are concerned about women's rights (ie non-Muslims) they invariably choose the most appropriate view (eg beating with a feather). Muhammad on the other hand pardoned a man who beat his wife until her skin was literally green with bruises (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Women.E2.80.99s_rights Women's_rights]).

== Distinguishing rape and consensual sex ==

In Islam, rape is permitted wherever consensual sex is permitted (marriage, sex slaves). Where sex is not permitted rape and consensual sex receive almost the same punishment. Muslims have attempted to portray Islam as taking rape seriously by focusing on some minor differences. For example, in the case of rape a court may order the perpetrator to pay a dowry to the victim. If the sex was consensual, no dowry is required. But the perpetrator gets whipped or stoned to death either way, depending on whether he is married. The marital status of the perpetrator has a bigger influence on the punishment for rape than anything else, to the extent that it dictates the punishment entirely. Whether or not there was actually a rape or merely consensual sex has no bearing on the punishment, except for the fine. Obviously rape vs consensual sex makes a big difference to whether the woman/victim gets stoned to death, but this barely rates a mention. In addition, if a weapon is used in the rape, then the punishment is that for banditry, which is death. Of course, bandits get this punishment for using a weapon in a crime, regardless of whether there is a rape involved
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape]).

== The concubine saga ==

The discussion of sex slaves is what originally drove me to write this article. After writing the first draft, I went back through that particular discussion and noted all the different deflection tactics used. I was actually quite surprised at how 'thick' the discussion was with various deceptions. Here are some of them. I include the URL for each link, as the number on the end of the URL indicates the post number in the thread.

Initially, the topic of sex slaves was asked by another member in the 'women in Islam' thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

The various deflection tactics were employed over the next 53 posts. A summary is given below:

semantics, Islam doesn't exist, deflection with an insult, accusation of loaded question

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to other religions, direct answer to related question that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to Judaism

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125

attempt to justify deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/128#128

refusal to answer and already answered - ironically in same post, semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134

Islam doesn't exist, respond to question 'is it allowed' with 'it is not a priority'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136

Islam is 'realistic', but won't say how

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/138#138

deflects to attacking democracy, Quran can only be read in Arabic

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/140#140

deflection to generic attack on 'the west'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/142#142

ad hominem (insult), refusal to answer, already answered,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/144#144

deflection to homophobia in Europe, other religions, semantics, deflection to history rather than Islamic law, deflection to Catholics, Islam doesn't exist, response on whether it is required rather than allowed, subjectivity of immorality

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145

ad hominem, already answered, lie (false claim that sex slavery does not exist in Islam), deflection to the west,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/146#146

deflection to other religions, ad hominem

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/149#149

Islam doesn't exist, deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/152#152

deflection to 'the west', Islam doesn't exist, refusal to answer

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155

semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/159#159

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/163#163

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/167#167

It was only after I started a new thread that I got a direct answer to the question of whether Islam permits sex slaves. However, no further details were given.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466

= Changing Strategies =

Muslims who publicly promote Islam appear to be becoming more savvy. The issues from [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Islam and Australian values] were raised during discussions with a few Muslims on the [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum forum]. The list was compiled in response to increasing complexity in the debate and a tendency by promoters of Islam to repeat the same debate and pretend that the above issues had never been raised and that there was no potential conflict between Islam and western values. However, after compiling the list with links to quotes from Muslims on the forum there was an abrupt change in strategy. In discussion with other Muslims, the people involved have been promoting a stronger focus on strategy and propaganda in public discussions with non-Muslims, but have not clarified what that strategy is [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276].

The new strategy seems to involve avoiding the contentious issues altogether. Muslims will respond to the more extreme anti-Islam rants or anything that can make Islam look good, or at least neutral in comparison. They will make equally 'ill considered' anti American or anti-western rants and point to the anti-Islam rants as justification.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/39#39]
In contrast, requests for more details on the more 'problematic' issues raised, or any additional issues not mentioned in the list, are either ignored
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295869559]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295959087]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241872871]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298984703/35#35]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298078457/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1296943972/0#0]
or met with some kind of deflection.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302388394]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]
These deflections typically involve personal attacks on the intelligence of the person making the request,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295520546/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/14#14]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302177029/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/74#74]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/97#97]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1265359994/9#9]
criticism of the motive of the person making the request (eg, you are only asking so you can add it to the wiki
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1267178556/1#1]
or so you can mislead people about the answer),
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/23#23]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302389291/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/38#38]
a change in topic (usually to current geopolitics) or insisting the question has already been answered.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/4#4]
Current geopolitics, usually along the lines of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/58#58]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/31#31]
and historical grievances seem to be favourite topic changers. These arguments can be easily made without direct reference to Islam or any of the conflicts outlined above. In fact it can help to steer the argument away from Islam. Questions about Islam that are based on current events are met with the common 'Islam doesn't exist' deflection
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/34#34]
and a denial of Islam's involvement (eg people being stoned to death in the middle east is unrelated to Islamic law that requires stoning people to death because Shariah law is not implemented properly). Issues involving Islam's rules regarding sex usually get the 'priests rape little boys' response.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/4#4]
The net result of these strategies is that promotion or defense of Islam to a savvy audience involves steering the argument away from Islam itself towards mostly political issues.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/1#1]
This strategy would probably be attractive to people who oppose their government's foreign policy and are unaware of the political nature of Islam and what it would replace that foreign policy with.

= What to do? =

All of these tricks ultimately take advantage of ignorance. The antidote to this is to make people aware of them. A lie becomes ineffective when enough people see it for what it is.

== Islam forbids asking questions ==

Part of the reason for the attempts by Muslims to deflect all 'difficult' questions about Islam, is that Islam itself forbids people from asking questions they may not like the answer to. That is, they are only allowed to try to inform themselves of those aspects of Islam which they personally approve of. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216/6#6] With this in mind, the deception of non-Muslims can be viewed as an extension of this mandatory self deception through omission.

In other words, in order to deceive others, one must first delude oneself.

Islam and Australian values

2019-12-19T09:17:16Z

Freediver: /* Blaming races for diseases */

[[Islam]]

= What real Muslims think =

This article was put together following interesting discussions with several Muslims on the OzPolitic forum. Follow the links for more information. This article has been criticised as being unrepresentative of the views of Muslims. However, surveys by the Pew society show that around the world, many Muslims support the most barbaric aspects of Islam. In many countries, the majority of Muslims support stoning people to death for adultery, the death penalty for apostasy, and believe that women must obey their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/570][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388997344] That is why Islam is the greatest modern barrier to freedom, democracy and human rights, and why the threat posed by Islam to these fragile [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet] ideals must not be understated out of a misguided sense of political correctness.

= Conflicts =

This is a list I am putting together of apparent conflicts between Islam and Australian values, or between Islam and 'western' values. It comes from this discussion:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243

Islam differs from what most Australians typically think of as religion in that it doubles as a system of government.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/144#144]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
Islam holds that the legal standards developed in 7th century tribal Arabia are eternal and unchanging. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/76#76] Islam is an outright rejection of concepts like freedom, democracy, and human rights [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327799946][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008], though it is rare for a Muslim to directly acknowledge this and they often attempt to create a different impression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826] Muslims are commanded to live by the local laws if they are living in a non-Muslim state, but are also obligated to attempt to impose Shariah law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367461526]
The appropriate mechanism for turning a non-Muslim state into a Muslim one is ambiguous (or at least, not openly discussed).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/129#129]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1262474745/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353933060]
Hostility towards Islam is considered justification for conquest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/91#91]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/116#116]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Such hostility seems inevitable if a large group of people try to undermine our values and system of government. Muslims are forbidden from voting in 'secular' elections, so the overthrow of non-Muslim governments is presumably by force, either external or internal, as soon as they are powerful enough.

The vast majority of the world's Muslims share the interpretation of Islam described below, even though it appears 'extremist' from our perspective.

[[Deception of Non-Muslims]]

[[Faith Ratchet]]

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

The list is currently split into three groups - Freedom and Human Rights, Justice, Sex, and Other.

== Freedom and Human Rights ==

=== Freedom ===
Islam means 'submission'. It is a rejection of individual freedom and human rights. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332061805][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]

=== Slavery ===
Islam permits the enslavement of people captured through military conquest [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434/68#68] and the children of slaves. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332196921][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392646116/59#59] In addition, Dhimmis risk slavery for not following a complex and arbitrary set of discriminatory rules. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] Female slaves become concubines. Slavery was gradually outlawed towards the end of the Ottoman Empire, partly due to pressure from Great Britain, though it still occurs in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, slavery of women has been the last form to die out. Several African states still practice slavery under Islamic law. Many Australian Muslims support slavery.

=== Freedom of religion ===
Islam has spread primarily through military conquest followed up by the denial of freedom of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216] Islam is extremely intolerant of polytheism, non-Abrahamic religions, atheism, agnosticism, or new Islamic 'cults' that are based on Islam but claim new prophets since Mohammed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Incorrect interpretations of Islam are not tolerated and freedom of speech is openly rejected. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214785726/1#1] 'Shirk' (idolatry, polytheism etc) is considered the worst possible crime in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6] Islam shows limited tolerance towards Christianity and Judaism. The construction or repair of churches, synagogues etc is banned. Islam encourages a parent to beat a child for not praying [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231993677/44#44]. Blasphemy and apostasy attract the death penalty. The sections on apostasy, discrimination, justice, theocracy and blasphemy/free speech outline other ways in which Islam denies people freedom of religion. Any 'cultural heritage' associated with other religions must be destroyed on the grounds that it has no value and may encourage idolatry (eg the recent destruction of the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan). Muslims consider this a favour to mankind. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334996843]

=== Blasphemy/free speech ===
The penalty for blasphemy is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/23#23][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/33#33] Islam forbids criticism of God, Muhammad or Islam. It also restricts other areas of free speech. Phone sex lines for example would be illegal. The punishment for talking or acting gay is death by stoning (see section on homosexuality). Muslims often attempt to portray the death penalty for blasphemy, apostasy etc as being a different 'take' on freedom of speech, rather than an outright rejection of it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944] Muslims have threatened to sue OzPolitic to get it shut down.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/81#81]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/15#15]
Even apparently progressive Muslims support the erosion of freedom of speech and consider it inevitable that Muslims will be violent in response to mockery of Islam or Muhammad in the west.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Blasphemy laws make any kind of progressive reform within Islam very difficult. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360382901]

Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but seek out the flimsiest excuses to support the denial of free speech to Islam's critics, for example by insisting that a citizen journalist should have been banned from walking down streets with mosques on them, from talking to Lakemba residents and from criticising Islam, because she was "accosting" people. This was based on a single media report that quoted a member of the public accusing her of "baiting" people - ie asking difficult questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1533643370/197#197]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1532831241/536#536]
They will then turn around and equate a ban on face coverings in a courtroom with support for a nationwide ban on wearing burkas in public.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1533809902/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1531979449/165#165]

Muslims will claim to be the standard bearer for freedom of speech [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/236#236]
and western liberal morals [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/221#221]
and that Muslims share our exact views on this issue, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/43#43]
while also mocking the Charlie Hebdo solidarity movement and insisting that the right to draw pictures of Muhammad, and the defence of that right in response to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, is a 'distortion' of the true meaning of freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/234#234]
The Charlie Hebdo terrorist "attacks reflect genuine grievances felt by" terrorists and the broader Muslim community that should be addressed first, along with other grievances such as alientation (which causes terrorism). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
Instead of considering the cartoonists martyrs for freedom of speech people should act more respectfully instead. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were hate mongers who were merely victims of their own bigotry and it is a distortion of freedom of speech to suggest it involves standing in solidarity with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/248#248]
The majority of Australians want to ban criticism of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
Anyone who supports the right to criticise religion is an extremist. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/354#354]
People being afraid to mock Islam is an "oversimplistic dichotomy". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
The cartoons are "offence for offence's sake". This, and other unidentified forms of expression are "wrong and should be avoided." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
This view "just happens to coincide with the terrorists campaign to force them to stop." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
The theats posed by Islamic terrorism to freedom of speech represent "faux threats" and "fake, wishy washy western liberal morals" that are used to cynically smear Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/121#121][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/148#148][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/186#186][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910]
Muslims are intolerant of a "free market" of political and intellectual ideas, particularly from white people. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Self censorship is "absolutely" a reasonable course of action when it comes to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/105#105]
It is unclear whether existing laws make it illegal to mock Muhammad, or whether they should be changed to make it illegal. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/1#1]
When the media refrains from publishing Muhammad cartoons, it is because they are being "considerate and responsible" rather than because they might get killed, and it is hysterical and pointless to discuss the matter any further. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/2#2]
The Jews in the Australian Labour Party are trying to censor criticism of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/3#3]

An organisation of Australian Muslim women who petitioned to stop Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a famous women's rights campaigner) visiting Australia called it a 'victory for free speech' when she had to cancel her visit due to threats to her life. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491466442] Her colleague Theo van Gogh was assassinated in response to a video they made together calling for women's rights in Muslim countries, and the assassin left a message pinned to the corpse threatening Ali, western countries and Jews. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491382260]

Muslims and their apologists will deny that Islam is he greatest modern threat to freedom and democracy without being able to identify a single other threat. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626/14#14]

=== Apostasy ===
The penalty for a Muslim who rejects Islam is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1409475944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329307987/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434596646/3#3]
The term 'shirkh' encompasses many of the sins that are considered to put a person 'outside' of Islam and thus subject to this penalty [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6], however it has been hard to get more details on this.
For Sunnis, this includes Shiites and other 'heretics'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583/0#0] Rejecting Islam is interpretted broadly. Acting gay for example is considered apostasy (see section on homosexuality). Some Muslim scholars tried to change this (most recently in 1839) so that the death penalty only applied to treasonous apostates. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy] However mainstream Islam still considers the death penalty for apostasy to be correct. Also, since Islam is both a state (or form of government) and a religion, many Muslims consider apostasy itself to be treason. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25] Muslims often portray the penalty as being limited to treason, even though they have a very broad interpretation of apostasy,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1316600915/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1254303083/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1236559378/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280880642/11#11]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/38#38]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/45#45]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
or to attempt to justify the death penalty for apostasy on the grounds that some countries execute traitors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/32#32]

=== Women’s rights ===
Muslims see no contradiction in stating that men have authority over women and also claiming that men and women are equal under Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302027801/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/154#154]
Muhammad allowed men to beat their wives until they were 'green'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/105#105]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338868086/39#39]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
According to Islam, all women are stupid, deficient of mind, like domestic animals, lack common sense, lie, fail in religion, rob the wisdom of the wise and should never be trusted.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Women make up the majority of people in hell (hanging by their breasts), because they were not grateful of the favours their husbands did for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Muslims often claim that the treatment of women in Islamic cultures is superior. It is frequently claimed that denial of basic rights such as freedom of dress [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] is liberating. Women are required to start covering their bodies from puberty, apparently to prevent the objectification of women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/74#74][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26] Muslims often claim that the downsides associated with personal freedom in the west are actually the purpose of personal freedom – ie that women are only allowed to do as they please to facilitate men who want to take advantage of them. Women may be subjected to domestic violence (see separate entry). Wives are expected to ‘hasten to satisfy’ their husbands sexual appetite on demand. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] The testimony of a woman in court is considered half that of a man. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1] Women are not allowed to mix freely with men who are not relatives and must have their husband’s permission to leave the house. Women may not travel without a close male relative or shake hands with a man who is not a close relative. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Islam stipulates the minutia of a woman's life, including how she must breastfeed her children [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294] Women are discriminated against in inheritance law, getting half the inheritance of a man (on the grounds that some other man will look after her). Muslim men may marry four wives, including non-Muslims (Christians and Jews only [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]), but a woman can only have a single husband, who must be Muslim. In addition, Muslim men may take female sex slaves and have sex with ‘whatever their right hand possesses’. Islam rejects the concept of a man and woman falling in love and getting married. Rather, an old man may marry a child bride, who is expected to ‘grow to love’ him in humble servitude during the course of the marriage.

=== Economics ===

Islam has it's own peculiar economic system. The Muslim community has a 'difficult' history with, and philosophical approach to, the use of government funds. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1534310293] When foreign governments set up regional monopolies within Australia to approve Halal meat for export (and charge extortionist prices for doing so [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468052946/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468233758][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378852212/25#25]), Muslims attempt to pass this off as an example of how capitalism is supposed to work. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1393493672] This money supposedly goes to educating children. Similar excuses are made when the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils siphons off millions of dollars from the Australian government that should have gone to educating their own children in private Muslim schools. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30]

== Justice ==

=== Justice ===
Islamic courts consider the testimony of non-Muslims to be inferior, on the grounds that non-Muslims are inherently dishonest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223872802]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317211760]
Women are also considered inferior witnesses, and some crimes require male witnesses for a conviction, on the grounds that the witnesses must be reliable.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
A non-Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225427458]
Islamic etiquette requires Muslims to extend to other Muslims the benefit of the doubt, to make excuses for them, and to conceal their faults.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/32#32]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170/39#39]
"Whosoever conceals the faults of a Muslim, Allah will conceal his faults in this world and the Hereafter. Allah will aid a servant (of His) so long as the servant aids his brother." This, combined with other forms of discrimination, would cause problems that further undermine justice and erode the rights of non-Muslims.

=== Equality ===

Muslims try to spin the various discriminatory aspects of Islam into a narrative of equality and social justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395533499] The reality is that there is only tentative equality and justice (of a sort) for male Muslims. Muhammad created a pernicious caste system in a society where Pagans, Jews and Christians previously interacted as genuine equals.

=== Death Penalty ===

Islam prescribes death by stoning, a particularly cruel punishment, to many crimes. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1383609440] These include adultery, incest, prostitution, female genital mutilation (see clarification below), sex with a pre-pubescent girl, apostasy, heresy, paganism, banditry (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft Theft]) etc. Lesser crimes, such as fornication and masturbation, are punished by whipping. Homosexuality is punished the same way as adultery or fornication. Death by stoning involves burying men up to their chests and women up to their necks and stoning them to death. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/43#43] There are rules regarding the size of stones and distance of throw to prevent a quick death. I have not been able to get a straight answer on which crimes invovle death by stoning and what the other methods for carrying out the death penalty are. Muhammad appears to have preferred decapitation by sword when a large number (hundreds) of people needed to be killed (see collective punishment - not usually the case with crimes of sexual nature).

=== Collective Punishment, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing ===

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

All Muslims Support Genocide[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1543371381].

Islam supports the collective punishment of non-Muslims, particularly Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354282385/24#24]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_antisemitism]
This includes slaughtering and expelling entire Jewish tribes in response to crimes against individual Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894]
Muslims will argue that neither the execution of every single man from a defeated Jewish tribe, nor forcing all the women into sexual slavery is an example of collective punishment. The sexual slavery is even described as "protective custody". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/1#1]
Muslims will argue that it was the Jews who were intent on committing genocide.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/213#213]
Muhammad "prophesied" the ethnic cleansing of all non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula by his second successor Umar. He told Umar of this prediction in person. Umar partially fulfilled this prophesy, expelling all non-Muslims from the Hijaz area. Of course, all the non-Muslims brought this upon themselves by breaking covenants with Muhammad, and the harsh punishment was necessitated by the dire threats posed by the Jews and others to the Islamic state, and by the hostility of the Pagans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/4#4] Muslims will also attempt to pass this off as 'voluntary' conversion to Islam by every single pagan on the peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Christians were also expelled as collective punishment, resulting in the population of a large area (around modern day Saudi Arabia) becoming 100% Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288] Geopolitical strategy is cited as an excuse for forced relocation from the Arabian peninsula, and Muslims consider that the people involved were lucky not to meet a worse fate. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894] Muhammad used pillage and murder as a form of punishment. Muslims justify Muhammad 'putting down' people by citing later examples where non-Muslims were the perpetrators. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] Muslims will attempt to derail discussing of collective punishment under Muhammad into a debate about the meaning of the term, without offering an alternative meaning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantics]

Muslims will also try to justify Muhammad's career robbing Meccan caravans from his base in Medina as collective punishment of the Meccans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/136#136]

=== Torture ===

Muhammad often used torture and beating to extract information from people and to punish them (eg for consuming alcohol). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392514541]
Muhammad ordered the torture (and then beheading) a Jewish man by lighting a fire on his stomach. The purpose of this torture was to make him reveal where the Jewish gold was hidden. Muhammad then married the man's wife as a "gesture of goodwill" towards the Jews (the woman was regarded as being very beautiful). The men of the tribe were then killed and the women and children sold into slavery.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/28#28]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367418236/260#260]
Muslims will often attempt to justify the decade or so in which Muhammad robbed caravans and then conquered the Arabian peninsula by insisting early Muslims were tortured and mistreated, however no details have been made available.[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft]

=== Domestic violence ===
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48] Muslims will also say that Islam permits them to slap their wife to keep them in line, but will deny that this is domestic violence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70]
There is disagreement over the extent to which husbands are allowed to beat their wives, ranging from wife beating being ‘permissible but not advisable’ to a husband being permitted to strike his wife with a miswak so as not to leave bruises, but in a sufficiently violent demonstration of anger and frustration to break the woman out of her ‘nasty mood’. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227877786/35#35] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] Humiliation is also often stated as the goal of domestic violence in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70] Obviously, once you permit domestic violence, whatever moral limits that are placed on wife beating are bound to be breached in the heat of the moment even by a pious man, and completely ignored by others, especially as the wife must cover her body in public and may not leave the house without the husband’s permission. Absurdly, one legal recourse for a wife who has been beaten beyond ‘legal limits’ is to gain a court order to be allowed to beat her husband in retaliation. Muslims cite this as a demonstration of the fairness of Islam towards women.

There are several accounts of Muhammad beating his wives and laughing when other Muslims beat his (Muhammad's) wives. There are verses in the Quran the specifically permit wife beating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/197#197]

=== Discrimination ===
Islam preaches the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/4#4]
Islam's economy is essentially a protection racket targetted at non-Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225870861]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/310#310]
Non-Muslims must pay a special tax for the privilege of not having to slaughter other non-Muslims on Islam's behalf. This tax is applicable at all times, not just times of war. In Islamic society, Christians and Jews are referred to as 'Dhimmis'. Limited tolerance is extended to them, conditional upon a number of seemingly arbitrary discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/2#2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39] This is to force Dhimmis into a condition of humiliation, segregation and discrimination, so that even the lowliest Muslim may feel superior to them and thus not feel tempted by their material success. These rules extend to greetings, behaviour, clothing, transport, employment, trade, housing etc. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887] Dhimmis risk death or slavery for violating these requirements. Limited autonomy in the form of Christian and Jewish civil courts and administrations are allowed, but this is not extended to non-Abrahamic religions. All other types of non-Muslim people are treated far worse. Fellow Muslims who follow a different branch of Islam are considered non-Muslims and risk the death penalty for apostasy, especially if they promote their views in any way.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/59#59]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
Non-Muslims face institutionalised injustice (see justice above).

=== Democracy vs Theocracy ===
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]
Islam requires establishment of theocracy. Democracy is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/64#64]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/145#145]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
Secularism is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Islam combines what westerners typically consider to be religion and politics.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]
Muslims may elect a representative to implement Islamic law, but this is not required and the representative has no mandate to implement anything other than Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1] Candidates are limited to the most learned Islamic Scholars. Islam even forbids the 'Islamic' party of Australia and forbids people from voting for it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232631004/14#14] Islam also requires the resurrection of the Caliphate, which would mean a return to the bad old days of expansionist military empires trying to take over the world.

=== Treason and national allegiance ===
There is currently no Caliphate, but as soon as one is (re)created, Muslims are required to abandon the countries they live in and move to the Caliphate, which is where their true allegiance lies. This is likely to be in the context of a war between the Caliphate and other nations. If Australia was at war with the Caliphate, Australian Muslims would be required to take up arms against Australia. There is no clear guideline for identifying when this should occur, however many Australian Muslims believe that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

=== War ===

Muhammad executed or oversaw the execution of approximately 700 prisoners of war from a single Jewish tribe after defeating them in battle. Muhammad and modern Muslims attempt to "wash his hands" of this extreme punishment. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476] Even apparently progressive Muslims will describe criticism of this episode as "cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam", [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910] as well as try to justify it as necessary defense of a (then non-existent) Islamic state. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392294329] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabaian peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375266038][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604]

Islam requires its followers to establish an empire called a Caliphate. The religion itself is based on Muhammad's rule over his empire. All Muslims are required to return to this empire and to perform military service on its behalf [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66], unless they can buy their way out of it.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344740521]
Islam’s history was dominated by the rise and gradual collapse of a Caliphate. It is only recently that they have been without a ‘homeland’. If an Islamic empire wins a war, it can take all of the land and possessions from the people. The victors get to choose, based on what is most beneficial to the empire, whether the conquered people have to flee their land with nothing, remain with no land or possessions, or become slaves to the invaders.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61]
Situations like Israel and Northern Ireland, except more extreme, are the norm rather than the exception.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581]
Muslims often claim that the empire only spread through self defence, but this is clearly not true. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/44#44] For example, at the height of the empire, Muslims crossed the Mediterranean to join in a war in modern day Spain. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/14#14] After their initial victory, they turned on their one-time allies and slaughtered them also. They then proceeded to conquer the entire peninsula and send raids into modern day France. Muslims expect an Islamic empire to one day recapture Spain.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345026756/87#87]
In dealing with prisoners of war, Islamic doctrine permits a ruler to choose the most profitable or beneficial of four options: killing them, enslavement and possible sale, ransom or pardon.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234931054]
Many Muslims believe that the west has been in a state of war with the Muslim world since the 1920's.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128]
Muslims oppose any 'surrender' by Palestinians after losing a war decades ago on the grounds that a military victory by Muslims is imminent. They support peace treaties in this situation, but do not see them as a form of surrender. Rather, they are merely an agreement to temporarily halt the war and restart it later.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1406593144/49#49]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279]
Any treaty can be broken in this context as Islam encourages deception. Islam only permits its followers to obey a peace treaty for a maximum of ten years, after which war must resume.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232015305]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345155967/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145]
Muslims even equate refusal to surrender with not actually losing a war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/31#31]
Like the German people afer world war one, Muslims will also reject the legitimacy of any modern peace agreement.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315637372/10#10]
Muslims consistently seek out historical military losses by Muslims to use as justification for past, current and planned future aggression against non-Muslims, no matter how disconnected the events are.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/9#9]

=== Racism and antisemitism ===

Muslims believe that in historical conflicts between Jews and Muslims, the Jews were always to blame. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294] Muhammad set many examples of blaming Jews when he in fact was slaughtering or ethnically cleansing them. (See also Collective Punishment [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing]) At the same time, Muslims will insist that Islam is tolerant towards Jews and even encourages the protection of Jews.

Racism is technically against Islam, yet it is widespread, especially among politically active promoters of Islam. Nazis toured the middle east prior to WWII to drum up support for Hitler's cause and win allies. They brought the fervent antisemitism with them, which proved very popular with the locals. While the west was repulsed by the consequences of Hitler's antisemitism, the middle east and Muslims held onto it. The middle east had suffered a similar defeat to Germany, being part of a once glorious empire that slowly crumbled and was eventually dismantled by foreign powers. As always, Jews were an easy scapegoat for their misery. Having a tiny corner of 'their' territory handed over to Jews after WWII fueled the antisemitism among Muslims all over the world, to a far greater extent than the amount of land involved would suggest. Modern conspiracy theories about Jews are rife in the Muslim community and have not progressed very far beyond the crude style promoted by Hitler. Muhammad himself used anti-Jewish propaganda to further his political career and slaughtered many Jews. The justifications that modern Muslims give for the historical slaughter of Jews by Muhammad and for modern antagonism towards Jews is eerily similar to Nazi propaganda.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327483631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1343475620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212726620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338504963]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299483524]

Many Muslims consider Israel's destruction to be inevitable and oppose any surrender to Israel for this reason (see war [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War]). Muslims often portray Israel as being inflicted on the middle east by Europe and insist the Jews be sent back to Europe, however the greatest contributor to Israel's Jewish population were Jews that were expelled by Muslims from middle eastern countries - thus nearly completing Muhammad's prediction that this ethnic cleansing would happen. Those countries then attempted to invade Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372552172][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434]

Islam is not antagonistic towards Jews alone. Jews supposedly receive a measure of protection in Islam. Atheists, polytheists etc receive far worse treatment (see freedom of religion [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_of_religion]), while Shiites and any other Muslim groups that stray outside of what is considered mainstream Islam receive the death penalty for apostasy (see above).
Anti-white racism is also common and provides an easy way to blame non-Muslims for the collapse of the Islamic empire and the current state of affairs in the middle east. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330731658]

Muslims will also 'play the race card' to promote Islam. For example, they often insist that all criticism of Islam is based on racism, rather than a rational or moral objection to the teachings of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416194100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1319026216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231418706]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1437265164]
The same Muslims will also insist that calls to move Israel's population out of the middle east, justified on the basis that "Arabia is for Arabs" (and a clip from Lawrence of Arabia to show us what proper Arabs look like) is not in fact racism.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1461906947/332#332]
The explanation for why this is not racist included the fact that 'Arab' is a reference to a linguistic (and not racial) group, that the ethnic cleansing of the middle east can be justified by its history, and that critics of Islam were not sufficiently critical of other instances of racism directed at Muslims.

Muslims often fuel existing or historical racial hatred in order to create a sense of solidarity with a group of people through a shared victimhood narrative. For example, Muslims have claimed that Australian Aborigines had universities, embassies and effective quarantine programs for imports prior to the arrival of Europeans, thanks to the influence of Muslim traders from Indonesia. These Muslims also taught the Aborigines to violently repel Europeans and inspired them to several great military victories over European farmers. Part of this narrative is that Aborigines should have been more violent and that this would have led to a better outcome for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341787168]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338172056]
In the USA, the Nation of Islam is a racist Muslim 'black power' movement - ironic given that the biggest racism problem in Islam's heartland is against Africans.

==== The Jewish tribes of Medina ====

Early in his career, Muhammad was expelled from Mecca. He was later invited to broker peace in nearby Medina, a city with diverse groups that were frequently in conflict with each other. Muhammad was seen as being independent. However for Muhammad, Medina was of strategic military importance. It was a stronghold from which he could rob caravans trading with Mecca, and he wanted to obtain absolute control of it. At the time there were three powerful Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad saw them as a strategic threat. Muhammad soon started openly preaching hostility towards the Jewish tribes, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/145#145] and within a few years had gotten rid of all three of them, on weak pretexts. After each major battle, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of some form of treachery and used this as an excuse to reneg on his agreement with them. The first tribe to be expelled were the Banu Qaynuqa, who as artisans and traders were in close contact with Mecca. After being strengthened by victory in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad publicly demanded they convert to Islam or meet the same fate. Muhammad besieged them and they surrendered after a fortnight. Muhammad wanted to slaughter them, but was convinced by a Muslim convert to be 'lenient' to them. This succeeded, however the convert was forever dubbed 'leader of the hypocrits'. Muhammad expelled the tribe, and kept all of their posessions. The other two tribes either remained neutral or supported Muhammad. After losing the battle of Mount Uhud, Muhammad accused members of the Banu Nadir of plotting to assassinate him (apparently an angel warned him of the plot). Muhammad expelled them also, again keeping their property. He became personally very wealthy by taking a large amount of their land for himself. The tribe initially agreed to leave, then refused, believing the third Jewish tribe would assist them. This help did not materialise and they surrendered after Muhammad besieged them for a fortnight. Muhammad later attcked them again, forcing them to become his subjects, hand over all the new land they had acquired, and pay 50% of what they grew as tax. In the battle of the trench, members of the third tribe (Banu Qurayza) assisted Muhammad, however the tribe entered into failed negotiations with the enemy. After the enemy departed, Muhammad was directed by an angel to attack the tribe, again besieging them for about a month. They surrendered, and Muhammad had all adult men in the tribe executed. The women were taken as sex slaves. Muhammad forced other Jewish tribes to pass the judgement and carry out the executions in order to distance himself from it and make it harder for the other Jews to hold it against him. Muslims will insist that the Jews were a borg-like, mindless collective in order to justify the collective punishment (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing Collective Punishment]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/122#122]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/9#9]

Thus, Muhammad established a pattern of behaviour of claiming victimhood while slaughtering Jews, taking Jewish women as sex slaves, confiscating their property, all the while while blaming Jews for their own mistreatment.

Muslims will attempt to 'flood' a discussion about the Jewish tribes a Medina with a long list of excuses and justifications. None of these justifications stand up to scrutiny, however Muslims will change between them rapidly in order to avoid detailed consideration of any one of them, in the hope that people will loose interest before gaining an appreciation of what happened. Some examples:

Jews were tribal and had no concept of individuality. The Jews were a 'mindless collective'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544]
The fact that there were only 700 of them shows they had a collective mind. The Jewish tribe failed to act consistently as a collective.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/22#22]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
The 'tribe' was punished for it's actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
The Jews were to blame for every conflict between Muslims and Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Muhammad needed a 'permanent solution' and it was impractical to continue detaining them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
Cricising this action is 'cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
The actions of Muhammad are morally equivalent to modern punishments for treason.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/27#27]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/24#24]
Current anti-terror and bikie laws also invoke guilt by association.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/35#35]
Their presence at the time of surrender proves their guilt, because they previously had the opportunity to commit treason by turning against their own tribe and joining the enemy that had laid siege to them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
Muhammad had learnt his lesson about the dangers of letting Jews live.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It is reasonable to ascribe collective guilt if they had the opportunity to distance themselves from the actions of other Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The Jews violated a treated that compelled them to come to the defence of the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
The fact that many of them actually helped Muhammad and the Muslims defend themselves is irrelevant to their guilt, because the tribe also acted against Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
Their treachery had nothing to do with refusing to help the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The tribe was judged by a Jew, according to Talmudic law and thus Muhammad was not responsible for the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
There was an ongoing war and the Muslims were fighting for their very existence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
One of the tribes had 'effectively declared war'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
The Jews and their allies were planning genocide of the Muslims, so it is only reasonable for Muhammad to commit genocide in anticipation of this.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
It is OK because Muhammad was not motivated by racism (he 'had Jewish friends').
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler was much worse, even if you adjust for the number of Jews available for slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler actually acted irrationally and undermined his quest for power by dedicating so many resources to slaughtering Jews, whereas Muhammad did it for more practical reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
You need to consider the historical context.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
The enslavement of all the women after the men were slaughtered was actually a form of protective custody.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
Sex slavery does not necessarily mean serial rape and there was a possibility of emancipation (eg by bearing a male child to their Muslim owner).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Other, more evil rulers, would have slaughtered the women and children also.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Only the Jewish POWs who had participated in fighting against Muslims were executed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
It just looks bad because of the holocaust, and thus Muslims are being blamed for the attrocities of Europeans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
The leaders had conspired against the fledgling Islamic State which had to be protected.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
By remaining in Medina, the Jewish tribe posed an ongoing threat to the new Islamic State, which was surrounded by enemies.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/6#6]
The tribe was too powerful and autonomous and acted beligerantly.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Primacy of self preservation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It was a serious situation and the Jews could not be handled with 'kid gloves'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/15#15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It doesn't matter whether their actions were right or wrong.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
It was not actually about punishment and it does not matter who was actually to blame.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
It is irrelevant whether they deserved the punishment. It's like a Clint Eastwood movie.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15#15]
The 'proper meaning' of collective punishment somehow excludes mass executions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
Collective punishment is an overly emotive term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
Collective punishment is a meaningless term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There is no point discussing whether it was collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Collective punishment has a different meaning today.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/98#98]
It was collective punishment, but it was justified.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
Punishing a group collectively is not the same as collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/49#49]
It has nothing to do with slaughtering POWs.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/239#239]
The expulsion/eradication of all three large Jewish tribes should be viewed as 'power-politics' rather than religious persecution.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/71#71]
Merely banishing two of the tribes instead of slaughtering them was a level of mercy previously unheard of.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/15#15]
Slaughtering 800 Jews in one day cannot be seen as intimidating.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There are significant differences between practicing and achieving ethnic cleansing.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/68#68]
Muhammad merely 'prophesised' the ethnic cleansing of Arabia, which is different from commanding it, and it was not completed until after Muhammad died.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was 'forced' to remove all non-Muslims from the Hijaz. Non-Muslims were given a 'chance' to live in peace with Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was committed to living peacefully with non-Muslims but was force to change for strategic reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Only those who actually fought the Muslims were killed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/61#61]
Punishing a group for a crime commited by their leader is perfectly consistent with punishing them for their own actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
Muhammad offered to let them go if they promised not to do it again, but they refused.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
It is not up to Muslims to back up any of the claims they make to justify the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/65#65]
It's OK because they were not bona fide Jews.

==== Blaming races for diseases ====

Muslims will hold Europeans collectively accountable for 'European' diseases introduced to the Americas. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/348#348][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1576746962/0#0] Arabs are also collectively accountable for 'Arab' diseases introduced by Arabs, but generally get an exception because their diseases were introduced "as a result of friendly traders making contact with natives in good faith and instigating trade based on mutual respect" (in fact the main item traded by Muslim Arabs were female sex slaves). Europeans get no such exemptions because European diseases were introduced to the Americas by Spaniards with the intention of raping the locals (Europeans were actually trying to discover an alternative trade route to Asia after the Muslim Ottomans made the land route too dangerous). Europeans are to be blamed regardless of whether the introduction of diseases was intentional. Muslims will even argue that the native Americans would have somehow avoided introduced diseases were it not for the sinister intentions of Europeans.

=== Honesty ===

Muslims often attempt to conceal aspects of Islam that they believe their audience will object to, or to mislead them about it
(see [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712]
Islam even forbids Muslims from making inquiries about Islam where they may feel uncomfortable with the answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360487801]
Muslims will insist that lying is permissible in a very limited set of situations, such as war (Muslims refer to this as taqiyya [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348]). They will attempt to argue that this means lying is not permitted in Islam, but also claim that they believe the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595] Historically (during the Caliphate) Islam divided the world into two parts - the house of peace and the house of war (outside the Caliphate, where lying about Islam is presumably permitted). Muslims are also encouraged to deceive in order to achieve peace, in particular by inventing 'good' information. However such fabrications are considered by Islam to not be lies, thus allowing Muslims to lie about Islam at the same time as insisting Islam forbids lying, without actually lying. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/79#79]
Sunni Muslims will also claim that Shiites permit themselves to lie, but not Sunnis.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583]

=== Honour ===

Islam regards honour highly, placing it above truth, compassion, freedom etc. A key reason given for the standards of evidence and for the death penalty by stoning for crimes of a sexual nature is to conceal people and to "make societies avoid accusations against people’s honour and aspersions on their lineages." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48] This is taken to the extent of claiming that they are liars in Allah's eyes (an issue of truth) if they cannot produce witnesses to back up their claims of sexual indiscretion, even if they know the claim to be truthful. A Muslim's honour is considered to be of 'grave sanctity'.

=== Theft ===

The penalty for theft is getting your hand cut off. Kleptomaniacs would get their hand cut off. If a weapon is used, then the punishment for 'banditry' applies: "they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474]

Although Muhammad forbade theft on a 'personal' level, he engaged in theft as part of his nation-building process, by robbing caravans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604] Muslims justify this theft by arguing that they felt persecuted by the people they were stealing from. They will also insist Muslims were tortured and mistreated by the people they were stealing from, however no details are ever provided to back up these claims. In a broader sense, this theft was performed by the Muslim community as a whole (often by a few hundred men) against non-Muslims. Muhammad later commanded his followers not to fight Jews and Christians if they paid a special tax (jizya).

== Sex ==

=== Sex slaves ===

In addition to their wives, Muslim men may have sex with female slaves (concubines [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1326238283/15#21]). Islam "abrogates" the marriage of captured (non-Muslim) women to make this permissible. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887]

=== Rape ===

Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332074116] Where sex is not permitted, rape is punished the same way as consensual sex. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/27#27][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474/13#13] Muslims reject the concept of 'consenting adults' and do not consider sex to be consensual unless God (ie Islamic law) permits it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/43#43] Islam requires a wife to satisfy her husband's sexual desires and does not recognise the need for consent based on the wife's choice.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/60#60]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
In other words, for a woman sex is either completely forbidden or obligatory at the whim of the man, depending on the context. Muslim men may have sex with slaves or 'whatever their right hand possesses', however Muslims distinguish between slaves that you have sex with and 'sex slaves', presumably on the grounds that only the owner of the slave may rape her legally.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330835332]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566]
Women caught through conquest may also be raped. Muslim's consider the rape of their slaves as a 'right' and even go so far as to describe it as liberating for captured women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/15#15] Rape of a non-Muslim woman under other circumstances is technically illegal under Islam, but the courts discount the testimony of non-Muslims as unreliable. In addition to the punishment for consensual sex, an 'illegal' rapist must also pay a dowry to the victim. If the victim is a slave, the rapist must reimburse for the reduction in value of the slave (presumably to the owner of the slave). This payment must be made regardless of whether the victim is a virgin (though this would presumably have an impact on the value of a slave). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Muslims often claim that the low rate of reporting of rape and pedophilia in Islamic societies is evidence of low occurrence, rather than legalisation of rape, the difficulties in achieving conviction and the barriers to reporting (many women who report rape often get convicted of sex related crimes). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773]

=== Pedophilia and child brides ===

Pedophilia was apparently common in Muhammad's time, and Muhammad is considered by Muslims to have been within his rights (according to the customs of the time [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/141#141]) to have sex with his child bride before she reached puberty. The most reliable sources explicitly state that she was 9 years old when he had sex with her. Despite numerous later references to her menstruating, there is no record in any Islamic texts of whether she had reached puberty at this time. Aisha possessed dolls at the time Muhammad had sex with her, but this is not proof she was prepubescent, as the ban on dolls for post-pubescent girls applies to playing with them, not possessing them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176] The meaning of 'maturity' in terms of age of consent depends on the context. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/174#174] In Muhammad's time girls were 'conditioned' to grow up quickly. Muhammad and Aisha were 'in love' when they married (when she was 6 years old and he was about 50). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176]

Although many Muslims insist that the age of consent in Islamic law is puberty, the concept of age of consent is not mentioned in any Islamic texts, despite for example puberty being stated as the age at which an orphan may be given rights to his property. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/225#228] There are some verses regarding the withholding period for divorced women that condone sex with prepubescent girls. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/144#144] These have been used by some Muslim clerics to specifically permit sex with pre-pubescent wives and even issue instructions on how to "deal with them" during the consummation. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/228#228] Child brides, including pre-pubescent child brides, are still a big problem in many parts of the Middle East and North Africa where Islam has had a strong influence on the culture.

Even where Muslim leaders rule that a husband must wait until his wife reaches puberty to have sex with her, Islam still effectively institutionalises pedophilia in marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057] A pedophile may have up to four prepubescent wives at any time, and as many slave girls as he can get his hands on. He does not have to marry the girls for life but can divorce them and get a new prepubescent wife as soon as they become too mature for his taste. The only caveat on this is that society trusts him not to actually have sex with them until they reach puberty. However, he may live with the girls and move wherever he wants. This, combined with the Islamic requirement for women to cover themselves from head to toe, the dislocation imposed on their lives, and the strict control that men exert over the women they own (eg, a wife requires her husband's permission to leave the house) means that institutionalised pedophilia is impossible to eradicate within Islamic law. Pedophilia outside of marriage is punishable the same way as consensual sex, however given the severe punishment for this and the pedophile-friendly marriage laws it is likely that many pedophiles will satisfy themselves within the confines of marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28] Attempts to eradicate organised 'extra marital' pedophilia (ie, pedophile rings) would be hampered by the same laws that prevent the discovery of pedophilia within marriage.

Pedophile marriages among Muslim communities within the west can go largely unnoticed, due to lack of interest within the Muslim community in preventing it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391854581][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773/10#10]

=== Incest ===

Muhammad married his first cousin. In Islam's traditional heartland the practice is common and causes many problems - both biological, in terms of congenital abnormalities, and social, in terms of arranged marriages, child brides, women's rights, etc. Up to 80% of marriages in some places are blood related. The level drops for immigrant Muslim groups in the west, but can still be as high as 40%. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1382857194/32#32] Muhammad's example no doubt makes it hard to advise people of the risks, given the inevitable hostility to the suggestion that Muhammad did something wrong and that his example should not be followed. The penalty for incest outside of marriage is the same as for consensual sex (death by stoning). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Arranged marriages ===

Islam prescribes arranged marriages. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196/15#15]

=== Polygamy ===

A man may have up to four wives (at a time) in addition to sex slaves (see below). A woman may have only one husband. She only needs one, as he provides whatever she needs. A Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but not an atheist one or one from a 'non-Abrahamic' religion. A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man. Muhammad was permitted roughly 11 wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480/3#3]

=== Love ===

Islam does not accept the conventional view of love, which is discarded as nothing more than infatuation, which disables reason and logic. Instead, women grow to love the husband who was chosen for them. This love is based around a belief in Islam as the one true religion. For this reason it makes no difference if a girl is married at the age of 6, 12 or 18, or how much older her chosen husband is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196] Islam facilitates domestic violence, and women are expected to be subservient to their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/9#9] If she cheats on her chosen husband, she is stoned to death (see adultery below). Muslims believe that this facilitates 'normal and healthy relationships within the confines of marriage'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

=== Adultery ===

The penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753]
No concessions are given in the case of organised marriage, which is the norm.

=== Fornication ===

The penalty for fornication (premarital sex) is 100 lashes. The penalty may be waived if the fornicators were not given the opportunity to marry before sex (eg because they couldn't afford it).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/5#5]

=== Prostitution ===

The penalty for prostitution is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Homosexuality ===

The penalty for acting gay or talking in an effeminate or gay manner by choice (ie excluding physical 'defect') is death by stoning. This is considered to be apostasy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/3#3]. The penalty for homosexual sex itself is the same as for adultery or fornication, depending on whether you are married.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28]
Apparently, very few gays would actually be executed because homosexuality simply disappears under Islam. That is, it is not driven underground by the death penalty; rather men just stop having sex with each other because they are Muslims and they live under Shariah law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11]
This can be contrasted with modern Saudi Arabia, where men can often be found having sex with each other in public toilets. Apparently, this can be attributed to the laws governing the lives of women being slightly stricter than the correct Islamic standards.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/15#15]
Such men are using other men as a substitute for women and are thus not gay, merely have gay sex. However the penalty for gay sex is the same regardless of whether you are actually gay. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11] An Islamic society that permits four wives per man, requires women to cover everything except their face and hands, to get permission from a man to leave the house and that bans unrelated women and men from interacting socially would apparently not run out of women and lead to the same situation as Saudi Arabia because not every man would have four wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24]

=== Masturbation ===

Masturbation is forbidden in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] The punishment is of a broad category called "ta'zeer". In the later Ottoman times, ta'zeer punishments ranged from fines and mild lashings to short prison terms.

=== Bestiality ===

The penalty for bestiality is death by stoning. The animal must also be killed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170] Some Muslims believe there is no punishment, except for killing the animal and selling it to a neighbouring village. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511]

=== Necrophilia ===

Necrophilia is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted, with the added restriction that the corpse has to be fresh. The Arab spring gave birth to serious efforts to legalise necrophilia (with a 6 hour time limit) and reduce the age of consent in Egypt. The legislation is currently before parliament. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1310028601/21#21]

=== Privacy ===

Muslims believe that what happens in the bedroom rarely stays in the bedroom and is harmful to society. They also believe that the law cannot be separated from morality on this or any other issue. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]

== Other ==

=== Art ===
Islam specifically forbids any depiction of any of the prophets (including Muhammad, Jesus, Moses etc). This includes pictures and statues. It also forbids any depiction of any revered person, or any person at all. Islam still permits art, but it is strictly abstract. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/20#20]

=== Alcohol ===
All intoxicants are forbidden. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347337305/7#7]

=== Circumcision ===
Circumcision of both men and women is practiced under Islam, though there is disagreement over whether it is required, recommended or merely permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215611509/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395430570/82#82]. The extent of female genital mutilation is controlled and those who cut too much off are punished with death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/7#7]

=== Clothing ===
A woman must cover everything except her face and hands. Her clothes must not be too tight fitting, in case her figure can be made out. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] Penalty????

=== Music ===
Musical instruments are generally forbidden, as they are 'pure evil'. Some Muslims consider singing to be illegal, while others will accept singing and possibly instruments provided the message of the song is acceptable, and also depending on the occasion (eg a wedding).

=== Personal hygiene ===
Muslims are required to remove all of their public hair, but no facial hair. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225352862] Islam provides detailed instructions on ablutions, wiping yourself with your hand, drinking camel urine etc.

== Achieving Change ==

I am still not sure how 'hard' Islam requires its followers to 'lobby' for these changes. There appears to be some confusion on this issue. The general rule seems to be for Muslims to peacefully tolerate modern laws until they are in a powerful enough position to force the adoption of Islamic law.

Wikipedia has a series of articles on controversies related to Islam and Muslims. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_related_to_Islam_and_Muslims]

= Can Islam Adapt? =

It is important not to view Islam, or compare it with other religions, in a historical vacuum. The rampant conservatism in the middle east is no doubt attributable to the longevity of the Ottoman empire and recent western 'progressive' influence which has been just as negative as positive. The 'closure of the gates of ijtihad' (cessation of religious enquiry) some time during or after the 10th century no doubt played a role. However this closure was more by consensus than by Quranic decree, so ultimately there is nothing ruling out a reopening. Western society took a long time to adopt separation of church and state as a core value. Islam appears to rule this out, which poses perhaps the biggest barrier to reform.
Islam requires its followers to contribute productively to any new society they move to. While this may be reassuring for the short term outlook, in the long term it does nothing to rule out a return to military conquest, terrorism and violent struggles for power.

On the upside, the abolition of slavery creates a valuable precedent for modern theologists to challenge what seem to be core tenets of Islam. Another factor in favour of change is that Islam has no generally accepted clerical hierarchy or bureaucratic organization. Thus, liberal movements can arise easily within Islam, as is currently happening. The same problem that allows extremists and terrorists to go relatively unchallenged also allows for progressive reform. Inevitably, Islam will undergo significant reform at some point in the future, or drag the rest of the world back into barbarism. It is crucial that the west allow this to happen, and not 'poison the well' by making the Muslim world associate western values with oppression and decadence.

= European Court of Human Rights and Sharia Law =

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the '''European Court of Human Rights''' determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-RefahPartisi2001jude.html

On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving the RP on the ground that it had become a "centre of activities against the principle of secularism". It also declared that the RP’s assets were to be transferred by operation of law to the Treasury. The Constitutional Court further held that the public declarations of the RP’s leaders, and in particular Necmettin Erbakan, Sevket Kazan and Ahmet Tekdal, had a direct bearing on the constitutionality of the RP’s activities. Consequently, it imposed a further sanction in the form of a ban on their sitting in Parliament or holding certain other forms of political office for a period of five years.

The Court considered that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions: (1) the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and (2) the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognised could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

= OIC vs Freedom of Speech =

In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination.

A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call “Islamophobia.”

Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own “ten-year program of action” which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan’s Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, “Fitna” — Wilders’ short documentary film that ties certain Quranic passages to Islamist terrorism —

is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code.

Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign” which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has “confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.”

In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned “Islamophobes” like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as “dhimmitude.”

Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from “politically incorrect” to “criminally punishable” activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do.

We are witnessing the spectacle of authors’ books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called “Human Rights Councils” on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other “Islamophobic” conduct.

Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of “Shariah-Compliant Finance.”

Let’s be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22:

If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.

On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don’t, you can legitimately be killed.

It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies’ demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today’s totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah —

and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.

www.rashmanly.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/7616/

Deception of Non-Muslims

2019-05-28T01:19:55Z

Freediver: /* Moral equivalence */

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

Muslim spokesmen employ a peculiar style of deceptive propaganda that so far has caught western media off-guard. It takes advantage of a common assumption among those who have only been exposed to other religions – the assumption that the statements of religious leaders can be taken at face value because religious leaders want people to understand their religion. It takes advantage of western ignorance of Islam while at the same time seeking to maintain that ignorance. It takes advantage of people's tendency to see Islam as a religion in the traditional sense, rather than as a combination of a militant political ideology and a religion. Thus a Muslim religious leader should not be seen in the same way as most religious leaders. He should be viewed as a combination of politician and religious leader. When addressing a western, non-Muslim audience, he should not be viewed as a typical missionary, but as an astute politician addressing a hostile audience who won't like all of his policies - he will tell you what you want to hear. Viewing them as a politician can be a difficult task as they often combine this with a hypersensitivity to criticism or direct questioning that a politician could not get away with. 'How dare you accuse me of lying' is a powerful challenge coming from a cleric with his 'religious leader' hat on, but would be ridiculed if it came from a politician.

Muslims use a number of strategies to either conceal the more barbaric aspects of their religion or to deceive people about Islamic doctrine. The initial deception is semantic. Literally, they say one thing and mean another, the opposite of calling a spade a spade. This typically involves using a dual meaning that is generally only understood by Muslims, or using Arabic terms. The initial deception is followed up with a number of rhetorical techniques that create a barrier to effective communication. These are essentially a form of diversion. While some of these tricks are familiar to a western audience, some are largely unfamiliar and play on Islamic concepts with which the west is unfamiliar.

Muslims will discuss with each other deliberate attempts to strategically generate propaganda for the political aspects of Islam. This looks far more like the actions of a political party intent on winning at all costs rather than a religion trying to promote the truth. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276]

= Textual justifications for deception =

There are several textual sources of that justify deception by Muslims. Some are given below:

''Abu Hurairah narrates that the Prophet said: “One who keeps the faults of a Muslim secret in this world, Allah will keep his faults in the Hereafter and Allah remains in the help of the (Muslim) man until he is in the help of his brother.”'' (Musnad Ahmad: 274/2)

Muslims have built a strong tradition and culture around this hadith that places reputation above truth and calls on Muslims to, first and foremost, protect the reputation of other Muslims. Muslims who become aware of illegal or immoral behaviour by fellow Muslims are severely restricted, by Islam, in how they can respond. The inevitable result of this is an oppressive, corrupt society that is completely unwilling to have an open dialogue about it's own oppression and corruption.

Another interesting verse, this time directly from the Quran, forbids Muslims from asking questions about troubling aspects of Islam:

''O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.'' (Surah 5:101-102).

A similar verse:

''The clerk of Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba narrated, "Muawiya wrote to Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba: Write to me something which you have heard from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ." So Al-Mughira wrote: I heard the Prophet saying, "Allah has hated for you three things: ... 3. And asking too many questions (in disputed religious matters)'' (Bukhari vol. 2, Hadith#. 555)

Although this is a call to self-delusion, it is a necessary psychological strategy for the deception of others - both Muslim and non-Muslim - regarding Islam. Feeling constantly pressured to knowingly deceive others might cause Muslims to lose faith. But if Muslims never inform themselves of the troublesome aspects of Islam in the first place, they will have at best only a vague awareness of them, and will more likely accept outright lies about the matter. The version of Islam they pass onto fellow Muslims and non-Muslims will be appropriately 'cleansed' according to whatever the society wants to hear, based on the values of the time. While this may appear to be a recipe for the destruction of Islam from within, it must be remembered that Islam requires its spread to be followed closely by the imposition of a militant Islamic state that is utterly hostile to any 'incorrect' versions of the religion being promoted. This includes the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy, where apostasy is taken to include adopting the 'wrong' version of Islam. Thus, Islam spreads through a combination of willful self-delusion, concealment and deception, followed by the ruthless imposition of the harsh realities of true Islam.

One last example from the Quran:

''And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.'' Qur'an (3:54)

Ironically, many Muslim websites translate this as "plan" rather than "scheme". Technically, the Arabic term can be translated as plan, but only in the context of planning to do someone harm through deceipt.

= Lying about the Quran =

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]]

Muslims will lie about the Quran, primarily to whitewash the promotion of violence.

For example, Chapter 9 of the Quran is entirely devoted to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Muslims will claim that the fist verse of the chapter states that the entire chapter is restricted in context to pagans who violate their treaties with Muslims. Not only does the first verse not actually say this, there are verses in the chapter that clearly go beyond this scope, as well as other broad contextual statements similar to verse one that have a broader scope.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/212#212]
Muslims will argue that a reference to a subgroup of pagans (those with a treaty) must imply that all references to pagans in the chapter must refer to those with a treaty (even when it does not make sense), because the it does specifically mention pagans without a treaty. It was never explained why this was necessary in order to refer to pagans in general.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/223#223]

Muhammad committed genocide by wiping out the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe - the last remaining of three large tribes of Jews in Medina. Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran states that members of the tribe were freed, in order to contradict other Muslim sources who state that all 'adult' (those who had pubic hair) men were killed and the rest taken prisoner. They will 'paraphrase' the Quran to insert the claim that some were freed. The Quran does not state that some were freed, but does confirm they were either executed or taken prisoner.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran forbids rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Sex_Slaves]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran is not anti-semitic (despite clearly anti-semitic content) on the grounds that Jews are technically considered to be Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Religious_Motivation]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Islam.E2.80.99s_Just_War_Doctrine_is_a_Lie]
that the Quran limits war to situations of self defence, without ever mentioning self defence,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]
that quoting chapter 9 of the Quran in its entirety is actually taking it out of context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Context]
that a verse saying to convert people to Islam by the sword actually means war can only be fought against oppression,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Oppression]
that a verse promoting violent retribution is actually a statement of proportionality in war, despite not making even a subtle reference to proportionality
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Proportionality]
Note that the Quran does explicitly limit war to self defence and also offers a clear an unambiguous statement of proportionality in war, but limits these restrictions to the 'holy months'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#When_the_Koran_does_impose_self_defence_and_proportionality]

Muslims will attempt to justify lying about the Quran to non-Muslims by insisting it will make Muslims more peaceful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Justifying_Lies_about_the_Quran]

Muslims have a broad variety of more subtle ways of distancing themselves from their religion
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Disowning_Islam]
or misleading people by changing the meaning of words.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantic_deceptions]

= Some common strategies =

== Exploiting positive assumptions ==

One of the most irony-laden discussions with Muslims revolved around the concept of taqiyya. This rule permits Muslims to deceive people, break the law or commit blasphemy under certain circumstances. When asked whether this gives Muslims free reign to lie to non-Muslims, several Muslims pointed out that it only applies in certain circumstances, such as war. This was an indirect response that relied heavily on the assumption that we are not at war. One of those Muslims later explained that he believed that the West had been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920’s and that the west had declared and carried out this war. This is a good example of a very subtle deception taking advantage of positive assumptions, in the context of discussing deception itself. This strategy works well when combined with hypersensitivity to discourage people from seeking a more direct response when only an indirect response was given. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

== Islamic law follows belief ==

Islam requires the imposition of Shariah law on both Muslims and non-Muslims. Having the law imposed on you is considered necessary and an integral part of Islam. Islam also requires Muslims to follow Islamic law in foreign countries. The process for turning a foreign country into an Islamic one has always been through a process of empire building, often through outright violence, but always with the threat of violence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924] Muslims see no contradiction between this and the 'peaceful empire' fairytale. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581] Muslims will go so far as to insist they are not allowed to lobby for Islamic law and that it merely 'follows naturally' after everyone has converted to Islam, even though this never happened historically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

== Revising history: science and the 'peaceful' empire fairytale ==

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims have created an elaborate fantasy about Islam restricting war to self-defence. This relies on misleading people about trends in historical military strategy, misleading people about Muhammad's actions, and misleading people about the content of the Quran.

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine]]

Revising history appears to be a favourite pastime of Muslims. This usually involves going to absurd lengths to overstate the contributions made by Muslims (especially to science) and undervalue the contribution of non-Muslims, or to pass blame for every historical evil by Muhammad and his successors to the non-Muslim victims. This can in part be attributed to the obligation of Muslims to look more favourably on fellow Muslims than non-Muslims
(see for example
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2 Justice] and
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty Honesty]).
Apparently Muslims made vast contributions to science. For example, the bloke who jumped off a tower with feathers glued to his arms, making a nasty stain on the pavement below, made a valuable contribution to our understanding of flight.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1362655638][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218803024]
One of the most outrageous claims is that the Caliphate (Islamic empire) was peaceful and spread only through self defense, even when it crossed the Mediterranean to invade modern day Spain and France. Muslims actually expect people to take this absurd version of history seriously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493]
A favourite justification for this claim is that Christians welcomed Muslims into Spain with open arms, in order to get lower taxes. What really happened is that the Muslim hordes allied themselves with one Spanish kingdom so they could cross a massive natural protective barrier (the Mediterranean) and slaughter another Spanish kingdom. Then they turned their swords on their allies and slaughtered them too. Then they slaughtered their way across the whole peninsula. Then they started sending raids into modern day France. Eventually the French and Italians booted them out of Europe.
Muslims frequently claim that various towns and Kingdom's welcomed the Empire with open arms. They will describe an offer to submit to the caliphate as entirely peaceful, even when there was a naked threat of violence if the town did not submit. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]

Muslims will deny that Muhammad committed genocide when he exterminated an entire tribe of Jews by killing 800 innocent people (almost all of the post pubescent men) in a single day, and taking the women and children as slaves. They will falsely claim that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina and deserved to die for violating it. However, the tribes concerned were not even a part of the treaty, and in any case the treaty stipulated that members would maintain freedom of religion, which Muhammad had long since abandoned when he started threatening Jews with violence if they did not convert to Islam. A few members of the tribe were allowed to live if they converted to Islam. Rather than acknowledging this as an example of forced conversion, Muslims will try to spin it as Muhammad generously pardoning them for their 'crime' if they disowned their treachery. The Jews surrendered unconditionally when Muhammad laid siege to their fortress and were taken prisoner. Muslims will argue that there was no war and they were thus not prisoners of war and not to be granted any protection as such, on the grounds that they did not notify Muhammad that they were reneging on their treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/145#145] Muslims will falsely claim that only 'warriors' were executed, despite the victims including old men and young boys. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1488589434/18#18]

Muslims will make particularly ludicrous and misleading claims about history, then later justify this by claiming that they made more accurate statements elsewhere and blaming their critics for not quoting the statements that 'matter'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1508378680/261#261]

Muslims will claim that Dhimmitude is specifically against oppression of non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1535727444] The reality is that Muhammad's system of government created a caste system where there was previous Pagans, Jews and Christians living side by side as political equals. Under Dhimmitude, Muslims are on top, Christians and Jews are next, but suffer a variety of deprivations, including genocide when convenient, while pagans are at the bottom and were wiped out very quickly.

== Statistics ==

Muslims often attempt to misrepresent the threat posed by Islamic terrorism with statistics that equate attacks such as 9/11, the London bombings, Madrid and Bali with vandalism attacks by other extremist political groups. They do this by measuring the 'rate' of terrorism by the number of individual events, rather than a more appropriate measure of risk, such as death toll.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340791727]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294223444]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1349425752]

Muslims will also often misrepresent crime statistics, for example by attributing differences in reported rates of crime with actual rates of crime, when there is an obvious difference in reporting patterns. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/225#225] This is most pronounced with crimes such as rape, which are obviously less likely to be reported in middle eastern countries, where the rape victim often ends up being punished. Muslims will often claim that certain crimes were almost non-existent in the historical Caliphate (common examples are [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Homosexuality homosexuality], murder, rape, apostasy etc). They will use their inability to find evidence of successful convictions as evidence that the convictions and punishments were rare, particularly when insisting that the punishment of death by stoning would only be implemented rarely (the classic logical fallacy of equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence). They will then turn this reasoning on it's head and demand that people who disagree with them produce crime statistics from 1000 years ago. On another tangent, apparently a Muslim country will not 'run out of women' until all men have four wives. If not all men can afford four wives, it will not be a problem. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24] (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape].)

Muslims will claim that a survey shows a majority of Australians supporting them in their efforts to make it illegal to mock religion or depict historical religious figures
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that the survey shows them supporting that right. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]

Muslims will offer endless explanations for global surveys revealing the opinions of Muslims - anything other than the survey reflecting what Muslims actually think.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#Malaysia]

= Deflections =

== Simple diversion ==

The first trick usually employed on forums is a simple diversion. If you ask 'do Muslims think it is OK to do this?', they will respond by listing examples of where something similar (no matter how remote the similarity) has been done to Muslims. This shifts the debate away from Islamic doctrine and how it seems immoral to most westerners, to a blame game over who is responsible for past atrocities. Thus Islamic doctrine is not exposed and the debate switches to from moral standards to politics or history.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390612677/11#11]

The most obvious example of this is terrorism. Most Muslims will say that terrorism is wrong, but they then go on to list all the grievances of the middle east. They may also deny that Muslims bear any responsibility for reigning in Islamic terrorists. Many claim that the reigning in of terrorists should not be a first step in the peace process, but rather a last step. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224827866] That is, we must first satisfy all the grievances of the terrorists and give Muslim extremists whatever they want (mostly more political power and geopolitical restructuring of the middle east), and only after that can they be expected to stop slaughtering people. However that is where the explanation stops. Muslims will not explain why they think this. Instead they will bring up some media report of an accidental civilian death attributable to a western army. I suspect that Muslims think this way because they see all non-Muslim lands as being a place of war. One hint of this is that they will refuse to distinguish the deliberate mass murder of civilians by terrorist organisations for which no person or nation can be held accountable, and the accidental death of civilians in an armed conflict with a guerrilla army that hides among civilians. Thus, destroying the twin towers is an act of war in a place of war and is no different to the death of civilians in a 'real' war zone. However, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get a Muslim to either admit to this or to offer some other explanation for why terrorist organisations should be given free reign until their various (largely unspecified) demands have been met.

== Et tu ==

'Et tu' is a reference to a logical fallacy. It refers to the debating strategy of accusing your opponent of something that you yourself have been accused of (or something worse). It is a logical error in the sense that it is used to justify your own actions. In the case of Islam, this tactic is used in an astonishingly predictable manner every time historical injustices committed by Muslims are brought up. The response is to ignore the injustice and how it may relate to Islam (or not) and instead give examples where non-Muslims have done similar things. There does not have to be any causative relationship. For example Muslims have attempted to justify mass murder by Muhammad himself by citing an example of non-Muslims doing something worse in the same town 600 years later (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). This of course helps to completely avoid the issue of whether such behaviour should be incorporated into timeless religious law, or whether it is even endorsed by Islam.

Muslims will falsely claim that Jesus stipulated the inferior status of women in order to insist that Muhammad's Quranic command to beat women, and the account of Muhammad himself beating his favourite child bride for leaving the house without his permission, place no more of a barrier on Muslims stamping out domestic violence than Jesus' teachings place on Christians. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/107#107] They will insist that Muhammad beating his wife is nothing like modern domestic violence because he was not a drunk bogan, and that beating his wife was merely a way of asking her what she was thinking. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/36#36][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/309#309]

== Moral equivalence ==

Arguing moral equivalence is similar to 'et tu'. It is most commonly used in discussing the incident in which Muhammad executed approximately 700 Prisoners of War (POWs). The deception comes in the misleading or missing details required to make the comparison stick. Muslims will argue for example that only combatants were killed, or that only those found guilty of treason were executed (and thus the incident is morally equivalent to the death penalty for treason in some western countries). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/6#6] Muhammad apparently punished them for either assisting his enemies in an earlier attack, not coming to his aid to the extent required by an agreement with them, conspiring with the enemy, or because the angel Gabriel told him to. The excuses offered omit or misrepresent key facts, such as:
* Many of the tribe members actually assisted Muhammad in defending against the earlier attack.
* Muslims will accuse the tribe members of attacking Muhammad when his army was under siege from a different group, however these attacks never actually happened.
* Muhammad attacked the tribe in question.
* The tribe surrendered unconditionally.
* After the they surrendered and were taken away, all able bodied male prisoners of war (and one female) were executed.
* The rest of the women ended up us sex slaves, though some were purchased by another Jewish tribe who felt guilty over their involvement in Muhammad's slaughter.
* Even the children ended up as slaves.
* Muhammad took all the land and possessions also.
Muslims will also attempt to argue that this incident is similar to various atrocities committed during recent wars, completely ignoring the point that we do not worship the soldiers involved as God's messenger and do not condone the execution of POWs, sexual slavery, the enslavement of children, or collective punishment in general. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/37#37]

Some other examples:
* Wife beating is morally equivalent to smacking a child to prevent the child from running onto the road, putting his life at risk. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/227#227]
* Muhammad spent approximately 6 years robbing caravans on their way to Mecca. Muslims will argue that this was just compensation for earlier persecution by Meccans, or that it was a legitimate act in an ongoing war that had been declared but not actually begun. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/4#4]
* Forbidding all non-Muslims from Mecca is no different to being unable to purchase land privately in Vatican city, or to the creation of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374893194/8#8]

Muslims will attempt to make the Allies in WWII morally equivalent to the Nazis, Hirohito and Mussolini. They will argue for example that Hitler was a mere puppet to a grand conspiracy run by the "Christian Establishment". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1550232167] They will also argue that the outcome of WWI and WWII had no implications for freedom and democracy, implying that westerners only fought for greed and self interest and never actually fought to defend freedom and democracy. The implication is that they acquired freedom and democracy instead through some kind of historical accident - thus the large wars fought in the west only differ from Muslims slaughtering each other in that they were on a larger scale. In order to deflect criticism for the various wars fought by Muslims to impose religion on people and acquire sex slaves for the purpose of rape evangelism, as well as the wars that the west had to fight to stop slavery in the Muslim world, Muslims will attempt to blame Christianity for Nazism and deny any broader benefit to the world from defeating the Nazis.

== Victimhood ==

One of the most common responses from Muslims to accusations is to cry victimhood. Muhammad lead the way in this. Shortly after moving into Medina and making peace agreements with the other three Jewish tribes there, Muhammad managed to get rid of all of them by preaching anti-semitism, executing their leaders, expelling the first two, then attacking the last and executing 700 prisoners of war and enslaving the women and children. Muslims (and Islamic doctrine) claim they were victims of Jewish treachery at every step along the way. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475] Muhammad "predicted" even more widespread ethnic cleansing and slaughter of Jews and non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Prediction_vs_order] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabian peninsula, again because they were victims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft] Although Muhammad tortured a Jewish man to get his gold, Muslims will use a fabricated story of torture and mistreatment of early Muslims to justify Muhammad's career of caravan robbing. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Torture] Muslims will even attempt to argue that the rapid expansion of the militant Islamic empire over most of the known world was entirely in self defense, even while acknowledging aggressive military tactics and invasion of lands with which they had barely came into contact with previously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War] This attitude is reflected in the handling of conflicts and disagreements by the modern Muslim community. It is reinforced by Islamic doctrine encouraging Muslims to look favourably upon and only see the best in other Muslims, and to conceal their faults. The principle is also reflected in Islamic concepts of justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Already answered ==

The next trick is usually to claim that the question has already been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224424523/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224359891/80#80][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/54#54][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224071707/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711/3#3][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216217395/104#104][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/69#69][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/6#6] This is usually combined with the implication that you are stupid for having to ask for clarification. This trick is basically a throwback to the deceptive use of dual meanings and unfamiliar terminology, except that it avoids the need to explain it again and risk giving away too much information. This trick is usually first used when you start asking more specific questions that are getting closer to exposing the particular deception.

== Hypersensitivity ==

The next trick is usually employed if you try to justify a request for clarification after Muslims insist that questions have already been answered or that you have no reason to be interested anyway. The Muslim will become hypersensitive at the suggestion that you do not trust them to give you a straight answer. Alternatively, they will accuse you of asking 'loaded' questions, as if there is something wrong with discovering the truth about Islam. Curiously, the more specific and direct the question is, the greater the tendency to claim it is loaded, even if it carries no assumptions at all, or only assumes what has just been verified. That is, a question is loaded if it is a simple, direct question about Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223943323/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/7#7][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226113417/37#37]

'Impure' motives are behind the question. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503891772/39#39]

=== Criticising Islam is racist ===

Muslims will argue that criticising Islam is racist. When it is pointed out that Islam is a religion, not a race, they will make the absurd argument that traditional concepts of race (black, white, asian etc) do not exist, and for this reason the meaning of racism must be changed to include religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504875360][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504234775/71#71] They will also argue that if Jews and Sikhs can get away with self-identifying on racial grounds, Muslims should be able to also, even if they are recent white converts.

== Dummy spit ==

If all else fails, spit the dummy. Make more accusations of ulterior motives, stirring up trouble, asking loaded questions etc. Then, simply refuse to answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155] After one such dummy spit I started a new topic specifically about concubines and after more criticism of my questioning style, I got a limited affirmative response, but no more questions about concubines and their treatment have been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224649993] Yet I have been told in great detail how badly the west treats women.

== Accusations of Insincerity ==

Muslims will use an accusation of insincerity as a justification for refusal to answer simple questions about Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]

== Answering a question with a question ==

For example, demanding to know how elections are run before saying whether Islam supports democracy [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/11#11], demanding to know what the law is before saying whether Islam supports justice, demanding to know what the truth is before giving an honest answer.

== Me no speaka da english ==

Muslims will occasionally find it extremely difficult to comprehend simple questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504877081]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/301#301]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454967711/170#170]
They will even ask questions that they later decide make no sense if asked of them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/155#155]

== Silence ==

Silence as a tactic is reserved for the more disturbing aspects of Islam. While it was employed to a limited extent on the issue of sex slaves, it was employed far more diligently for the issue of the treatment of Hindus, atheists, pagans etc. Muslims will go to great lengths to put a positive spin on Dhimmitude – the institutionalised humiliation of Christians and Jews. However if you ask them about the treatment of those who are not ‘people of the book’ they will likely pretend you don’t exist. The issue of sex slaves was generally avoided, partly by accident. However, numerous questions were asked over a long period of time about the treat of non-Dhimmi non-Muslims. Even when I started a new thread asking specifically about the treatment of these people, it was ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000] I started raising the issue in a few other related threads and posting links. It was still ignored. Only after I posted evidence that Islam promotes wholesale slaughter of these people, and others began complaining that they can’t get a straight answer either, was a response posted by resident Muslims. Of course, these responses did not answer the question about Islamic doctrine regarding the treatment of these people. For the most part, the actual question was ignored, as best it could be. When it was approached, the reverse “Islam does not exist” argument was the most common tactic (after the obvious deflections to the ‘evil west’). Where Muslims will usually respond that the various unfortunate situations across the middle east have nothing to do with Islam, in this case the argument was that the situation in the middle east is the only valid indicator of what Islamic doctrine is. Thus the mere presence of these other religions in the middle east is now ‘proof’ of the positive approach to them in Islamic doctrine.

== Outcomes vs ideology ==

Muslims will argue that an outcome strongly linked to Islam (eg Afghans stoning people to death without the appropriate paperwork) has nothing to do with Islam because it did not occur under official Shariah law. They will also argue the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
- that for example the failure of Muslims to wipe out Hindus in India (despite conceding that they tried) is evidence that Islam does not support this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] This is a strategy of 'shifting the goal posts'. If you ask a Muslim about Islamic doctrine, they will tell you about an outcome that makes Islam appear more benign to you (usually a long way from the Arabian peninsula where Islam only reached in later centuries). If you ask them about the actions of Muslims that are apparently identical to the actions decreed by Muhammad, they will complain about how it differs from doctrine - for modern examples the most convenient is the 'Islam does not exist' argument. Another example of shifting the goal to 'outcomes' is this claim that Islamic lands have more religious diversity. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/3#3] This is from the same Muslim that conceded that Islam was successful in wiping out every single non-Muslim in the Arabian peninsula (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). The relative diversity further from the heart of Islam can be attributed to two fairly obvious reasons: the relative youth of the religion, and the aggressive empire building that was characteristic of it's spread - Islam would first conquer a land in a military sense, then set about making the people convert to Islam using whatever means worked best. This of course worked to avoid the actual question, which was specifically about doctrine, not outcomes. In the same thread, this argument claims that remaining a Muslim is evidence that Islam is not brutal [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/7#7] rather than the more obvious reason that apostasy attracts the death penalty.

== Changing the question ==

If you ask a Muslim a question about Islam, he may go to some lengths to 're-interpret' the question so it is no longer about Islam in order to avoid discussing Islam. This example is from an eight page thread about the penalty for blasphemy where several Muslims attempt to change the topic to anything except the punishment for blasphemy: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347783816/10#10]. This strategy is also often used in response to questions about whether Muslims want Shariah law implemented in the west and how they ought to go about achieving this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]

== Prove the existence of a question ==

Muslims will often demand proof of something before answering a simple question. This can be taken to absurd lengths, for example effectively demanding proof that a question exists. The demands are often for evidence of historical events, where the evidence is highly unlikely to exist. This is often in the context of Muslims claiming for example that the lack of surviving documentation of people being stoned to death for homosexuality is evidence that this did not occur, and even that homosexuality did not exist and that Shariah law is a 'cure' for it. It is similar to the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, except that it is often in the form of a demand for evidence as a way of avoiding directly addressing a topic or question.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

== Lobbying ==

A typical response to what societal changes Muslims should lobby for is that it is pointless to lobby for an activity to be punished if it is still encouraged by society (never mind that making an activity illegal, and lobbying for this discourages it), and to equate the question with an accusation of being a fanatic. Another common angle is that Islam is an 'all or nothing' system, which means Muslims cannot lobby for any specific change as it is invalid in isolation (you will not get a straight answer on how to implement everything all at once either). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

= Semantic deceptions =

Many deceptions rely on manipulating the meaning of words. Some examples:

== Dual meaning ==

A common tactic is to attach a dual meaning to common English words such as war, peace, slave, innocent, rape, domestic violence etc. This tactic is so successful because it is so different from the typical 'western propaganda' approach of inventing new jargon. For example, where a deceptive western leader may talk about 'collateral damage' to make civilian deaths in war sound more benign, a deceptive Muslim leader may say 'no one was murdered', on the grounds that the killing was legal. In this case, the deception is obvious because most English speaking people understand the subtle difference between murder and kill. However, by carefully controlling how Islamic doctrine is translated into English, Muslim scholars have created a situation where many common words have an entirely different meaning when used in the context of Muslims or Islamic law. This is combined with an insistence that to 'truly understand' the Quran one must study it in Arabic [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/146#146], thus putting the context or meaning of the words used beyond the reach of most non-Muslims. Thus, Muslims will understand what their leaders are saying, even if most westerners do not. This can be quite blatant manipulation, such as when some UK clerics stated in public that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then said to their followers in private that only Muslims can be considered innocent. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224813886/0#0][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224158764/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/141#141][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/119#119][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116]

Being so simple, this tactic is most often employed in press releases. As an example, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens appeared to support the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie during question time after giving a lecture at a western university. The next day he released a statement to the press reassuring the public that he does not support vigilantism. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/2#2] Of course, he was not available to give any further details. Most assumed he did not want Rushdie dead. However, closer inspection appears to show that Cat Stevens did not actually oppose the death penalty for Salman Rushdie. He did think it would be wrong to shoot Salman in the back of the head in some dark alley. Rather, Salman should have been hauled before the relevant cleric, who had already found him guilty, so that he could be stoned to death in an orderly, 'civilised' manner.

Another common example is the claim that Islam is peace, or is peaceful. The ultimate objective of Islam is indeed a peaceful existence, however this peace is achieved by Islam conquering the world. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] Until that time, all non-Muslim areas are considered to be at war. Those areas that are ruled by Islam are by definition at peace, even if Shiites and Sunnis are blowing up each others' Mosques. Thus, 'Islam is peace' is a technically correct statement about the 'final solution' of Islam and about those lands that are ruled by Islam, but is totally deceptive to those who do not already know what it means.

Muslim leaders will claim in public that Australia shares a lot of values in common with Islam, or that Australia is a Muslim nation, or that Australians already practice Muslim values. In private, they will call for the destruction of western decadence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/106#106][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] They will express outrage at new citizens being expected to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition as the basis of Australia's values system. They will claim that Muslims strive to obey local laws, but will also call on other Muslims to reject anything other than Sharia law as heresy. They will claim friendship with non-Muslims, but privately preach that friendship with non-Muslims is wrong and should lead to ostracism. They will claim that Islam is peace, but privately preach that there can be no peace until the entire world has been subjugated to Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] They will make friends with Christians, then preach in private that Christianity is vile. There are even passages in the Quran that promote the use of terror. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] By redefining equality, Muslims will claim that Islam creates equality between the sexes, even though it gives men authority over women and allows them to be beaten until they are 'green'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/106#106]

Rather than making a plain English translation available to the general public along with explanations, the Quran is made impenetrable by mixing up the verses so that they are out of order and the context is lacking.

An article was presented on our forum claiming, among other things, that the Islamic ban on mutilating bodies makes suicide bombing illegal under Islamic law. Any rational interpretation of the law confines it to the mutilation of corpses, as Muhammad himself did a lot of mutilating of bodies in the process of killing people. Although unwilling to directly support the argument, the Muslims present took rather elaborate measures to indirectly support it or create the impression that they support it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1407127340]

== Arabic terms ==

Rather than inventing new jargon, Muslims insert Arabic terms into English. These terms have a complex meaning that is relatively well understood to most Muslims, but is totally unknown to the target audience. A Muslim spokesperson can thus make a statement that appears to be a universal principle, but which Muslims understand only applies to certain situations.

Taqiyya, ironically enough, refers to deception. A Muslim may say for example that taqiyya forbids lying, which is technically true, depending of course on the context. However it does not appear to forbid deception. Furthermore lying is only allowed in certain situations, such as war. But remember the dual meaning – any non-Muslim land is a place of war. Using the word Taqiyya in public carries all of these complex and contradictory connotations, which are known to Muslims. Thus Muslims are not lied to even when non-Muslims get the wrong idea.

These two tactics are usually sufficient to dupe most disinterested audiences. They work well in press releases where further explanation is not available, as the media has no choice but to pass them on as-is, leaving the public unaware that the true meaning is totally different from the face value. However several more interesting techniques are used in online forums where dialogue is inevitable. Even though this medium encourages direct questions and the resolution of ambiguities, it can still be remarkably difficult to get the real story from a Muslim. Muslims achieve this by creating as many barriers to effective communication as possible. Again, this relies on the underlying assumption that a Muslim would want you to know what Islam is really about. However, in reality a Muslim is more than happy to wait until some time in the future when your country has been conquered by Muslims before you find out how nasty it can be. All of these strategies have been observed on the OzPolitic forum.

== Semantics ==

If both of these tricks fail, the next option is another diversion. This time instead of diverting to politics or history, the Muslim diverts to semantic issues. This takes advantage of the control that Muslim scholars have over translation of the Quran. It works in a similar manner to criticising someone's spelling in the middle of a heated debate – except of course that it is part of a broader strategy. First, they simply point out that you used an incorrect term. The correct term is not suggested and the actual question is ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134] If you ask for the correct term they may suggest you ask someone else. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/1#1] They cannot possibly 'just answer it anyway' and explain what the issue is. One example is a Muslim starting a discussion about collective punishment to argue that it did not happen under Muhammad, then attempting to turn the discussion into a disagreement about the meaning of the term collective punishment when it became obvious that Muhammad did indeed engage in it, by vaguely alluding to possible alternative meanings. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]

Muslims steering a topic to a discussion of the meaning of:
spineless [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/185#185],
retarded [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376013300/170#170],
child (in the context of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl) [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/219#219],
moral standard [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/128#128].

== War ==

Muslims will use war as an excuse or justification for abandoning every moral principle they espouse. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1397466069] For example, Muslims may only lie in the context of war. In a completely unrelated matter, the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. Muhammad's early career robbing caravans traveling to and from Mecca is justified by some Muslims either on the grounds that the Meccans had declared war on the Muslims, or the Muslims were waging war on the Meccans. No evidence for either of these claims is available. The evidence makes it clear that it was a clear case of robbery and murder. Later, when the real wars began, Muslims use the opposite argument to justify slaughtering POWs - on the grounds that it was not war (and the prisoners captured were thus not POWs), even though it was a clear case of genuine warfare. In one event, Muhammad slaughtered 800 such prisoners of war in one day.

== Clerics don't exist ==

One favourite term for this diversion tactic is cleric, which is used in the media to refer to Muslim religious leaders. If you ask why a cleric said something, or why a person is still a cleric after doing or saying something objectionable, they will simply respond that there is no such thing as a cleric.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/0]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225010762]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222556298/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/355#355]
Technically this can be true, but only if you assume that cleric means clergy, rather than the currently accepted additional meaning of Muslim religious leader (as is used by the media). The absence of an 'official' clergy has another advantage for Muslim propagandists, in that it allows total diffusion of responsibility. There is no leader or institution to be held accountable, therefor Islam is not to blame. More specifically, a Muslim leader who does or promotes evil acts can be simply dismissed on the grounds that they are not a 'genuine' Islamic leader, while at the same time denying any responsibility among the broader Muslim community for actually preventing it or disowning the leader. Despite direct requests, I have still not been able to get a straight answer on how a non-Muslim should go about verifying what is a 'genuine' Islamic law (other than not asking direct questions in the first place. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225588455]). Muslims will even claim that there is no such thing as a Muslim leader in the absence of a perfect Islamic state.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367751235]

== Prediction vs order ==

Muhammad "predicted" that his followers would do a lot of evil things. Even in a situation where Muhammad tells a man in person that he will do something (eg ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the Arabian peninsula [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]) and the man does it, or attempts to, Muslims will accept no moral responsibility on Muhammad's part. They will insist that the obvious chain of causation simply does not exist. In this way, Muslims can abandon any moral responsibility for the more ominous predictions made by Muhammad, for example that Muslims will slaughter every last Jew [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/91#91], or that the "last times" will not come until (variously) Muslims slaughter Muslims in pursuit of gold in a large scale massacre in which 99% of people die, Muslims slaughter non-Muslims and Muslims slaughter every Jew. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354839800]

== Sex slavery ==

On another issue, I had been asking a group of Muslims for some months about two issues – slavery [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] and sex (eg [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480 Polygamy], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027 women in Islam], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650340 Sufism, sodomy and Satan]). I had been lead to believe that sex outside of marriage is punishable by death, and that Muslims are only allowed four wives. This had covered just about every conceivable 'crime', including prostitution, extramarital affairs [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753], homosexuality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962], bestiality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511], pedophilia, masturbation [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] etc. Naturally it eventually came up in one of the slavery topics, as a simple question about sex slaves, which had been mentioned in a media article. The usual tricks were employed – diversion to examples of sex slavery in non-Muslim countries, insisting all my questions had already been answered, accusations of ulterior motives and 'loaded questions'. When I still kept asking, I was told that sex slave is the wrong term, so there are no sex slaves. Eventually I figured out what the correct term is – concubines. By this stage it was fairly obvious that Islam does permit concubines, but I had no idea under what circumstances.

== Rape ==

Muslims will change the definition of [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape rape] to match Islamic law and to create the impression that Islam is strict when it comes to rape. Islam permits rape wherever sex is permitted. Where sex is forbidden, rape and consensual sex receive the same punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
Islam permits the capture of sex slaves in battle. Muslims will argue that Islam forbids 'battlefield rape' or any rape at all in this context, on the grounds that the women must first be removed from the battlefield to become sex slaves. Muslims will attempt to portray the serial rape and enslavement of captured women as 'liberating'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654] Muslim men are specifically permitted to have sex with 'whatever their right hand possesses', and this rule alone is regarded as sufficient consent.

Muslims go to some length to characterise rape as a western problem, effectively blaming rape and domestic violence on rights and freedoms that the west permits but Islam forbids, and will use absurd demands for evidence to back up claims that rape is rare under Islam.

Muslims will also misrepresent a command by Muhammad forbidding Muslims from forcing their sex slaves into prostitution as a blanket ban on the rape of sex slaves by their owners. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/63#63]

== Domestic Violence ==

As with rape, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Domestic_violence domestic violence] to match Islamic law and focus on portraying it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Consider this classic quote from a Muslim on our forum: "Domestic violence is a disease which must be stamped out of all societies. But it has nothing to do with giving your wife a 'smack' when she's gotten out of control" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47] Muhammad pardoned a man who had beaten his wife until her skin was green with bruises.

Muslims will claim that Muhammad never beat his wives, despite documented cases. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/49#49]

== Pedophilia ==

Again, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia pedophilia] to match Islamic law, then attempt to portray it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Islamic law effectively institutionalises pedophilia within marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Apostasy vs Treason ==

Under Islam the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning. Muslims often attempt to disguise this unpalatable fact by confusing it with treason and equating it to the death penalty for treason in some western countries. This takes several forms. The Muslim may insist that the punishment only applies to treason - ie that the apostasy is irrelevant and the punishment only applies when there is also an act that is commonly regarded as treason. The Muslim may attempt to justify the punishment by pointing out that some western countries have the death penalty for treason, while ignoring the difference between apostasy and treason. The Muslim may simply attempt to confuse the two 'crimes'. Yet these Muslims believe that the penalty should apply for apostasy alone, including crimes that take you outside of Islam (eg acting gay), and may concede that they believe apostasy itself to be a form of treason - another example of self delusion reinforcing the deception of others.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy Apostasy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/251#251]

== Freedom ==

Muslims will often attempt to portray the oppression of non-Muslims under Shariah law as being merely a different 'interpretation' of freedom.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom Freedom]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/4#4]

Muslims will misrepresent the opinions and values of the non-Muslim and the Muslim community in order to cover up significant differences on issues such as freedom of speech. They will claim that the Australian public supports them in their efforts to make mockery or even criticism of religion illegal
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416042880/50#50]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that Australians support people's right to say things they find distasteful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]
Muslims will claim that mainstream Australians think it is foolish to say we have the right to draw cartoons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
Muslims will present an example of a Muslim leader failing to mention freedom of speech as an example of a Muslim leader expressing support for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/48#48]
Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but qualify this heavily, then refuse to explain their qualifications. For example, they will insist they support the right to depict and mock Muhammad (even more so than mainstream Australians) but add the qualification that no Muslims feel vilified by such a depiction.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/161#161]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
In attempting to justify lack of direct support for freedom of speech from the Muslim community, Muslims will equate support for freedom of speech with 'jumping up and down demanding people insult them'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/157#157]
Muslims will justify opposition to freedom of speech by saying that victims of physical assault by neo-nazis are not suffering discrimination, prejudice or intimidation, but that Muslims are or will be if people are free to mock religion or depict religious figures.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
Muslims will insist that restrictions on journalists publishing details of ASIO's intelligence operations (as well as several other laws that are even more irrelevant to freedom of speech) are "are some of the most egregious and effective attacks on our freedom of speech we have ever seen," while downplaying the significance of Muslims successfully making people fear for their life if they are involved in making a video, cartoon or book that criticises or mocks Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/211#211]
Muslims will insist that George Brandis and his "merry band of fringe ideologues" (ie, the government) were the only people who wanted to water down Australia's section 18c legislation on the grounds that it restricted freedom of speech, that the heated debate over the implications for freedom of speech are not evidence that mainstream Australians value freedom of speech, and also that the civil libertarians who entered the debate in support of watering down the legislation did not have genuine concerns for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/226#226]
Muslims will claim that merely living within the law is sufficient to protect freedom of speech and deny that others have even suggested otherwise [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/280#280], at the same time as insulting others for not doing enough to protect freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/283#283]

== Temporary rights are human rights ==

When discussing human rights with Muslims, and Muslims claim to support rights, Muslims will assume the discussion is about temporary rights granted only while Muslims are not in a position to take them away, unless you specifically state that you do not mean temporary rights. For example, Muslims will argue that Dhimmitude is against oppression and that Muhammad granted rights to pagans, Jews, etc. They will provide 'evidence' for this in the form of specific examples of Muhammad negotiating rights with a small group of people from a position of weakness, then later discarding them when in a position of power. They will insist that it is honest to claim, based on these limited examples, that Muhammad granted rights to Jews and pagans, and that Dhimmitude is against oppression, unless it is specifically stated that "rights" does not mean "temporary rights," or rights granted only in a position of weakness. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1535727444/144#144]

== Democracy ==

Muslims will often attempt to claim that Islam is democratic, a different 'interpretation' of democracy, or attempt to argue that western countries are not in fact democratic either.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Democracy_vs_Theocracy Democracy vs Theocracy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]

== Secularism ==

Muslims will claim to personally support secularism, insist that Islam is compatible with secularism and claim that the Muslim community supports secularism. But they will also claim that Muhammad himself was a secular leader and that his Islamic state was in fact a secular one. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]

== Citizenship ==

Muslims will attempt to portray Dhimmitude as 'full' citizenship, despite the denial of justice, fundamental human rights, democracy, freedom etc and living under a different set of rules to Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Discrimination]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/53#53]

== Compulsion ==

Muslims will often claim that Islam supports the concept of 'no compulsion in religion'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/281#281] The stretches the definition of compulsion to absurd lengths, given the inevitable 'problems' of trying to live as a non-Muslim under Shariah law (see for example [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_and_Human_Rights Freedom and Human Rights] and [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice Justice]). Muhammad himself would often put people in a position of convert or die, as a last resort when other methods failed.

== Vigilantism ==

Muslims often interpret a question about the death penalty (see Cat Stevens example above) as a question about vigilantism. That is, they will avoid giving an answer about whether a crime attracts the death penalty in Islam by insisting that you are instead asking whether Islam permits them to conduct extra-judicial executions. More subtly, questions about introducing Shariah law are replaced with hypersensitivity to accusations of vigilantism. This can even be taken to the extent of equating any political lobbying with vigilantism. How Muslims ought to achieve the change they want is one of the hardest topics to get a straight answer from and this is one of the most common ways of avoiding it.

== Extremism ==

In an effort to portray non-Muslims as extremists (and in order to argue that 'mainstream' Muslims are 'holding hands' with the non-Muslim community on issues such as freedom), Muslims will attempt to redefine extremism as any view that is not shared by 50% or more of the population, essentially building a rather convoluted 'et tu' fallacy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414661030]

== Peace treaties ==

Islam forbids Muslims to be at peace with infidels (non-Muslims) for more than 10 years (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War war]). Muslims attempt to justify this by redefining the concept of a peace treaty as only a temporary agreement. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145] Islam even redefines the concepts of war and peace, by dividing the world into two regions - the house of peace and the house of war (where all the tactics of war are permitted). By this definition, the entire world is currently at war. Modern Muslims will argue that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century (ie since the final collapse of the Caliphate). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Muslims ==

Muslims will even use the definition of what is a Muslim to deceive people, for example a Sunni Muslim may insist that Muslims are not killing Muslims in North Africa, and that the Muslims are blameless victims, because he blames the conflict on Shiite Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

= Disowning Islam =

Misrepresenting the Quran: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]]

Justifying and misrepresenting Muhammad's genocide of Jews: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims disown Islam in many subtle (and not so subtle) ways when it assists in creating a false impression about Islam, see for example 'Muslims' above. Some other examples:

== Islam doesn't exist ==

This is a more interesting form of diversion. If you ask why something happens in a specific Muslim country, you will be told that that country is run by a western imposed dictatorship, monarchy, democracy or whatever. Even though the particular barbaric practice strongly resembles Islamic law, it is the west's fault for preventing Muslims from setting up a 'prefect' Islamic state. For example, it is the west's fault that Saudi women must cover up from head to foot because they are responsible for the Saudi royal family, which prevent the 'correct' Sharia law that allows women to expose their face and hands, provided other standards of dress are met. It has nothing to do with 1400 years of Islamic law that instilled a belief that women are responsible for their own rape if they act like a 'piece of flesh'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225800482/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/149#149]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/62#62]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/65#65]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/100#100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/113#113]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650747/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220167584/12#12]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225865544/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315482532]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]

In an amazing feat of mental gymnastics, Muslims will also do the opposite, sometimes even in the same discussion. If you ask them about an aspect of Islamic law they wish to hide, they will claim that it is irrelevant because there are no true Islamic states. That is, if no country in existence today is ruled totally by Sharia law, you have no reason to be interested in what Sharia law is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]

== Islam won't exist ==

A slightly different approach is taken when Muslims insist that their only goal is the short term goal of converting a few people, while pretending that the long term goals of Islam do not exist. They will conveniently deny that they seek to overthrow the Australian government and destroy personal freedom and other Australian values, and justify this by claiming that they aren't in the process of plotting the actual takeover. Yet it would be an inevitable outcome if they were sufficiently successful with their short term goals. They expect to openly promote an ideology of dictatorship and servitude, but not get criticised for it because they don't yet have the numbers to follow through with it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233236170/21#21] It is as if the Nazi party started recruiting in your neighbourhood, but insisting they don't want to kill Jews because they're only goal at the moment is to recruit more members.

== Denying personal responsibility for the consequences of Islam ==

An even stranger tactic is attempting to play down the significance of support for the unpalatable aspects of Islam (particularly stoning people to death) by denying direct responsibility for the consequences, for example by arguing that support for the death penalty is irrelevant unless you have a job as an executioner. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/242#242]
Islam does not actually have a role of state executioner. Stoning people to death is done publicly [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/107#107], with as many members of the public as possible encouraged to join in. The size of the stones is limited to prevent a quick death.

== Equating impotence with benign intent ==

Muslims will often answer a question about what they want to achieve or what they want their society to look like with an explanation of what they are able to achieve or a complaint about being unable to achieve what they want. This is a strategy to avoid admitting to wanting something that their audience is likely to find unpalatable. This is often used in the context of reinforcing positive misconceptions about Islam, for example if a person claims that a Muslim does not actually want Shariah law, the Muslim will avoid correcting the misconception and do everything to reinforce it, short of outright lies that they can be held accountable for. The Muslim attempts to equate their inability to achieve Islamic law with lack of desire for Islamic law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344636735]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/214#214]
This can be taken to the extreme, in arguing that it is somehow only valid to discuss what is achievable in the short term,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/4#4]
even from a Muslim who considers it inevitable that Islam will come to dominate the world and who also considers it his religious duty to help bring this about.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876/1#1]
This is often accompanied by an attempt to rephrase a simple question, for example by equating a question about what sort of Australia a Muslim would like to see with a question about whether that Muslim is about to take over the country in a military sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
The Muslim may switch between admitting to wanting Islamic law and refusing to discuss it, depending on context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99] and may also claim Islamic law to be inevitable
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16],
then change tack and play down it's likelihood.
A slightly different approach is to claim to not intend to impose shariah law on people as a way of implying they do not want to impose it on people, or would not do so if the opportunity arose. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/243#243]

== Denying personal responsibility for Islamic politics ==

Muslims will often refuse to answer direct questions about Islam and deny any personal responsibility for the consequences of Shariah law or the process of re-establishing a Caliphate (a 'proper' Islamic state) and expanding the Caliphate as a militant empire. They offer the excuse that the law is the responsibility of the state, not the individual. This is particularly common when it comes to stoning people to death as a punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Death_Penalty Death Penalty]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/101#101]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/106#106]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257]
Muslims will use this reasoning to argue that Shariah law is 'irrelevant', but in the same sentence argue that Islamic economic policy or historical scientific achievements are relevant.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]

== Encouraging useful idiots ==

A common tactic is to encourage non-Muslims who make false claims about Islam that suit the Islamic agenda, creating the impression that the Muslim agrees with the claims, and not correcting obvious errors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying following the Quran ==

A Muslim will even find a way to claim that they do not follow the Quran, if there is someone around who is willing to believe it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying significance of Muhammad's example ==

Muslims will describe Muhammad's slaughter of 800 POWs as an "excellent example to follow", at the same time as distancing themselves from his actions by describing them as "merely the earthly actions of a statesman protecting his people" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226].
Muslims will claim that Muhammad specifically instructed his followers to do what he says, but not what he does. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412650210]

== Reinterpreting Muhammad's commands ==

Muslims will claim that Muhammad's order to execute gay people was not in fact an order to execute gay people.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226/14#14]

= Lying about other religions =

Muslims will lie about other religions. This applies particularly to Christianity and Judaism. A central tenet of Islam is that these religions are essentially corrupted versions of Islam. Muhammad himself was not afraid to tell Christians and Jews what they believe and what their religion is, though he was largely ignorant of them. This earned him mockery at first, then hostility when he attempted to force Jews to accept his version of their religion. See [[Political_History_of_Islam#Hostility_towards_Jews]] for more info.

Today, Muslims will lie about Christianity in an attempt to make it appear as misogynistic as Islam, for example by misquoting a Bible verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head as actually saying that they must cover it or have their hair cut off.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491114010/10#10]

= Contradictory spin =

Obviously with so much spin it is inevitable that different Muslims will contradict each other with different stories or excuses, or individual Muslims will contradict themselves. Some examples:

== Slaughtering pagans ==

Were the pagans on the Arabian peninsula slaughtered for reasons of geopolitical strategy, because they were hostile to Islam, or did they in fact all suddenly 'see the light' and voluntarily convert to Islam after Muhammad decreed they should be wiped out? If they did convert voluntarily, why the attempts to justify the slaughter?
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide])
A Muslim will also argue that the fact that paganism was not eradicated in the middle east is evidence that Islam did not decree its eradication, in the same post as claiming that Muhammad did in fact decree it and that the outcome was 'successful' due to every pagan voluntarily converting to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] All other religions were also wiped out from the area.

== Antisemitism ==

Islam inculcates a particular hatred of Jews (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_anti-semitism] Racism and antisemitism). Yet Muslims will also argue that Islam saved Judaism itself. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338909288] Muslims will even argue over the definition of antisemitism to deflect from the mistreatment of Jews under Islam.

= Other examples =

== Editing News Articles ==

To start with, an example of a more direct and traditional form of deception from a Muslim on our forum: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339540208]

== Claiming to represent Australian values ==

One of the more absurd claims: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20] [[Islam and Australian values]]

== Marriage prior to puberty ==

Muhammad married one of his wives prior to her reaching puberty, and this is permitted under Islam provided that the husband does not have sex with her until she reaches puberty (but they may live together... [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia Pedophilia]). However Muslims will often claim the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/71#71]
or refuse to answer and offer every other deflection mentioned above.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Four witnesses for the death penalty ==

Muslims will often claim that people can only be stoned to death for sexual crimes if there are four male witnesses,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
however there are several other ways to satisfy evidentiary requirements.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/52#52]

== Islam stricter than the Geneva convention ==

A quote should do for this one: "Islam recognises this, and lays down strict rules of conduct during conflicts between states, it is most certainly not a violence-oriented doctrine as you've claimed. No more than the Geneva convention is a violent doctrine, because it lays down a code of conduct for nations at war. In fact the Qur'anic rules of conduct in conflict are probably the strictest in human history, to the point that even trees are not permitted to be damaged during war." Remember that Muhammad himself slaughtered prisoners of war, displaced entire tribes, permitted his followers to capture and rape women as part of war and took plenty of captured wives for himself, and completely eradicated every religion except Islam from the Arabian peninsula. (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War War]) Not killing trees is about as generous as not killing the women, and certainly not out of concern for either.

== How hard may I beat my wife? ==

There is genuine disagreement among Islamic scholars as to hard hard a man may beat his wife, and it runs the full gamut. When addressing people who are concerned about women's rights (ie non-Muslims) they invariably choose the most appropriate view (eg beating with a feather). Muhammad on the other hand pardoned a man who beat his wife until her skin was literally green with bruises (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Women.E2.80.99s_rights Women's_rights]).

== Distinguishing rape and consensual sex ==

In Islam, rape is permitted wherever consensual sex is permitted (marriage, sex slaves). Where sex is not permitted rape and consensual sex receive almost the same punishment. Muslims have attempted to portray Islam as taking rape seriously by focusing on some minor differences. For example, in the case of rape a court may order the perpetrator to pay a dowry to the victim. If the sex was consensual, no dowry is required. But the perpetrator gets whipped or stoned to death either way, depending on whether he is married. The marital status of the perpetrator has a bigger influence on the punishment for rape than anything else, to the extent that it dictates the punishment entirely. Whether or not there was actually a rape or merely consensual sex has no bearing on the punishment, except for the fine. Obviously rape vs consensual sex makes a big difference to whether the woman/victim gets stoned to death, but this barely rates a mention. In addition, if a weapon is used in the rape, then the punishment is that for banditry, which is death. Of course, bandits get this punishment for using a weapon in a crime, regardless of whether there is a rape involved
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape]).

== The concubine saga ==

The discussion of sex slaves is what originally drove me to write this article. After writing the first draft, I went back through that particular discussion and noted all the different deflection tactics used. I was actually quite surprised at how 'thick' the discussion was with various deceptions. Here are some of them. I include the URL for each link, as the number on the end of the URL indicates the post number in the thread.

Initially, the topic of sex slaves was asked by another member in the 'women in Islam' thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

The various deflection tactics were employed over the next 53 posts. A summary is given below:

semantics, Islam doesn't exist, deflection with an insult, accusation of loaded question

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to other religions, direct answer to related question that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to Judaism

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125

attempt to justify deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/128#128

refusal to answer and already answered - ironically in same post, semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134

Islam doesn't exist, respond to question 'is it allowed' with 'it is not a priority'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136

Islam is 'realistic', but won't say how

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/138#138

deflects to attacking democracy, Quran can only be read in Arabic

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/140#140

deflection to generic attack on 'the west'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/142#142

ad hominem (insult), refusal to answer, already answered,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/144#144

deflection to homophobia in Europe, other religions, semantics, deflection to history rather than Islamic law, deflection to Catholics, Islam doesn't exist, response on whether it is required rather than allowed, subjectivity of immorality

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145

ad hominem, already answered, lie (false claim that sex slavery does not exist in Islam), deflection to the west,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/146#146

deflection to other religions, ad hominem

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/149#149

Islam doesn't exist, deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/152#152

deflection to 'the west', Islam doesn't exist, refusal to answer

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155

semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/159#159

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/163#163

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/167#167

It was only after I started a new thread that I got a direct answer to the question of whether Islam permits sex slaves. However, no further details were given.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466

= Changing Strategies =

Muslims who publicly promote Islam appear to be becoming more savvy. The issues from [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Islam and Australian values] were raised during discussions with a few Muslims on the [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum forum]. The list was compiled in response to increasing complexity in the debate and a tendency by promoters of Islam to repeat the same debate and pretend that the above issues had never been raised and that there was no potential conflict between Islam and western values. However, after compiling the list with links to quotes from Muslims on the forum there was an abrupt change in strategy. In discussion with other Muslims, the people involved have been promoting a stronger focus on strategy and propaganda in public discussions with non-Muslims, but have not clarified what that strategy is [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276].

The new strategy seems to involve avoiding the contentious issues altogether. Muslims will respond to the more extreme anti-Islam rants or anything that can make Islam look good, or at least neutral in comparison. They will make equally 'ill considered' anti American or anti-western rants and point to the anti-Islam rants as justification.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/39#39]
In contrast, requests for more details on the more 'problematic' issues raised, or any additional issues not mentioned in the list, are either ignored
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295869559]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295959087]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241872871]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298984703/35#35]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298078457/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1296943972/0#0]
or met with some kind of deflection.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302388394]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]
These deflections typically involve personal attacks on the intelligence of the person making the request,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295520546/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/14#14]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302177029/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/74#74]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/97#97]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1265359994/9#9]
criticism of the motive of the person making the request (eg, you are only asking so you can add it to the wiki
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1267178556/1#1]
or so you can mislead people about the answer),
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/23#23]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302389291/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/38#38]
a change in topic (usually to current geopolitics) or insisting the question has already been answered.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/4#4]
Current geopolitics, usually along the lines of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/58#58]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/31#31]
and historical grievances seem to be favourite topic changers. These arguments can be easily made without direct reference to Islam or any of the conflicts outlined above. In fact it can help to steer the argument away from Islam. Questions about Islam that are based on current events are met with the common 'Islam doesn't exist' deflection
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/34#34]
and a denial of Islam's involvement (eg people being stoned to death in the middle east is unrelated to Islamic law that requires stoning people to death because Shariah law is not implemented properly). Issues involving Islam's rules regarding sex usually get the 'priests rape little boys' response.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/4#4]
The net result of these strategies is that promotion or defense of Islam to a savvy audience involves steering the argument away from Islam itself towards mostly political issues.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/1#1]
This strategy would probably be attractive to people who oppose their government's foreign policy and are unaware of the political nature of Islam and what it would replace that foreign policy with.

= What to do? =

All of these tricks ultimately take advantage of ignorance. The antidote to this is to make people aware of them. A lie becomes ineffective when enough people see it for what it is.

== Islam forbids asking questions ==

Part of the reason for the attempts by Muslims to deflect all 'difficult' questions about Islam, is that Islam itself forbids people from asking questions they may not like the answer to. That is, they are only allowed to try to inform themselves of those aspects of Islam which they personally approve of. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216/6#6] With this in mind, the deception of non-Muslims can be viewed as an extension of this mandatory self deception through omission.

In other words, in order to deceive others, one must first delude oneself.

Rotation of senators after a double dissolution

2019-04-24T09:08:14Z

Freediver: Created page with "Following a double dissolution election, Australia's constitution re-establishes the rotation of senators by allowing the senate to allocate half the elected state senators a..."

Following a double dissolution election, Australia's constitution re-establishes the rotation of senators by allowing the senate to allocate half the elected state senators a short (three-year) term. By convention, and as intended by the constitution, the same method has always been used to allocate long and short term seats. However, legislation introduced in 1984 with the intention of changing the convention to a new, fairer method has resulted in two 'legitimate' methods being available. In both of the double dissolution elections that have taken place since, a coalition of two parties has controlled the senate to allocate themselves two extra long term seats by choosing the more favourable method. In both cases, this was the traditional method. Despite two bipartisan senate resolutions to use the new method, it has never been employed.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Senators affected
|-
! Year of election
! State represented
! Party represented
! Senator name
! Term allocated
! Controlling coalition
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_1987–1990|1987]]
| NSW
| [[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
| [[Paul_McLean_(politician)|Paul McLean]]
| 6 years
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]/[[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_1987–1990|1987]]
| NSW
| [[National_Party_of_Australia|Nationals]]
| [[David_Brownhill|David Brownhill]]
| 3 years
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]/[[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_1987–1990|1987]]
| VIC
| [[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
| [[Janet_Powell|Janet Powell]]
| 6 years
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]/[[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_1987–1990|1987]]
| VIC
| [[National_Party_of_Australia|Nationals]]
| [[Julian_McGauran|Julian McGauran]]
| 3 years
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]/[[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_1987–1990|1987]]
| SA
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]
| [[Graham_Maguire|Graham Maguire]]
| 6 years
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]/[[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_1987–1990|1987]]
| SA
| [[Liberal_Party_of_Australia|Liberal]]
| [[Robert_Hill_(Australian_politician)|Robert Hill]]
| 3 years
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]/[[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_1987–1990|1987]]
| QLD
| [[Liberal_Party_of_Australia|Liberal]]
| [[Warwick_Parer|Warwick Parer]]
| 6 years
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]/[[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_1987–1990|1987]]
| QLD
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]
| [[Gerry_Jones|Gerry Jones]]
| 3 years
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]/[[Australian_Democrats|Democrats]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_2016–2019|2016]]
| NSW
| [[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]
| [[Deborah_O%27Neill|Deborah O'Neill]]
| 6 years
| [[Liberal_Party_of_Australia|Liberal]]/[[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_2016–2019|2016]]
| NSW
| [[Greens|Australian_Greens]]
| [[Lee_Rhiannon|Lee Rhiannon]]
| 3 years
| [[Liberal_Party_of_Australia|Liberal]]/[[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_2016–2019|2016]]
| VIC
| [[Liberal_Party_of_Australia|Liberal]]
| [[Scott_Ryan_(Australian_politician)|Scott Ryan]]
| 6 years
| [[Liberal_Party_of_Australia|Liberal]]/[[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]
|-
| [[Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_2016–2019|2016]]
| VIC
| [[Derryn_Hinch%27s_Justice_Party|Justice Party]]
| [[Derryn_Hinch|Derryn Hinch]]
| 3 years
| [[Liberal_Party_of_Australia|Liberal]]/[[Australian_Labor_Party|Labor]]
|-
|}

= 1984 legislation =

Section 13 of the [[Australian Constitution]] requires the senate to divide the state senators into two classes following a double dissolution, with 3-year and 6-year terms. This has traditionally been done by allocating longer term seats to the senators elected earliest in the count. The [[Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918#1984 amendments|1984 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act]] required the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct a recount for half the seats which was seen as producing a fairer allocation. This alternative allocation has not yet been used. Following double dissolution elections in [[Australian federal election, 1987|1987]] and [[Australian federal election, 2016|2016]], the first-elected allocation continued to be used, despite Senate resolutions in 1998 and 2010 agreeing to use the new method.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/pauline-hanson-secures-six-years-in-senate/7730280|title=Election 2016: Pauline Hanson secures six-year Senate term, Derryn Hinch has three years until re-election |work=ABC News |date=12 August 2016 |access-date=16 April 2019}}</ref>

Changes to the Electoral Act in [[1984 in Australia|1984]] by the [[Hawke Government]] included:
* an independent [[Australian Electoral Commission]] (AEC) was established to administer the federal electoral system.
* the number of senators was increased from 64 to 76 (12 from each State and two from each Territory), an increase of 12, and the number of members of the House of Representatives was increased from 125 to 148, an increase of 23.
* the [[group voting ticket]] [[Australian Senate#Voting system|voting system]] (the original "above-the-line" voting) was introduced.
* the registration of political parties was introduced to permit the printing of party names on ballot papers.
* [[Political funding in Australia|public funding]] of election campaigns and disclosure of political donations and electoral expenditure was introduced.
* the compulsory enrolment and voting requirement was extended to cover Indigenous Australians.
* the franchise qualification was changed to [[Australian citizenship]], though [[British subject]]s on the roll immediately before 26 January 1984 retained enrolment and voting rights.
* the grace period after an election is called before the [[Electoral register|electoral rolls]] are closed was extended to seven days and the time that polling places closed was changed from 8pm to 6pm.
* Section 282 was added, requiring the AEC to conduct a recount following a dissolution under section 57 of the Constitution as if only the elected candidates had been named on the ballot papers, and only half the number were to be elected.<ref>{{cite |url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00697 |section=282 Re‑count of Senate votes to determine order of election in other circumstances |title=Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 |date=1 July 2016 |publisher=Government of Australia |accessdate=19 October 2016}}</ref> The constitution requires the Senate to allocate long and short term senate seats, and this provides one way of determining which senators are allocated which terms. As of 2016, this method had not yet been applied,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/12/senate-terms-derryn-hinch-and-greens-lee-rhiannon-given-three-year-terms |title=Senate terms: Derryn Hinch and Greens' Lee Rhiannon given three years |first=Gareth |last=Hutchens |date=12 August 2016 |publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited |accessdate=19 October 2016}}</ref> despite two bipartisan senate resolutions in favour of using it as well as two double dissolution elections (1987 and [[Australian_federal_election,_2016|2016]]).

= 1987 election =

In accordance with [[Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia|section 13 of the Constitution]],<ref name="s13">{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|coaca430|Constitution|13}} Rotation of senators.</ref> following a double dissolution of Parliament, the terms for Senators commence on 1 July preceding the election – i.e., on 1 July 1987. The Senate decides which senators were allocated the full six-year terms ending on 30 June 1993 and which senators were allocated three-year terms ending on 30 June 1990. In 1983 the ''Commonwealth Electoral Act'' 1918 had been amended to include provision for a recount of ballot papers to determine the senators to get the long term vacancies.<ref>{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|cea1918233|Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918|282}} Re-count of Senate votes to determine order of election in other circumstances.</ref> This was the result of a unanimous recommendation from the [[Australian House of Representatives committees#Joint committees|Joint Select Committee]] on Electoral Reform.<ref>{{cite web| |title=First report - electoral reform |author=Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=/reports/1983/1983_pp227.pdf |pages=66-7 |publisher=[[Parliament of Australia]] |date=13 September 1983}}</ref> Despite the unanimous recommendation for reform, [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] and the [[Australian Democrats|Democrats]] maintained the previous system where the first six senators elected in each state were allocated the full six-year terms ending on 30 June 1993 while the other half were allocated three-year terms ending on 30 June 1990. The effect of this system was that Democrat Senators [[Paul McLean (Australian politician)|Paul McLean]] and [[Janet Powell]] got a long term instead of National Senators [[David Brownhill]] and [[Julian McGauran]]. There was no net effect on Labor and Liberal in that in South Australia, Labor Senator [[Graham Maguire]] got a long term instead of Liberal Senator [[Robert Hill (Australian politician)|Robert Hill]], while in Queensland, Liberal Senator [[Warwick Parer]] got a long term instead of Labor Senator [[Gerry Jones]].<ref>{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=Commonwealth of Australia |house=Senate |title=Rotation of Senators |url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/1987-09-17/toc_pdf/S%201987-09-17.pdf |date=17 September 1987 |page_start=194 |page_end=213}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_04#h23 |title=Division of the Senate following simultaneous general elections |work=Odgers' Australian Senate Practice |edition=14th |publisher=[[Parliament of Australia]] |access-date=28 March 2017}}</ref> Senators took their seats immediately following the election on 11 July 1987. The four territory senators were elected in July 1987 and their terms ended at the next federal election, which was [[Australian federal election, 1990|March 1990]].

= 2016 election =

In accordance with [[Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia|section 13 of the Constitution]],<ref name="s13">{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|coaca430|Constitution|13}} Rotation of senators.</ref> it was left to the Senate to decide which Senators were allocated six- and three-year terms. The senate resolved that the [[Results for the Australian federal election, 2016 (Senate)|first elected six of twelve Senators in each state]] would serve six-year terms, while the other six elected in each state would serve three-year terms. This had been the Senate practice on all seven previous occasions that required allocation of long and short terms.<ref name="Odgers"/> In 1983 the [[Australian House of Representatives committees#Joint committees|Joint Select Committee]] on Electoral Reform had unanimously recommended an alternative "recount" method to reflect proportional representation,<ref>{{cite web|title=First report - electoral reform |author=Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=/reports/1983/1983_pp227.pdf |pages=66–7 |publisher=[[Parliament of Australia]] |date=13 September 1983}}</ref> and section 282 of the [[Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918|''Commonwealth Electoral Act'']] was inserted to provide for a recount on that basis.<ref>{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|cea1918233|Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918|282}} Re-count of Senate votes to determine order of election in other circumstances.</ref> This alternative method had been supported by both major parties in senate resolutions passed in 1998<ref>{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=Commonwealth of Australia |house=Senate |title=Election of Senators |url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansards/1998-06-29/toc_pdf/S%201998-06-29.pdf |date=29 June 1998 |page_start=4326 |page_end=4327}}</ref> and 2010.<ref name=Odgers>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_04#h23 |title=Division of the Senate following simultaneous general elections |work=Odgers' Australian Senate Practice |edition=14th |publisher=[[Parliament of Australia]] |access-date=28 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=Commonwealth of Australia |house=Senate |title=Double Dissolution |url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-22%2F0104%22 |date=22 June 2010 |page=3912}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/04/how-long-and-short-terms-are-allocated-after-a-double-dissolution.html |title=How long and short terms are allocated after a double dissolution |author=Green, A |author-link=Antony Green |date=25 April 2016 |publisher=ABC.net.au}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2016/January/Doubledissolution |title=Double dissolution election: implications for the Senate |publisher=[[Parliament of Australia]] |date=29 January 2016}}</ref> Despite the previous resolutions, an agreement between [[Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal]]'s [[Mathias Cormann]] and [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]]'s [[Penny Wong]] led the Senate to choose the first-elected method again. As a result, in New South Wales, Labor's [[Deborah O'Neill]] got a six-year term at the expense of The Greens' [[Lee Rhiannon]] getting a three-year term, while in Victoria Liberal's [[Scott Ryan (Australian politician)|Scott Ryan]] got a six-year term at the expense of the Justice Party's [[Derryn Hinch]] getting a three-year term. Both methods of allocation had the same outcome for all other senators.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/pauline-hanson-secures-six-years-in-senate/7730280|title=Election 2016: Pauline Hanson secures six-year Senate term, Derryn Hinch has three years until re-election |work=ABC News |date=12 August 2016 |access-date=16 April 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/12/senate-terms-derryn-hinch-and-greens-lee-rhiannon-given-three-year-terms |title=Senate terms: Derryn Hinch and Greens' Lee Rhiannon given three years |work=The Guardian |date=12 August 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/alplnp-deal-to-force-senators-back-to-poll-in-three-years/news-story/f04dae3cfa3f26ae8b28e5c13c232b60 |title=ALP-LNP deal to force senators back to poll in three years |work=The Australian |date=13 August 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-and-labor-team-up-to-clear-out-crossbench-senators-in-2019-20160812-gqr29k.html |title=Coalition and Labor team up to clear out crossbench senators in 2019 |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=12 August 2016}}</ref>

Main Page

2019-04-24T09:06:40Z

Freediver:

Welcome to the Australian Politics wiki. You can use this wiki for just about anything you want, so be creative and bold.

I am restricting editing rights to cut back on spam. New accounts require admin approval. Anonymous editing is not allowed.

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl]

You can add articles about yourself, your party or an issue you are interested in, no matter how minor. You can add blogs. You can even use this wiki to make yourself a home page for the OzPolitic forum. This wiki is intended to fill any useful purpose. Note that if blogs are popular I can also add a proper blog facility to OzPolitic.

Please delete or undo any spam that you see. Be ruthless with it.

[[Rotation_of_senators_after_a_double_dissolution]]

[[Fishing Party courts Coalition]]

[[Lefties take over]]

[[Political Animal]]

[[Australia]]

[[Politics of Australia]]

[[List of political parties in Australia]]

[[Islam]]

Karzai

2018-12-28T22:03:36Z

Freediver:

[[Islam]]

Some other good stuff. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414814389/90#90]

[[Karzai Background Discussion]]

19/4/10

'''Karzai threatens to join Taliban'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1271658746

I just read this - I don't know anything about it.

----

That's a very good question. After all, Mohammed asked whether one should tie up one's camel or pray to God.

I'd say Karzai's camels have all gone back to the desert by now.

----

Exactly. Camels hate to go down on their knees.

----

But they can fast for Ramadan. They don't like to, mind you, but they can.

----

Actually, I think Karzai has an old WWII jeep the US lent him. He sticks his posters all over it and drives around with a loudhailer at election time, throwing lollies to the kids.

He has to hold onto his hat. He's hardly Douglas Macarthur. What Karzai needs more than anything else is a proper van with speakers on the roof.

----

Looks like they've gone to the big smoke. Karzai now wants to join the US.

----

I saw that Karzai on TV the other night. Can you believe it? He has the hide to walk around in that Afghani hat and shawl he wears. I mean, why can't he just wear a normal suit like anyone else?

He has to be different. That's the problem with these third world types. They refuse to keep their heads down and be like everyone else. They have to dress up in their Mao or their Nehru suits or their big affros, jumping around like jiggaboos and playing whitey like a fool. What's their problem?

Would you vote in a politician who dresses like a pimp? Of course you wouldn't, but you're in a civilized country where we vote them out if they don't look nice. Remember Noriega from Panama? Thank God the US threw him in jail. I was getting tired of seeing his acne-scarred face on TV.

----

That Karzai - he's at it again, only this time he wants to join the Soviet Union.

They tried to tell him not to bother, that the Soviets were long-gone, that they'd created a gas and oil oligarchy in its place, but would he listen? No. He just huffed and puffed and then said he wanted to join the British Empire.

Everyone said, but Mr Karzai, they've been gone for ages, it's now a European state. Would he listen? No. He went on and on. Then he said he wanted to join the US.

Everyone looked at the ground and said nothing. What? He asked. What now?

They're already here, they said. They invaded us in 2001 to get the Taliban.

That's it, he said, I'm growing a beard. We're all going to join the Taliban.

So that's how Mohammed Karzai came back to the Taliban. Again.

----

That tricky Karzai - it all turned out to be a threat, playing his court like the bunch of nuckleheads they are - not a real man in the place.

The fiendish ways of the Mohammedan. He'll offer you Turkish delight with one hand, and slash your throat with the other.

The shifting sands of Moslem politics, the mysteries of the East. Will that dastardly Karzai ever come clean?

----

The headlines read "Karzai Comes Kleen," but these refer to a Karzai compound cleaning contract with the Haliburton subsidiary, Kleen Operations.

It has been uncovered that the company was planting bugs in Karzai's fortress. They were working for Uncle all along, sending sensitive information back to CIA Headquarters in Kabul for thorough analysis. Needless to say, Karzai and his bungling staff fell for it, hook, line and sinker. No one wondered why one of the American cleaning crew wore a Yale tie.

Among the sensitive information uncovered:

Karzai pays $500 US for manicures with a North Korean lady known only as the "plain woman."

Karzai does not have a van with speakers on the roof for elections, and envies all the US election dollars funneled into former Pakistan president, Musharref's campaigns.

Karzai enjoys being "whiter" than US president Barak Obama, and jokingly recommends that he use an Indian skin whitener popular among Bollywood celebrities.

Karzai reads the UK magazine, Hello, out loud to his underlings, suggesting they get outfits for their wives like the ones Sarah Sarandan wore at the airport.

Karzai wants to trim his beard, but has to look like he's still grieving for his despised, CIA-employed late brother.

Karzai wonders what all the fuss in the US over waterboarding is about: the US are lucky to have the water.

----

I'll have you know that this is an issue close to my heart, Imperium.

----

That sounds just like one of his futile plots.

But, Mr Karzai, isn't that from that American film, the War of the Stars?

What if it is? The Russian and American rockets can travel for miles into space.

Karzai, you see, has always envisaged Afghanistan as an empire to rival Persia. Rugs, dancing boys, precious stones, desert caravans. Karzai claps his hands and a samovar of tea is poured into his cup.

The tea loosens his tongue and his plans become more expansive. The Russians have a space program - why not the Afghans? The Afghans BEAT the Russians, proving their superior strength and brain size. The Americans are no different. They come and they go. No one in history has kept the Afghans under siege. The Persians, the British, the Russians, no one.

Karzai forgets the fact that he can't even afford that van with speakers on the roof for elections. He thinks of his new Afghani space program and driving his van at election-time, his voice echoing through the Kabul streets: Karzai Karzai Karzai!

Mr Karzai, sir, Mr Karzai!

Karzai rouses himself and looks displeased.

The underling has a copy of the War of the Stars. It says that the leader is a man by the name of Vader.

Get him! Send him to me!

Ah. But it was a long time ago in a galaxy far away. He must be dead by now.

Karzai pounds the fluffy cushion one of his wives made. Enough! Bunch of knuckleheads, every one of them. What do they know? The US pays them all handsomely, and for what? What!

To keep out the Taliban.

That was a rhetorical question!

----

The underling, of course, is led straight to the cells. Like other Afghani troublemakers, he will be reported as an "enemy combatant" and renditioned to Guantanamo - the Afghani version of being thrown to the crocodiles.

In trying to please his master, he has uttered the unspeakable truth: that Karzai merely fills the vacuum, that he's just keeping the seat warm for the Taliban.

Karzai, you see, thinks of himself as the legitimate puppet-leader of Afghanistan. Like all US-installed despots, from Batista to Diem to Pinochet to Saddam himself, Karzai believes he has the will of the people behind him.

They love me! They shout my name in the streets - Karzai for president!

Karzai is fooled by the crowds who place garlands around his neck, who shout his name in the streets (his underlings pay them a dollar each). Karzai can duck a bullet like the next man, but he fears the cold blade being thrust into his kidney.

Don't they know I have the most powerful country in the world behind me?

The US stays quiet, biding their time until the next leader steps up. The CIA station chief crosses names off a list. Not him, not him - ah - no, not him either. Whoever will replace Karzai?

Meanwhile, Karzai lurks in his fortress, drinking tea and smoking hubbly bubbly, torturing his underlings with ridiculous demands.

Bring me Vader, bring me Saddam Hussein, get me Ronald Reagan on the phone.

The station chief's list is running out.

----

My informants in Karzai's castle keep whinging and moaning. They say they can't go on anymore.

Karzai wants his photo taken with Doris Day.

Karzai wants to walk the streets of Karbul dressed as a beggar.

Karzai wants to explore the earth's core (he was watching Journey to the Centre of the Earth, dubbed into Farsi).

He's got too much time on his hands, it's ridiculous.

He rings the CIA station chief every day saying he's bored, he wants more of a "role," that he's the true leader, not them. He has the will of the people behind him.

So Karzai wants to tackle the problems of Afghanistan, eh?

Yes, he says, that's exactly what he wants. He wants to help the people.

200 million for a new power station, 100 million for the new highway...

Karzai doesn't say anything.

Then there's another 100 million for the new presidential palace. The US could always put the project on hold. It's still in the planning phase...

No! The projects must continue! Karzai was just saying...

Yes?

He was just saying he wants the US to keep going, that it has the will of the people behind them, that it is doing a marvellous job in Afghanistan. But... Couldn't they give him something to do?

Well. Funny he asked. Haliburton have a new mineral exploration contract being signed that afternoon. Perhaps Karzai could go and have his photo taken with them.

Yes! It's just...

...Yes?

Any chance Doris Day could make it? Karzai's always wanted to meet her. He loved her in Pillow Talk with Rock Hudson.

The station chief says he'll see what he can do.

He hangs up and goes back to his Afghani leaders list. Not him, not him, good God - not him...

----

The Karbul CIA station chief wanted Panama - sun, cervesa, handsome boys. Plus, he spoke Spanish, so you'd think they'd send him somewhere down south. He thought Argentina at a stretch.

But he had to go and put his foot in it. Stationed in Sydney for a short period, he got the dirt on Tony Abbott, pictures and everything. Turnbull was the Liberal leader at the time, and the CIA were helping the Libs out. The Chief got the pictures developed and sent them off to all the right places, and what should happen? The Libs staged a coup and installed Abbott. It was just one of those things that couldn't be helped.

A failure of good intelligence, really, but the Chief was stuck with it. He was owed a nice, cushy job, but where do they send him? Karbul. There must be an Abbott admirer in Washington somewhere, he thought - probably someone in the Land and Environment Department.

Probably someone in the swimwear department.

So he found himself in Karbul, the American version of the Russian Front. No sun, no cervesa, but the boys were cheap - thank Heavens for small mercies. What he didn't bargain for was Karzai, the US-installed president and man of the people.

"Get those peacocks out of here, they're driving me crazy! And get me the CIA on the phone - get me the Chief."

"But master, you've only just hung up the phone."

"That wasn't him, that was Army Intelligence. I've got something to tell him."

Karzai, the good Muslim leader, knew how to play the sides off against each other. He wanted to tell the Chief the latest Army Intelligence disaster. The Chief knew, of course. He got it from his spies in Army Intelligence, a much more trustworthy source than Karzai.

"It's me. Listen, you know that fool over in satelite surveillance?"

"Colonel..."

"I don't care what he is. He's sending the drones into Pakistan, can you believe it? They're meant to be getting the Taliban, but they're floating around in Pakistan doing nothing. Fools!"

The Chief knew what was going on. Karzai wanted his arse covered in karbul, not Pakistan. It was futile to tell Karzai the Taliban didn't care what borders they hid behind.

"I'll get onto it, don't worry. I'll make sure they come back to Afghanistan."

"Good. Now, there's another thing."

"Yes?"

"I want a bunker."

"But you've got a bunker."

"Not that trap with the sandbags, I want a proper bunker like they have at the White House. Elevators that go down for miles, golf carts, a proper city I can run Karbul from. A bunker. "

"Well, I can try."

"You can get it done, you're the Chief."

"Maybe, but it's not so easy these days. There's the war..."

"Exactly. War everywhere. I need security. If you can't do it, I'll see what the Chinese are planning."

The Chinese. Karzai loved bringing them into everything. They were in Afghanistan, sniffing around for iron ore. If it wasn't enough that the Chief had to listen to Karzai carryng on, he had to deal with the Chinese making moves and trying to get in on the act.

They didn't call Afghanistan the Russian Front for nothing. Anyway, he knew Karzai would forget it all by tomorrow. Maybe.

"Alright. I'll get the architect to look over those plans again."

"Good. You are good American man. I am just a humble Muslim."

The Chief sighed. "You certainly are, Mr Karzai."

"My people love me. They vote for me!"

"Yes. That's what they call democracy."

Karzai hung up the phone. It certainly was called democracy - in a country where you could get the CIA station chief on the phone to call back the drones and build you a bunker.

God bless Uncle Sam.

----

It was a normal day at the presidential palace. That is, chaos was everywhere. Karzai's manservant brought the opium pipe to Karzai's lips and lit it up. Karzai was in a dazed stupor.

"They love me. My people... The Americans hate me, they have always hated me. Death to the American jackal!"

"Yes, master. May they die in pain, insh'allah."

"This foreign aid - how can I know where it all goes? I am just a humble Muslim trying to help my people..."

Karzai's manservant rests the pipe on a small table as Karzai nods off. But then he's back.

"Death to America!"

"Yes, master. May they die like the dogs they are, insh'allah."

"My pipe!"

Karzai's manservant lights it up and Karzai sucks it back. Karzai has just finished one of his week-long detoxes where he swears off everything forever, insh'allah, or at least until Paradise. No hashish, no opium, no valium. Booze is okay, but Karzai doesn't drink. Sometimes he watches an American envoy sip on a whiskey soda with lidded eyes. The infidels do not know that alcohol is harrum.

Karzai lets the smoke pass through his lips and a long cloud forms in the afternoon light. Blue smoke fills the room. The last week has been hell. The presidential advisors suggested the Betty Ford Clinic, but what do they know. How could Karzai, the Afghani president, enter an American hospital for drug addicts? Were they out of their minds?

"Yallah yallah yallah!" His manservant has not been quick enough with the pipe.

"I am sorry, master."

For the past week it has been face washers, cold baths and buckets of vomit. Karzai sh!t his bed every night. His manservant didn't know how long he could carry on. Thank Allah Karzai has picked up the pipe again.

"These people are corrupt! Everyone is corrupt! The Americans are bad, but the Afghanis are terrible. Everyone wants money. What to do?"

"Life is hard, master. It is a trial by God."

"Yes, life is hard, but look at me! I have to deal with the agencies, the warlords, the Taliban... The Americans have no idea. They will be gone next year, and I will need to run this place. Allah, give me strength!"

"Allah Uakbar."

"Yallah!" His manservant proffers the pipe and lights it. Karzai sucks back the smoke and gazes into the distance. Yes, life is hard, and the future is most certainly bleak. Karzai nods off again and his manservant rests the pipe next to his pillow. This time he is asleep. Karzai's manservant takes Karzai's hat off and puts it on the shelf. One day the Americans will be gone, but life must still go on. God is great, but Satan is well and truly giving him a run for his money.

Karzai's manservant checks Karzai's breath and it is okay. Today they will live, insh'allah. But tomorrow?

Their fate rested in Karzai's dreams.

----

What happened to Karzai? He was here a minute ago - where is he?

----

Karzai wants Afghani security forces ready by 2014, insh'alla.

----

If Karzai's forces are fully operational, why's he chatting up the Taliban? I ask you that.

----

----

22/4/10

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1271744283/18#18

'''Board bugged?'''

You leave those threads right where they are. Karzai threatening to join the Taliban is a very important issue, and one that should be debated on a number of levels.

Someone should post in it hunting and fishing.

----

----

9/8/10

'''Afghans tell it as it is - U.S are the warmongers'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1286618521/3#3

You know something? Karzai cares. He really does.

----

But it's not a war against Islam. It's a war for resources and a military foothold in a geopolitically relevent region.

If it was a war against Islam, the US would never have invaded Iraq, a once fiercely secular state.

To be honest, I'm not sure why we're still in Afghanistan, or why most politicians support it. Clearly, we aren't being given the full picture here. And you have to be suspicious about that.

----

Good grief. Did they have elections?

Has anyone told Karzai yet?

----

You mean the government WASN'T chosen this way?

You don't need to bring Allah into this. The US imposing elections is actually a very new phenomenon. You think all those Latin American puppet-governments and military coups got in through elections?

Come come, my boy. Uncle isn't in the election business.

The business of Amerika is BUSINESS.

----

If the US wanted to establish genuine democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, they would have staged elections at the outset.

Instead, the US waited for 3 years in Iraq, and during this time the previous institutions of government were destroyed. They didn't call it Shock and Awe for nothing.

During this time, the power and water suppliers were privatised, new 10-20 year oil contracts were drawn up, the museums were looted and burnt, and Ba'athist Party members were banned from holding government positions - a direction that left only religious and militant groups to enter the vacuum.

When the elections happened, they were a mere formality. The institutions of state had already been destroyed.

Elections mean nothing when the elected have nothing to govern, and no rule of law in which to act.

----

----

12/8/10

'''US Intelligence Specialist: Talibaan not the enemy'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281573512/1#1

The news on the wire: Karzai Seeks Settlement With Moderate Taliban Chiefs.

Karzai's food taster looks on as Karzai peels the newspaper from his parcel of newly polished shoes. "Be careful, Master. It might be a bomb."

"The only bombs around here come straight from the Pentagon. Marked 'for your eyes only.' Ah, the burden of presidential office. You want to run for president, my boy?"

"Master, I..."

"Afghanistan is democracy now. Anyone can grow up with the dream of becoming president."

"I do not have this dream, Master. My dream is to serve the president."

"Good. Best not to have too many dreams. Let us leave the dreams to Amerika. They make enough dreams for us all."

Karzai's shoes have been polished for a meeting with the top brass. General Petreus is coming to the compound. After this, Karzai has a meeting with the Taliban. For this meeting his dusty slippers lie next to his bed, along with a copy of Machiavelli's the Prince and his chillum. His opium pipe is currently in storage, or so he thinks. Karzai has been trying to stay clean and has given it to his most trusty servant for safekeeping.

The servant has dutifully passed it over to the Taliban as proof of Karzai's corrupt and decadent ways. The Taliban, of course, couldn't give two hoots. Opium has made them rich. Alcohol might be forbidden, but there's nothing in the Koran about opium. The Taliban's top brass get stoned with Karzai regularly. Still, they enjoy the servant's tales of Karzai's battle with the pipe.

"He is weak!"

"He is soft!"

"Only Allah makes a man strong. I can give up anytime I want, insh'allah."

"Exactly. As God wills it."

"If God wills it."

"Ha ha ha."

"Ha ha."

"Ha - "

Their laughter spreads and echoes throughout Afghanistan. On the streets of Karbul, a small boy plays with a syringe. In the mountains, a tribesman gazes out over the valley, following the path of an eagle. Karzai shakes hands with Petreus as the Taliban clean their Kalishnikovs. It is a land with God and without God, but one thing is certain.

The Taliban have much patience, insh'allah.

----

----

16/8/10

The oil has now been found

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281877483/1#1

At night Karzai dreams of vast seas of oil, seas that go on forever - to the core of the world and beyond. He watches as the boy of his dreams beckons, pulling him in. The oil covers his limbs and he can't escape. He is drowing. He screams out but no one is there. It is just him and the oil - the darkness that goes on forever, that pulls him down, covering him, drowing him. The darkness calls out: Mr President, Mr President! It taunts him, shrieking, Master! Boss! President of Afghanistan! He is shaking, shaking all over, drowning...

Karzai's servant is tugging on his leg. "Master! The general is here!"

Karzai rouses, his face creased and grey like the detrius that blows in the Karbul streets. "Boy, my pipe..."

"But, Master, I have hidden the pipe. It was your demand."

"I want it now."

"But, Master, you ordered me to refuse it to you."

"I take back the order. Come on."

"Of course, Master, but you ordered me to refuse if you took back the order. I cannot change the order."

"I change the order - get me my pipe."

Karzai's servant does not have the pipe, but he's used to this. Karzai changes his will like the wind.

"I can get the doktor, boss, but the pipe is hidden."

"What? The doktor? Are you out of your mind? Kabesh!"

He pauses.

"Is the general here?"

"Yes, boss. He waits downstairs."

"Bring me my robe and hat. It will be informal meeting. We will have tea."

"Of course, Master."

Karzai knows the next question is dangerous, but he asks it anyway. "Is there anything I need to know?"

"There is a man with him."

"Who?"

"He is business man. He said he is from Haliburton."

"What? Doesn't he know this is Afghanistan, not Iraq?"

"I do not know, boss."

"He's here for what's under the ground. Every man wants what is underneath."

"The newspapers say there is oil underneath, Master."

"I can't stand it. Why did God not give us milk? Or cotton? Why oil?"

"Perhaps he want us to be rich."

"Rich? We don't get rich. THEY get rich. All we get is the Americans and Haliburton."

Karzai's servant tries to lighten his master's mood. "Afghanistan is number one exporter of opium, Master. Number one!"

"Yes..."

Karzai's vow comes back to him - no more opium. For now. For now all he knows is the darkness pulling him underneath. Not milk or cotton; oil, and all it brings with it. Oil spells doom for Karzai. He is not an oil shiek or Mr Ten Percent. Karzai is the President.

Karzai is dispensible.

He also knows how to get his next fix. "What time are the Taliban coming over?"

"Ten o'clock, Master."

"Good. Give me my hat. Let's make this meeting quick."

"There is much oil, master."

Karzai knows. He has seen it in his dreams. "Give me my hat and get out. Yallah! You're useless! You're a waste of space!"

Karzai's servant leaves, but he is not sad. Today he may be Karzai's servant, but tomorrow he may be Mr Ten Percent. Anything could be possible in the new Afghanistan.

Just for a moment, Karzai feels the darkness pulling him down. Abesh! No time for dreams. Today he must meet with the general and Haliburton.

Tomorrow, the future would take care of itself.

----

----

19/8/10

'''Afghan rejection of occupation grows daily'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1282137196/1#1

Karzai knows he is being duped. "The only thing sure in this world, insh'allah, is that you are duped, and on a daily basis" (source: classified CIA document).

The trick, however, is to dupe them back, and well enough to make them think that they know you know you are being duped, but that they don't know that you know you are duping them.

It's an ancient art of posturing and bluff, cleverly employed by Karzai upon the Americans, but ingeniously so by Karzai's underlings upon Karzai. They have learned from the Master, but they have learned through trial and error also. Most of the time, Karzai pretends not to notice, but sometimes he really doesn't notice, and this is evidence of great skill on his underlings' behalf.

"They are killing me, insh'allah. Slowly but surely, we will all perish in this madness. When will it ever end?"

At night, the angel of death whispers in Karzai's ear: "soon, habibi. Soon, it will all be over."

And then? What next? Peace? War? 1000 years of war and struggle?

"All is jihad, habibi, until you are free."

Free? We are never free! I am the president and I am in a cage like a dog!

"Some struggle more than others, dear one. Only through submission does one become free."

Submission? I have submitted! I give everything to the Americans. I give to the Taliban. I give daily to Allah Himself. How can I possibly submit more?

"Submission depends who you submit to, my child."

But...

The angel disappears into mist, and Karzai is alone. Who to submit to? It was a good question. Perhaps Karzai has been submitting to too many. Perhaps Karzai needs to focus his submission. Aha!

But, again, who? These are dark times, surely, and who better to submit to than the angel of death herself?

----

Since submitting to the Angel of Death, Karzai has found some peace. Not too much, mind you, but enough to get the monkey off his back. Karzai's servant has managed to find his pipe, and Karzai is back on the horse. The Chinaman's nightcap. The Black Nurse.

"Why not?" Karzai asks. "We all will surely die. Why not have a little peace while we still live? God knows how much I have to deal with around here!"

The problem is, the Angel of Death has been asking for more and more. Not content with forty suicide bombers, the names and addresses of key aid distributers to be given to the Taliban, and the pseudenems and locations of key Taliban organisers to be given to the CIA, the Angel of Death comes up with a new demand every day.

"This will be the last time," Karzai tells himself, but he always gives in to the Angel of Death's seductive charms and rhetoric.

"You must live, habibi, for there is nothing surer than death. Live for this day that the Lord has made, insh'allah, and offer it to God."

"Yes, yes, I do."

"Have you said your prayers today, my child?"

"Well..."

"You must pray to God, dear one. It is through prayer that we please Him."

"Yes, I know. I've just had a lot..."

"Now have you done what I asked of you?"

"Yes! But no more, Mistress, please. It is giving me heart arhythmia already."

"You must submit, my dear one. I ask for nothing less than complete obedience."

"But I give and give! The CIA are starting to sniff around, and now the Taliban are getting suspicious! I have to live with these people!"

"This should not be your concern. You must submit and have faith. Only then can you find peace."

"I know..."

"Now. That servant of yours - I want him in the cabinet. I want you to give him, I don't know, Mining and Energy."

"But Mistress, this post is held by a very well connected Pashtun chieftain - he is extremely influential. I cannot take his portfolio away without severe political consequences. He can ruin me!"

"Where is your faith, my child? God gives nothing without obedience."

"I know, I know..."

"Let it be."

The Angel of Death fades into the darkness and Karzai gazes into the night. His servant? Why not his camel? A thousand camels, it would make no difference. That Pashtun could bear a grudge that lights a fire to all of Afghanistan. But that wan't the problem. Already, he had villagers lighting fires in the streets. That Pashtun could set fire to Karzai. Literally.

"Oh, Mother of Death, Angel of Life, whatever will happen next?"

----

----

22/8/10

Incident in Afghanistan

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1282344992/26#26

Ah - I see you were on the advisory board for the Vietnam war too, dear. Of course, the carpet bombing there went much further. The enemy were hiding in Cambodia and Laos, and would have been sharpening their bamboo spikes in China too, if the Chinese didn't have all those nasty nukes and a million soldiers to back them up against the US's shag piles. I guess we can't carpet bomb everywhere...

Or can we?

Can I ask though, old boy, apart from assisting the shareholders of companies like Lockhead Martin, what purpose does carpet bombing serve again?

Apart from destroying villages and crops and jungles and fostering groups like the Khmer Rouge, or encouraging the "enemy" to work in ingenious underground tunnels, or creating a resistance that will, as history has shown, become harder and stronger and more mean when you eventually leave a country, say, in 2011?

Don't get me wrong. I love a good carpet bombing as much as the next person. Guernica is one of my favourite paintings of all time. I love the sheer beauty of mass aerial destruction, the dazzling display of technological supremacy, the sight of all those backward, tinted peasants running into the jungle and, just as they get there, being felled by machine gun fire.

I like to watch it on TV.

But apart from the all the pleasure we receive from carpet bombing, what purpose does it actually serve?

----

It certainly is, old boy. The Taliban obtained a masterful education from the Russians.

----

Karzai slowly peels his banana. His boy should be doing this. Where is the boy?

Ah, yes. In the Ministry of Mining and Energy, being briefed. Allah be praised, these are dark days indeed. A servant gets to be a cabinet minister - why not send in a dozen apes? A thousand?

Karzai knows that his entire cabinet are apes, but at least they are HIS apes. The boy? Not to be trusted. Rule number one in politics is to never trust your underlings. You can trust your ape effendes because you have certain informations on them. Karzai has informations on his entire cabinet. Corruption, sodomy, murder, drug trafficking, the lot. The worse they are, the more useful they are, it is an old rule of thumb.

Democracy in Afghanistan is just a way for the scum to float to the top. Everyone knows it. If you went into the streets of Karbul and picked a random 20 rickshaw wallahs, porters, tea boys and drug dealers, you'd get a more effective and congenial government than the present one. But no, it could not be done this way. Democracy requires apes, and apes it shall be.

Karzai throws the peel at the wall. Kabesh! Oh, why bother? No one listened anyway.

----

----

15/9/10

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284374008/6#6

'''America spreads nothing but corruption and chaos'''

Karzai's brother, Mahmud, swaggers into the Kabul Bank carrying a black briefcase. Dressed in jeans, pointy boots, gold rings and a suit jacket covering a packed holster, Mahmud is ready for action.

"How may I help you, sir?"

"Give me one - no. Five million."

"Do you have an account with us, sir?"

"Abesh! Do I have an account!? Where is your boss?"

"He's currently dealing with another client, sir. If I may be of help..."

Mahmud spits out of the corner of his mouth. "Do you know who I am?"

"You are a customer, sir."

Mahmud studies the teller's face. "Customer."

"May I have your name, sir?"

"You know who the president is?"

"Of course, sir."

"You know who owns this place?"

The teller's jaw drops.

"Please forgive me, sir. I will get the manager."

Mahmud's eyes follow the teller like a crocodile. He pulls out a cigar, bites off the end and lights a match on the sole of his boot. He lights his cigar and drops the match on the marble floor, dead. "Customer..."

Mahmud knows there are no customers in Kabul, only fish. And sharks. Mahmud learned business in the West. In the West they know how to do business. In Afghanistan all they know how to do is sit around drinking tea and smoking hookahs. In the West, Mahmud learned the art of the deal.

The bank manager glides out and offers to greet Mahmud with both arms in the Afghani way. "Mr Karzai, sir!"

Mahmud holds him off with a stare, the cigar smoking between his teeth.

"Allow me to express my gratitude that you are using our humble branch to complete your transactions!"

"Five million. Dollars." He hands the briefcase over.

The teller looks on from behind the counter's bars.

"Of course, Mr Karzai. Immediately. Will you take tea?"

Mahmud sucks his teeth. "Give me coffee. But make it quick."

"Yes, sir. Of course, I must obtain the money. Unless you'd prefer a cheque."

Mahmud eyes the manager like a crocodile.

"We will obtain the bills, Mr Karzai." He turns to the teller. "Bills! Dollars! Run!" He turns to give Mahmud a wide grin. "Come, sir. We will have coffee."

The manager carries Mahmud's briefcase like a Faberge egg. Outside, a security guard squats on the pavement with an old carbine rifle, his epelettes sagging on his ill-fitting sleeves. It is 45 degrees. A beggar, with stumps instead of legs, looks up at the sky. The Americans fly sorties at this time every day.

The sun beats down on the new Afghanistan, a land of customers with hopes and dreams. The teller runs from branch to branch, collecting bills in a sack and overhead, right on time, the silent American planes cast their shadows over the buildings. Five seconds later, as they reach the horizon, their roar cancels out the sound of the Kabul streets.

----

Yes - it would be alright if they just stayed over there, but no. They have to bring their stinking, ghetto-living, goat-hearding, ways over here too. They call it the spread of Islam.

We've tried to leave them alone, of course. But we must help them develop. If we don't teach them how to do business in a civilized fashion we'll be overun by a world of bazzar touts and camel drivers.

We call it the spread of democracy. If it was up to them, Dubai would still be a desert. But no. Now they have air conditioning. Starbucks. Armani. The goat-hearders have turned into property developers. And they love us for it.

Let's face it. In the modern world, you have a choice: whether to drive a camel or a BMW. This is the beauty of liberal democracy.

----

Effende, sometimes it is our own words that cause confusion. We must learn to reflect upon our words and deeds in the light of the Prophet's commands, insh'allah.

Allah knows all. As man, we sometimes confuse ourselves with the Almighty. Only through submission and prayer can we come to understand that all mans have the seed of Allah within him.

----

Karzai learns about his brother's loan on CNN.

"Abesh! Does he think I am running a banana republic here? He is giving me a return of my gastric ulcer already!"

Karzai's manservant, now Minister of Mineral Exploration, goes for the door. "I will get the doktor, Master."

"No! Leave the doktor. Leave me in peace for once. I must pray and go to the Higher Authority."

Karzai's servant is perplexed. "Allah, master?"

"As God will's it, all is one. Now go. Leave me be."

The servant closes the door behind him. After waiting one minute, Karzai opens the door to find the servant, his servant (an undetected CIA plant) and a security guard with a WWI carbine rifle, all trying to listen in.

"Abesh! Jackals! Spies! You think I am a bird in a cage? Enough! Or I'll have you all renditioned to Guantanamo Bay!"

Karzai's staff disperses, leaving him alone. One day, Karzai thinks, Afghanistan will be in the care of these knuckleheads. God help the children.

Karzai lies on his bed and lights a pipe of hashish. Ah, Afghanistan will always have good smoke, at least God wills this. As he blows out a careful plume of blue smoke, the Angel of Death appears.

"Child of God, you are not yourself today."

"How can I be myself, Mistress, when my idiot brother insists on destroying all my work?"

"Again, my child, there are things you do not know. You cannot take the world onto your shoulders. It will give you a gastric ulcer."

"Exactly! That's what I said!"

"See the doktor."

"Are you kidding? He reports to the CIA. Anyway, all he prescribes is paracetamol. What sort of doktor only gives paracetamol?"

"Perhaps he cares for you, my child."

"If he cared he'd give some decent painkillers."

"The aim, dear one, is to cure the source of the pain, not its symptoms."

Karzai is incredulous. "But how can I... ? These knuckleheads, my idiot brother, the Amerikans, the Taliban, the..."

"Submit, my child, and all shall be given unto thee."

"I know! You keep saying! But you don't have to run this place!"

"Calm yourself. Remember that God runs all. We are just his servants."

"Yes, yes, yes..."

"Have you spoken with the Taliban as I requested?"

"Yes, Mistress."

"This is good. Leave your brother. He does God's work."

"He is making himself rich."

"All, by God, deserve to be rich. He is helping our cause."

"Well, that's a relief."

"You are tired, my child. You must sleep."

"I try, I try..."

"I will help you to sleep. Pray for your brother. Pardon him."

"But the Amerikans..."

"The Amerikans will go, my child, just as the Russians before them."

"God knows I want this, Mistress..."

"Good. Now sleep. You must learn not to think too much and let Allah do His work."

The Angel of Death vanishes and leaves Karzai with an overwealming sense of heaviness. The pipe is cold. Karzai places it beside the bed and lays his head on the pillow. He sleeps.

Downstairs, the servants squabble. Outside, the palace walls melt into the haze. In Brussels, Karzai's brother Mahmud, steps from a plane. He will invest in property and become even more rich. But today, for the good of all Afghanistan and the will of God, Karzai sleeps.

----

Karzai learns to leave all in the hands of God.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/karzai2.jpg

Karzai praises the Amerikans for their good work.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/610x.jpg

Karzai thanks the Taliban.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/hamed20karzai.jpg

Karzai alludes to his relationship with the Angel of Death.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/a03_20059067.jpg

Karzai tolerates his knucklehead guards.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/698137.jpg

Abesh! Out of my sight!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/hamed201karzai.jpg

The Mistress tells me to leave security in the hands of God. With the knuckleheads I have to deal with, what choice do I have?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Gordon-Brown-meets-Presid-001.jpg

----

Karzai has experienced both the darkness of the abyss and the light of day. He knows God dwells in all things. He isn't choosy.

But how to live? How to deal with the day to day? How to clean up after the knuckleheads that have been placed under your command? Or the Amerikans? Or the Taliban? Or Iran and China waiting in the wings?

Karzai knows that God works through one's actions, but when each move seems cursed and destined to fail, how does one act at all?

To be or not to be - that is the question.

Karzai is happy to submit to God, the Angel of Death, the Taliban, the Amerikans, whomever. But in the end, everything comes back to haunt him. In the end, history shall judge Karzai, not God or the Angel of Death, who history shall easily forget.

Afghanistan does not have the luxury of beach towels. It is lucky to have factories that make artificial limbs. Karzai understands the gravity of his decisions, but he can never know their outcome. This, in the end, is in the hand of destiny.

The Owl of Minerva flies only at the dusk.

Karzai knows this. He has never seen the owl, of course, but each night he sees the sun setting over Kabul.

----

My friend, Mr Karzi is the US-installed and democratically-elected president of Afghanistan. Not only does he hold the post of head of state, but he must also action and approve the policies of the government - largely installed by Karzi, but on the whole a bunch of knuckleheads.

The question is whether Karzi himself shapes history, or whether history is destined by structures outside his control. Should Karzi focus on the Will to Power, or fate?

----

Karzai is a Muslim. John Howard was a Christian.

To be honest, I don't think Karzai thinks much about Islam. He just knows the basics - enough to get on with the Taliban.

Mind you, he doesn't mind Drug avenues, but he gets certain underlings to score for him - usually the CIA plants who want to keep him in control.

The doktor is the worst. He likes to see Karzai hanging out - it's a relationship of power and control. Karzai can't stand him.

Afghanistan could do worse than reading Karzai's biography. I've posted exerpts here for us to read. Only by understanding the mind of Karzai can the world come to terms with the issues that face all of us: religion, reading, life, death, fate, existence, you name it.

We need to educate ourselves on the mind of one Hamed Karzai.

----

The CIA Station Chief reads the latest report. Good. Things are turning out nicely. The doktor seems to be working again, although God knows what he does with his time. There are no golf courses in Kabul.

Not for the locals, anyway.

The doktor is impossible to control, just like everyone else in this godforsaken country. You put them on a comfortable anuity and you'd think they'd work for you, right? Wrong. The more comfortable they get, the less they do for you. The CIA is experienced with this phenomenon, and Kabul's Station Chief is no exception. He was a junior field officer in Panama when Norriega was just a grunt in the army. Thanks to the CIA and the clandestine work of the Chief, Norriega made it into the top job. But then he turned. They always do.

Give them a knife, and they place it in your liver. But if everybody hates Uncle so much, why do they queue up for the knife?

The doktor gets a cool million each year in CIA dollars. In Afghanistan, it's good money. Good enough to build himself a house off the coast of Dubai and keep his wife in Versace burqas. If the CIA dealt in ethics they'd be broke, but its ethical enough. Pharmaceutical companies pay similar money, and what would the doktor do with an Afghani wage, even as Karzai's personal physician?

But he won't work. Getting him to cough up information is one thing, but getting him to keep Karzai sufficiently medicated is another. The information always has to be independantly verified, and Karzai is on and off his meds like an outpatient at Bellview. The doktor says it's Karzai's fault, but the CIA pay him good money to be the doktor.

"You're the doctor. He's meant to be on his medication. If he doesn't take it orally, there are other ways."

"My friend, a president must take it orally. There is no other way."

"Yeah? And how many presidents have you had? I've been through a few and I can tell you, the only way to do it is to hold them down and..."

Luckily, the doktor is saved by the Chief's red phone.

Keeping Karzai happy is an effort of Himalayan proportions. The medication a spit in the ocean. Keeping the rest of Afghanistan unhappy is much easier. Only by keeping Karzai properly medicated and suitably busy can the CIA do its job. Keeping Karzai from slitting his own throat is an effort, but keeping the population hungry and poor is relatively easy. The CIA have experience, of course, but the Russians also made their contribution. Everyone, it seems, has had a hand in the misery of the Afghans, but it does help to have Karzai at the helm.

The doktor spends most of his time in the kitchen, overseeing the staff. Having trained in Marseilles, the doktor sees himself as an expert in food. Placing a spoon to his lips, the doktor winces his displeasure.

"Merde! This is meant to be a consome! No good. Throw it away."

The cook is perplexed. "Away? But Doktor, I must ask why."

"Look here - it is not clear. A consome must shine through."

"Doktor, the guests arrive in 20 minutes - I have no time!"

"Abesh! Do it."

The doktor leaves the kitchen to inspect the waiters and share the misery around. The only people he will leave are the security staff. For some reason, no one ever bothers the security staff. Perhaps everyone understands that security is a task best left to experts. This might explain why the mosques in Kabul are full with people praying to God.

While the doktor does his rounds, the Chief deals with security. The Taliban recently threatened to contaminate Karbul's water supply with LSD. Considering the options, the CIA decided that inaction was the most ideal policy. Anyone who drank the water in Afghanistan was surely already mad, but it was the Psychological Warfare Division who had the final say. A city of hallucinating Afghans would present interesting insights into the functioning of the Muslim brain. Would they see God? How would He appear to such a backward, tinted race? Which dark, primative recesses of the brain would light up with activity? What form would their regression take?

Perhaps the doktor could shine some light in this area. As he makes his rounds through the Presidential Palace, his pager beeps with Karzai's number. The doktor switches his pager to silent and puts it back in his pocket, an old doctor's trick. Nothing to worry about. If Karzai was seriously ill, the servants should call the Amerikan base hospital.

The doktor knows what Karzai wants. He also knows what the Amerikans want. What to do? In his black bag, the doktor has numerous medications. Medications for pain, medications for pleasure, and medications for unhappiness. Karzai wanted all.

The doktor enters his small apartment and closes the door behind him. He slips off his shoes and turns on the taps in the bath. The pager vibrates in his trouser pocket. Abesh! What was the hurry?

The doktor does what the doktor wants. Karzai needed to learn how to wait.

----

Effende, in our faith, we believe in the futility of words to say anything.

You might consider converting. They'd probably make you a sultan.

----

----

23/9/10

'''Vote rigging in Southern Kandahar'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285200181

Afghanistan has a unique application of democracy. In Southern Kandahar, the polling officials fill out the votes. Effective!

Many have speculated on the root of this corruption. Some say it is the backwardness of the tinted races and their inability to practice universal suffrage. Too backward and tinted.

Others blame the Amerikans. Before the Amerikans went in, Afghanistan was a free country ruled by a peaceful and loving elite of philosopher kings. Yankee go home!

And there are those who blame Karzai. Everyone loves to blame Karzai. Karzai is the US-installed and democratically elected man of the peoples. Afghanis love their president, and the president loves his peoples. CNN has a few issues with him, but he always wears a nice suit to speak to the media.

So who IS to blame for the corruption in Afghanistan?

----

'' - Tony Abbot`s budgie smugglers. Karzai is now going the muslim version, sort of a giant nappy.''

Very true, but they seem to value modesty in Afghanistan.

Now I'm sure Karzai could learn something from Tony Abbott.

----

'' - Karzai can`t get the lump going.''

'' - Without a four year old boy around.''

I believe Karzai had aversion therapy for this. He's been cured. Now he's in the normal range and has a number of six year old wives.

----

----

28/9/10

'''slanderous accusations'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285589916/7#7

We really need to do something about all these Muslims. They come here, rape our women, and make their own women walk around in big black sacks. They don't shave, but use a lot of aftershave. They set up kebab places wherever you look.

It really gets on my nerves. How dare they?

----

Exactly. I think it's the failure of liberal democracy to curtail these extremist elements. We need to put up or shut up. Let them know who's boss.

----

Karzai reads the headlines in the morning's Kabul Post.

"Lies! Slander! A slur on my name!"

His servant is conciliatory. "Shall I call Legal, Master?"

"Legal? Abesh! Are you mad?"

"But Master, I..."

"Rendition them to Guantanamo! Legal. What do you want me to do - sue?"

"Master, I will talk to the Amerikans."

"You want me to take them to a court? Ha! The judges only take Amerikan dollars. Do you see many Amerikan dollars around here? Legal!"

"It was folly, Master, I..."

"Do you think I am rolling in money?"

"No, Master, I..."

"Guess where all the money goes."

"I don't know, Master. Perhaps..."

"Legal. There you have it. Legal have eaten out my heart already. Legal have taken my lungs."

"..."

"I can't breathe anymore. I have heart palpitations. Feel here..."

"Master, I really must speak with the Amerikans..."

"Abesh! Everyone always wants to speak with the Amerikans. That's democracy. Speak to the Amerikans."

"But I must do this rendition. I..."

"Don't talk to Karzai, go and talk to Amerika. Go and meet the general. He will fix the water, shelter, food, medicine. But Karzai? No. Get Karzai to address the Islamic Citizens Guild, the Green Cross, the International Fellowship for Islamic Democracy..."

"Master..."

"Look what it says about me! Inscrutable. What does inscrutable mean?"

"I think it means difficult to reach, Master."

"Me? Impossible! Do I have a phone?"

"Yes, you do..."

"Then call me!"

"The phone is currently disconnected, Master."

"What?"

"You pulled the plug out. It is still to be fixed."

"You see? Knuckleheads. Around me, only knuckleheads. You see what the Amerikans give me? How can I work with this incompetence?"

"You do your best, Master."

"You're right. I do. Now look here - vain. Am I vain? Do I preen myself? Do I spend hours in my closet?"

"Not hours, no, Master..."

"You see? And this - this is what I want retribution over, this slur on my name. It says here that Karzai is on medication!"

"What for, Master?"

"For, er, ill - for the mental problems!"

"Aren't you?"

"Not any more! That doktor, he is useless! He doesn't give me anything!"

"That is clearly not true then..."

"You see? Ah, I give up. What is the point to all this? I might as well give Afghanistan to the Persians. No one would know..."

"The Amerikans would know, Master."

"Abesh! Out of my sight!"

"But, Master..."

"Rendition them to Guantanamo Bay! If you don't, in God's name, I'll take you there myself!"

Karzai has a coughing fit. His servant goes to comfort him, but Karzai gives him the evil eye. Karzai reaches into his pocket for his Ventolin and takes 3 puffs. With a wave of his hand he dismisses his servant, who goes to rendition the American journalist to Guantanamo Bay.

Karzai is defeated already, and he hasn't even finished breakfast. Outside, the peacocks frighten the security guards and sh!t all over the compound. Karzai will forget the article, but his mood will not lighten. Soon, the Amerikans will come for their meeting.

Karzai wonders why he bothers at all.

----

----

1/12/10

'''Karzai is now officially paranoid'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1291176082

News: the wikileaks leaks show US officials think Hamed Karzai is paranoid.

Paranoid about whom, one might ask. The US State Department, the CIA, US Military Intelligence, the Taliban, Iran, China, his party, his cabinet, the opposition, the warlords, the CIA, Karzai's bungling servants who monitor his every word and pass it over to the US State Department, the CIA, US Military Intelligence, the Taliban, Iran, China...

All for a price, of course.

Karzai: "Paranoid? Goodness me! No, I am not paranoid. I leave this to the international press. Now, if you will excuse me, gentlemen..."

And to his servants: "Abesh! Out of my sight!"

----

----

8/12/10

'''Due process'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1291774874/1#1

It is the midday sleepy time in Karbul. Karzai's manservant stands by the window, watching a fly buzzing around. He is bored.

Karzai is at the internet reading about the Forbidden Truth.

"Look at this - it is all lies!"

"They are lying, Master?"

"No, they are saying it is all lies!"

"The website, Master?"

"No! Everything!"

"Everything is lies, Master? But how can this be?"

"Let me read... They teach the children the untruth, they poison the mind, yallah yallah, ah - the government!"

"The government teaches the lies, Master?"

"They conduct the brainwashing. I think."

"And this is bad, Master?"

"I am not sure. This writings says it is very bad."

"But how can a clean mind be bad? The Prophet says..."

"Abesh! It says criminals and murderers are the most hated. How can it be? Criminals and murderers make the most money. Some of my best cabinet ministers are murderers."

"They should get more money, Master."

"Of course they should. But the Americans won't pay more!"

Karzai is getting himself worked up. "Listen, it says here: 'the justice system seeks no truth, in fact, it is deliberately structured in such a way as to hide the truth.' Can you imagine a justice system which seeks the truth? It would be a laughing stock!"

"Ha ha! You are right, Master. It would be laughed out of court!"

"It says Australia is the most corrupt society of all."

"Australia? What is this Australia, Master?"

"They are like Amerikans, but it says here they are like slaves. Drunkenness, drug-use, endless cycle of child abuse - what is this? Child abuse?"

"Maybe when the child abuse someone, Master."

"They have no self control, these places. It says here the child is a poison container. What is that?"

"Maybe it is like your food taster, Master. But we don't keep the poison in him. We try to stop the poison."

Karzai raises an eyebrow. "What poison?"

"Well, no poison, Master, but if there was poison it would kill him."

Karzai waves his hand in disgust. "Ah! I give up. I tried that Secret - remember? For one week I tried. I wished the Amerikans go home to Amerika and the Taliban be nice. You have to see it in your mind. Well, I saw it in my mind, but the Amerikans are still here and the Taliban are trying to put poison in my food. What to do?"

Karzai's manservant remembers. Karzai had seen the Secret on Oprah. For a week it was all he could talk about. Everyone in the palace was forced to read it. Karzai's cabinet tried to get their heads around it. Karzai worked himself into a frenzy with his mental pictures of the fall of Saigon and amiable Taliban warriors sitting in a circle with Karzai, all sharing chillums and laughing at his jokes.

"I can see it! Listen - the helicopters, they are going."

But alas, the helicopters were not going or coming, they were transporting the wounded into Karbul Base Hospital, four blocks from the presidential palace, same as usual. Karzai gave it up after a week and descended into one of his more sombre moods.

Karzai's manservant turned off the computer. Come, Master, it is time for your sleeping."

"Wake me if something important happens."

Yes, Master."

----

----

29/12/10

'''Karzai Comes Out'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293589823

US-installed and democratically-elected man of the peoples, Hamed Karzai, has come out as a practicing homsexual.

Mr Karzai believes Afghani men should respect their true inner selves and do jigga jig only with their male counterparts, an internet report disclosed.

"Love is love, and the Prophet teaches that all love is from God," Karzai is reported as saying. "We must liberate the peoples and let all men live their true sexual identities. I have been unhappy for many years - it is like I have been living a lie. I would like to be an example to all men of Afghanistan,and only now, by coming out as it were, can I be happy, and can we all be truly happy as a nation" Karzai is believed to have said.

Karzai would like to unite Afghanistan, a nation torn by factional in-fighting and inter-tribal warfare. It is said that Karzai would like Afghanistan to be the first truly rainbow nation, a nation where difference is embraced, and where all people can be respected and loved for who they are.

- Karbul Gay Times.

----

'' - I've always found Mr Karzai to be very attractive. Sometimes he appears in my dreams wearing nothing but his hat/cap/whatever at a very rakish angle and riding a white steed. What a guy (rhymes with bi).''

You are lucky. The fact that he is on a horse is a good omen, my friend. If he were on foot, it would be very bad luck indeed. Generally, the appearance of Karzai represents the impending death of a loved one.

A white steed indicates rebirth. You may embark on a new project or journey. This is a good indication for travel.

The angle of the hat is interesting. This represents desire, depending on which side it faces (but people rarely remember directions from dreams). You mention bi. Perhaps this indicates that you would like to experiment sexually with members of your own sex.

You say that you have always found Karzai to be attractive. Ipso facto, I posit that you would like to be "with" Karzai, or men like Karzai, in a carnal liaison.

You may balk at this analysis, however, all the signs point to it.

----

----

1/1/11

'''Karzai Karzai Karzai'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293879287 - DELETED

Karzai is the US-installed and democratically-elected leader of Afghanistan, as God wills.

As he drives through the Kabul streets at election time, the speakers in his postered van hiss and spit "Karzai Karzai Karzai!"

His leaflets, strewn through the muddy streets of every town in the land, read "Karzai Karzai Karzai!"

Vote for Karzai.

Karzai is God's man in Afghanistan, but the Taliban are pushing a close second. Karzai uses the lectern and the ballot box while the Taliban use AK47s.

Only God decides the true leaders. If you listen carefully, God can be heard in silence.

But throughout all Afghanistan, you can hear the cry of the muezzin, and -

Karzai Karzai Karzai!

----

----

4/1/11

'''Karnal stands for moderator'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294105723

Brussels: Karnal announced his intention to run for moderator of the Islamic board from his office in Belgium today.

"I've decided to throw my hat in the ring. It will be a democratic process," Karnal said. "Unlike the current system of factional apointees, I believe we need to inject some democracy into the forum - like Afghanistan."

Karnal is believed to be unhappy with the removal of posts, a number of them his. "This has nothing to do with my own posts being sent to a graveyard. It's about freedom of speech. If we can't speak openly on God's own forum, how can we ever hope to enter paradise, insh'allah?"

Karnal is believed to have connections with a number of influential Muslims, among them Mahmood Chalabi and Hamed Karzai.

"We need to revitalise the Islamic board and present a fresh perspective on this most great of world religions," Karnal said. "We can only do this through love, freedom of speech and respect for all peoples."

The current moderator, Abu, was unavailable for comment.

----

KARNAL WANTS BRAS AND KNICKERS FOR MUSLIM LASSES

Don't burn your bras, ladies, you'll need them if Karnal becomes the moderator of the Muslim board. Self-professed Islamic moderate, Karnal, believes ladies should wear what they like. "Look, if they want to wear a bra and knickers, that's fine with me. If they want to wear a burqa that's okay too," said Karnal from his international headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

Currently campaining for the prestigious role of Islamic moderator, Karnal, a Pakistani Bastard, believes Muslims want new qualities in their leaders. "Look, we've tried banning things and shutting things down, but it clearly doesn't work. I'd like to hear new voices for change, I'd like to see a thousand flowers bloom."

So would Karnal like to see more Muslim madams in bikinis? "Sure, why not? Allah created the female form and said it was good. I don't think it's so bad myself."

So who will Karnal be giving flowers to for Valentines Day? "Oh, my mum. Definately. She's the only woman in my life right now. But she wears a burqa, thank Allah for that."

- News of the World, London.

----

KARNAL RECEIVES HIS JUST DESERTS

- [i]Daily Mirror[i]

Candidate for Islamic Board moderator, Karnal, was awarded with an honoury Certificate III in Catering from Bratford Polytechnical College yesterday.

"This is a real honour," Karnal, who graduated from the college in 1998, said. "I haven't been back to these corridors for quite some time. I'll bet they're still cleaning my chewing gum off the benches in the food technology lab."

In breaking news, Karnal is poised to capture the post of Islamic board moderator, with rival candidate, Abu, failing to generate popular support.

"We're all brothers in Allah," Karnal said. "I'm sure I'll need some support in the role - perhaps Abu can do the midnight shift."

Current moderator, Abu, was unavailable for comment.

----

----

8/2/11

'''Karzai 'threatens to join Taliban''''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1271412322/2#2

Karzai is the US-installed and democratically elected leader of the People's Republic of Afghanistan. He is very good man indeed, insh'allah. He is one of us.

Every day he prays to Allah and the Angel of Darkness for peace to descend on the Afghani peoples.

Every day the drones bomb sheep and the landmines blast the limbs off children. The opium caravans travel through the narrow mountain passes, knocking rocks down the steep ravines into the darkness below.

Karzai is the leader of this country - a country neither the British, nor the Russians, nor the Amerikans could tame. A country balancing perrilously close to the edge of darkness, much like Karzai himself.

Karzai's dream is to sew the tapestry of competing forces into a great work of art. The warlords, the Amerikans, the Persians, the Chinese, the Taliban, his own coalition government, all knit together into a rubric of competing and mutual alliances so complex that only Karzai could ever hope to unravel it.

To do this he must trust God - it is the only way - but he can never trust the men in his command. His number one manservant, for example, passes every one of his words and gestures to the CIA, US Army Intelligence, the British Foreign Office, the Taliban and, occasionally, Reuters. The CEO of Oxfam has even been briefed on some of Karzai's more absurd, drug-addled fantasies, which include:

Putting opium in the Taliban's drinking water (absurd because they already smoke it when their superiors aren't watching).
Creating a coalition of US interests by bringing the CIA and Army Intelligence together.
Creating a coalition of US and Afghani troops, who will be trained and ready to go when the US decide to pull out.
Inviting Jim Neighbours, a favourite of Karzai's from his Gomer Pile days, to rally the troops and bring morale through a medley of songs and hits from musicals such as South Pacific, The Sound of Music and Shanti Shanti Shanti, a Bollywood classic loved in Afghanistan (only the last one was Karzai's idea - the idea itself came from Dick Cheney, but was shelved when Neighbours' agent demanded exclusive media rights).

----

Karzai is in one of his moods. He hasn't been out of bed for 5 days. His manservant enters his room with a tray of readings materials. Karzai puts on his reading glasses and goes through the pile: the usual Koran, Hello magazine, Soap... He hovers over Time, looking to see if there's anything on Afghanistan, but does not look inside. What's the point? They will say what they say, insh'allah, and there's no point worrying.

Karzai does, of course, worry. Karzai does nothing but worry.

"Abesh! Out of my sight with these! Bring me some decent readings materials!"

"You want lookings materials, master?"

"Yes, lookings, not readings. I am too tired to read. I am getting a brain tumour already."

Karzai's servant reaches under Karzai's bed for the girly mags: under-the-counter Indian pornography with photos of fat, sweaty, overly made-up women in their bras and panties. In the back, there are classifieds sections where you can buy the panties. Karzai spends a lot of time with his servants perusing the models and ordering their panties.

"She, she..."

"She, master?"

"No, not she, she looks like Saddam Hussein when they took the rope off."

"Ha ha ha."

"No, it's true. She does. Look."

Karzai's servant looks. She does, of course, bear no resemblance whatsoever to the hung former dictator. Karzai has a tendancy to project his fears onto others. The CIA psychologists call it paranoiac narcicism, but Karzai's servant knows nothing of psychology.

"Yes, master, especially in the eyebrows and mustache. It is... unmistakable."

Karzai peers closely through his glasses. "...Unmistakable. She could be his body double."

"She could give banquets, master."

"She could wave to the peoples from the balcony."

"She could pose for the billboards."

"Abesh!" Karzai makes his choices. "She, she and she. Not her. And bring me Pepsi. My ulcer is playing up."

Outside, the presidential palace melts in the haze. Overhead, the vultures fly listlessly in circles, ever-present, watching and waiting. Perhaps today, a dog will die in the sun. Or a child's limb will be spied on a rubbish heap. Afghanistan, it is clear, offers much for those who watch and wait.

----

At dawn, the muezzin's call can be heard through the loudspeakers of Kabul. Through the narrow laneways come the sounds of people coughing and spitting up phlegm. Veiled women usher their sleepy children from their homes to prayer, their sandals clip clopping in the early morning rhythm to form the crowds milling at the mosque. Women and children at one entrance, men and boys on the other, the morning chatter of the women fills the air and builds into a crescendo until they are silenced by the morning prayer.

God is great.

The Western embassies are still quiet, but in the Chinese embassy the fax machines spill their endless reams of paper onto the floor, page after page. Here, behind the drab, Soviet-era facade, the five stars looming high on a rusted sign out the front, lies the centre of development in Afghanistan. Here is where the deals are done: a new highway project linking Kandahar to Kabul, mineral exploration schemes, a proposed gas pipeline, perhaps even a railway one day, China is quietly doing what neither the British, Russians or Amerikans could ever hope to achieve.

But China has two tricks up its sleeve: a low profile and mountains of yuan. It also knows who to grease and where to get deals done. While US Aid pours into the coffers of the provincial leaders in the attempt to win hearts and minds, Chinese investment gets the job done. Soon, insh'allah, Afghanistan will join the world. Wires will carry electricity to whomever needs it. Oil will be piped from the ground. Diesel trains will replace pack mules carrying precious commodities to the rest of the world.

God is great.

In Washington, heads feign concern, but there is little they can do. They have their hands too busy with the Middle East to bother putting the reports together from the CIA and Defense Intelligence. The CIA is filled with Ivy League intellectuals who can never agree on anything. Defense intelligence produces satelite photos of what could be anything - if anyone knew how to decipher it. Everyone is too busy managing crisis in their own administration to bother asking questions no one wants to know the answer to.

Just give me the facts.

Which facts would you like?

God is great.

In the presidential palace, Karzai wakes to do a token three-versus prayer and bows down towards Mecca, before he will return to bed and summon his servant. Today, insh'allah, will bring some peace to Karzai. Enough! First his pipe, then his tea and readings, praise Allah he has no meetings with the Amerikans.

God is most infinately great.

Today, as the sun rises over the parapets of Kabul and shines into Karzai's bedroom window, God will smile on him. Karzai taps his forehead on the marble floor and hopes it makes him look devout enough. Abesh! How can the Amerikans ever hope to bring peace if they do not pray?

As the mosques empty into the streets of Karbul, a new day begins. Bakers make and sell bread wrapped in yesterday's newspaper, vegetable vendors hawk their wares, and oxen pulling carts are whipped to go faster into the morning traffic.

Karzai goes back to bed and summons his servant. Eyes peer through a portrait on the wall. What now? What madness will Karzai come up with today?

One thing is most mercifully certain above all else:

God is great.

----

The cry of Allah Uakbar can be heard from the parapet, resonating in the heart of every man, woman and child in Afghanistan like a bell.

In the cities, swollen with vans, motorcycles and oxen-pulled carts, newspaper vendors on the street corners sell readings materials to the peoples. Allah Uakbar.

In the snow-capped mountains, where the Taliban caravans pass through the steep ancient passes taking opium out and Kalishnikovs in. Allah Uakbar.

In the fields, where the men sit in the shade and the women stand with ploughs in the sun, praying for rain and the safety of their children playing behind the wire. Allah Uakbar.

God is great. And Karzai knows he owes all he has to God. God makes the little children in His image, but He also makes the bombs and mines and acid, thrown in the face of all who cheat death and the force of life itself. God makes all things.

Allah Uakbar.

----

Exactly. Without God in your heart, each day is a slow death, an endless gasp of repetitive mediocrity.

God is indefinably great.

----

----

7/5/11

'''Karzai threatens to improve public transport'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304761803

An alarming number of army trucks have been seen coming out of Kandahar recently. What could be happening?

Could public transport in Afghanistan finally be improving?

People are quite disappointed with the existing system.

----

Can I just say that I'm thoroughly pleased the Transport forum finally has a decent moderator. Kindly maintain a decent standard of transport debate, thank you, moderator.

Keep up the good work!

----

Me? What about Karzai?

Have you seen his list of readings materials? Hello, Look, Soap. He hardly ever reads Time or Newsweek, but he's in there regularly.

And he's still waiting on the van for elections. Hasn't come yet. Now that Amerika have put Osama in the sea, it looks like Karzai will have to fund his own elections. Kabesh!

----

An ill wind blows through the Kabul streets. It is night. A pamplet is lifted into the air. The black ink reads "Karzai Karzai Karzai". It is election time. Again.

During the kerfew, those with homes stay inside. On the streets, men wrapped in blankets lurk in the shadows. The muezzin calls through the loudspeakers at midnight, but the night stays dark. An Apache helicopter can be heard in the distance.

Karzai Karzai Karzai: the dawn of a new age in Afghanistan, a timeless land where democracy is a distant dream, a dream for merchants and lawyers in their cheap Russian suits, a dream for the Amerikan generals, who make their plans and wait for the order to surrender.

Karzai Karzai Karzai, who paces in the inner compound and waits for the ads to finish on the cable news channel. "Kabesh! When will it ever end?"

----

Karbul. 01:34. The Apache has flown off to fight another day. In the streets, the shadows are silent. Dogs bark in the distance. Underneath, in a basement on Karl Marx Street, the counterfeiters print their passports under a lone hanging light. The police have finished their patrol.

The presidential compound stands, like a lone beacon, awake. Just as Stalin's light in the Kremlin stayed on throughout WWII, Karzai works deep into the night.

"Look at this: mentally unstable! Do I look mentally unstable?" Karzai hits the Time magazine with the back of his hand.

"No, Master! You are stable!"

"What does this Time know? Have they interviewed me? Have I met these people?"

"They say CIA source say you are... You know..."

"Exactly! Have CIA interviewed me?"

"No, Master, they do not interview."

"Yes." Quietly, slowly, Karzai looks around the room and puts his finger to his lips.

Karzai checks out the lamp, tapping the bulb with his finger. He then looks into the portrait of Khaled Khan, the famed Afghani resistance leader who faught the British. The general looks back, unflinching.

"Hmm."

"You want Newsweek, master? I can get."

"Hmm? No..."

Karzai moves on to the telephone, picks up the receiver and listens. He holds it up for the room to witness, says "Allah Uakbar" into it and hangs up, satisfied.

"Unstable, eh?" He looks deeply into a vase on the table, pulls out a daisy and smashes it on the table with his fist. He searches through the petals and finds nothing.

"Master, I can get some milk for your ulcer."

"Shhh!"

Karzai peers through the curtains into the night. He is met with nothing but darkness. Karzai turns to the vase and speaks into the flowers.

"These helicopters are giving me tinitus already. Maybe I should join Taliban."

"Master!"

"The Amerikan invaders know my every word and deed. Perhaps I should form alliance with my own people!"

"Master - ha ha! You are making joke!"

"I do not make joke. If I form alliance with Taliban, Afghanistan can be strong again. Maybe make pact with Iran!"

"Master! You cannot say!"

"Friends with China!"

"Master, please!"

"Military training with North Korea!"

"No!"

"Angel of Darkness, give mercy. Come to me in this time of shame. Help me, Mistress, give strength - "

"Come, Master, I give medicine - "

"Heal me, I implore you, descend here now - "

"Master..."

"Give peace, habibi, peace..."

The CIA have heard enough. The interceptor makes a note: "non-pertinent." These days, Karzai is threatening to join the Taliban and calling the Angel of Darkness on a daily basis.

Outside, Karzai's light shines like a parapet over the city of Kabul. The people have made their choice, insh'allah. Karzai is the US-installed and democratically-elected leader of Afghanistan, and all is the will of God.

Karl Marx street is silent, but below, under a lone hanging light, the passports are cut, stamped and held up to the magnifying glass and UV light for aproval. People everywhere should be free, as is the will of God, and everyone who can afford it should be free to come and go, isn't it?

01:54. The Apache helicopter returns to base and is logged by ground staff: all personel present and accounted for.

Tonight, Karbul can sleep in peace, as is the will of God.

----

Very good question, Dilligaf. If I may say, I believe that it is THE question, a question asked by Karzai on an almost nightly basis. The CIA might mark the intelligence transcripts "non-pertinent", but for others, these questions are very pertinent indeed.

Oh, sure, Karzai gets through the briefings, meetings, speeches and troop inspections like any other president of a democratik nation under God. But he often asks, at the end of a long day, where it all leads. What is the point to it all?

Most leaders have their successes and failures. Some have great success, but are loathed by the media and their own people. Some are out-and-out failures, but project an aura of strength and honour. What to do?

We do not choose our own legacy, it is chosen for us. Our obitiaries will be written by others, and we shall be judged.

Also, Karzai's mode of TRANSPORT is a black, armoured Mercedes Benz, escorted by two four wheel drives and three Amerikan motorcycles with sirens. When Karzai leaves the compound, road blocks are erected and street traffic - pedestrians, mules, trucks, and those handpowered wheelchairs amputees use - is diverted for the presidential convoy.

The only traffic lights in Kabul are on Karl Marx street, but people don't pay any attention to them anyway - if they're working.

What's the point?

----

----

14/5/11

'''Karzai threatens to join Taliban'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305376797

An ill wind blows through the Kabul streets. It is night. A pamplet is lifted into the air. The black ink reads "Karzai Karzai Karzai". It is election time. Again.

During the kerfew, those with homes stay inside. On the streets, men wrapped in blankets lurk in the shadows. The muezzin calls through the loudspeakers at midnight, but the night stays dark. An Apache helicopter can be heard in the distance.

Karzai Karzai Karzai: the dawn of a new age in Afghanistan, a timeless land where democracy is a distant dream, a dream for merchants and lawyers in their cheap Russian suits, a dream for the Amerikan generals, who make their plans and wait for the order to surrender.

Karzai Karzai Karzai, who paces in the inner compound and waits for the ads to finish on the cable news channel. "Kabesh! When will it ever end?"

----

The CNN station break ends, as all does. Karzai can't find his remote control. "Kabesh! I want the power!"

His manservant appears. "Power, Master?"

"My... my, you know..."

"Master - here." The servant has hidden the remote control. Again. One day Karzai will fire him. Once, he would have buried him up to his neck in the desert, and...

"You want to change, Master?"

"Change? Out of my sight! Here - this volume. These helicopters are giving me a brain tumour already."

Karzai's manservant turns up the volume. Outside, in the ink black sky, the Apaches shine searchlights on the Karbul streets. A helmeted soldier with night vision goggles takes a drag on his cigarette and drops it into the night.

Out in the alleyways and streets below, Karbul tries to sleep.

----

Karbul. 01:34. The Apache has flown off to fight another day. In the streets, the shadows are silent. Dogs bark in the distance. Underneath, in a basement on Karl Marx Street, the counterfeiters print their passports under a lone hanging light. The police have finished their patrol.

The presidential compound stands, like a lone beacon, awake. Just as Stalin's light in the Kremlin stayed on throughout WWII, Karzai works deep into the night.

"Look at this: mentally unstable! Do I look mentally unstable?" Karzai hits the Time magazine with the back of his hand.

"No, Master! You are stable!"

"What does this Time know? Have they interviewed me? Have I met these people?"

"They say CIA source say you are... You know..."

"Exactly! Have CIA interviewed me?"

"No, Master, they do not interview."

"Yes." Quietly, slowly, Karzai looks around the room and puts his finger to his lips.

Karzai checks out the lamp, tapping the bulb with his finger. He then looks into the portrait of Khaled Khan, the famed Afghani resistance leader who faught the British. The general looks back, unflinching.

"Hmm."

"You want Newsweek, master? I can get."

"Hm? No..."

Karzai moves on to the telephone, picks up the receiver and listens. He holds it up for the room to witness, says "Allah Uakbar" into it and hangs up, satisfied.

"Unstable, eh?" He looks deeply into a vase on the table, pulls out a daisy and smashes it on the table with his fist. He searches through the petals and finds nothing.

"Master, I can get some milk for your ulcer."

"Shhh!"

Karzai peers through the curtains into the night. He is met with nothing but darkness. Karzai leans over the vase and speaks into the flowers as if he were giving a speech.

"These helicopters are giving me tinitus already. Maybe I should join Taliban."

"Master!"

"The Amerikan invaders know my every word and deed. Perhaps I should form alliance with my own people!"

"Master - ha ha! You are making joke!"

"I do not make joke. If I form alliance with Taliban, Afghanistan can be strong again. Maybe make pact with Iran!"

"Master! You cannot say!"

"Friends with China!"

"Master, please!"

"Military training with North Korea!"

"No!"

"Angel of Darkness, give mercy. Come to me in this time of shame. Help me, Mistress, give strength - "

"Come, Master, I give medicine - "

"Heal me, I implore you, descend here now - "

"Master..."

"Give peace, habibi, peace..."

The CIA have heard enough. The interceptor makes a note: "non-pertinent." These days, Karzai is threatening to join the Taliban and calling forth the Angel of Darkness on a daily basis.

Outside, Karzai's light shines like a parapet over the city of Kabul. The people have made their choice, insh'allah. Karzai is the US-installed and democratically-elected leader of Afghanistan, and all is the will of God.

Karl Marx street is silent, but below, under a lone hanging light, the passports are cut, stamped and held up to the magnifying glass and UV light for aproval. People everywhere should be free, as is the will of God. Everyone who can afford it should be free to come and go, isn't it?

01:54. The Apache helicopter returns to base and is logged by ground staff: all personel present and accounted for. Lit by the landing base lights, the pilot and his crew remove their helmets and walk back to their huts. Mission accomplished.

Tonight, Karbul can sleep in peace, and all is the will of God.

Take rest, habibis, take rest now. Tomorrow will be the new day in Afghanistan.

----

----

31/5/11

'''NATO terrorist bombings push Karzai to the edge'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1306700204/14#14

My frien, Karzai is the US-installed and democratikally-elected president of the People's Republik of Afghanistan. He rules by the very hand of Gud.

Men hurt Allah by being mean to His friends. Do not commit blasphemy, my friend, praise Him, praise Him. May you live by the prophet's every word, insh'allah, and let the sun shine on all.

Karzai, by the way, enjoys his omelettes yolk-free. The Doktor has him on a low-cholesterol diet.

"Hey! I ordered egg white!"

"Is powdered egg, Master. Very good. From Amerikan Army - like in M*A*S*H."

"Kabesh! Out of my sight!"

----

It is a nice day in paradise. Allah is looking through the window at the Earth below, accompanied by one of his trusted angels. He is sad.

"Look at these peoples, bombed and blown all over the place. These Amerikans have been at it again. When will they ever learn?"

"They do not learn, Master. The souls are coming in now. They are very sad."

"Make sure they are comforted. We do not want a repeat of that September 11."

"Yes, Master, it will be done. Shall we smite these Amerikans?"

"No, leave them be for now. They shall receive their justice, insh'allah."

On Earth, Karzai gets off the phone to NATO.

"These Amerikans have been at it again! That's it. This time, I am really going to do it!"

"Join Taliban, Master?"

"Kabesh! This time I join Amerika."

"But, Master, you are already with Amerika. You are the US-installed and democratikally-elected president of Afghanistan."

"This I know, but these Amerikans will stop at nothing. Perhaps we need to join forces to kill Taliban and all forces of terror."

"But, Master, these Amerikans make terror. They bomb our people for nothing!"

"Exactly. Angel of Darkness has spoken. We need to make pact with Amerika."

But you have pact already."

"I mean real pact. We should keep Amerikan soldier in Afghanistan. Who knows what these peoples were doing in mountains?"

"Master, they were goathearders! They do nothing!"

"Maybe they make bomb. Maybe they try to kill Amerika."

"Master, this is not possible. Amerika kill the innocent peoples."

"Bah! Who knows who is innocent before God? Angel of Darkness says..."

The Doktor appears at the door.

"Er... Doktor! Come in! Is so happy to se you."

"Salaam Aleikum, Mister President, may God be with you. Forgive me for dropping in without notice. Have you heard?"

"Ah! Is terrible! These goathearders. They hide the terrorist. Is very sad."

"Hide terrorist? Mr President, they were innocent. Amerika bomb them for nothing."

"Kabesh! These Amerikans! Still, Angel of... Er, Amerika... I mean NATO say they..."

"Mr President, who is president of Afghanistan? NATO?"

"Er..."

"Amerika?"

"No... I, er, am officially, well, technically, the..."

"It is you, Mr President. The Afghan peoples elect you to rule over them. It is democracy, Mr President. You are - how to say - Chief of Staff."

"Yes, I..."

"Not Amerika, not NATO, it is you."

"Well, of course, but there are other forces, there are..."

"The peoples need you, Mr President. You look tired. I should give you the booster."

"No, no, is fine. I don't need..."

"Come. I am the Doktor. I give shot."

The Doktor prepares his shot as Karzai's manservant looks out the window. Praise Allah someone is able to take control. The Doktor jabs Karzai sharply in the thigh.

"Kabesh!"

"Excuse me, Mr President. Sometimes the medicine is painful to administer."

Karzai slinks into an armchair, takes off his reading glasses and rubs his eyes. The shot has taken effect.

"Now, Mr President, there is only one solution to the problem, it is so."

"I, er..."

No more Amerika, no more NATO, only one group is worthy of your support. You know who I mean."

"Yes, yes..."

"President Hamed Karzai must join Taliban."

"But I already join. I have card somewhere in the draw."

"Must really join Taliban. There is no other choice."

"No other choice... But I must do business. I must keep Afghanistan going!"

"Yes you must. You are the President. Only way to keep Afghanistan going is to defeat Amerika. We must have justice. We must have order. Allah's will must be restored!"

"I kniow, I know..."

"Also, Taliban is very good for business. Insecurity is best form of security. Is this not so?"

"Yes. There is much order in chaos."

"It is so. Now. I go. Your servant here will assist you. You must sleep, Mr President. Sleep. You are feeling so very tired, is it not?"

"Yes."

"You will join Taliban. We must make order. Global trade is in recession. Amerika must have the investment, true?"

"Yes, Doktor."

"And Afghanistan must get aid, is it not?"

I don't know how we'd live without it."

"This is true, insh'allah. Now you must sleep. Sleep, and let the will of God be done in Afghanistan. Sleep, and be friend with Taliban in your dreams."

Karzai sleeps. The Doktor gives his servant a look and leaves with his black bag.

In paradise, Allah looks down and sees the world turn. He is sad, but knows that justice will be restored, the vast wheel of fate grinding and relentless in its eternal motion.

Today, Amerika kills civilians in Afghanistan. Tomorrow, roadside bombs will kill coalition soldiers. Karzai will give a press conference. Newspapers in the West will sell. Amerikan defence contractors will pitch for new tendors, the aid will continue to flow, and in the mountains, the caravans will continue their trail. Weapons will come in, and opium will go out, the centuries old wheel of fate turning through the lives, deaths and struggles of all.

How can men hurt Allah? By obeying the wheel of their fate. Allah looks down on Karzai sleeping and wonders if he will ever wake up.

----

Karzai is at the edge, friends. The Doktor has given him a shot. What will happen next to Karzai? What will happen to the peoples of Afghanistan?

Stay reading, friends, and remember, for the most flavoursome cigarette, smoke Camels - now in a special new hard pack. Camel, the GI's favourite smoke, the ships of the desert.

----

In the mountains west of Kandahar, the Taliban, as usual, are waiting. Mullah Khaksar Akhund, a Taliban agent and friend of Karzai, is drinking goat's milk tea. His satelite phone rings. Akhund, panicking, spills his cup in the dirt.

"Kabesh! This thing is maddening! What to do?"

Hilell, a 19 year old Pakistani youth, takes the phone. He has studied in the West. He has an Advanced Diploma in IT from the Bradford Polytechnic, UK. He is overly qualified for the Taliban.

"Already I tell you this! Why don't you listen? Is so easy - you just need to press button. Look - "

"Give me. You should respect your elders! This?"

"Yes! Already I tell one hundred times!"

"Kabesh!" Akhund grabs the phone and answers. "Ah, it is you, beloved! Salaam Aleikum, my brother Karzai. It is long time!"

Karzai's voice crackles from space. The mountain of Lakshar Gar is only a few hundred kilometers from Kabul as the crow flies, but it is far away by phone, and many weeks by truck, mule and foot through the bombed roads and steep mountain passes.

"Too long, my brother. How is business where you are?"

"Ah! God is good, Hamed, but it is cold at night. I am not used to this living. I think I am city man by nature, insh'allah."

"Ha! I too, brother Khaksar. Still, is good you are doing God's work. We must meet for tea soon. I am so lonely in this place."

"You are fortunate, brother Hamed. Here, I can't get away. And the young - " Akhund glares at Hilell. "Such little respect for their uncles."

Hilell is smoking a filterless Camel. He spits a long streak of saliva into the dust.

"Alas, Khaksar, we must have patience. So much war, so much pain. We must build the New Afghanistan for such as these."

"Kabesh! They are spoilt! They refuse to learn! When the Taliban was..."

"Listen, this I must discuss."

"Allah Uakbar! You want to join the jihad again, brother Hamed?"

Karzai's voice is distant and hollow. "We make jihad in many ways, brother. Anyway, I cannot talk. We must have tea. Can you come to Kabul?"

Akhund brightens at the idea of returning to Kabul. "But of course!" He sees Hilell sullenly digging a hole in the dust with the barrel of his Kalishnikov. He hits him on the back of the head. "Kabesh! Stop being a fool!"

Akhund speaks into the phone. "Sorry, beloved, not you. It is these boys. They are giving me an ulcer already."

"Ah, God is great, Khaksar, he protects the children and fools."

"Ha ha. This is true, insh'allah. You want I should come to Kabul?"

"Yes. Now listen..."

Karzai makes the plans for his friend's return to Kabul. The ex-commerce minister of Afghanistan under the Taliban, Akhund denounced the Taliban and has backed Karzai since 2002 - officially. Unofficially, Akhund is Karzai's man in the Taliban. Still, as little as he knows about commerce, Akhund is no Kalishnikov-slinging Taliban fighter. Akhund is a political player, and he relishes the opportunity of returning to politics, which in Afghanistan means making millions of US dollars and living in a fortress to avoid the attempts on your life.

In the presidential palace, Karzai closes his mobile phone and keeps up his pace on the Treadmaster. Enough is enough. Karzai is going places. Soon, he will avenge the death of his peoples and bring insecurity to Afghanistan again. Once again, the aid dollars will flow and Karzai may even get the bunker the Amerikans have been promising for years.

The Doktor will be pleased with him. Just think: only yesterday, the Angel of Death was telling him to support Amerika. Now, Karzai will pull a coup de'tat and join the Taliban. Ah! Only in Afghanistan. Wait until the Angel of Death hears. The Angel of Death will...

Oh.

What has Karzai done? What will he tell the Angel of Death? How will he cover his tracks? You've really done it this time, Karzai. Finally, they will catch up with you. You can't get out of this. This time, you've landed right in the goat's head soup.

Karzai stops the Treadmaster and claps his hands to summon his servant. He wipes his face with a towel. How can he keep going like this?

In Fort Worth, Texas, Second Warrant Officer, Walden Schmidt, marks the satelite capture "pertinent." He will send the call by email to his colonel, who will cross reference the intel with other calls captured in Afghanistan. Such "hard intelligence" in the War On Terror will then be referred to the CIA, who the Army believe, will sit on it and do nothing. If the colonel believes the information is good, they will send a drone in to do business. The CIA station chief in Kabul will then complain to the army about interfering on their patch and start an argument at the next hearing of the senate standing committee.

In the presidential palace, Karzai sweats. In the mountains west of Kandahar, Akhund makes plans for his trek to Kabul. In Fort Worth, Texas, the colonel gives orders for another drone attack. Karzai is right. Afghanistan will soon be insecure again, but it is business as usual.

----

Two hours after dawn, the drone strikes, killing three Taliban and six goatherders. It is a victory for the US Army in Fort Worth, Texas; a surgical strike. In Kabul, the CIA station chief is angry.

"Look, I've already told you - we've got operatives working in those mountains! You need to clear these strikes with us first! I can't begin to tell you the mess this puts me in!"

The Army Intelligence officer is philosophical. "I can understand the position you're in, and I'm glad none of your men were killed, but you've got to understand our side too. We're in a war here. Those folks up there are the bad guys. We've got to be seen to be doing something here."

"Be seen? Jesus Christ - "

"Look, we've just taken out a Taliban stronghold. That's a bodycount of nine. That we know of. You want us to just sit back and take it from these hajis? We're not in the business of telling the enemy when we're gonna kill him. This is war."

"And we're meant to be on the same side."

"We are on the same side, goddamnit. As far as I know, none of your men were in there."

"As far as you know - I haven't heard anything back yet."

"There were no American bodies, son."

"We don't use American bodies."

"Well as far as I can see, that makes it a clean kill. That's nine less hajis that we have to deal with. And that makes it even for the three of ours they took out in that carbomb. I've got an inbox of unanswered congressmen's emails for that one."

"Look, all I'm saying is run it past by us first. I'm not asking for the world here, just - "

"Okay, son, I'll see what I can do. If that's everything..."

The station chief sighs. "Thanks for your time, Colonel..."

Mullah Khaksar Akhund makes his way down the mountain by mule. His offsider, Hilell, is walking next to the mule with a Kalishnikov slung over his shoulder. Hilell is talking about life in the UK.

"There is meat for every meal. Beef. The girls there are very strict..."

"This in England?"

"In Luton, yes. Very religious place. If you don't go to mosque, they come after you."

"You go anywhere else? You see London? Buckingham Palace?"

"Oh, no. One time I want to try fish and chip, but English curry is better. All is hilal."

Akhund hears something. "Keep quiet! You hear?"

"No..."

"Sounds like bomb."

"No bomb here, boss. Is mountain. Nothing here but vulture."

"I'm sure I hear..."

"Come, we go. We must meet truck before dark, then get to Kandahar. Is long way."

The mule stops abruptly and refuses to go any further.

"Kabesh! What is wrong with this thing? Hey - stop! Pull this donkey!"

Hilell pulls the reigns in vain. "I can't pull - he won't move!" The mule's eyes are blank, staring into the distance.

Akhund is perplexed. "What is problem? These mules know the mountains well. Why he doesn't go?"

Hilell stops and lights a Camel. "Maybe he doesn't like the mountains."

"Kabesh! Maybe he hears something."

Akhund and Hilell are trapped on the steep mountain pass, the mule refusing to move. On the other side of the mountain, the drone passes into a cloud. In an office in Fort Worth, Texas, the controller scours the monitor for anything that moves. On a mountain so quiet you can hear the baby eagles rustle in their nests, the drone leaves in deadly silence.

As the sun reaches its zenith in the noon sky, Akhund and Hilell decide to pray. Their president, Karzai, in the nation's capital, will join them, a nation that lives in faith and hope for each new day. Akhund and Hilell have used up one of their lives - and life in a land where life is cheap. Whatever tomorrow holds - life, death, or more of the same, today is here. Today we can live, effendes, for today is all we have in our sites.

----

What will happen next, friends? Will Mullah Khaksar Akhund and Hilell reach Kabul? Will the CIA station chief get his revenge? Will Karzai manage, once and for all, to join the Taliban and make his jihad against Amerika?

Stay reading, friends, and remember, for the cleanest, brightest teeth, brush with Darkie toothpaste.

----

Did you know?

Karzai was knighted by the Queen in 2003. He is an Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George.

So that's "Sir Hamed" to you, thank you.

----

After the noon prayer, Karzai rests. Karzai is trying to lose weight, and will not take lunch today. Instead, he takes a small package out of his desk drawer. He unwraps the Persian silk and finds his pipe. He shakes the cloth and a matchbox-sized portion of black tar opium wrapped in cling wrap lands on the table. Allah Uakbar, there is enough left for a couple of days.

Karzai packs the pipe, pushing the opium down with a burnt match. He lights up and draws the blue smoke into his lungs, blood and mind. God is great, there can be no doubting it. God put such things on the earth for men to enjoy. Karzai has always had a libertarian bent.

Karzai feels the smoke entering his body, building up in his stomach with a warm glow and flowing into his arms and legs. Ah, the problems of Afghanistan can wait, insh'allah. Business is coming along and the Taliban will wait. Karzai forgets that he ever worried at all.

As the room fills with the sweet-smelling smoke, a cloud passes over the Presidential Compound. Outside on the parapet, a lone crow calls. To Karzai, it sounds like Allah Uakbar, but the crow speaks a language of his own. Wah wah ah wahk. All who love God shall receive His blessings, insh'allah.

The crow flies off, leaving Karzai alone. As Karzai blows a precious plume of blue smoke across the room, the Angel of Darkness appears.

Karzai drops his pipe.

"Mother, it is you!"

"Yes, my child, I am here once more."

"Blessings, Mother, peace be upon you. You are most welcome here." Karzai makes a toast with the empty teacup on his desk, holding it above his bowed head with both hands. "Offerings to you, Mother, offerings and blessings."

"I do not want your blessings, child. You have been a bad boy."

"Mother! I have been good! I have been working as you say. I have been playing both sides in a masterful two-step shuffle. It is a work of genius, let me tell you, a plan I..."

"You have disobeyed your orders. This is not your plan to make. I also have orders, child, as all do. We must have victory."

"Victory, Mother?"

"An appearance of victory. Amerika must save face. Amerika must have peace with honour. This is the order that must be implimented."

"This, Mother, I can do. Afghanistan is a hall of mirrors. We can make it look any way you like, as long as the image repeats itself forever."

"Nothing is forever, child. The mountains, the vultures, Afghanistan itself, all will turn to dust. It is the wheel of fate, insh'allah."

"Afghanistan has always resisted, Mother. This we can all do."

"Your peoples may do this, but your victories and your failures will come and go like the waters of the Indus. At times you will be swollen and your banks will burst, at others you will be as dry as paper. Your toil shall amount to nothing."

"But our will, Mother, the will of the peoples..."

"Your will is as of dust. It is made of nature herself. Families, tribes, nations, dynasties, all shall melt and join rivers like the Himalayan snow."

Karzai puts his pipe down on the desk. "Then why should I act at all? Why should I do anything?"

"We all have our orders, my child. Our will is not ours. We must act, insh'allah, without thought for fruit. The harvests will come, or they will not come. All is the will of God."

Karzai has his face in his hands. "Then what should I do? I have no will left anymore. I do not know. I know nothing, nothing..."

"This, habibi, is the place for all work to start."

"So what do you want me to do?"

The Angel of Death explains to Karzai what he must do, then covers him with a shawl of sleep. Karzai, as ever, is alone.

In his dream, Karzai sees the New Afghanistan, a place of vast riches. City lights, billboards, airport hotels, vast machines in the desert turning rocks into Amerikan dollars.

When he awakes, his servant is whispering in his ear: "Master... Master... Master..."

"Kabesh! Whatever now? What is it you want?"

"You have a visitor, Master."

"A visitor?"

"It is Mullah Khaksar Akhund. He has come long way from Lakshar Gar."

"Allah Uakbar!" Karzai fans the air with his hand and wraps up his pipe. "Send him in. Bring tea. Hurry hurry!"

"Yes, Master."

Karzai's servant leaves the room. It is Afghanistan. He is not used to hurry. As Karzai slowly awakens, he wonders how he will use Akhund to fulfill the Angel's orders.

As the afternoon sun streams in through the shutters, the sounds of the Kabul traffic can be heard from the streets below. Outside, on the streets, Kabul performs its will. In the villages and towns, harvests come, or don't come. Last Spring's snow flows through the Kabul river into the Indus river system of Central Asia.

The Angel of Darkness is correct. In Afghanistan, as in the entire world, all will flows and merges with the will of God. Karzai has his orders, as all do, but are his orders the will of God or the work of Satan himself?

We shall find out all in time, friends.

----

Yes, friends, keep reading and we shall find out more together. The Angel of Darkness has forgiven Karzai, but what of God Himself?

For all your prayer needs, come to Hassan and Sons. Rugs 50% off! Prayer shawls 50% off! Books and beads discounted!

Sale ends soon, insh'allah.

----

----

1/6/11

'''Getting out of Afghanistan'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1306906108/5#5

Hamed Karzai has a nice holiday in Bali. No problem. Sunny beaches, massage, chicken tikka. Karzai even got a tattoo - he got the Chinese character for luck on his shoulder.

Karzai always feels refreshed after a few days in the sun.

----

----

5/6/11

'''The Kill Team'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1306810290/30#30

Yeheshua is prophet of Allah. Yeheshua want everyone to forgive. Forgive the sinner, do not stone the lady. Ha! This is no good, my friends.

Ask Yadda, he will agree. He is the karmik Christian. He want eye and tooth.

This is good, my friends. We must kill and take tooth. God is severe God, is not good to forgive. Yeheshua is nice but is not Gud.

We must kill the Christian, friend.

----

My frien, Islam agrees with you. The fear of Lord is to hate evil.

Islam hates evil - Yadda karmic Christianity hates evil. You see? All is one.

There is no Gud but Allah, friend.

----

Alas, effende, life is futile and meaningless. I must deceive myself.

Kabesh!

----

My frien, temperature of stone does not matter. You must pick small stones so infidel does not die straight away.

----

----

'''Karzai threatens to join Taliban'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1309484333

The Kabul CIA Station Chief, code-named Garry, is not amused. When the troops leave, it'll be his arse on the line. Or his replacement. Garry has enough leave to make it through to retirement if he chooses to go, but it would be nice to have one last victory to end on a high note.

God knows the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been pushing for one.

But you know what? Fvck them. What have they ever done for Garry? The CIA always has its arse on the line. The White House, the generals, none of them listen. Sure, there's the closed congressional Intelligence Committee back in Washington - they listen. But that's 8 men in the whole of America. And if the political winds change...

Garry knows he's alone. There's only one man Garry can talk to, only one man who will listen, who knows exactly the situation Garry and the whole state of Afghanistan is in.

Karzai presses the remote control of the A/C. Nothing. "Kabesh!" He claps his hands for his manservant, who appears too quickly.

"Allah Uakbar! You are giving me a heart attack!" He hands him the control. "Here. Fix. This place is falling apart. These Amerikans promise me a bunker. Look at me here! Anyone can attack! Afghanistan is on a knife edge. The Amerikans now want to make friend with Taliban - who can fix this?"

Cool air blows into the room. Karzai's manservant has fixed the A/C. "Only you, Master."

"Exactly! The Amerikans want to make Northern Alliance - remember? Who fixed this?"

"You, Master."

"Yes. And the tribal warlords - many different languages and tribes in Afghanistan! I give each a little power. Give some, take some, give a little more. It gives me an ulcer already! And the contracts - all those Amerikan dollars. I keep none for myself. None! Well, a little for a raining day, but nothing in my own bank account. Now - "

The phone rings.

"Ah, this country, it will bring about my early demise, I tell you." Karzai picks up the phone. "Yes?"

The Presidential Palace in Kabul uses an ageing switchboard even the Russians didn't replace. They didn't replace it because the old system made it easier to monitor. The problem with this was that communication sometimes didn't happen at all, giving them less to monitor. Give some, take some, take a little more. In Afghanistan, there is much faith in God.

"What? I can't hear! Speak up! Who?" Karzai looks at his manservant. "I can't hear."

"Shake phone, Master."

"What?"

"Shake!"

"Ah! Nothing works! Karzai shakes the receiver, then speaks into it. "Yes? Ah - put him on."

It is the CIA Station Chief, aka Garry. Karzai performs his specialty, which is turning on the charm.

"Ah, Garry, is so good to hear your lovely Amerikan voice! We were just discussing the great work you do in this country. It will be so sad to see you go."

Garry is taken aback, which is another specialty of Karzai's. "Sorry? What have you heard?"

"Nothing, Garry! Nothing at all! I just assume, you know, now that Amerika withdraws its troops, now that we talk with Taliban, now we are all friends again... You, er..."

"Mr President, let me assure you, the CIA doesn't pack up and leave. We're going to be in this country a long time. That, you can bank on."

"Ah, Garry! Ha ha. That, I already bank on!"

"Exactly. We need to focus on the long term here. That's why I called."

"Let me assure you, Garry, it is God's will I am president today. Tomorrow, who can tell?"

"That's right. But if you'll let me get to the point, Mr President, we need to speak with all parties. Do you understand me? We need to organise a meeting."

Garry is aware that every word he speaks with Karzai is being beamed by satellite to Defence intelligence in Fort Worth, Texas, where it will be marked "pertinent", transcribed, and issued to all the Intelligence brass in Washington. Clearly, an alliance between Karzai and the CIA is feared more there than an alliance between Karzai and the Taliban which, of course, is a relationship that has always had its ups and downs.

Karzai thinks out loud. "A meeting. I see. You don't want I should just speak with you, then speak with them, back and forth like that, making plans as usual, Garry?"

"Look, Mr President, we cannot be making plans as usual. These are strange times we live in. The military option, as you know, is not so viable anymore. We need to work on the new order."

"Order? Ha ha, that would be new in Afghanistan, Garry."

"The emphasis was on the 'new', Mr President."

"Yes, yes, I understand. I can organise. Your men - they can pay?"

"We can pay, but the budget's being cut. I can't promise to be as generous as usual."

"Ah! But the percentage..."

"Your percentage will be the same, Mr President - if we get the right contacts."

"Good! Then it is fixed. I will get the contacts if you get the, er... Garry, they are liking the gold right now. They are not so pleased with the Amerikan dollars."

"Mr President, where the hell am I going to find gold in Kabul?"

"Okay, okay! I am just saying. I can get the best price, you know."

"It's dollars, Hamed."

"No problem! I will see you when, Garry?"

"I'll contact you through Mahedresh."

"Who? Oh, him! Yes, of course." Karzai eyes off his manservant. "He is useless, but he can manage that, I think."

"Excellent. Thank you, Mr President."

"Thank you, Garry. You are the best man in the CIA. The best in Amerika!"

And Karzai, insh'allah, is the best president in Afghanistan.

----

Karzai is definately the best president in Afghanistan. On radio, on cable television, on pamphlets in Pashto and Dari dropped by the Amerikan bombers throughout all Afghanistan.

KARZAI KARZAI KARZAI.

Vote for Karzai.

Put Afghanistan first on ballot. Put thumbprint next to picture of Great President, Hamed Karzai.

Vote for democracy! Vote for Karzai!

----

Vote for Taliban!

Kabesh! Vote for Karzai, effende, it is best for you.

----

Attention: Colonel Schwartz, Army Intelligence Analysis Unit, Fort Worth, Texas.

Briefing: PERTINENT.

Code#: C01092878-06272011

Source: satelite phone capture. CIA operative AKA "KARNAL" (Pakistani national)/Kabul CIA Station Chief AKA "GARRY"; Kabul, Afghanistan.

GARRY: Yes?

KARNAL: Chief?

GARRY: I don't know what you mean.

KARNAL: Is Karnal, Chief.

GARRY: Follow the protocol, Karnal.

KARNAL: Sorry, Chief - ah, Garry. Is nice weather in Kabul?

GARRY: The weather is hot for this time of year, but it is good for the wheat.

KARNAL: I see. Er... The crop is good. Insh'allah... Er...

GARRY: Keep going.

KARNAL: ...I forget.

GARRY: "The harvest will be plentiful."

KARNAL: Yes, yes. Harvest will be plenty for all.

GARRY: Stick with the program, Karnal. Now what have you got for me?

KARNAL: News from Kandahar, Chief - er, Garry. I...

GARRY: You're breaking up there.

KARNAL: Sorry. Can you hear now?

GARRY: Yeah.

KARNAL: Mullah Khaksar Akhund is back with Taliban unit in Lashkar Gar.

GARRY: Good. Has he delivered yet?

KARNAL: Cash. Much cash, Garry. So much I can't say. Maybe millions.

GARRY: That's good, Karnal.

KARNAL: Much plastic explosives also. Maybe thirty donkeys.

GARRY: Right. How're they treating him up there?

KARNAL: There is trust. All are one. They kill a sheep, give him party.

GARRY: He's an important man.

KARNAL: He speaks of Karzai, Chief. He says money is from the president.

GARRY: Good, good. How'd they take it?

KARNAL: They don't like Karzai, but they take the money.

GARRY: What did they say about Karzai?

KARNAL: They say he is a crazy man. They say he has been programmed by CIA - like, er, mind control. Many men know him from the Russian times. They say he is not the same man.

GARRY: He isn't. Everybody knows that.

KARNAL: Yes, but some think he is really not the same - that maybe Amerika kill Karzai and change him with different man.

GARRY: They can believe what they want. They've got the explosives, they've got the cash. With that, they can stock up on ammunition. How're their weapons holding out?

KARNAL: Same same. Those Russian guns last a long time.

GARRY: How are the drones?

KARNAL: Drones kill some last week, but they were villagers. The caves are good protection. When they come to the village, they dress like goatherder. If they are careful, there is no problem.

GARRY: Okay. You looking after yourself?

KARNAL: Sure. I do political work in other countries also - outsourcing. England, Canada, Australia...

GARRY: Well, you stay working for Uncle Sam. You stay safe out there, Karnal. We're counting on you. Stay away from those drones.

KARNAL: No problem. The Taliban, they try to shoot the drone. Stupid! They end up shooting you.

GARRY: Alright, I gotta go. Remember the protocol, Karnal. Er, you've still got your capsule, right?

KARNAL: Sure.

GARRY: Good. And you know when to use it. Taliban or US - either one.

KARNAL: It's the War on Terror, Garry.

GARRY: You bet. We'll speak soon. And remember the scramble codes.

KARNAL: Ah. Code. Yes, next time I remember.

GARRY: We don't want anyone listening in, Karnal.

KARNAL: Yes, boss. I remember. Bye bye.

GARRY: Okay. Good luck.

END OF CALL.

----

It looks like Karnal has joined the War on Terror, friends. Up in the mountains of Lashkar Gar, what fate will befall this Pakistani national?

What will happen to CIA Sation Chief, AKA Garry? Which side is he on?

Keep reading, friends.

God is great, Yadda.

----

Yes, my friend. If the peoples forget Rambo III, they are destined to repeat.

----

Karzai goes through the DVDs his manservant has brought back from the market. Hello Dolly, Meat the Fockers, Rambo III...

Rambo III? Karzai remembers watching that in his Mujahadeen days. It was projected onto a sheet in a village in the mountains of Lashkar gar. Karzai remembers the tinkle of goat bells, children playing, girls hiding their smiles from the tribesmen seated crosslegged up the front, their Kalishnikovs slung over their backs.

Things were much simpler then. The Evil Empire was evil and freedom fighters fought for freedom. Now?

The Evil Empire is the country that defeated the Evil Empire, and the freedom fighters fight each other for the Evil Empire's contracts. Alas, there will always be an Evil Empire. And there will always be men willing to live in it.

Sometimes, Karzai wishes he was back in that Lashkar Gar village watching Amerikan movies under the stars.

----

Karnal finishes his prayers and joins the rest of the Taliban in the soup queue. Allah Uakbar, friends. Goat again? Ah, God is great. Chapatis today? No? No flour? But we get the delivery yesterday. Yes, I know we must do jihad but... Ah! It is good, friends. God is great. The more we suffer for God, the greater our rewards in paradise.

Karnal has been on the outer for some time. People have been talking and asking questions. Where is Karnal from again? Yes, he is clearly Pakistani, but who is his family? No one knows. He seems to speak good English. Has he lived in the West? No one knows. Whenever a villager needs to be shot for collaboration or not giving enough crops, Karnal is never around. No one has seen Karnal kill anyone. Is Karnal afraid to kill? No one really knows.

Karnal takes on the role of the spiritual mystic, but in the Taliban, this is deeply unpopular. Karnal often sits on his own with his wooden prayer beads, reciting passages of the Koran from memory and looking into the distance. On theological issues, Karnal knows his Koran. In some circles this would make him a Mullah or a Shiek. In the Taliban, it just makes him untrustworthy.

God rewards martyrs, not scholars. There is no struggle in books. The struggle is found in meeting the enemy and killing or dying bravely. No one says these things, but it is known, and Karnal knows it too. Karnal knows the fate of those who don't fit in. Karnal knows he must prove himself, and soon.

Men here kill and die for no reason at all. Karnal has never been in a place where life is so devalued. Back home, Karnal has seen baby girls killed for being girls, he has seen boys die from botched circumcisions, and he has been to a place where the sick pay for a space on the floor to die. Here, however, in the mountains of Lashkar Gar, nothing compares to the sheer indifference given to death.

Karnal remembers a small village boy being forced to walk over a minefield with a piece of string, his parents watching on. When he stepped on the mine and exploded into a thousand pieces, the Taliban chose another boy to continue his route. When his parents begged the Taliban to let their son go, the boy was shot. His sister offered to go in his place, but some Taliban did not favour this. While they argued, the girl set out onto onto the field alone. The Taliban watched her anxiously. Amazingly, she made it accross the field unharmed. She picked up the string from the first boy's remains and walked in a straight, determined line to the end. The Taliban and the entire village heard every twig break under her feet.

When she returned, her parents picked her up and hugged her body, her life, sobbing with tears of sadness and relief. The Taliban carefully staked out the girl's path and a new, quicker way to the mountains was established.

When the Winter came, the girl was taken by the cholera.

Karnal knows he could suffer the same fate at any time. Worse, he could be taken down the ravine and shot in the back of the head. There would be no trial, no heated words, and no discussion. A mullah would talk quietly to one of the men and give the order. Karnal would be led twenty metres down the ravine with no warning or excuse, and his corpse would be left for the vultures.

Why does Karnal do what he does? He will tell you it is the US dollars, and this is no small thing to someone from a small town in Pakistan. But there is clearly more to it than that. Some men are outsiders by nature. Some live for their secrets and the ever-unfolding art of the double-life, a life of evasion and deceit, where each story must be remembered in detail, and each detail garnished with the emotional resonance of lived experience. The work of the CIA operative is like that of an actor, but one who acts in a drama of life and death. Yes, friends, the game Karnal plays is for his life. The Amerikan dollars are merely a bonus. It is almost as if to live, Karnal must always be close to death.

Karnal!

Yes, brother?

The mullah will see you. Yallah!

Karnal is led to the cave. He notes that the messenger is unarmed. From inside the cave, Karnal sees the steam from the kettle where the mullahs sit and talk. Karnal offers a prayer to God.

It is Summer now, and hot, but when the sun goes down the night will be freezing. Insh'allah, Karnal will make it through this night. As Karnal enters the cave, he is focussed. He prays for one thing, and one thing only.

Please God, let me live for one more night.

----

What will happen to Karnal, brothers and sisters?

Yes, you know he is alive because he speaks to you now. But you do not know how he got to live. You do not know how many deaths Karnal has cheated, and how many prayers he has uttered to bribe these deaths.

Keep reading, friends. Insh'allah, you will find out more.

----

You should read the Bible, Y, and waste no time. Life is short!

----

For the shiny shoes, use Empire Shoe Rub & Polish*

Buy now, or ask your shoe shine man to use the new improved Empire.

*Only in good stores.

----

The three mullahs sit cross-legged by the fire drinking glasses of tea. They are dressed identically in black kaftans, white shawls and white turbans. They all have long, black beards and creased, tanned faces, lined with the scars of a long war. The mullah in the centre gestures for Karnal to sit. His escort is sent out. Outside, at the front of the cave, a fighter stands with an AK47, looking across the distant chain of mountains. Nearby, a sandbagged trench secures an anti-aircraft mortar. Karnal is not offered tea. Instead, the mullahs fire a series of questions at Karnal, one after the other.

"Where you come from?"

"Lahore."

"Your family?"

"My father is a bookseller, his father also."

"Which books?"

"All books. Used books. Textbooks, manuals, that sort of thing." Karnal leaves out the salacious western magazines, most of them over a year old, but rewrapped in plastic as if they were new.

"Your school?"

"Local elementary, then the madrasah where I live."

"What you learn there?"

"Urdu, some Arabic and English, mathematics, poetry..."

"You learn jihad?"

"They teach the Koran..."

The one who asked the question is incredulous. "You learn fighting?"

"No, I learn this when I come to Afghanistan."

The mullah shakes his head. The other mullah comes in with a question. "Where you learn Pashto?"

"Some boys in my street speak Pashto, but I learn more when I come to Afghanistan."

"When you come?"

"Three years ago."

The mullah who asked the question looks angry. "When? Which date?"

"When I leave the madrasah. Er, it was July. I don't remember the date."

The mullahs talk quietly. The one on the right presses his palm with his index finger. The one on the left shakes his head, adamant. The one in the middle looks silently at the fire. He has not asked any questions. Karnal thinks how calm he looks while his own head spins. Karnal hopes that they can't read his fear, but he also knows a little fear is good. The Taliban believe all should fear God first, and the Taliban second. Sometimes, however, it is appropriate to fear the Taliban first.

The two stop talking and stare back at Karnal. "What Islamic studies they teach at the madrasah?"

"Koran..."

The mullah on the right sucks his teeth. The one on the left spits.

Karnal gives the name of the Islamic laws. "Hadith."

"Which?"

Karnal understands the point of the question. He knows its answer is critical, and he knows exactly what the mullahs want to hear, although they would have no knowledge of the texts themselves.

"Sanad."

The mullahs look back at karnal, the smoke from the fire clouding their gaze. The fact that Karnal knows anything at all about religion is either good or bad, and Karnal does not know which. Karnal knows is that literal is good. The Taliban like rules. They do not care how the rules came into being, although there is presumably someone in Taliban Head Office somewhere who knows the isnad, matn, and all the relevant hadith scholars. You would hope so, anyway.

They go back to talking among themselves. The mullah in the centre sips his glass of tea and looks straight at Karnal. Then, suddenly, he claps his hands. The two mullahs on either side stop bickering. He reaches behind him and picks up an AK47 with his right hand and holds it in the air. He addresses Karnal for the first time.

"You ever use one of these?"

"Of course, mullah."

"Listen to my words, son. Not shoot, not practice, not study. You ever use?"

"I practice, mullah."

"Good. Now you have the opportunity to use."

The two mullahs on his either side look blankly at him. The decision, it would appear, has been made.

"I don't understand, mullah."

"You know Koran, you know Hadith. We see you pray. You know Islam. This is good. Now, insh'allah, you must put into practice."

The mullah on the right goes to speak. He is interrupted by the mullah in the centre.

"Kabesh! This one can go."

He throws the rifle to Karnal, who catches it with one hand.

"You ever teach, boy?"

"No, I only learn."

"Good. This is important if you teach." The mullah speaks the words as if they were distilled through centuries of Islamic thought, but they are merely the sincere words of a tribesman who has probably never learned to read.

"Tomorrow, insh'allah, you will go to Spin Boldak. They need a teacher there, an imam for the school."

The mullah on the left spits into the fire.

"Take this weapon with you. You will need to use."

"Why, mullah?"

"The current imam will not like you."

The mullah gazes directly at Karnal while the others look into the fire. He gestures to the soldier who brought Karnal in. "That boy will go with you. Now, go! Go in God."

The other mullahs, still looking at the fire, stir as if in sleep. "Allah Uakbar!"

Karnal joins them. "Allah Uakbar!"

Outside the cave, the sun is drowning behind the mountains of Lashkar Gar. On the mountain, Taliban soldiers are lighting fires and preparing for the cold night ahead. Tonight, Karnal will sleep. More importantly, insh'allah, he will live.

Tomorrow, in the border town of Spin Boldak, someone will die, but that is another day, far away in the mind of God.

----

Allah Uakbar! Outside the cave, Karnal grabs the guard in a headlock. They struggle until the guard butts Karnal in the kidney with his rifle. "Kabesh!"

Karnal, grinning, salutes the guard from his position on the ground. "Allah Uakbar!"

The guard eyes Karnal suspiciously and spits. "Watch yourself, Pakistan. Today, insh'allah, you are alive. Tomorrow, who can tell?"

"Tomorrow is a new day, Afghanistan. In God, all are one."

"The dead also. Now go! Kabesh!"

Karnal picks himself up and brushes the dust off his kaftan. Yes, if the dead have days, tomorrow will be a new day for them too.

As he makes his way to his own cave, Karnal knows how close he has come to joining them. Just think, if the three mullahs had come to a different decision, this guard would now be leading him down the mountain to wake up tomorrow with the dead.

What makes men's decisions? What makes them come and go from death and life? Perhaps something Karnal said or did in front of the mullahs decided his fate. Or perhaps it was the mullahs themselves, or their need for a new imam in Spin Boldak. Who can tell?

Only God knows the answer to these questions, friends. We will never learn the secrets of our own fate.

----

Karzai is very unhappy, friends. What to do? His brother, Ahmed, is dead, he loses good man in Kandahar. CIA Station Chief, AKA Garry, is very sad for him too.

What can Karzai do?

----

PRESIDENT KARZAI INVOLVED IN PHONE HACKING SCANDAL
''Kabul Express''

President Karzai has been revealed as the latest victim in the News International phone hacking scandal, sources in London revealled last night.

Journalists from the Murdoch-owned Kabul Post are alleged to have hacked President Karzai's phone messages, most of them to his manservant, Kalesh. In them, the president orders movies, asks for the channel to be changed, and asks where his pipe is.

The president has not been previously known to have smoked a pipe, apart from hubbly bubbly in meetings with his cabinet.

In other messages, the president discusses a mysterious palace official referred to as "the Doktor". It is clear from the messages that President Karzai does not like this man.

The president refused to comment on his alleged phone hacks, merely stating, "Kabesh!"

His manservant was unavailable for comment.

----

Major Milan starts work each day at 8am, shift changeover at Pul-e-Charkhi Prison in Kabul. Here, the day-shift guards parade in the main square each morning, and Major Milan leads briefings. As briefings can be heard from the cells facing the compound, the suspects know which among them will be taken to Interrogation. Major Milan always leaves out the time of day, he just lists names. All a suspect knows is that today, he will be taken to Interrogation. For him, each minute is an eternity.

Sometimes, for whatever reason, a suspect isn't taken. But he always knows that before long, he will be. For these suspects, time lasts even longer. Each minute spent in the silent isolation cells can be agony, each second passing like a hammer hitting you in the head. Major Milan’s briefings sometimes include what crimes suspects must confess, and from the rumours, suspects certainly know what awaits them in Interrogation.

Those who have already experienced Interrogation, of course, never forget.

Major Milan does briefings slowly, no emotion in what he says. No one has ever known Major Milan to express his feelings about anything. Major Milan never gets angry. He never laughs, although he often smiles. Major Milan has an open, blank face, the creases in his brown short-sleeved shirts always sharp, his black moustache always trimmed. In the afternoon, his jowls turn black with his four o’clock shadow and his face glistens with sweat. When Major Milan smiles, clouds cover the sun.

Karzai has little to do with Major Milan. Karzai is worried Major Milan knows things about Karzai, and this is true. Major Milan knows many things. But Major Milan is always loyal. Major Milan has no ambitions of his own. He believes that someone needs to manage security, and it might as well be him. He is, after all, the best at his job.

Who could be better than Major Milan?

Everybody knows that no one in Afghanistan could manage Security Prison better than Major Milan. Security Prison lies inside Pul-e-Charkhi, the largest prison in Afghanistan. This is where terrorists and political suspects are sent, and Major Milan is the Chief Interrogator in all these crimes. Major Milan receives no thanks, it is long hours - often deep into the night - and it is painstaking in its detail. But Major Milan wants no other job, and no one can imagine him doing anything else.

No one can imagine Major Milan as a child, or a lover, or a father, despite the fact that Major Milan has three children and a happy wife who always gets ushered to the front of the bread queue. Major Milan is thin, but his wife and children are fat. It is good to be happy and fat, and no one thinks this more than Major Milan.

At 07:50 hours, the prison is silent awaiting his arrival. Major Milan is never late. In the old days, Major Milan would appear at different times, always when you least expected it, but these days he has learned to delegate. For Major Milan, all will come in its own time, so regularity is important. God made the seasons and all of nature this way, isn’t it? Major Milan knows this from experience and his observation of human nature.

Major Milan has never studied psychology, but he knows all about this subject. It is a subject he has taught himself through observation, testing and rigorous examination. Major Milan always knows just the right way to deal with a suspect. For example, when suspects first come in, they don’t always understand where they are. Some try to argue, some talk back to the guards. Some, especially the rich and proud, think they are someone other than what they are, which in Security Prison is one thing and one thing only; a suspect.

For some, it takes time for them to understand. Others understand right away. The new interrogators prefer the latter, but the ones who take time can be made to do anything, say anything, believe anything. The old interrogators prefer the ones who take time. For them, the act of confession is like the climax to a story. Better to finish with confession than begin. In security prison, interrogators need to learn patience before anything else.

It is true: you can kill a suspect if you are too keen. However, if you kill a suspect before he confesses, this is a problem. It defeats the whole point of Interrogation. Major Milan always makes this point to new interrogators. Interrogators are not executioners. They are there for one reason and one reason only: to extract confessions.

Anyone can be made to say anything. It is the way they say it, the way they believe what they say, the conviction of their beliefs. Sometimes you need to work on a suspect’s belief before you work on what they say. Suspects can also be made to believe anything.

Every suspect talks. There is no escaping it. In Interrogation, you cannot escape your crimes. You cannot escape anything. There is darkness and light, and all come to the light in time. All anyone takes is time.

As Major Milan gives briefings, the temperature outside reaches 40 and the suspects sweat in their cells. Today, insh'allah, they will confess. Stronger interrogation methods may well be necessary, but at briefings, Major Milan has already begun the process of Interrogation without asking a suspect one question.

This is why Major Milan is the best man for the job. How could anyone do better than a 100% confession rate?

In Afghanistan, everyone knows that no one can do better than Major Milan.

----

Muhammed Khan, a shopkeeper from Lashkar Gar, was captured in an Afghani security forces sweep through the town and charged with posession of explosives.

The "explosives" were Nestle infant formula kept in tins with the labels removed. The Nestle formula was part of the British Army's plan to reduce malnutrition in Lashkar Gar, and Muhammed had bought the formula from the Taliban, who had taken it from a captured supply truck. The tins were kept on pallets at the back of his shop, and the Afghani Army did not bother to test the formula.

Instead, it was burnt outside the town with other suspicious contraband, including blackmarket CDs and DVDs. In this way, proof of Muhammed's innocence was destroyed and he was sent to Security Prison in Kabul.

As a suspect, Muhammed awaits Interrogation in an isolation cell. He sees other prisoners only once a day when washing, but he is not allowed to talk. The guards can be bribed to turn the other way if necessary, but Muhammed knows no one in the prison and he has no money anyway. His family are too far from Kabul to visit or bring food.

Muhammed knows nothing of Interrogation. He has been processed, had his photo and fingerprints taken, and placed in his cell. Each meal has been a bowl of grey water with some grains of rice at the bottom. Muhammed has lost a lot of weight in Security Prison. He has not been able to boil his water and has come down with dysentry.

Muhammed hears briefings in the morning with everyone else. He hears the boots in the square and Major Milan's voice. He hears his own name mentioned but doesn't know what it means. He knows he is here for terrorism, but he doesn't know what this means either. Surely, it is just a matter of correcting the Army's mistake and putting the affair behind him, isn't it?

Muhammed hears the guards' footsteps outside his cell. His door is opened and the guards enter. Muhammed is still sick and is sitting on his rolled-up blanket.

"Stand!"

Muhammed goes to rise and is hit in the stomach with a rifle butt. The next blow hits him on the side of the head, and Muhammed falls on the floor.

The two guards lift him up and carry him out of the cell, down the long corridor to the Interrogation Room at the end of the wing. Muhammed's bare feet slide along the concrete passage. He has left his prison slippers back in his cell and tries hard not to sh!t himself from the blow.

When they get to the Interrogation room, two interrogators are dressed in neat uniforms with identical black mustaches. A desk and three chairs are in the middle of the room. The prison guards stand Muhammed inside the door, face the interrogators, and salute.

"Prisoner 1451. Eleven hundred hours."

One of the interrogators smiles. "Thank you, men. Dismissed."

The guards depart and lock the door behind them. Muhammed faces the two interrogators, who size him up without speaking. Muhammed stares back. Before long, an interrogator breaks his gaze and sits, indicating Muhammed into the chair in front of the table. The other interrogator stands next to the desk.

The sitting interrogator leans back in his chair and reads from a thin file on the desk. The other interrogator stares at Muhammed. There is a long pause.

"Explosives."

Muhammed looks back at the interrogator.

"Where you get?"

Muhammed continues to stare. The other guard comes behind Muhammed's chair. "Answer!"

"I don't get explosives. The Army find milk powder. For babies."

The first blow nearly knocks Muhammed out. He comes to on the concrete floor with more blows. Muhammed hugs his legs and tries to stop himself from vomitting. When the blows stop, Muhammed looks up to see the 2nd interrogator holding a thick plastic pipe. The first interrogator signals something, and Muhammed is hoisted back up onto the chair.

"You are here for terrorism. The Army find explosives in your shop. You will confess to this crime..."

"But I..."

Muhammed is hit on the side of the head in exactly the same place the other blow landed.

"Don't speak! You only speak when we tell you to speak! Understand?"

"Yes."

"You speak, tell truth, and you don't get beatings. Lie to us and you get much worse. Now say: where you get explosives?"

"I tell you, they aren't explosives. They are..."

This time, Muhammed is knocked out. He wakes up on the floor with water on his face, the interrogator holding his neck in a headlock. Muhammed scrambles for air. He finds it hard to breathe.

"You don't understand, my friend. In here, you cannot lie. This is your first interrogation. You will see. We know that all truth comes in time."

Muhammed's face is going red, his head swelling. Muhammed can hear his pulse in his ears, each beat a blow on the side of his head. Now, he can't breathe.

"Here, you will tell the truth or die. Look at you now. First interrogation and you don't look so good. Ali, let him go."

Muhammed falls to the floor, breathing desperately.

"Guard! Prisoner 1451 back to cell!"

Muhammed hears the key unlock the Interrogation Room door and the footsteps of the two guards. They state Muhammed's number and the time: 11:08. The interrogator makes a gesture and Muhammed is lifted by each shoulder and carried out of the room, back down the corridor and thrown into his cell. The whole Interrogation process has taken less than 10 minutes, but for Muhammed, it has marked his life in ways he will not understand until it is over.

----

In his cell, Muhammed sits back on his rolled-up blanket. As it is day, it is forbidden to lie. If the guards see him lying down through the hole in his door, he will be beaten again.

This, Muhammed thinks, is the New Afghanistan. This is the Afghanistan the Russians bring, the Amerikans bring, that Karzai and democracy brings. It is the Afghanistan that, in time, the Taliban will also bring, one after another in a long line of blows to the Afghani people, all of them too proud and stubborn to submit.

Muhammed feels liquid trickling down his legs and realises he has sh!t himself. He knows it has covered his blanket, but he feels that if he moves, he will vomit. His head throbs with each heartbeat, and his ribs hurt when he breathes. As with every strong beating, the real pain has not yet set in.

Muhammed thinks of his fate. He knows that he will be forced to confess to terrorism. Muhammed is able to say yes or no to stop the pain, he can do this. What Muhammed does not know is how he will leave behind the truth that inside every one of those Nestle tins was harmless infant formula.

Does this punishment come from God? If so, Muhammed, God willing, can bear it. He does not know if he can wear the stupidity of the guards, the interrogators and the Afghani Army. Muhammed is a proud man, and he has always been truthful. Insh'allah, he has lived his whole life by such values. Why should Muhammed be corrupted now by the vanity of fools?

Back in Lashkar Gar, the province is formally handed back to the Afghanis. Tonight, the politicians and generals will celebrate. Piece by piece, Afghanistan will be handed back to the guards and interrogators, who will continue to reward the corrupt and wring guilt from the blood of innocent men like Muhammed.

Muhammed thinks of his own wife and son. How will they ever believe him? How will anyone visit the shop of a guilty man and allow his wife and children to live? Muhammed knows that anyone who steps inside his shop will be marked as a terrorist. The lives of his wife and son are marked now also. For them, life will never be the same again.

Muhammed's life is not his own. It belongs to God, his family and his town. Without them, he is nothing, but without him, they are nothing too.

Without each other, friends, we are lost. Think of Muhammed as you see your family and friends, and thank God for what you have.

Also, buy Nestle Infant Formula for the baby. Full of essential vitamins and all your baby's needs!

Check label for details.

----

Like a family carpet, the War on Terror is interwoven with such stories, my friend. These threads mark the pattern. The hand of Gud shapes the design.

Many see the threads. Some witness the pattern and design. All share the struggle.

We write these stories in our thoughts and actions, friend, but we are written also. When we share our stories, we can see.

Gud lives in all.

----

Karzai is going through one of his lows. The Angel of Darkness has not been around lately.

"Speak to me, Mistress. Come to me, I beg you. Nothing works. I am alone, all alone in the darkness and chaos. There is no one, no one..."

Karzai's servant listens at the door.

"What have I done? I have done nothing but try to please you, believe me. Always I try to please you, there is no one else. Not Amerika, not the Taliban, not even my own family."

One bug sends Karzai's words to the CIA station in Kabul. Another sends them to Bagram Air Base and onto the US Defence Intelligence Centre in the Pentagon.

"No one listens. I pray to the one God just as you say. Every day I say prayers. Soon is Ramadan. Ah! There will be trouble, Mistress, you know this. There is always trouble before Ramadan. I pray to God but..."

Karzai's servant goes back to bed.

"There is always so much trouble. Why so much trouble? I love no one but you, Mistress. God, yes, of course..."

The CIA duty officer flicks the feed to another frequency.

"I help Amerika. I help Taliban. All are one, I know. We must save Afghanistan together, I can only rely on you. Please, Mistress, I promise to help more. Get more bomb, more Amerikan dollars. I can promote anyone, anyone you say..."

The Defence Intelligence officer at Bagram turns up the volume on an ice hockey game in Detroit.

"I join Taliban. Tomorrow I will go, Mistress, you will see. I can do so much for this country. Look what I do already! Imagine what I can do joined with Taliban. We can expand. Together, Mistress. Think, we can take Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, maybe even Iran - I know this one is hard, but together, Mistress..."

The mainframe in the Pentagon hums, receiving its many satelite signals and performing all its quiet, thankless tasks around the world, only one of which is recording the words of Karzai.

"...China, Russia, think of all the things we can do, Mistress. We will make history. Together, Mistress, only together..."

As a cloud sails over the moon outside, darkness covers the Presidential Compound in Kabul. In the streets below, a lone dog barks. Soon, another one joins him, and another. The sound of their barking reaches Karzai's office and he wakes from his spell.

"Kabesh! This is madness!" Karzai looks for a shoe to throw out the window before he realises the futility of this and stamps his foot on the floor. Here is Karzai, the US-installed and democratikally-elected president of Afghanistan, and he is forced to suffer such constant and ridiculous interruptions.

Tomorrow, Karzai will order dog catchers to be sent out to round up all dogs in the presidential and diplomatic district of Kabul. First, they will have to be trained and given uniforms. Second, it will cost money - always money! Maybe Kabul will need a pound. What are the security implications of such a policy? These are all questions Karzai's advisors will ask, and Karzai will say nothing.

Karzai waits for the Angel of Darkness to appear. Perhaps in your dreams, habibi, perhaps there she will come. Sleep, dear one, sleep now and take rest with all the peoples of the world who suffer like you.

One day, as God wills, we will reach paradise.

----

20/9/11

'''Karzai'''

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1316498497

Ah, friends, what to do? The Taliban are closing in. Today, Kabul. Tomorrow, all of Afghanistan.

What should Karzai do?

A. Form alliance with Taliban chiefs.

B. Form alliance with warlords by placing them in the parliament.

c. Make friends with CIA station chief AKA GARRY. Work on golf swing.

D. Form alliance with US military.

E. All of above.

----

He should pack an overnight bag, check he has the number of the Swiss bank account in his pocket and head to the airport, telling his loyal followers that he will be back shortly.

----

This is true, my friend. But then his followers would be left holding the cat. CIA station chief AKA GARRY, General Petreus, Taliban, warlords, all.

----

Perhaps Karzai could get a compound in Fort Bragg, Texas.

----

Karzai needs to find the "Angel of Darkness" and seek his council.

----

In our world, friend, the right metaphor is "left holding the dead baby"... And more appropriate for Afghanistan.

----

Metaphor? I'm sorry?

Karzai will be left holding lovey Afghan cat. A long ha'ar. In Afghanistan, only the vulture is left holding the baby.

----

Ah, my frien, this angel only comes when you don't seek.

----

It is the truth, my friend. CIA will neither confirm nor deny.

Your brother Karnal may also be CIA, friend, but can neither confirm nor deny. CIA is agency of intelligence. Taliban is agent of Gud. Mother is angel of Darkness. Karzai uses intelligence and Gud to see light in this darkness, friend. We must be careful. It is everywhere.

Karzai is the US-installed and demokratically-elected president of Afghanistan. He is a good man. He is one of us. Every now and then, if you stand close to the parapet, you will hear the call of the crow.

Kabesh!

----

Aside the Oval Office in the Presidential Palace in Kabul, sits the conference room, a plain room with a large oval desk that seats thirty men. Karzai meets with his two closest advisors here at least once a day, 27 chairs left empty. Both men, like Karzai, have spent time in Amerika: Gibran as a refugee from the Russians, and Kabir at MIT, studying engineering. Gibran advises on cultural issues, but his advice covers all areas. Kabir’s field is political economy and wider global patterns, including aid, development and the Amerikan agencies. As Pashtun elites, Gibran and Karzai’s families have been close for generations, and Gibran has shared much with Karzai, through occupation, civil war, exile, and now demokracy. As elder statesmen, the two men have shared their ups and downs, but their struggle is far from over.

“Hamed, since your brother has passed, peace be upon him, the south is a different place. We no longer hold the contracts. We cannot just buy the tribes anymore.”

Kabir agrees, his steel-framed spectacles, Western suit and trimmed goatee contrasting Gibran’s Afghan pajamas, waistcoat and slippers. “They have become spoilt, Master. They have become like children. Each has his own list of demands. Bullet-proof Toyotas, thoroughbred horses, dowries for their granddaughters, it is endless. With the Amerikans, there was cash. Now…”

Karzai straightens in his seat and scratches his head. “All this I know. I understand. Look, my brother was a bastard, but he was our bastard, one hundred percent Pashtun. He kept order, he kept peace. With the Amerikan dollars and my brother’s, well, mercy, we had security in the south. Now we have no security, and the Amerikans are giving me no peace at all.” Karzai wipes his bald head with his hand and flicks the sweat from his fingertips. “Ah, they drain my blood, these Amerikans.”

Gibran glances over at Kabir, doodling on his pad. Gibran offers soothing balm. “Hamed, these are problems to be solved. We have done it before. The south is ours. It is a matter of alliances, of making new friends.”

“With who? No – don’t answer that. I can’t give them Toyotas and racehorses to plough their fields with. If I knew what the Amerikans would do to these tribes I would have told them not to come.” Karzai’s mercurial grin folds back to his usual sad face, and he takes a sip of his tea.

Gibran is humourless. “Your demand has been granted, Hamed. In Lashkar Gar, anyway.”

“Ah - then I am out of options. Kabesh! I should move downstairs and you can have meetings with the Taliban.”

Karzai stares down at the carpet, a gift from an ex-communist warlord in Uzbekistan, and waits for some proper advice. These men merely tell him what he already knows, and Karzai is tired. He is sick of it all. His brother’s murder was not something for which they had planned. It was not meant to happen, and now, in the Pashtun way, they cannot even utter his name. He remembers the Angel’s words. “All must be united. If the feet and hands rebel, they must be cut off.”

Gibran moves closer. “Sorry, Hamed?”

“Nothing.”

“The oracle?”

“She is silent.”

The oracle is an inside joke amongst Karzai’s staff. Gibran and Kabir know nothing of the Angel of Darkness. Sometimes, when Karzai feels sorry for himself, he alludes to an oracle. Gibran and Kabir believe the oracle is Karzai’s wife, and do their utmost to keep Karzai from paying any attention to her. Gibran and Kabir are tired too. They glance at each other.

Gibran asks, “she has some advice on this, Hamed?”

“No.”

“None at all?”

“To pray facing Mecca. This I do anyway.”

“Mecca is in the south-east, Hamed.”

Karzai looks up. “So what?”

“What else does she say?”

Karzai is bored, but the words are etched in his mind. “To unite all in the struggle.”

Gibran looks at Kabir. “Unite the forces. It is good advice.”

Karzai recites the Angel’s words. “The jihad is within.”

Gibran smiles benignly at the oracle’s judgment. “Of course. Is there any other kind?”

Kabir joins him. “Master, we are fighting a struggle against foreign invaders.”

“Kabesh! These Amerikans are hardly invaders. They might suck my blood dry, but…”

“No, Master - the Taliban. They are from Pakistan.”

“Well, technically…”

Kabir pushes on, seeing the light. “Master, do you not see? We need to unite our own forces in this struggle. The only way to do this is to make friends in the south-east - Pashtun friends. Our friends.”

Karzai opens his mouth, gazes back at his advisors, and lets out a sigh.

“It’s true, Hamed. Your brother‘s life, insh’allah, was cut short before its time, but we still struggle. We must make new friends. We must unite.”

“Ah, kabesh! I am sick of all this. I am tired.” Karzai is used to his men workshopping their political ideas. In the end, it is always left to him to carry them out.

Gibran states the truth. “It has been a long jihad for us both, Hamed, but we have no choice but to struggle. It is our fate. We must do it, and we must do it well. You are the only man for this. You are the only chance this country has left. Without you… ” Gibran deliberately leaves his statement open-ended.

----

CONTINUED...

One of Karzai‘s strengths is his ability to become lucid in a flash, and in meetings, to always get to the heart of the matter. Mind you, he balances this with his ability to obfuscate and steer meetings in directions of his own. Such is the luxury of all kings, presidents and warlords. Karzai leans forward, extends his finger and points sharply at Gibran.

“Who do you want me to meet?”

“There is none other, Hamed.”

Kabir follows. “One man only.”

Karzai glowers at both men. “Will I like him?”

Gibran brightens. “Of course. You will like him very much.”

Karzai dares Gibran to give him the right answer, and maybe even an answer he will like.

“Why?”

“Because he is much more of a bastard than your brother.”

Kabir interjects. “…Peace be upon him.”

Gibran does not take his eyes off Karzai.

Karzai takes control of the discussion. “God give us all peace. From the south-east, you say? From Lashkar Gar?”

“Yes, Hamed.”

“Only one, eh?”

“Only one, Master.”

Karzai is done. He stands up to leave and throws his shawl over his shoulder. He spits out his words as if he has a lemon in his mouth.

“Mossadhi Khan. No other, eh?”

Gibran is gentle. He understands. “Yes, Hamed.”

Kabir continues. “There is no one else, Master. He holds Lashkar Gar. He is Lashkar Gar.”

“Mossadhi Khan, that snake! You want…”

Karzai stares at both men, speechless, his eyes like daggers. He is about to leave the room, but he composes himself. Karzai is never speechless for long.

“I will meet that lying, cheating bastard - right here. Nowhere else! But I don’t have to like him. I will not like him. And I know he had something to do with killing my brother. He may not have pulled the trigger, but he pointed the Taliban in the right direction.”

“There is no proof of that, Master.”

“Kabesh! I’ll do what I have to do, but when I’m done with him, I’ll do some cutting of my own. Arms, legs, whatever has to go!”

----

“Allah Uakbar!”

“Allah Uakbar.”

On horseback, the scout looks down over the empty highway below, the voice crackling through the satellite phone. A half moon lights the desert night, the highway stretching into the distance.

“All is clear, brother?”

The scout speaks just enough Pashtu, but would speak few words anyway. “Clear.”

“No peoples on the road?”

“No.”

“Ahead?”

“Ahead is a village. Stop and wait at the first tea stall. We will come to you.”

The man on the phone gives instructions to the driver, then speaks back to the phone. “Okay - okay. We wait. Your man is there?”

“You wait.”

The driver hits the steering wheel with his palm and looks back at the convoy stopped on the road. “Kabesh! How far? We must make Kabul by dawn.”

“How far?”

“Not far. You have tea and wait.”

The scout ends the call and rides off into the night.

The driver doesn’t like it, but he can do nothing but drive and worry. He quietens down while the call is made to Khan’s vehicle and turns the key in the ignition.

At dawn, the convoy reaches the outskirts of the city. At the point where the tarpaulins and cardboard slum dwellings turn into shops, concrete houses and billboards for Nokia and Nestle, a checkpoint stops all vehicles. It is the Afghan National Army. The convoy has made it to Kabul.

----

Mossadhi Khan has come to meet Karzai, friends. It is a meeting of like minds, of old Pashtun friends.

Will Karzai bring up old blood? Will Mossadhi Khan break with the Taliban? Will Karzai change his plan and join the Taliban himself?

Stay reading friends, and remember to pray to Gud.

For all your prayer needs, write to Madam Karah. Pray for health! Pray for beauty! Pray for wealth and good marriage!

Send baksheesh and self-addressed envelope to:

Madam Karah
23/18990 Karl Marx Avenue
Kabul, 13308

----

no karl marx avenue in kabul my friend. taliban change names of godless blasphemer streets long ago.

----

This is true, my friend. They change the name. But Google maps does not capture the voice of the peoples.

Neither the Taliban or Karzai can change what the peoples say. It will always be Karl Marx Avenue to them.

Look at Madam Karah - she receives many prayers each day from all over Afghanistan.

----

It is usually a thrill for the visitors of distant provinces to come to Kabul, but Khan’s men are here for business. There will be no shopping for mobiles, no jewelry and no cloth for their wives. As they pass through the morning streets, the cry of the muezzin can be heard through the crackling loudspeakers of surrounding mosques; the men, women and children of Kabul finishing their prayers.

As they drive through Karl Marx Avenue, The black, red and green Afghani national flags flutter alongside green flags with the crescent moon and star. As they head towards the diplomatic compound, Khan makes them stop by a small newsstand and opens his window, the old shopkeeper coming up to Khan’s car, bowing with clasped hands and showing his toothless gums. Khan makes his men get out and has the old man check them, one by one, for weapons. When none are found, Khan thanks the shopkeeper, gives him some notes, and gets back inside his SUV. Khan knows how sloppy the Afghan Army checkpoint outside Kabul is, and has learnt of his men’s resistance to disarm the hard way.

Once, at a checkpoint in Kandahar, one of Khan’s men was discovered to be holding a Russian WWII pistol. It was useless as a weapon, but Khan was forced to make an example of him. While the soldiers were arguing with the man, Khan calmly got out of his SUV, went up behind the man, and, with a quick headlock movement, broke the man’s neck. Without a word, Khan let the man’s body drop to the ground and went back to his car. After that, the soldiers let Khan through. God knows that one man’s death could save countless lives in future.

Double-checked and officially disarmed, the men get back into their vehicles to head to the second checkpoint and the Green Zone. The front driver kisses a small Koran hanging from his mirror, and prays that they will get through quickly. It is 7:10. Khan is scheduled to meet Karzai at 9:00, and all know that the checkpoint can take many hours to get through. God only knows how the city’s administrators make it in time for work each day, but this is the last of Kabul’s problems. It would take just one IED to get through and blow up the Afghani parliament and many Amerikans. It has, of course, happened before. For this reason, nothing is left to fate, and the Amerikans themselves run the checkpoint, using Afghan soldiers to check the vehicles. The front driver joins the traffic jam and slows down to 10 miles an hour until he comes to a stop. It would be quicker to walk. Afghanis are used to waiting, but they are never happy about it. Workers on bicycles flit past the cars and trucks, and the convoy waits with their motors running. The front driver is the most unhappy of all, almost leaning on his horn and making the most noise in the queue. Before long, an armed Afghani National Army soldier comes over and the driver pleads his case, gesticulating at the convoy behind him. It is pointless. The soldier merely points to the rest of the traffic and tells him to wait, banging his stick once on the side of the car. The driver goes back to beeping his horn and arguing with his passenger.

At 8:30, the convoy makes it to the checkpoint. While an Afghani soldier checks under the car with a mirrored stick, another soldier with a semi-automatic asks the driver for his licence. Licence? The driver does not know what he means. Identification. The man in the seat next to him patiently hands over their Afghani passports with a twenty dollar bill, explaining the convoy’s purpose. The soldier looks confused and takes the passports to the sandbagged administration block on the side of the road with tinted windows. Here, as everyone knows, they are watched by the Amerikans. The driver stares ahead, jiggles his leg under the steering wheel and stays quiet. All clear, the soldier walks slowly back with the passports. After getting all men out and checking each vehicle thoroughly, the convoy are allowed to get back in their cars and are waved through the gate.

The convoy enters another world within Kabul: the consular district with its lawns, driveways, gates and sentries. Here, the cameras watch every move, and at night, every corner is lit with streetlights. There are no power failures in the Green Zone. The convoy travels past the Afghani Parliament, its huge fountain representing all the tribes of Afghanistan, and the Amerikan administration building with its Pizza Hut, Burger King, and Irish-themed pub. At 8:52, they make it to their destination. At the gate, an Afghani guard salutes the convoy and the electronic gates part. Inside, the convoy parks in the visitor’s parking.

Allah Uakbar, they have made it. The front driver is ecstatic. Khan, getting out of his SUV, shoots him a look. The men have been briefed. They are to stay together and maintain discipline at all times. They are here, in the very mind of Afghanistan, the Presidential Palace. It has taken Khan a long time, but he is finally at his destination.

----

Khan and his men sign the ledger and each man is issued a security pass. After showing them what to do with the passes, the men are led to an adjoining waiting room by the chief of reception, an old man in pajamas and suit jacket with his own security pass around his neck. He peers into the room through thick, black-framed glasses. "Kabesh! They move the chairs! Wait - wait."

Khan speaks. "No, uncle, we will sit." Khan sits cross-legged on the floor, his men shifting on their feet. "Sit!" One by one, Khan's men join him in a circle around the room.

"Ah." The man smiles, his hand touching his heart, his forehead, and his heart again. "One thing - there is no smoking here." He points to the ceiling. "Alarms". He rolls his eyes, which look huge through the magnified lenses.

Khan smiles. "No problem."

"If you wish to smoke maybe I can take you some place."

"All is good, uncle. God is great."

"God is great!" The reception chief leaves Khan and his men for his ledger and security passes.

The men sit silent and wait while Khan talks quietly on his phone. If they weren't in the Presidential Palace in the mind of Afghanistan, it would be no different to any other day in Lashkar Gar.

----

- Karzai gave a extreme irresponsible statement against us and India.

----

Yes, my friend, but Karzai is only doing his job. Karzai is the US-installed and demokratically-elected man of the Afghani peoples. It is demokracy. Karzai must be extremely irresponsible. What to do?

----

The governor of Oruzgan has asked Karzai for a transfer. What should Karzai do, friends?

----

- Karzai must advise the governor to go to America with the Americans when they pull out. Or he can get to Indonesia overland then hop in a boat and come to Christmas Island and stay in one of those five star motels. Or he can fly into Sydney on Qantas and stay at Bondi.

----

Yes, this is a good idea. Perhaps he should fly Ariana Airlines to Jakarta. He can stopover in Delhi and do some shopping.

I would recommend he live in Auburn, Sydney, friend.

----

- Auburn could be good. We know Alan Jones and Matty is in Sydney, maybe they could meet him and welcome him to the community, have a barbie, halal of course, you can go too Karnal then hop across to Ryde for the meeting and introduce him to Pauline, that's if Pauline still wants to go because she's a model now she might be busy with her underwear promotions.
Will see!

----

Yes, my friend. Maybe Oruzgan governor could give up politics and enter the business. He can take Pauline's latest undergarment/burqa collection back to Afghanistan.

Thoughts?

----

- Pauline's undergarment collection would be too hot for Afghani women to handle surely Karnal.
She is much too much woman for the average Afghani camel driver.
Does Pauline have a burqa collection in her range?
This is new to me.
If so, if hope it expands beyond black, blacker and blackest.
It might even be daring enough to show an eyebrow or two (if the woman has more than one eyebrow that is).
This would be good.

----

This is true. In Afghanistan, such a woman would be stoned to deaths.

Or installed in the parliament. Either one, my friend. It is demokracy.

----

- This is not time for underwear talk. It is serious time in Afghanistan. It is coming to dangerous time for Afghani people.

The governor, he will not be returning to Oruzgan Province or to Afghanistan. The Taliban, they will be taken over the whole place and running in through the old city and the bazaar making sure the woman and children are in the house. This will remind you of what it was like before the Amerikana comes to bring demokracy.

I would like if Karzai can come to Australia with the governor or if he will go back to Amerika with the soldier.

----

It is so. Karzai will go to Amerika. CIA will talk with Taliban. They will pay the best mullahs for the job, my friend.

Pakistani ISI will pay their best mullahs. Who will win?

I would like Karzai to come to Australia too, my friend.

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/b040701c.jpg

My frien, just one small detail: I want a house in Palm Springs. I hear Nixon's old house is up for sale, no?

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/karzai_with_warlords.jpg

I am 100% behind Mossadhi Khan. He is our man in Lashkar Gar.

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/karzai-osama_1885294i.jpg

Mother, what do you say? 100% employment for the peoples? Of course!

All are employed by Gud, isn't it?

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/kabul-karzai-2011-president_n.jpg

We must pull together, friends. We must unite in the struggle. Mossadhi Khan is the number one man in Lashkar Gar. =

----

[[Image:http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/files/2010/04/karzai.jpg]]

Mr president Karzai is for number one position on first plane out for Karzai job is finish

----

Kabesh! When Karzai comes to Australia his work will not finish!

He will be the president in exile. Already he has been in France, Amerika, Pakistan. He will be our man in Auburn.

----

My friends,we know the end of the story, but this story is not yet at its end. Karzai still struggles. History is still writing, its battle plans made upon the shifting sands of the Pashtun south and in the mind of the nation, the presidential palace of Kabul. While Oruzgan province falls to the Afghan National Army, Lashkar Gar is still without a friend to Karzai.

Read on, friends.

----

Just before midday, Karzai enters reception in his green shawl and Karzai cap, trailed by Gibran and Kabir. Leaving his advisors, Karzai makes for the waiting room, his arms outstretched, a big smile on his face. "Ah, men! They don't tell me you are here! You have been waiting long?"

Khan stands, and his men leap to their feet. Khan is unmissable, but he holds out his hands to make himself known. "President Karzai. No, it is not long. We are happy here."

Khan bends down as Karzai kisses him warmly on both cheeks. "My brother Khan! It is so good to see you. Finally we meet. I was just saying to my man, Gibran, we need more like you around here. Strong men," Karzai laughs, looking around at Khan's men and reaching up to pinch Khan's cheek. "Big men.” At nearly seven feet tall in his turban, Khan’s prominent cheekbones, long black beard, and his clear, piercing blue eyes normally grant him the respect he is due. If not, there are other ways, and Mossadhi Khan is adept at all of them. Here, however, in the Presidential Palace, entirely different ways must be used, ways he has not yet learned, the ways of demokracy.

Karzai is introduced to Khan's men, and Khan watches as he greets them, one by one, like old friends. When he has met them all, Karzai takes Khan's arm for support. "Please, my friend – come. We will have refreshments in the other room. Please feel welcome. You are guests in my house. Your men will be taken care of.”

Karzai leads Khan down a soft carpeted corridor, his animated humility made dramatic alongside Khan’s imposing height, his relentless chatter contrasting Khan's silence. At the end of the hall, they reach a huge door with two medaled and embroidered presidential guards standing on each side of the entrance. One soldier clicks his white-gatered boots and salutes. The other opens the door in a swift, well-practiced motion for the men to enter. Karzai ushers Khan into his own version of the Oval Office, a large but rectangular room with stately white couches and a marble fireplace, never lit. For security reasons, there are no windows. At the rear of the room is an ornate French-oak desk with silver-framed photos of Karzai's family, all killed in Afghanistan's endless struggle for peace: Karzai’s father taken by the Russians; his brothers, the Taliban.

On the wall behind the desk are photos of Karzai with various world leaders: Tony Blair, Nicholas Sarkosi, Dick Cheney, George Bush. All, insh’allah, are still alive, but only Sarkosi and Karzai are still presidents. These photos represent the glory days of the Karzai presidency, the Winter of discontent when Karzai was the great uniter, the US-installed man of the peoples. The days of demokracy, by contrast, are a different story. Why does the West insist on demokracy? The idea seems ludicrous to Karzai, and the CIA is always too quick to agree, but without it Karzai would be nothing so, for now at least, demokracy it must be.

Karzai and Mossadhi Khan make themselves comfortable in adjoining arm chairs, their backs to the mauve, felt-papered wall, under a portrait of the great Afghan general, Muhammed Gabir, a man who defeated a battalion of British troops with a handful of soldiers. With a gesture from Karzai, the servants are dismissed so the men can talk in peace. A coffee table is set with a tea tray, a small samovar and two glasses with gold handles. Karzai, hunched over the coffee table in his disarmingly humble way, pours the tea and offers Khan a dish of sugar cubes for him to sip his tea through. "Please take, my friend. The Doktor tells me I cannot have sugar." Karzai touches his stomach. "Diabetes. Sometimes I stray, but kabesh, I usually obey. You cannot disobey these men, my friend. They are ruthless."

Khan takes the glass and a sugar cube. "Ah, I never see a doctor. Insh'allah, my health is good. I do not envy you, President Karzai."

"Please, my brother, we are friends! Call me Karzai. All do. It is a Western custom I like, very demokratic." Karzai notes Khan observing the photos, some taken in this very room. "Let me tell you, whenever those Western leaders meet it is always, 'Blair - you come!' 'Bush, you old dog!' Can you believe? Only the French are different. They like their titles and refuse to speak English. Russians also, but none of them speak any English at all. Still, we are Pashtuns. Let us speak man to man."

Karzai reaches into the pocket of his kaftan and pulls out a matchbox-sized package. He holds up the cling-wrapped hashish like a prize with a huge grin. "Khan, you old dog, you like to smoke?"

"Smoke?" Khan, thinking of the guards at the door, the reception chief and the mysterious "alarm", and all the pictures of world leaders, tightens. "Smoke here?"

Karzai reaches over and pats Khan's hand. "Don't worry! We are still in Afghanistan, not the Hague. Anyway, the Europeans like to smoke also, but it is no good for them." Karzai rolls his eyes. "They drink alcohol." Karzai gives Khan an enigmatic smile. "It makes them say and do things they would never say and do otherwise."

This is not a trait shared by Mossadhi Khan. He watches as Karzai lights a match and burns the hash, crumbling it with his fingers into a small bowl. Karzai shakes out the match's flame and leaves it on the table. He holds up the bowl to his nose and inhales deeply. "Ah, my brother, God is good."

----

CONTINUED...

Karzai puts the bowl down, rubs his hands together with relish, and looks around the room. "The hubbly-bubbly..."

Khan pulls a chillum out of his pocket. "You want to use this?"

Karzai's face lights up. "Of course!" Khan passes the chillum over to Karzai, who packs it full of hash and passes it back. Khan, lowering his head, places the stem between his third and fourth fingers, and makes a ball with his cupped hands to cool the smoke; a small hole between his thumbs to suck through. Karzai strikes a match and holds it over the chillum while Khan inhales the sweet, fragrant smoke into his lungs. Holding it in, Khan looks at Karzai through half-lidded eyes, then releases his breath, the smoke leaving each nostril like dragon's breath. He notes for the first time Karzai's bloodshot eyes and sees that Karzai has already been smoking. He passes the chillum over to Karzai, who does the same as Khan. When the pipe is finished, Karzai taps the ash into the bowl. Stiffly, with the awkwardness of a man unused to rest, Karzai leans back in his chair, his gaze melting into a point in the distance. Karzai sighs.

"...Allah Uakbar."

"Allah Uakbar."

For the first time, Karzai is quiet.

Sipping his tea, Khan notices a marble chess board set up on Karzai’s desk. It is not so much the implied leisure of such a game that surprises Khan, but its Russian connotations, a decadent and imperial game favoured by the Soviets and communist elites in Afghanistan's much-loathed Najibullah regime. Khan nods at the board. “You play this game?”

Karzai leans forward, his eyes meeting Khan's. Karzai plays this game with men all over Afghanistan, sometimes with four or five games going at a time. The games are played over the phone with Karzai's servants making his opponent’s moves, generally causing much confusion and headaches for all. Karzai has had games last for years, and has, on occasion, seen opponents killed before the end of a game. Such is the way of war, and Karzai takes no pleasure in putting the unfinished pieces back in their places and remembering the long phone calls. Some men deserved to die, and some didn’t. Many had to die, but it was always hard to lose a friend.

“Ah, my brother Khan, this game is very good, let me assure you. It is addictive, like gambling. You must watch yourself or you can forget other affairs. Always I must hold back, take time, do other things. There is always so much to do. Otherwise I would play all day. When I am old and retired, insh’allah, I shall play this game more. You play?”

Khan shakes his head slowly. "No. This, I thought, was a Russian game.” If Khan was in Lashkar Gar, he would spit.

“My brother, this game is not Russian – it is from Persia! This game is our old, proud culture, a civilized culture, where there is an order in things and distinct rules, a social fabric as I like to say. It is a very old game. The Arabs like to play backgammon, the Greeks like dominos. Our own Pashtun boys like to play draughts with bottle-tops. But this, my friend, this is the game for us.”

Karzai is going too fast. Khan is still wondering how a Persian game could have anything to do with Pashtuns. “Us?" Khan's eyes sharpen. "Persians?"

“Ah, my friend..." Karzai gently touches Khans hand and smiles. "Persian, Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek, in chess we must forget all these. Chess is a game for the men who must struggle and, insh’allah, make peace. For those who must struggle to survive, and command many different forces at once, but who must make also make friends too.”

Karzai glances over at Khan, and wonders if he should take more time. Demokracy, after all, must be a complete mystery to Khan. Karzai wonders if he reads Time or Newsweek. Hopefully not. The foreign press are never kind to Karzai.

But Khan is curious. “The Amerikans, they play this game?”

“Many do, my brother Khan. And the ones who play are good at it.”

“You play this game with the Amerikans?”

Karzai looks at the pictures of world leaders and sighs. “Brother, they leave me to play games with my own people. These days they have no time to play, they are so busy. And anyway, I am not nearly as good at this game as the Amerikans.”

Mossadhi Khan has many dealings with the Amerikan Army, who pay him in contracts to secure the long, lonely highway in the south, a highway, thanks to Khan, free of IEDs as long as the contracts are paid in time. “The Amerikan generals play this game?”

“Generals? Rarely. CIA always, but only with themselves.”

“Politicians?”

“Western politicians? Never. In demokracy, they can only focus on one thing at a time. This game is too complicated for them. This is why chess is the game for us, brother Khan. It is a game we know well, through our long history of struggle. Insh’allah, it is our fate to struggle, and to struggle we must play." Karzai becomes somber, as if a cloud has covered the sun. He thinks of his recently killed brother. "Play and struggle, my friend, personally it is all I have known. It is all most of us know." Karzai rearranges his shawl, and looks up at Khan. "For the Amerikans, my brother, this is just a game, and there is a strength in this. Global oil, Coca Cola, foreign wars; all is outside. In the last century, only Pearl Harbour and September 11 have ever brought their struggle close. But for us, my friend, it is life. We have no choice but to struggle. Our own struggle is within - always within.”

----

CONTINUED...

Khan thinks of this, while Karzai packs another chillum. Karzai gives the pipe to Khan and lights it. "Each man has his own struggle as God wills it. And to each of these struggles God gives him friends to help. We are never alone, my friend. Never. This, insh'allah, is as God wills it."

Khan passes the pipe back to Karzai, who cups his hands and inhales, then blows a long plume of smoke, parting the blue-grey smoke that fills the room. Karzai's eyelids narrow, his red eyes moistening as he puts the empty pipe in the bowl. "Allah Uakbar - Allah Ualkbar."

Khan, too, is stoned. It is good charas, from the north. "Allah Uakbar."

But Karzai does not rest for long. “My friend, let me demonstrate to you. To understand this game, you must know each figure and how it moves. Can I show you?”

Khan, staring into space, looks down at Karzai. “Yes - of course. Please.”

Karzai raises himself from his chair with a groan, his old age beginning to show. Karzai places the chess board on the table between them and returns to his chair. Khan fingers the black and white marble pieces, their purpose dark and obscure. “These things – they are like men?”

“You are good, my brother Khan. That is exactly what they are. And like men, each has his own way; his purpose. Look, I show you. These - ” Karzai picks up a pawn. “These are soldiers, men of war. They can only move one step at a time, like this.”

Karzai moves a pawn while Mossadhi Khan looks on. “But this – “ Karzai picks up the black queen. “She is the queen.” Karzai moves the queen vertically and horizontally. “She can move this way, this way, as far as she likes. She has much power in this game. In the older times, you see, the queen could control who saw the king.”

It is a strange thought to an Afghani. Mossadhi Khan thinks of his own two wives, who stay well out of his business, praise God.

Karzai reads Khan’s thoughts. “Think, my brother, how much a woman can bring a man down, or raise him up. Think of the power of her tongue, which has taken many soldiers to their graves.”

Khan knows the power of women to distract men from their paths. It has never happened to him, but he has seen the power of women in his own men's lives. As a tribal leader, Khan's job is not all business, and at times he must mediate in local disputes. In Lashkar Gar, as in many parts of Afghanistan, adultery is a crime punishable by death, and honour killings are a part of life. Such problems can pit blood against blood, and Khan is often called to dispense justice. Khan's word in a dispute is always final.

Karzai continues. “And this, my friend, is the king. He can only move one step – just like the soldier - here, here, here. But the whole point of the game is to stop the other man’s king. If you do this, you win the game - check mate.”

Mossadhi Khan scrutinizes the other pieces. “And these at the back?”

“My friend, these are castles and what they call bishops. If you like, castles are like the Amerikans. They can move only in straight lines, like this.” Karzai moves a castle vertically, then horizontally. "To move anywhere, the Amerikans must first secure the roads. Often, they must put the roads in first. The Amerikans can never go anywhere without being seen. Unless they are CIA, but everyone knows who is CIA anyway. Every Amerikan not in uniform is CIA. Thus, the Amerikans must be fortified and move in straight lines - like a castle."

Khan picks up a bishop. "And this?"

“Think of him like the Taliban.” Karzai moves a bishop diagonally. “He moves this way. Bishops can be cunning and tricky. If you think in straight lines, as many do, you can take your eye off the bishop, who moves diagonally." Karzai looks up at Khan. "Personally, I have learned to watch them carefully. They can move here," Karzai moves the bishop around the board, "and then here. They can sneak up on you if you aren't thinking.”

Mossadhi Khan picks up a horse, looking into its small eye. “This one is a horse.”

Karzai plays with the Pashtun name for horseman. “Khan by name, and Khan by nature, isn’t it? Again, you are exactly right, my friend. A horse is strange, but strong. A horse moves like this.” Karzai moves a horse in the way a horse is moved, one way, and then another.

“And which man is this horse like?”

Karzai stops to think and choose his words carefully. “This is hard to say. I think, if we are to compare it to anything, it is best described as our self-made men, the tribal chiefs who can move in ways altogether different to these castles and bishops who can travel far, but, on the whole, are far more predictable than the tribes. These horses are the men the West call warlords. Their moves are the most surprising of all, but the point of this game is that all moves are known. You must know the move - and the potential move - of every figure on the board. This is what it means to play this game well.”

----

CONTINUED...

Karzai fills Khan's glass from the samovar, and places it on the table next to him. "Please." Karzai tops up his own glass and sips at his sugarless tea.

Khan leaves his glass on the table. “I understand this so far. But one thing," Khan moves the pieces on the board. "These move like the Taliban, these move like the Amerikans, and these move like, well, warlords, but the same pieces are on both sides. In truth, all these forces are in opposition. The Amerikans, the Taliban, the tribes...”

Karzai leans back and places his hands under his chin. “Ah, you have seen through this game, my brother. The Taliban are many factions, just like the Amerikans, isn’t it? In one sense, the Amerikans need the Taliban and the Taliban need the Amerikans. Just like the tribes. Think of Masood and the so-called Northern Alliance: Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazara, some other shi'ah. The Amerikans used them, and they used the Amerikans. And before them, the Afghan communists used the Soviets and vice versa, each hand washing the other. The Soviets used Najibullah's government, Pakistan used the Pashtun Mujahedin. Then, when the Amerikans came in and allied with their own men in the Mujahedin, their enemies went across the border to Pakistan.”

Karzai glances at Khan to make sure he is still listening. “Among these exiles, in the madrasahs of Pakistan, grew the Taliban. When the Taliban joined in the struggle, aided by the Pakistani government, our tribes allied with them for a while, but grew tired of their cruelty and allied with each other and the Amerikans – some, anyway. Do you see, my friend? In Afghanistan, each group uses the other all the time, joining for a time, shifting, changing teams.”

Khan understands well. He has seen it time and time again.

Karzai continues. “The opponents in this game are not nations, armies or even factions. A player is not his king. This is a very demokratic game, my friend. A king is just another piece in this game of wills. To play this game well, I must tell you, you must see your opponent’s pieces as your own: all. You must think like your opponent and learn how he moves, which pieces he favours, which he moves first, and how he plays. You must think just like him. In this sense, you have no opponent; you are both locked in the game. This, you see, is why the Amerikans are so good at this game - they see the game - and not the men. As you can see, if this was a Russian game, they would still be here. Many of us, however, are trapped in our moves. We cannot see outside. The Amerikans, of course, have theories about this, but they make me tired. I just like to play. I am addicted. I can do nothing but play. I struggle, but I must make friends to help in this struggle. It is the only way. In the end, the last man standing is the winner, but no man lives forever, so each victory is short.”

Karzai sips his tea and looks at Khan. "Do you understand how it works?"

"I think I do."

"You would like to play this game?"

"I would like to learn."

"Good. Take this board. It is yours. You can take it with you."

"No, please. I can't take your board."

"Of course you can. I will have them wrap it for you. It is a gift! Learn how to play, my friend, and we can play together."

"Thanks. It is a good present."

----

CONTINUED...

"You can call from Lashkar Gar and we can play on the phone. This I do all the time." Karzai sighs. "I used to play with my brother in Lashkar Gar. Now..."

Khan is silent.

"My brother was good, but obviously not good enough. Now I am alone."

The door opens and Karzai's advisor, Gibran, walks into the room. "Master!"

"Ah, Khan, this is my man Gibran. He..."

Gibran shoots Karzai a look, fanning the air with his hand. "...The alarm!"

"No problem! It hasn't gone off." Karzai addresses Khan conspiratorially. "It has never gone off. God knows why they bother with these things. If anyone ever sets fire to this place, we'll burn. What can you do?"

Khan looks at the floor.

"Master, you have a meeting with the Opium Reduction Taskforce in half an hour!"

"No problem. We can meet in the other place." Karzai makes a gesture with his hand and looks over at Khan. "We are Pashtuns. We meet, we smoke. When the Amerikans come I'll drink Coca Cola."

Karzai laughs, and Khan joins him enthusiastically. It is the first time he has laughed.

Karzai rises from his chair and groans. "DEA. You see, my friend? You see these alliances I must make? It is endless. Ah, we do what we do."

Khan gets to his feet. Gibran quietly rearranges the room. He picks up the chessboard, and Karzai stops him.

"No - this is for my new friend, Khan. Can you take it to reception? I would like it wrapped for him to take back to Lashkar Gar."

Gibran lifts his eyebrows and rearranges the desk.

"Maybe Khan can learn chess and we can play. I want him to learn. You will learn this game, brother?"

"Of course. You have given me a very good lesson."

Gibran glances over at Karzai.

Karzai continues. "My own brother was very good at this game. We had games that would last for weeks. Months..."

Gibran interrupts. "Master, I am sorry to cut your meeting short, but the Amerikans will be here any minute. Could we finish up with Mr Khan and..."

"Ah - of course! I am sorry, Khan. Always I am forced from meeting to meeting. Remember me when you learn this game. I am like a pawn."

Gibran agrees. "We are all pawns, Mr Khan. We must all submit to a higher will, isn't it?"

Khan, taking a moment to check his phone for messages, looks up, wondering what he means.

"Allah Uakbar."

Khan understands. "Allah Uakbar."

Karzai is looking at the white horse, holding it up to the light. He addresses Gibran. "Can you see a chip in this? Look."

Gibran takes the horse from Karzai's hand and places in back on the board, picking it up with one hand. "It's fine. Come. Shall we join the other men? I'm sure they would like to get a photo with the president."

Karzai brightens. "Of course! Come, Khan, we will take photos. You have your own camera?"

"I'm not sure, Maybe my phone..."

"No problem. We have a photographer. Come."

As they leave the Oval Office in the Presidential Palace of Kabul, Gibran holds open the door and the two presidential guards snap their patent leather heels and salute, the fingers of their white gloves touching their fez-style hats in unison. At reception, Karzai places his arms around Khan's men and smiles for the camera. In a back room, Gibran and Kabir quiz Karzai for details, and they laugh at their smoke alarm-DEA shtick. It is an old routine, designed to create solidarity and, like most of Karzai's routines, make new friends. One thing bothers Karzai - how did the snake get a chillum in the building? It could have been a gun, a poison dart, anything. Security, it is clear, will need to be reviewed. Gibran promises to get onto it.

As the boom-gate opens to let the Khan convoy out into the streets of Kabul, Khan looks back at the Presidential Palace and the mind of Afghanistan. He wonders, insh’allah, if he will ever fulfill his plans to return, a member of the demokratic parliament of Afghanistan, Karzai’s man in Lashkar gar. In the Pashtun way, meetings are really meetings, and business is never discussed in detail. With his chessboard in the back, wrapped in brown paper and tape, Khan hopes, just like Karzai's brother, he will get the chance to play chess with Karzai on the phone from Lashkar Gar.

----

- Ah! Karnal, now your work is not done, you must keep me updated. Is many games of chess.

Amerika my friend is very good at playing one off against the other but war is a game they often lose.

----

This is truth, my brother, Pansi. Win or lose though, it is a game worth playing. It is addictive.

Insh'allah, Karzai now has a man in Lashkar Gar. This is good.

Now he needs a governor in Oruzgan province. Kabesh! When will it ever end?

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Hamid-Karzai-in-Kabul-001.jpg

The north and south must meet, friends. It is like the two wings of a bird, isn't it?

Allah Uakbar. The north has good hashish.

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Karzai-420x0.jpg

Who's name do I write on this cheque?

You want cash? Kabesh! I already tear it off.

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/hamidkarzai_081117_mn.jpg

Karzai: our man in Central Asia.

"The Karzai government is the central pillar in the State Department's solution to the global war on terror and political instability in Central Asia" - Hillary Clinton.

"Allah Uakbar" - Kabul CIA Station Chief AKA GARRY.

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/HillaryClintonArrivesKabulKarzaiInaugurationTk3uzJeM9KIl.jpg

Karzai meets with the Opium Reduction Taskforce from Tarin Kowt in the "Oval Office" of the presidential palace.

Before we begin, I must ask: which of you has a chillum?

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Karzai-420x0.jpg

- Ah my friend I will write this one for the Amerika's for helping Karzai to be number one demokratikal elect leader of Afghan.

----

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFVu_m_28XfwdMEc45Dd2FChUKPPk1ahB2W_D-x8wTj5dSLfLzeBligxJ_xw

- Karzai new government men must send this bigger cheque for the Amerika to stay delighted with Karzai's work. Afghan National Government must pay for freedoms. Is ok sale of poppy seed has been good, much thanks to Amerika for protecting poppy field from terrorist. Is gain for both my friend.

----

Kabesh, my friend. CIA always pay in cash, isn't it?

----

http://troll.me/images/ordinary-muslim-man/i-set-the-american-flag-on-fire-accidently-during-my-independance-day-bbq-and-firework-show.jpg

This is my frien Faarooq he is in big trouble

was making the kebab for Awsterica celebration

and kaboom!!! the flag she catch fire mate

Barry was here yesterday looking....looking...looking

If you see Faarooq please you help him out.

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1543198807/73#73

Winter, Kabul. From his compound behind the Presidential Palace, Karzai looks out over his once proud city. Where is Gary now? Where are the Americans? The British? The German engineers?

Was it all a dream?

An icy wind blows through the city, whistling. When the sun rises, there will be fog.

The telephone rings, breaking through the darkness.

"Hamid?"

It is Ghani, damn him. He calls anytime. He is now Karzai's president. Once, he was a friend.

"Hamid? The Americans are taking more troops. What to do? It is giving me insomnia already."

"Ah, Ashraf, this is no longer our world. The wind, the fog, this is now our lot, insh'allah."

"But Hamid, we must act! You must do something! Call Gary, call Mr Trump, call anyone!"

"Gary no longer takes my calls, effende, but anyhow, he is gone too. Retired, living in Maine."

"And Trump?"

"Forget it, Ashraf, he's pretty much retired too. Putin, he will talk to. Me? I am yesterday. I am the past. I am no longer on the Fox News."

"But Mother said..."

"Ah. She talks to you? Me also, in my time. She is a goodly spirit."

"She is my only hope! The Americans will no longer help. The Taliban are giving me heart problems already. My blood pressure..."

Health has always been one of Karzai's obsessions, but like all hypochondriacs, he can't bear to listen to the health problems of others.

"Insh'allah, the Angel will guide you, Ashraf. Listen to her. She is always right."

"Ah, Hamid, she tells me to kill - some men with my own bare hands. My conscience..."

"Forget conscience, effende, the Angel speaks the word of God. This is the price we must pay. I also, in my time. Men like us cannot afford a conscience."

Karzai can hear the presidential hubbly bubbly on the other end of the line. Ghani must be onto his first bong of the day. Karzai is on the last bong of the night. Hashish and opium. It is the only thing that holds back the pain of the conscience. Also, it often brings a visit from the Angel, who gives advice. Karzai, after all, is still the president, just not in name. Today, he can relax and let Ashraf settle the blood. It is a part of the job no president likes.

In many ways, Karzai is like the Angel herself, directing Afghanistan from behind the scene. Karzai's presidential terms expired, he can now rule without accountability. It is a good place to be, but then again, all in Afghanistan know Karzai is secretly the power behind the throne.

"Hamid, try Mr Trump again, I know he can help. Maybe there will be a new Gary soon."

"Insh'allah, there are no more Garys, Ashraf. It is the price we must pay. It is - how to say - independence."

"Oh Hamid, listen to who you are talking to. Independence? It's a sad joke. Afghanistan will never be independent. Britain, Russia, America, all. Let the Taliban dream of independence. We are pragmatic fellows."

"This may be, effende, but we must pretend. We are like an actor on the stage - an actor in the play of life. All countries want independence, isn't it. None may have it, not even America. But we pretend, we speak to the crowds, we go on TV. Then, when all is quiet, we listen to the Angel of Darkness, Mother of the Night. This is our lot, insh'allah. It is what we must do. Speak of independence, Ashraf, but act on dependence. It is all we can do."

"Yes, it is so. Can you just try Trump?"

"Okay! I will try again, Ashraf. Insh'allah, I will succeed. But let us wait until the day."

"Ah, Hamid, peace be upon you."

"Now go do your work. You have a meeting with the Pashtun Council today, no?"

"They never help. All they do is complain."

"But we must pretend, Ashraf. Be an actor. Listen and speak the lines I have given you. It is like chess. On their own, no piece can win, and yes, many must be sacrificed. But together - like the fingers in a hand - we may act, fingers that may form a fist or a caress."

Karzai takes a drag on his pipe then blows out its smoke, a long blue dragon of opium and hashish. With it, Karzai let's out a prayer.

"Mother of Darkness, Angel of Death, bring light to our friend Ashraf Ghani, president of all the tribes of Afghanistan! Bring him glory, bring him peace!"

"Blood pressure, Hamid..."

"Bring him health! Lower his blood pressure, insh'allah. Get him on a low cholesterol diet, he is putting on too much weight."

"It is Winter, Hamid. I'm not getting out much."

"Then get out! Go to Florida. It is sunny all year round. Gary gave me a compound there. Finally."

"Really?"

"Really. But it was not cheap. It cost much oil and gas. Still, it is not my oil and gas."

"It belongs to the people of Afghanistan."

"It belongs to God! He who sees all, hears all, owns all. I should go to Florida myself, get some sun."

"This might work, Hamid. Listen, Mr Trump has a palace there. You can buy a ticket and meet with him."

"Maybe. What is this Trump palace?"

"Mar a' Lago. Apparently you can play golf there. You can drive around in these little buggies."

"Well, it would be good to see the retirement compound again... Alright, I will visit this Mar a Lago. I will play some golf, drink cocktails. Insh'allah, I shall meet with Trump himself!"

"As God wills it, Hamid."

"Now go. Meet with the Pashtuns. Tell them to hold tight. Insh'allah, we will bring back America!"

A thin dawn breaks over Kabul. As always, the sun's fog creeps in from the east. Blue-grey, like the smoke from a hubbly bubbly.

Karzai and Trump? What to do? Stay reading, friends, and you will see.

----

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1545814065/6#6

Karzai

2018-12-22T02:29:57Z

Freediver:

Muslims Promote Genocide

2018-12-15T04:58:45Z

Freediver:

[[Islam]]

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine]]

Islam compels Muslims to support genocide, because Muhammad and the 'rightly guided' Caliphs who followed him used genocide and ethnic cleansing to establish the first Islamic state. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1543371381]

Muslims have offered an extraordinary range of implausible and amoral arguments in an attempt to justify and support Muhammad's genocide of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe of Medina, the expulsion of the other two large Jewish tribes from Medina, and the broader ethnic cleansing that followed shortly after Muhammad's death, under Muhammad's instructions. Some examples from a single Muslim on the forum, probably the most progressive of them all and a self described 'reformer', are provided below. Other Muslims on the forum have produced remarkably consistent arguments. There is little or no historical support for most of these arguments, and historical sources are often provided that do not actually support the claims made. It is unclear where this misinformation actually comes from.

Efforts by Muslims to justify the genocide, forced mass migration, enslavement, forced conversion, murder and oppression of non-Mulims by Muhammad and the early Caliphs will inevitably influence how Muslims perceive and respond to modern conflicts. If they manage to make Muslims out to be victims even while they were establishing the largest empire the world had ever seen, and doing so at an unprecedented speed, then it should come as no surprise that the victimhood narrative is a key part of the modern Muslim story, and a desire for broad and disproportionate violent retribution for real and perceived attacks on Islam shapes modern geopolitics.

= Background =

See [[Political_History_of_Islam#Timeline]] for a more detailed timeline of the political history of Islam.

Muhammad had his first revelation in AD 607. 15 years later, he was forced to flee his home city of Mecca. He was invited to nearby Medina by pagans who shared his animosity towards Mecca (many were apparently jealous of Mecca being a centre pf pagan ritual). There were many Jews in Medina, including three large and powerful tribes. Muhammad spent the first decade or so in Medina robbing Meccan trade caravans. His success strengthened him politically and his initially small band of thieves gradually turned into a significant army. The three large Jewish tribes stood between Muhammad and absolute power in Medina. They also had close trade ties with Mecca. They thus posed a potential threat to Muhammad. In 624, following Muhammad's first significant victory over the Meccans in battle, Muhammad gathered one of the large tribes (Banu Qaynuqa) in the market place. He addressed them as follows:

'''"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."'''

Prior to this, Muhammad had been preaching a more tolerant version of Islam, insisting there should be no compulsion in religion. This is the first example of Muhammad attempting to coerce people to convert to Islam, and reflects his success on the battle field. Later that same year, Muhammad expelled the entire tribe from Medina. The traditional 'cause' of this was an incident in which a Jewish merchant caused a Muslim woman to be disrobed. A mob of Muslims killed the Jew. The Jews retaliated by killing a Muslim, and the Muslims escalated further. Although Muslims insist Muhammad was invited to Medina to resolve these sorts of inter-clan disputes without escalation, he used the incident as an opportunity to expel the entire tribe.

Two years later, in 626, Muhammad expelled another of the large tribes of Jews, the Banu Nadir. Only one large tribe, the Banu Qurayza, remained for Muhammad to get rid of in order to cement his power. However, he faced a problem in that he was creating a significant group of exiled enemies in Mecca and nearby Kaybar. Previously the Jewish tribes had been as indifferent and occasionally hostile towards each other as they were towards the other large tribes in Medina. Now they had a reason to cooperate. So, instead of expelling the third large tribe, Muhammad slaughtered them, citing treason as justification. Although some of the Banu Qurayza assisted the Muslims, it is alleged that the leaders entered (failed) negotiations with the Meccans when, fed up with being robbed, they tried to lay siege to Medina with a large army. The siege failed and the Meccans left without a fight. Muhammad was then instructed by an angel to lay siege to the Banu Qurayza, who eventually surrendered without a fight. Despite no-one being killed in either battle, Muhammad had every adult male (any with signs of puberty) executed - approximately 800 of them. The women and children were enslaved, which largely meant becoming sex slaves. Muhammad had a recent convert to Islam from the Aws tribe, who was near death and eager to please him, pass the judgement. Muhammad did not want to pass the judgement himself as it went against the precedent he had set with the other two tribes, however described this judgement as being "similar to God's judgement". Many historians conclude that Muhammad had decided the outcome prior to the surrender negotiations. He also had each clan of the Aws tribe conduct many of the executions, in order to spread the blame among them, as they were previously allied with the Jewish tribe.

There is a surviving document from the time, known as the treaty of Medina. It is an agreement between Muhammad's Muslim immigrants to Medina and the pagans. It does not mention the three large Jewish tribes. Nor are they included by implication. Some historians have speculated that the treaty was modified over time and that the surviving version was either written or rewritten after Muhammad had gotten rid of the Jewish tribes. Muslims tend to base their support for Muhammad's genocide of the Jews by citing their violation of the treaty, either insisting the Jews were in fact party to the version we have today, or by conflating an alternative treaty or a different version of the treaty with the surviving document. In any case, there is no historical evidence that the Jews were bound to Muhammad in treaty. Historians also question whether any of Muhammad's treaties were genuine in the sense that all parties signed up to it, speculating that they were a unilateral declaration by Muhammad.

Muhammad eventually used his base in Medina to capture Mecca. He turned the Kaaba, a central monument and gathering place for annual pagan rituals, into the focal point of Islamic worship. Until this point Muhammad had sought to peacefully recruit Arabian pagans and make Islam out to be an Arabian religion. After seizing Mecca and the Kaaba he directed his violence towards pagans, slaughtering them and destroying any religious monuments that might compete with the Kaaba. In his final victory, Muhammad gave his victims a choice between death and conversion. Muhammad voiced his intention to ethnically cleanse the entire Arabian peninsula of all nonMuslims, however he died having merely consolidated the peninsula into a single state. Soon after, the rightly guided Caliphs partly fulfilled his prophecy by killing or expelling all non-Muslims from the Hijaz region, covering the western side of the peninsula. The Caliphs also issued explicit instructions to force communities to convert to Islam by the sword. See [[Political_History_of_Islam]] for more information.

= Excuses =

The excuses and justifications offered for this event range from misrepresenting the historical facts to the implausible and fanciful. Muslims will attempt to attribute these outlandish claims to genuine historians. When the claims are proven to be false, they tend to rapidly alter the argument being made, eventually falling back on denying it happened at all and insisting that it is a Jewish conspiracy, or that because some of the contemporary documentation comes from Jews it must automatically be discounted. In the sections below are a few examples, all from the same Muslim.

Some examples from (mostly) other Muslims:
* [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Revising_history:_science_and_the_.27peaceful.27_empire_fairytale]]
* [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Moral_equivalence]]
* [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Victimhood]]
* [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Silence]]
* [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Prediction_vs_order]]
* [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_won.27t_exist]]
* [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Lying_about_other_religions]]
* [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Antisemitism]]
* [[Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_of_religion]]
* [[Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing]]
* [[Islam_and_Australian_values#Torture]]
* [[Islam_and_Australian_values#War]]
* [[Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_antisemitism]]
* [[Islam_and_Australian_values#The_Jewish_tribes_of_Medina]]

== Genocide of the Banu Qurayza ==

It is possible for Muslims to have a 'different perspective' on Muhammad's slaughter of the Jewish tribe that is "compatible with peace and tolerance".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/29#29]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/20#20]
Bombing Hiroshima can be justified because it brought us closer to peace, therefor it is possible for seemingly incompatible views to be compatible with peace and tolerance.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/36#36]
However, Muhammad did not seek peace. All that was required for peace was for Muhammad to stop robbing Meccan trade caravans. Rather, the slaughter of the Jews gave him free licence to continue raiding trade caravans and absolute power over Medina, which he then used to attack Mecca, which he then used to slaughter his way across the Arabian Peninsula.

Criticism of Muhammad for slaughtering Jews and of modern Muslims for excusing the slaughter is "nothing but an emotional tool that has no other purpose than to eliminate any historical context, and reduce the issue to a simplistic "evil muslim" meme."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
Slaughtering 800 innocent people and enslaving the rest in order to wipe out a tribe for political gain is not evidence of genocide. Denying Muhammad's genocide is completely different from denying Hitler's genocide. Also a vague suggestion that only 200 people were killed, as well as casting doubt (again, vaguely) on the fact that most historians believe it happened, and criticism on the basis that there is only one contemporary source.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/101#101]
Criticising Muslims for supporting Muhammad's genocide is "sinister propaganda".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/307#307]

Resorting to censorship of 'quote bombs' - ie series of quotes showing support for genocide by Muslims in order to expose the hypocrisy and contradictions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/80#80]
Some of the 'quote bombs':
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1490870704 Jews conspiring genocide of Muslims]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968 a mindless collective of treacherous Jews]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544 Islam-inspired racism]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/9#9 How to spinelessly apologise for racism]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/22#22 A plucky young Muslima]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302 Islamic justification for Jew slaughtering]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475 Muhammad engaged in collective punishment]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294 Jews always to blame for conflict, never Muslims]
The remainder of the examples presented here come mostly from these threads:
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765 Where the "collective punishment" meme comes from]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959 Jews threaten there jewish president]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100 Moderate muslims killing whitey again]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396691862/21#21 " ... give the finger to the infidel next door".]
* [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487240389/33#33 DFAT funding Islamic propaganda]

=== Denialism ===

Denying the genocide happened altogether, or suggesting the numbers have been overstated by Jews, is generally a fallback option after the flaws in the other excuses put forward have been highlighted. The criticism that it is based on a single proven unreliable source is also rather ironic, as the elaborate fabrication regarding the treaty of Medina and details of what the Jews are accused of doing, is also allegedly that same source (the exact source is never given). Note that there are in fact several other sources, including the Quran itself. For example, Abu Dawood (a Persian scholar of prophetic hadith who compiled the third of the six "canonical" hadith collections recognized by Sunni Muslims) quotes a member of the Jewish tribe (Atiyyah al-Qurazi) as follows: "'''I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.'''" Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4390. The event is also mentioned several times in Sahih Bukhari. The early Muslim jurists Tabari and Ibn Hisham also mention this event stating 600-900 were killed.

The massacre is a "fairy tale". Almost all historians, including Muslim ones, accept that it happened.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/133#133]
Almost certainly didn't happen.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487240389/64#64]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/72#72]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/92#92]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/220#220]
Always believed it didn't happen (despite going to elaborate lengths to justify it, and even providing evidence as to the number killed).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/102#102]
"probably didn't occur"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/111#111]
In a 'new twist,' the Jews made it all up.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/64#64]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/119#119]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/121#121]
There is only one contemporary source for the slaughter - Ibn Ishaq.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/133#133]
"The Quran makes one passing reference to the Qurayza incident - and all it says is (paraphrasing) - 'some you killed and some you took prisoner - then later freed' - or in other words directly contradicting the Ishaq story that all adult males were killed." In this case, the Quran was paraphrased rather than quoted because the actual passage in the Quran does not mention freeing them - just killing them and taking them as POWs, which is entirely consistent with other accounts. Here is one translation of the relevant verse (33.26): "'''And He brought down those of the People of the Scripture, namely, the [Banu] Qurayza, who had supported them from their strongholds (sayasi is the plural of sisa, and is that in which one fortifies himself [against an enemy]) and He cast terror into their hearts, [so that] some, of them, you slew, and these were the combatants, and some, of them, you took captive, namely, their children.'''" [http://quranx.com/tafsir/Jalal/33.26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/135#135]
"the reality was that a few of the leaders who were responsible for the treachery were executed, and the rest were freed - as stated in the Quran"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/220#220]
"the alleged Banu Qurayza massacre - which relies on a single proven unreliable source, and is directly contradicted by other sources"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/73#73]
"the fact that he is the sole source of the story, and how all Islamic scholars either dismiss the story outright and dismiss the author as a fraud (Malik), or merely repeat the account without giving any sort of vote of confidence in the source"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/119#119]
Calling it genocide is dishonest becuase it was a time of war. Apparently genocide only happens in times of peace.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/170#170]
Did in fact happen.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/144#144]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/204#204]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/79#79]

=== Mindless Collective ===

Apparently, the Jews that Muhammad slaughtered in Medina were literally a borg-like mindless collective, and thus collective punishment was both necessary and appropriate. This is a central argument, necessary in order to justify the collective punishment, but also the least plausible arguments put forward.

"Thats exactly what they were. Thats exactly how 7th arab society worked - your loyalty was with the tribe, far above anything else. They were of one mind - what the tribal leaders decided, every single member decided. No individual member of the tribe would even dream of taking a position that was at odds with the tribe. It sounds ridiculous to our western individualistic minds, but thats exactly how it was."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/122#122]
"As I said, there was no real concept of individuality - your personality was literally defined by which tribe you belonged to. And the decisions that govern the tribe are very much decisions that are represented by all the individuals who make up the tribe. Thus there really is no question of collective guilt - no matter how abhorrent we find the term today."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/125#125]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/88#88]
This justification for slaughtering Jews is "firmly rooted in historical fact".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/76#76]
"There were a few hundred members of the Banu Qurayza, and saying that they were 'of one mind' is not at all unreasonable or implausible given the size and the predominant tribal culture. Particularly in a time of war. Thats how pre-Islamic arab tribal society worked - you submitted your individuality to the will of the tribe. This is not some racist, bigoted slur, it is historical fact." ''The truth is that Muhammad slaughtered approximately 800 adult men, not that this would make a difference to the plausibility of the mindless collective argument.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/76#76]
Mocking the suggestion that there were a few thousand members of the tribe, which is well-established, even among Muslim scholars.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/80#80]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/84#84]
An appeal to scientific racism: "Social psychologists don't believe in individual personality. They argue that individual minds cannot exist outside the social constructs they exist in. If this theory is correct, then nowhere is it more applicable than in the pre-Islamic arab tribes of the 7th century. Whether or not they had their own 'personality' is really neither here nor there - the pertinent point is that they subordinated their individual traits to the will of the tribe - or more correctly, their individual traits stemmed from the will of the tribe."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/83#83]
It is OK to describe them as a mindless collective of warrior traitors, so long as you don't use terms like 'schemeing Jew' that remind people of Nazi propaganda, because to do so is to blame Muslims for the holocaust.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/77#77]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/80#80]
Denying that he described the Jews as a mindless collective.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/74#74]
Denying describing them as a mindless collective, treacherous Jews etc.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/298#298]
Women and children were not part of the mindless collective. Boys lost their individuality and personality at puberty when they became part of the mindless collective (perhaps during their Bar Mitzvah?).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/101#101]
Everyone was a mindless collective back then, including Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487240389/33#33]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/81#81]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/130#130]
Denying that he used the 'mindless collective' and the treacherous Jews argument.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/20#20]
Hypocrisy: "Their treachery was a function of their actions, not their ethnicity or religion."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/81#81]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/206#206]
They "owned" the treachery by virtue of the tribe they belonged to.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/220#220]

This excuse is particularly hypocritical, coming from a person who constantly accuses others of portraying Muslims as a 'hive mind' or collective.
"But more importantly, its the same old 'othering' process, of lumping any outgroup (in this case muslims) as a monolith with a hive mind. And as long as people like you insist on seeing the world in this way, there is no hope of you understanding or accepting muslims in your community. And certainly no hope of you allowing yourselves to appreciate the existence of muslims who genuinely promote a progressive and humanist version of Islam that is perfectly compatible with western culture. As you say, our only hope of redemption "is to get rid of the whole religion". In your narrow-minded world view, muslims are deprived of their individuality, deprived of agency and deprived of their human rights."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487240389/33#33]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/74#74]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487137536/12#12]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486639166/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1467029228/139#139]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1458987438/39#39]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1458987438/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1457691482/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1458116518/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1481852426/740#740]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1466047258/217#217]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1466047258/201#201]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1466047258/169#169]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1466047258/69#69]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1465860228/14#14]
Asking muslims where rorted funds from islamic schools went is actually accusing them of being a mindless collective.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/273#273]

=== Collective Punishment ===

Collective punishment is "a meaningless slogan that seeks to remove any historical context and simplify the situation into a silly 'good vs evil' dichotomy."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
Using "emotive terms" like collective punishment is a "silly semantic game", a "nonsense debate over meaningless terms", a "pointless debate about a meaningless definition", "arbitrary and meaningless", "an emotional appeal to a baseless smear on islam", "meaningless and pointless", has a completely different meaning such as "Islam is evil".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/61#61]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/68#68]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/71#71]
Collective punishment refers to intimidating tactics used against a civilian population. Muhammad's slaughter of the Jewish tribe is completely different.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
It is not collective punishment, even when a collective is punished.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/98#98]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/1#1]
Slaughtering all the men was not collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Islam does not support collective punishment, despite compelling Muslims to support collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/148#148]
"The fact that there were only 700 in an entire tribe should be an indication of their unity of mind. It was not a disparate collection of far-flung communities. They chose to stick with the tribe, and therefore the treachery of the tribe" and "it is reasonable to accuse them of collective guilt". ''The truth is roughly 800 adult men were executed. The tribe itself was far larger.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/137#137]
"600-900 able bodied men is extremely small - even in 7th century Arabia"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/148#148]
Arguing for collective guilt is not the same as arguing for collective punishment (this appears to be a reference to them literally being a mindless collective). It is only collective punishment if it is done as a means to an end (eg establishing an Islamic state or for the purpose of power politics).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/7#7]
They were not punished collectively but for their own actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/16#16]
Conceding they were not punished on an individual basis.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/38#38]
Conceding that it was in fact collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/83#83]
Being punished for the crime of the leader of the tribe is "perfectly consistent" with being punished for your own actions. This was followed by a refusal to explain how this is possible.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
Going on to say it is not in fact consistent, but there is nothing more to explain.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/61#61]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/65#65]
Mass execution is a "just punishment".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/130#130]
The entire menfolk were executed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]

=== Sex Slaves ===

Muhammad slaughtered all the men and took the women and children as slaves. For most of the women and girls, this meant becoming sex slaves. Muslim men consider sex with wives and sex slaves to be their right, and a woman's responsibility. The women and children are postulated as not being part of the mindless collective. Thus, an alternative spin is necessary to justify their treatment. This essentially boils down to "freedom through slavery" and "protection through rape". Only converts to Islam had the possibility of regaining their freedom. This choice was largely directed at the children of sex slaves, who inevitably had a Muslim father, and was a key strategy in converting people to Islam.

Enslaving the women and children was not punishment but "protective custody" and did not mean serial rape, and meant the possibility of emancipation. Enslavement under Islam actually means protective custody.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Muslims will insist that Islamic concubinage does not involve rape, despite the context of slavery, coupled with Muslims considering it their right to have sex with women they own, and the woman's responsibility, as well as the absence of legal punishment for rape of concubines. This is justified with a dictionary definition of concubinage, as well as a Quranic verse that initially appears to forbid rape. However the following verses make it clear that it only forbids compelling concubines into prostitution. They will also argue that the absence of punishment for raping slaves is actually evidence that slaves were not raped.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/137#137]
Islam only condones rape if it speficially instructs Muslims to rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/148#148]

=== Muhammad's offer of a pardon ===

A recurring lie is that Muhammad generously gave every single Jew he slaughtered "the opportunity to disown the betrayal and repledge their loyalty to their city". Somehow, not a single one accepted the offer and they all chose death instead. There is no evidence at all for this claim and it has never been explained, although it has been repeated many times. It may be a reference to Muhammad pardoning three boys who escaped prior to the surrender and converted to Islam. That is, Muhammad turned the genocide into another opportunity for forced conversion.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/30#30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/125#125]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396691862/21#21]
"The leaders conspired - yes. The rest of them had the opportunity to disown their treachery. They declined. So tough titties- off with their heads." The 'tough titties off with their heads' phrase is also a recurring theme.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/15#15]
Each individual "had the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the decisions made on behalf of the tribe".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/137#137]
"By re-pledging their loyalty to the treaty they broke. Feel free to look it up."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
Claiming that the story comes from a contemporary biography of Muhammad, but refusing to quote the relevant section.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/61#61]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/65#65]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/209#209]

=== Muhammad was Too Generous ===

Muhammad was too generous to the previous two Jewish tribes he had allowed to leave their home city of Medina. He had learned his lesson when it came to Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/15#15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/112#112]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396691862/21#21]
Jews cannot be trusted.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/120#120]
Their "actual assistance" of Muhammad (for which there is evidence, as opposed to the "actual hostilities" against Muhammad which appear to be entirely fabricated) was merely a ploy by the treacherous Jews, "as a way of hedging their bets, and to go about their treachery with the least amount of suspicion".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/125#125]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396691862/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/134#134]

=== The treaty ===

There was a 'treaty of Medina.' Copies of it are available today. However, the Jewish tribe slaughtered by Muhammad was not a party to the treaty. Some historians speculate on the existence of another treaty, or a general agreement, or an earlier version of the treaty of Medina that did include the Jews. Having a copy of the treaty of Medina means that historians can speak with certainty about it's contents, though there remains uncertainty regarding the date and also speculation that the document was assembled from various fragments. The "other" agreement to which the Jews were a party has merely been speculated to have existed. This agreement, though it does not and may never have existed, is central to the justification of Muhammad's genocide. In order to give the justification undue credibility, Muslims deliberately confuse the actual treaty and the agreement. For example, they assign the certainty ascribed by historians to the content of the existing treaty to the other agreement, as well as specific statements about the existing treaty. They rephrase what is obviously speculation by historians about the existence, timing, or contents of the other agreement as being firmly held beliefs by the historians involved. Finally, they insist that the actual treaty and the speculated agreement were actually identical, while also arguing the need for the treaty to change over time as it was an active legal document. They then demand that their critics prove the two documents were different, despite one of them not existing, and declare that failure to produce the evidence demonstrates that they were in fact identical, and thus the Jews can be held accountable to a treaty they did not sign.

Many historians also speculate that Muhammad's treaties were actually unilateral declarations, as there is no evidence of any of the parties agreeing to the. Again, Muslims cite the absence of evidence as a demonstration that they did in fact sign up, and demand that their critics provide evidence of them not signing in.

The reason for this elaborate and implausible deception is a desperate need for a moral justification for Muhammad's genocide. Thus the treaty must be transformed from a speculated agreement into historical, factual, written agreement whose contents we can read today.

Even if an agreement with the Jews did exist, it still leaves the implausible scenario of the Jews being bound to Muhammad by a treaty despite him publicly threatening them with violence if they do not convert to Islam, and Muhammad expelling one Jewish tribe, then a second, the slaughtering the third, all the while demanding that the Jews are his allies and must support him. This is eventually taken to the extreme stance of acknowledging two different treaties (only one of which we have a copy of), covering two different sets of parties, written at different times under different circumstances, but insisting they must have identical content.

The Jews broke the terms of the treaty of Medina (that they were not actually party to).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/29#29]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/110#110]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/112#112]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/120#120]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/170#170]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/28#28]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/62#62]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/80#80]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/85#85]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/130#130]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/144#144]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/204#204]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/206#206]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/214#214]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/223#223]
The charter of Medina can be read today and granted the Jewish tribe 'freedom and equality'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/83#83]
"Historical accounts overwhelmingly suggest that the covenant was broken by the Jews".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/8#8]
The Jews had 'pledged loyalty' to the city of Medina, and were thus guilty of treachery for their conspiracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/13#13]

=== Treason ===

The term treason is thrown out as often as the term treaty. This is an attempt to morally equate Muhammad's genocide with the death penalty that some modern countries have for treason. The truth is that this was an alien concept at the time, as treason requires the existence of a state with a central authority. Yet Muhammad was originally invited into Medina because of the lack of such a central authority, and his slaughter of the Jews was his way of turing the city into the foundation of his Islamic state. Thus the Jews were effectively slaughtered for treason against a state that did not yet exist.

The tribe committed treason.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/11#11]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/110#110]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/112#112]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/120#120]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/122#122]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/125#125]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/112#112]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/130#130]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/206#206]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/214#214]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/223#223]
The Jews and Muslims were allies and the Jews deserved to die for turning on their allies. ''The truth is that Muhammad had already expelled two large tribes of Jews from Medina and prior to that had started publicly threatening the Jews with violence if they do not convert. To suggest they were still genuine allies, even after Muhammad's first acts of belligerence, is implausible.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Muhammad was merely acting against "rebellion and treachery".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/68#68]
The charter of Medina is "not exactly a portent to expulsion."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
The Jews had pledged loyalty to "the state," even though the state did not actually exist. ''At the time, Muhammad was still trying to gain control over Medina. This is from the same person who insists that Muhammad was not in a position of authority to do the things attributed to him.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/101#101]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/104#104]
The treachery of the Jews is no less of a crime on account of them not actually killing anyone.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/106#106]
Muhammad's actions were not a violation of the treaty.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/220#220]
Not all 800 of them were actually guilty of treachery, signed the treaty, or were responsible for violating the treaty. They were killed instead for "not disowning" the treachery of their leaders.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/220#220]

=== Misrepresenting Historians ===

Historian Montgomery Watt believes the slaughter of the Jews is morally justified. ''This is no different so someone claiming a historian who speculates on Hitler's motivation for slaughtering Jews is actually saying the holocaust is justified.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/251#251]

Quoting Watt suggesting that they "seem to have had a treaty with Muhammad". Including in the quote is Watt pointing out that the tribe actually assisted Muhammad against the attempted Meccan attack, that by eliminating the tribe there were no important Jewish tribes left in Medina, that Muhammad changed his day-to-day actions in accordance with changing circumstance and his long term plans. Also included is a suggestion that an underlying cause of Muhammad's hostility was the Jews criticism of Quranic revelation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/125#125]
Claiming it is misrepresenting Watt to say he claimed that the Jewish tribe was not included in the treaty of Medina.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/131#131]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/133#133]
"Watt makes it clear in several separate occassions that he believes the Qurayza were bound in treaty to Muhammad"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/137#137]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/145#145]
"I have no idea" what the 'general agreement' attributed to Watt is.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/137#137]

Whether they were bound by the Medina treaty or a separate treaty (that no longer exists) doesn't make much difference.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/152#152]
Back to claiming the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina. ''Watt (and every other historian) specifically states that they were not included.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/163#163]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/238#238]
Quoting someone suggesting that Watt holds that they were "probably mentioned in an earlier version" of the treaty.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/165#165]
First acknowledgement of the difference between "probably mentioned" and "believes they were a party to it".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/179#179]

"Watt and others said the original does mention it. They must be liars too I guess. Accepting the word of the most pre-eminent historians on this matter as plausible evidence is not lying." ''The 'original' version is an earlier version that has only been speculated to have existed. The suggestion that historians are telling us what it contained is ludicrous.'' Also, the treaty was revised after Muhammad got rid of the large Jewish tribes because "circumstances had changed".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/172#172]
The treaty needed to be updated because it was a "contemporary legal document that needed to accurately reflect the reality on the ground"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/174#174]
Refusing to produce evidence that any of Muhammad's treaties were genuine in the modern sense that the parties actually signed up for them. ''Many historians argue that they were in fact unilateral declarations by Muhammad.'' Insisting instead that they could have crushed Muhammad or rejected his treaty had they wanted. Demanding and explanation of how a group didn't sign up for the treaty.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/189#189]
From a "unilateral declaration" to a "universal proclamation", and feigned confusion over how you get from this to imposing it on people. Also, assuming that because only one hisotrian was quoted, it is a lie to suggest more than one historian holds that position.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/192#192]
The fact that Muhammad was originally invited to Medina is evidence that people later agreed to his treaties. Not a single historian believes it was imposed (this was immediately after quoting a historian describing his treaties as "universal declarations".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/195#195]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/203#203]
The treaty could not possibly be a unilateral declaration if, as some historians suggest, it was made in the early Medinan period when Muhammad was weaker.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/230#230]

They must have agreed to it because they signed up to it. ''There is no evidence of any group signing up or agreeing to any of Muhammad's treaties.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/230#230]
Citing Watt's claims about the actual treaty of Medina (which Watt and others state did not include the Jewish tribes) as evidence for a treaty that did include the Jewish tribes.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/222#222]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/232#232]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/236#236]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/249#249]
Demanding evidence of the number of historians who consider Muhammad's treaties to be unilateral declarations, at the same time as refusing to provide evidence that any group ever agreed to them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/207#207]
Denying that any historian made the claim regarding unilateral declarations. Also inventing a timeline regarding the signing of the treaty by the Jewish tribes.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/216#216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/225#225]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/230#230]

Quoting Watt pointing out that the treaty of Medina in it's current form excludes the Jewish tribes. Also quoting Watt stating that the treaty of Medina "would therefore seem to have taken its present form after that date [the genocide of the Banu Qurazyza]." Watt speculates that parts of the treaty as we have it today may have come from earlier. This has been misrepresented as Watt saying the entire treaty came from an earlier time and included the Jewish tribes.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/251#251]
Insisting it is the same treaty, despite not actually knowing what the contents of the earlier agreement were, and the earlier agreement necessarily being between different parties.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/251#251]
Misrepresenting Watt as "believing" a certain version of events, when it is clearly speculation, with terms like "probably mentioned" (not Watt's), "seem", "presumably", "perhaps belonging" etc.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/255#255]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/317#317]

Denying pretending that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina as we know it today (despite, for example, suggesting we go and read the treaty to see that it granted them 'freedom and equality').
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/279#279]
Denying pretending that the Jews were bound by a treaty that we have the content of, and insisting that the claim that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina as we know it today is attributable to Watt. This was shortly after quoting Watt stating specifically that the Jewish tribes of Medina were not bound by the treaty as we know it today.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/281#281]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/283#283]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/286#286]
It is "splitting hairs" to suggest it is not the same treaty if the parties to the treaty change as well as the content, and we do not even know the content of one of them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/288#288]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/302#302]
Denying that he claimed to have the content of the other agreement.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/288#288]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/292#292]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/294#294]
Insisting that the terms of the treaty were not changed - ie that the treaty of Medina as we know it today and which excludes the Jews is identical to another agreement whose existence has only been speculated and which does include the Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/305#305]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/314#314]
Mocking others for pointing out the implausibility of a treaty that permits Muhammad to publicly threaten the Jews with violence for not converting to Islam, and insisting this mockery is not pretending to know the contents of the speculated agreement that supposedly bound the Jews to Muhammad and was used to justify the genocide of the Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/311#311]
Insisting that the alleged agreement that included the Jews has identical content to the treaty of Medina that we have today is not the same as claiming to know the content of the alleged agreement.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/316#316]

=== Conspiring Jews ===

The Jews were conspiring against Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/11#11]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/29#29]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/59#59]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/112#112]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/144#144]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/204#204]

=== Forced Conversion ===

Threatening Jews with violence if they do not convert to Islam is not evidence of a religious reason for the persecution.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
Muhammad "had set up the first multi-faith society in Medina, where muslims, christians and jews lived as equals". ''The truth is that it was a multifaith society before Muhammad came along, with Jews, Christians and pagans living as equals without the need for centralised city government. Muhammad expelled and slaughtered the Jewish tribes whose size made them a political obstacle in his quest for power, and instructed his successors to follow through by ethnically cleansing the broader area of non-Muslims.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Denying that Muhammad threatened the Jews with violence if they did not convert to Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/205#205]
Denying the accepted timeline of events, as documented by Muslims themselves ie Muhammad's first significant military victory over the Meccans, followed by his public threats against Jews if they do not convert to Islam, followed by his expulsion of two large tribes, followed by his slaughter of the last remaining large tribe of Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/208#208]
Refusing to discuss whether Muhammad violated the alleged treaty with the Jews by threatening them with violence if they do not convert to Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/225#225]

=== Actual Hostilities ===

The entire menfolk were executed, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46] but the only people executed were those actively partaking in fighting against the muslims. ''The truth is that not a single Muslim was killed. The Jews were slaughtered after surrendering to Muhammad without a fight. Some of them had actually been assisting the Muslims.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/48#48]
The Jews "had actually commenced hostilities against the muslim garrison". There is no evidence of this.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/120#120]
"Banu Quraiza then started to launch war operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/125#125]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/134#134]
An apparent concession that the "actual hostilities" did not involve violence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/122#122]
"commencing hostilities"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/125#125]
"war operations"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/143#143]
The only evidence presented for the claim of "actual hostilities" is a reference to a 2002 book.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/120#120]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/125#125]
"the treachery of the jews had nothing to do with them refusing to help the muslims"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/155#155]
All non-combatants were spared. ''The alleged evidence for this is that only "military aged males" were executed. The truth is that all adult men were killed - including the old and frail, as well as young boys who had just reached puberty (the Muslims actually inspected them physically to decide who would die and who would merely become a slave).''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/91#91]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/101#101]
Only "actual military aged warriors who actually took up arms against the state they pledged loyalty to" were executed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/104#104]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/170#170]
Pointing out that no Muslims were actually killed by 800 actual warriors who actually took up arms against them is "not an argument".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/106#106]
They had been "on the verge" of attacking Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/251#251]
The Jews were not POWs (and by implication, not subject to our abhorrence at slaughtering POWs) because they did not officially reneg on the treaty (the one that does not actually exist) and declare their succession from the Islamic state (ie their own city, that Muhammad was trying to gain control of by slaughtering them).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396691862/21#21]
Hypocrisy: When Muhammad was a victim of mistreatment by his own family in Mecca, this constituted a declaration of war by the city of Mecca against Muslims, which justified Muhammad's lengthy career robbing Meccan caravans and murdering Meccan traders.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/158#158]

=== Jews Intended Genocide ===

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1490870704 Jews conspiring genocide of Muslims]

Another recurring theme is that the Jews and their allies intended genocide of the Muslims. There is absolutely no evidence for this claim and it would be out of character for the people and the time period. It is a complete fabrication. The Meccans, with whom the Jews are accused of conspiring, went home after one earlier battle, despite being in a position to press their advantage, because they believed Muhammad had been killed and that this would be sufficient to stop Muhammad raiding their caravans. Until Muhammad came along, the Arabian Peninsula was literally a multicultural and multireligious society, with complex 'blood money' and 'eye for an eye' style customs for resolving disputes between tribes and avoiding the sort of slaughter Muhammad engaged in.

The Jews posed an "existential threat" to Muslims. The Jews intended to commit genocide of the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396691862/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/59#59]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/11#11]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/15#15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/110#110]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/112#112]
They intended to "annihilate" their own city.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/25#25]
It was self defence on the part of the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/71#71]
It does not matter whether the Jews were actually to blame for the situation, because their very existence was threatening.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Jews declared war. Genocide is the normal response from a head of state.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487240389/64#64]
It would be acceptable for Jews to slaughter a tribe of Muslims if they broke an agreement.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/223#223]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/236#236]
Slaughtering people is not OK today, but was OK for Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/244#244]

=== Muhammad's Islamic State ===

Slaughtering Jews was "practically necessary" for Muhammad to establish his Islamic state.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/29#29]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/15#15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396691862/21#21]
It was unacceptable to have hostile Jews in Muhammad's Islamic state, even if Muhammad himself was responsbile for their hostility.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Muhammad's actions differ from those of Hitler because slaughtering Jews assisted Muhammad in establishing his Islamic state, whereas the Nazi war machine was undermined by the diversion of resources towards slaughtering Jews. They also differ because the Nazis were driven by ideology and the Muslims were not.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
The Meccans were "attempting to over-run" Medina. In truth Muhammad and his Muslims over-ran Medina and kicked out anyone who did not bow down for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/13#13]

=== Power Politics ===

This claim actually has a ring of truth to it, and is a view held by many historians. The argument was put forward as the 'lesser of two evils,' as an attempt to differentiate Muhammad from Hitler by pointing out that Muhammad did not have an ideological hatred of Jews, but instead slaughtered them out of convenience, or for entirely rational reasons, or for the pursuit of power.

"The actions of Muhammad were driven by power politics and practical necessity" to establish the Islamic state.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/8#8]
"The myth that Muhammad hated jews and engaged in collective punishment, and worked to ethnically cleanse the jews from Arabia." ''In truth, Muhammad specifically instructed that the Arabian Peninsula be ethnically cleansed of all non-Muslims.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
Jews continued to live in Khaybar and Yemen and Jews live in Yemen to this day. ''In truth almost all of the few remaining Jews were expelled from Yemen shortly after Israel was created.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/74#74]
Muhammad did not teach his followers to hate or exterminate Jews. ''The truth is that Muhammad left instructions to ethnically cleanse the Arabian Peninsula. Shortly after his death, the Hijaz region (western side of Arabian peninsula) was ethnically cleansed of all non-Muslims. Muhammad himself oversaw the slaughter of many of them himself prior to his death. After WWII, Yemen expelled the few remaining Jews.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765]
Muhammad did not plan ethnic cleansing.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/71#71]
The incident occured in front of a backdrop of religious coexistence. ''The truth is that Muhammad had started publicly threatening Jews with violence if they do not convert to Islam about three years earlier, and had already expelled the other two large Jewish tribes.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765]
Tough titties, shit happens in war. ''The truth is there was no war and the Jews were prisoners who had surrendered without a fight.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
Not motivated by the Jews' religion.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/83#83]
Muhammad was less rabid in his hatred of Jews than Hitler was.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
It was merely a perceived injustice and has nothing to do with Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/48#48]
Muhammad slaughtered the Jews because he had not reached a peace agreement with the Quraysh (Muhammad's own familial tribe from Mecca who were attacking Medina to try to force Muhammad to stop raiding trade caravans) and they thus posed an ongoing threat.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/49#49]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/53#53]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/31#31]
The war "continued through Quraysh proxies, infiltrators, informers etc". Banning Muslims from Mecca (a pagan religious centre) was a declaration of war. In truth, Muhammad had preached hostility towards paganism for a long time and his first act when he later gained control of Mecca was to destroy all pagan artifacts except for the Kaaba itself, then use Mecca as a base from which to slaughter pagans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/58#58]
"muslims and jews had no real ideological/religious hostility, and that atrocities committed by both sides essentially come down to secular political issuess"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/2#2]

=== Muhammad had no Power ===

This is essentially arguing the opposite to what was claimed above - that Muhammad was engaging in power politics rather than anti-Semitic racism. Here, Muslims insist that Muhammad did not have the political authority to carry out the actions attributed to him, on account of him being invited to Medina merely as some kind of negotiator. The truth is that Muhammad's power grew rapidly, and his belligerence to the Jews did not begin until after he had a significant and victorious militia behind him. In a similar trend, Muhammad became outright hostile to the pagans when he later gained control of Mecca and ironically ended up treating them worse than the Jews.

This argument also relies on feigned inability to understand a simple timeline - that Muhammad's battlefield victory against Mecca (with the assistance of Medinese pagans) came first, then his public threats of violence against Jews if they do not convert to Islam, then his expulsion of the first to tribes, then his genocide of the third. That is, they pretend they cannot comprehend how someone who was initially invited to Medina did everything he did over the next decade while still holding the low level of authority he had initially. Muslims will also insist that the timeline provided above is incorrect.

Muhammad needed the support of his allies to slaughter the tribe, and not a single one of those allies spoke out against the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/110#110]
''The truth is that at least one group - the Aws - are recorded as speaking out against the punishment and pleading for a more lenient sentence. It was actually the Aws that the Banu Qurayza agreed to be judged by, and the Aws who pleaded for lenience, but the one member of the Aws chosen by Muhammad to pass judgement, a convert to Islam, went against the wishes of his tribe. Furthermore Muhammad had already expelled the other two large Jewish tribes and the last tribe was now his prisoner, a clear demonstration of his authority. He owned the previous punishments and was in a far stronger position now. The slaughter was for strategic reasons, and only chose to distance himself from the punishment politically (he still explicitly supported it) because it could have otherwise turned people against him, the Aws in particular. He also demanded the Aws participate in the executions.''

"Notice too how your narrative is changing. You banged on for years about how the Medinans were basically tricked into signing a seemingly innocuous treaty by some sweet talker, and it was only after he consolidated his power was he able to intimidate and rule with an iron fist. Now you are trying to say he was somehow some all-powerful dictator from the very beginning - "imposing" his will on the powerless Medinans." ''The truth is that Muhammad's belligerence towards the Jews always reflected his military power. He began threatening Jews for not converting them and expelling them from Medina very shortly after his first military victory against the Meccans with the aid of his growing Medina-based army. He did not commit genocide until there was only one tribe left and no-one willing to stand up for them.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/189#189]
"And you haven't answered the question - how did Muhammad - a refugee with no standing army, acting as mediator at the good grace of the rulers of Medina (which included the Jews) "impose" his treaty against the will of the people?"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/192#192]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/195#195]
Muhammad was a "destitute refugee". Feigned confusion over the process by which Muhammad gained military strength by robbing Meccan caravans prior to his genocide of the Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/203#203]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/207#207]
Muhammad agreed to the slaughter for the sake of a speedy resolution.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/209#209]
Denying that a swift resolution and the interests of Muhammad Islamic state were used as a justification.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/296#296]
Muhammad's robbery of Meccan caravans (which started several years earlier) was an act of "retaliating against the initial Meccan aggression" - ie Muhammad was in a position to take vengeance on a far larger city many years earlier, but not did not have any authority within Medina.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/136#136]

=== Not motivated by anti-semitism ===

Slaughtering Jews is not evidence of animosity towards Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
Refusing to say whether they were 'scheming Jews'
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/21#21]
It is the terminology (scheming Jews) that is racist. Arguing that they were actually a mindless collective of scheming Jews is not racist because it is true, so long as you don't use that particular phrase.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/85#85]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/92#92]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/133#133]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/136#136]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/144#144]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/209#209]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/210#210]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/214#214]
"- calling people 'jewish' and 'treacherous' is not necessarily irrational/racist
- the term "treacherous jew" is unquestionably irrational/racist"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/123#123]
It's not racist because it is true.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/128#128]
"Racist comments aren't necessarily factually incorrect"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/136#136]
The truth matters - that is, not the truth about what actually happened, but the 'truth' whether it is truly racist propaganda.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/136#136]
It's not racist because being a mindless collective is a trait of the Arabs, not the Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/130#130]
The tribe cannot be both cunning as well as a mindless collective.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/122#122]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/130#130]
"As I've said about a thousand times, 'treacherous jews' - as in the two words together, is a notorious phrase with clear racist connotations. It clearly has a far more sinister meaning than say 'traitors who happened to be jewish'. Which is why I deliberately avoid the term."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/81#81]
Joking about how fun it is to slaughter Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/24#24]
"we call them scheming jews"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/15#15]
Calling them treacherous Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/79#79]
Denying calling them treacherous Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/298#298]
"make it all about da joooos, and thereby making a seamless and utterly shameless invocation of Godwin's law"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/57#57]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/62#62]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/216#216]
Variations in the estimated death toll from the holocaust are "quite possibly" evidence it did not happen "and we know now that many of the estimates that were accepted for years were inflated".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/73#73]
"You're no better than the Israeli victim industry"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/80#80]
People only criticise Islam over Muhammad's slaughter because it is racist to slaughter Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/112#112]
Pointing out that Muhammad ordered the Jews previous allies to participate in the slaughter is an appeal to Hitler's Sonderkammandos.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/191#191]

=== Jewish Law ===

This argument is consistent with Muhammad's actions and his apparent intent. This argument also ties in with the argument that Muhammad did not have the authority on his own to carry out the genocide. Muhammad tried to distance himself from the ruling because it went against the precedent he set when he 'leniently' expelled the other two tribes of Jews rather than slaughtering them. Muhammad negotiated the surrender of the Jews by promising they would be judged by their allies, the Aws. However, Muhammad selected one member of the Aws who chose genocide as the punishment, despite the remainder of the Aws pleading for lenience. The idea that the Jews were judged according to Jewish law however was not explicitly recorded, and is most likely a later fabrication to justify Muhammad's genocide. No contemporaneous source says explicitly that the judgment was based on the Torah. Moreover, the respective verses of the Torah make no mention of treason or breach of faith, and the Jewish law as it existed at the time and as it is still understood today applies these Torah verses only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history.

The Jews did not object to their punishment (being slaughtered).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/112#112]
The Jewish tribe chose a specific person to pass judgement on them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18] ''The truth is that Muhammad chose someone who had recently converted to Islam, was near death, having suffered a wound in a battle he fought for Muhammad, and was hoping to please Muhammad and protect the Muslim community. There was no immediate political need for Muhammad to relinquish authority, as he had already expelled the other two large Jewish tribes and cemented his authority when he captured the third. Rather, it was an effort to avoid blame himself and spread blame among other Medinans.''
"they asked for a jewish arbiter to judge them according to jewish law. Jewish law states that the treason they committed is punishable by death." ''The truth is that they appear to have agreed to be judged by a pagan tribe they were allied with, that there is no evidence that they asked for Jewish law, or that Jewish law was applied. Furthermore Jewish law does not state that treason is punishable by death. The tribe they agreed to be judged by actually campaigned for leniency on their behalf.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
The Jews were judged under Jewish law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/11#11]
The Jews agreed to be judged under Jewish law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/209#209]

=== Context ===

The idea that the 'context' renders Muhammad's actions morally acceptable is effectively an effort to drown the issue in details, and also to blatantly misrepresent those historical details in a large number of ways in order to make it appear that Muhammad had no choice. In reality, all Muhammad had to do to stop the Meccans attacking him was to stop robbing their trade caravans. The real context is that Muhamamd was on a quest for political power and did whatever it took to gain it.

You have to consider the historical context of Muhammad's genocide.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/11#11]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/71#71]

Conceding that the 'state of war' was entirely attributable to Muhammad robbing Meccan caravans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/129#129]

=== Moral Equivalence ===

Slaughtering Jews who were already captive and who had surrendered without a fight, following a war that never actually happend and whose 'imminent threat' had long passed, as well as holding up the person responsible for the genocide as an eternal moral example for all mankind, is morally equivalent to collateral damage in modern warfare.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/30#30]
Muhammad slaughtered innocent, imprisoned Jews to save lives.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/33#33]
Killing captured POWs after the battle is over is actually better from a moral perspective than collateral damage during a modern war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/20#20]
If you remove the fact they were Jews and Muslim, the slaughter would be morally acceptable.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/111#111]
Old Testament presents slaughters as "right and just".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968/239#239]

== All Three Tribes ==

The justifications offered for the expulsion (and followed up alter with slaughter and further expulsion from the Hijaz region) are similar, and often identical and interchangeable with the justification offered for the genocide of the Banu Qurayza. It is presented separately so as not to confuse the historical facts.

=== Blame the Jews ===

The Jews were to blame for every instance of a breakdown in relations between Jews and Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]

=== Treason ===

All three tribes committed either acts of war or treason.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]

=== Jews Planned Genocide ===

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1490870704 Jews conspiring genocide of Muslims]

All three tribes planned genocide.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
When Muhammad expelled the second tribe, this amounted to Muslims "fighting a war for their very existence, which they just barely survived after the battle of the trench". The truth is that the battle of the trench happened after the expulsion, and again not a single Muslim was killed. Muhammad expelled the second tribe after a series of revenge killings resulting from a Jew allegedly disrobing a Muslim woman.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
Muslims cannot "afford to have a tribe living amongst you who is plotting to kill you."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]

=== Jews Declared War ===

It was not punishment and does not matter whether the Jews were to blame, because the incident was a declaration of war by the Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/137#137]
Muhammad was forced to attack Jews for strategic/defensive reasons, despite his sincere intention to coexist peacefully. ''In truth, Muhammad began threatening the Jews with violence for not converting as soon as he was in a position to do so.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
The three tribes were in "rebellion".
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63]
"The evidence shows that he only expelled those who broke the covenant." ''The truth is that Muhammad used expulsion and slaughter as collective punishment. Furthermore, the covenant would not have demanded that no crimes are committed, and that such drastic action would result if they were, but rather that they be resolved fairly and without violence.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/8#8]

=== Broad Jewish Conspiracy ===

"The three jewish tribes in question were clearly conspiring with Muhammad's enemies."
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
The absence of evidence against a broad Jewish conspiracy spanning multiple large tribes to eradicate the Muslims is evidence of that conspiracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
The entire tribe was in on the conspiracy to assassinate Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]

=== Collective Punishment ===

Only those who actually committed various crimes were punished.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/48#48]
Expelling the tribe over the disrobing incident would be collective punishment, but expelling them for the series of revenge killings that resulted was not.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]

=== Ethnic Clansing ===

There was no ethnic cleansing in Arabia.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/61#61]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/65#65]
Muhammad's expressed intention to ethnically cleanse the Arabian peninsula was not a 'command' and it was not achieved during his lifetime. "If the prophet did resolve to remove all non-muslims from the Hijaz, its only because his hand was forced. Non-muslims were certainly given every opportunity to live in peace with the muslims." ''There was nothing forcing Muhammad to conduct ethnic cleansing or express an intention to do so, other than resistance to his already established program of ethnic cleansing. Muhammad slaughtered both Jews and Pagans for both religious and political/strategic reasons.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad's expressed intention to ethnically cleanse the Arabian peninsula was merely a 'prophecy'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/12#12]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/89#89]
Muhammad did not plan ethnic cleansing of the Arabian Peninsula, despite stating his intention to do so.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/83#83]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/8#8]

=== Religious Motivation ===

Muhammad publicly threatening Jews with violence if they do not convert to islam is actually "appealing to the common ground between what he preaches and judaism" and is the opposite of anti-semitism.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/59#59]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/62#62]
It is not "anti-Jewish" propaganda. The threats of violence directed at Jews for not converting to Islam are no different to old testament criticisms of Jews for not sticking to their religion. The Quran is not "anti-semitic" because the Jews are Muslims, they just don't realise it yet. This does actually reflect Muhammad's own view - that he was the religious leader of the Jews and Christians. Muhammad seems to have been genuinely bewildered and taken by surprise when the Jews took offence to his proclamations.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/148#148]
There was no religious motivation or anti-semitism.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/55#55]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/76#76]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/84#84]
The truth: Islams two most canonical Hadith collections, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, both show Muhammad saying: '''"You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him." Also, from the Quran (5.82) "Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly."'''
The Jews of Medina were "not bona fide hebrew Jews" and thus Muhammad's hostility towards them cannot be itnerpretted as anti-semitism.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/74#74]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/82#82]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/76#76]
Nothing to do with Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]

=== Power Politics ===

Muhammad's slaughter and expulsion of the Jews was a "mundane political feud" and "power-politics" rather than anti-semitism.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/74#74]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/82#82]
Muhammad's treatment of the three tribes was a matter of power-politics, not religious persecution.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
Seven other Jewish tribes were not kicked out of Medina by Muhammad. ''This is technically true. The smaller tribes who did not get in the way of Muhammad's quest for power were allowed to remain. However, they were kicked out shortly after Muhammad's death, under instructions left by Muhammad.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
Coexistence between Muslims and Jews was simply impossible after Muslims killed a Jew who was accused of disrobing a Muslim woman. The same Muslim argues that the whole point of Muhammad being invited to Medina was to resolve such conflicts without escalation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]

== The Caliphate ==

Jews and Christians "enjoyed full religious liberty in the Islamic empires". The truth is that Shariah law imposes second class status on them, including an infinite variety of restrictions on religious freedom. For example, converting from Islam to Judaism or Christianity is punishable by death. The testimony of non-Muslims in court is considered inferior to that of Muslims, effectively institutionalising injustice, and there were many restrictions on building and repairing churches and synagogs. It even went as far as Christians and Jews not being allowed to ride horses.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/61#61]
Muslims and non-Muslims pay equal tax. ''In truth, Muhammad once taxed 100% of a community's land and 50% of the produce from it. North African Berbers once revolted over the high taxes imposed by Muslims. Muslims impose entirely different tax systems on non-Muslims. The same Muslim argued that the higher taxes on non-Muslims provided an economic incentive not to kill them.''
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/73#73]

=== Forced Conversion ===

Islam spread so quickly because of mass conversion. ''The truth is that it was literally spread by the sword on the back of Muhammad's Islamic state. Muhammad and the 'rightly guided' Caliphs had explicit policies of forced conversion.''
[Political_History_of_Islam#Forced_Conversions]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/12#12]

== Relevence to modern Israel ==

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1490870704/2#2 Jews conspiring genocide of Muslims]

Modern Israel has the same genocidal agenda against Muslims as the tribe slaughtered by Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/3#3]

However, when Arabs invaded Israel, they were not motivated by Muhammad's example.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
The absence of evidence for Muslims being motivated by Islam and Muhammad's example is evidence of this.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
It is reasonable for Muslims to attack Jews if they are "feeling threatened by the presense of a new and hostile imperial power," but when Jews were put in the same position by Muhammad, itwas is a moral Justification to slaughter them en masse.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]
Muslims can tell that a person is not "normal or natural" and that they support attrocities based on things they do not say.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/51#51]

== Pagans ==

The Quraysh broke their treaty with Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438758959/58#58]
''The truth is that Muhammad actually negotiated with them to rescind the treaty. They regretted this pretty much immediately, when they realised Muhammad's intentions, and tried to renegotiate a treaty, but by this stage Muhammad was prepared to attack Mecca directly.''

Political History of Islam

2018-12-15T04:57:41Z

Freediver: /* Hostility towards Jews */

[[Islam]]

This article outlines the history of the politically significant interactions between Islam and the rest of the world, particularly what is now considered "the west".

Unless otherwise indicated, the historical accounts presented here are from wikipedia. Some accounts of the opinions of modern Muslims will be reference to the OzPolitic forum.

= Timeline =

* 69 BC to AD 629: Roman-Persian Wars and the Byzantine–Sasanian wars occurr every few years in the middle east. Proxy wars often fought in the Arabian peninsula by hired mercenaries.

* AD 117: Roman Empire at its peak extends into Arabian Peninsula.

* AD 570: Muhammad born.

* 607: Muhammad's first revelation.

* 610: Muhammad begins preaching publicly.

* 622: Muhammad flees Mecca, invited to Medina by pagans who share his animosity towards Meccans. Muhammad begins robbing Meccan caravans, killing and ransoming prisoners

* March 624: Muhammad's first significant military victory against Meccan traders. Strengthened by this victory, Muhammad begins threatening Jews with violence if they do not convert to Islam.

* 624: Muhammad orders the execution of a female poet, Asma bint Marwan, who mocked him. Some modern Muslims falsely claim she is Jewish in order to justfy the murder. In the same year, Muhammad orders the death of another poet and four other individuals. By 628, the list includes 43 people.

* 624: Muhammad expels the Banu Qaynuqa from Medina - the large Jewish tribe who he had threatened with violence if they do not convert.

* 625: Muhammad expels a second large Jewish tribe, the Banu Nadir.

* 627: Muhammad wipes out a third (and final) large tribe of Medina Jews, killing all the men and taking the women and children as slaves.

* 628: Muhammad attacks Kaybar because it is giving refuge to the Banu Nadir. Muhammad orders the torture of their treasurer, Kenana ibn al-Rabi to get him to reveal the location of the Jew gold he had hidden. He is then decapitated. Muhammad has the dead man's wife "beautified and combed" before consumating his "marriage" to her.

* 630: Muhammad marches on Mecca with 10 000 men, capturing it with little resistance. He takes the Kaaba for Islam and destroys all pagan monuments in Mecca. Muhammad begins directing large scale violence at pagans across the Arabian peninsula, slughtering them and destroying any religious monuments that might compete with the Kaaba. Muhammad gives some enemies an explicit choice of convert or die, but for the most part the threat is implicit.

* 632: Muhammad dies, having captured the Arabian peninsula for his Islamic state.

* 632-633: Abu Bakr (1st 'rightly guided' Caliph) dispatches armies with general commands to slaughter any groups who are not Muslim, or refuse to pay religious tax to the Islamic state, or who do not fully submit to the state as well as the religion.

* 634-644: Umar ibn Al-Khattāb (2nd 'rightly guided' Caliph) ethnically cleanses Hijaz region (western coast of Arabian peninsula) of all non-Muslims, fulfilling an instruction left by Muhammad in the Quran. He also expands the Caliphate.

* 661: Caliphate reaches halfway across the coast of North Africa and east to the modern border of Pakistan.

* 750 Caliphate covers entire north African coast, Spain (Iberian Peninsula), parts of modern France and extends east to the modern border with India. The slave trade grows under Islam in Spain, despite a general decline in most of Europe.

* 759: Muslim forces driven out of France.

* 1009-1013: Cordoba Caliphate collapses due to civil war. It had previously occupied most of Spain, except for the North.

* 1086: Moroccan ruler invades and retakes southern and eastern Spain.

* 1249: Emirate of Granada is the only remaining Muslim state in Spain.

* 1492: Fall of Granada.

* 1450-1700: 2.5 million slaves imported into Istanbul from the black sea.

* 1500-1750: 1.5 millions slaves captured in Europe by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli. Many more captured by Morocco and other raiders. Estimates for the total historical Islamic slave trade are of the order of 11.5 to 14 million people. These were mostly women used as sex slaves, and most were captured abroad in Africa and Europe, as male slaves were often castrated and the offspring of sex slaves were pressured to convert to Islam to escape slavery.

* 1785-1815: 700 Americans held as slaves in North Africa

* 1801-1815: First Barbary war. Thomas Jeffersen refuses to pay tribute to North African slave traders. American and European forces attack Tripoli and Algiers. The Philadelphia is captured and the crew enslaved.

* 1815-1816: Second Barbary war. US ceases paying tribute to Muslim north african states. Beginning of the delcine of the north african slave trade.

* 1861-1865: American civil war.

* 1920-1981: Britain, France and other western powers pressure Muslim nations to ban slavery.

* 1981: Mauritania becomes the last Muslim nation to officially ban slavery. They do this again in 2007.

* 2001: September 11 terrorist attacks

* 2014: ISIS takes parts of Iraq, significantly ramping up its trade in female sex slaves. Slavery claiming sanction under Islam continues in Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.

= Church and State =

Islam is perhaps the greatest lesson in the importance of the separation of church and state, or more broadly, religion and government. Muhammad and the Caliphate (Islamic state) that he helped to create demonstrate, on a grand scale, everything that can go wrong when religion comes under the control of government, or vice versa. In Muhammad's case, they both came under the control of one man, with nothing to balance his power. To further his quest for power, Muhammad practiced genocide, forced conversion, collective punishment, forced mass migration and established a society that used every method of coercion to cement Islam as both the apparatus of state and the only tolerable religion. He institutionalised slavery, in particular sex slavery, under a set of policies that, when the Caliphate ceased expanding, created a massive and continual demand for slaves on the international market.

= Western Civilisation before Islam =

Muhammad was born into a power vacuum. The gradual collapse and disintegration of the Roman Empire over the previous few centuries had created the closest thing in history to a Mad Max style post apocalyptic nightmare. Living standards dropped drastically. Smaller and smaller empires fought each other for the remnants of Roman glory. When the Song dynasty in China reached similar living standards to those at the peak of the Roman empire, about 1000 years ago, western civilisation was still stuck in the post apocalyptic nightmare. The difference now was that the west was once again united under an enourmous empire - the biggest the world had ever seen. Far from a resurgence in living standards, the west experienced continued stagnation under the yoke of Islam (despite the preference among Muslims to refer to this time as the Islamic golden age). Living standards in the west did not reach, or even come close to those under the Roman Republic and Empire until well into the industrial revolution. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/heavy-legacies-our-past.html#rome]

Before Islam, the Roman-Persian Wars and the Byzantine–Sasanian wars had occurred every few years for hundreds of years between 69 BC and 629 AD. High taxes were imposed on the populations in both the Byzantine Roman and Sassanid Persian empires to finance these wars. There was also continuous bloodshed of the people during these wars. The Arab tribes in Iraq were paid by the Persian Sassanids to act as mercenaries, while the Arab tribes in Syria were paid by the Byzantines to act as their mercenaries. The Persians maintained an Arab satellite state of Lakhm and the Byzantine Empire maintained the Arab satellite state of Ghassan, which they used to fight each other. These wars made outside influence unpopular within the Arabian peninsula. This, combined with Muhammad's unpopularity among Jews, led Muhammad to later change the spiritual focal point of his religion from Jerusalem to the pagan Kaaba in Mecca.

Closer to home, the power vacuum was even more pronounced. Despite lying just to the south of the birthplace of western civilisation, the Arabian peninsula was still torn between efforts at settled communal living and wandering tribes. There was no central government. Jews, Christians and various non-Abrahamic religious groups and tribes existed side by side, if not always peacefully. Even large cities existed without centralised control, governed by Arabic customary law between competing tribes. The need for a central authority was acknowledged, and it was one of those cities that Muhammad used to launch his empire. In a very short period Muhammad swept all of this aside. The region around Mecca and Medina was ethnically cleansed of all non-Muslims shortly after his death. It was one of the most rapid and drastic social transformations ever achieved, and it was imposed from above by ruthlessly slaughtering anyone who stood in the way (although Muslims like to insist it was achieved by mass voluntary conversion). It took another thousand years to subdue this empire.

Immediately after Muhammad's death, his empire continued to spread at the same breakneck speed it had towards the end of his career. It spread west along the coast of North Africa until it hit the Atlantic, the North into the Iberian peninsula. It spread east to the modern boundary between Pakistan in India. With the exception of the Iberian peninsula, the Islamic state swept aside diverse communities of Jews, Christians and all sorts of pagans. For the most part they ceased to exist. Those that remained have faced 1400 years of oppression and constant harassment, and to this day face the threat of a lynch mob if they speak out against Islam.

The Islamic state grew to a grand scale in a mere 120 years. It conquered what at the time was almost the entirety of western civilisation. Much of the rest was depopulated by constant slave raids. The Mediterranean coastline had, by it's nature, allowed relatively unrestricted trade along it's entire coastline. When the Roman Empire took control over the region and reigned in piracy, trade flourished. When the Caliphate took control, people fled the coastline of southern Europe, or were transported en masse into the Islamic state as slaves. The rest of Europe had only recently been introduced by the Romans to settled civilisation (France and Britain) or was never subdued (Germany and lands to the east), remaining under the control of wandering and destructive tribes. The world that we know it today was shaped by the people on the fringe of western civilisation. The reshaping of the world was so dramatic that Muslims can, without any sense of irony, complain about "the west" interfering in middle eastern geopolitics. The west today is synonymous with Europe, America and the various colonies they established, but for the first 11000 years of western civilisation America was unknown and Europe was a tribal backwater.

== Western Civilisation Leaves Islam Behind ==

The rise of modern civilisation required two major threats to be subdued. The first were the large tribes of the central asian steppes (in Roman times this threat extended west to Germany and France). The second was the Islamic state, which for a millennia had all but destroyed western civilisation. Instead of devoting its enormous resources to bettering the human condition (or allowing citizens to do this for themselves), it devoted its resources to wiping out the diversity and freedom that were the engines of growth. The European fringe of western civilisation managed to fight back the Islamic state, pushing it out of Spain. Eventually, it managed to reign in the rampant slave trade, allowing people to return to the coast of southern Europe. It took one look at the mess that Islam had created in north Africa and the middle east and decided to sail around Africa and do business with eastern civilisations. The rest, as they say, is history. In particular, it is the history we are familiar with. The overcoming of the central asian tribes (eg the Mongols who destroyed both the song dynasty in China and much of the Caliphate, as well as the more western tribes that destroyed Rome) is largely forgotten, including by the descendants of the people who brought civilisation to its knees over and over again. The remnants of the Caliphate - modern Muslims in the middle east and North Africa - have not forgotten their past glory and many long to recreate it. Until September 11, everyone else had forgotten about them. The stifling, but powerful and unyielding social forces that held the Caliphate together and made it such a huge success from a military perspective, also locked the region into a barbaric way of thinking that has held back its development ever since. For Muslims, the apocalypse never ended. Like a script for a Monty Python movie, these people long to relive their past success and glory by returning western civilisation to the lowest living standard it has seen in the last two and half millennia. Many think that their success is inevitable and all they need to do is start the fight, despite their inability to follow through.

Today, the success of the west, and now the east and many new centres of civilisation, has shrunk the world. Where we could previously decide to simply go around the Muslim world and leave it to its own devices, it is now in our back yard, and like the worst kind of jealous neighbour it prays for our demise. Our success came after the subduing of the Islamic state, and our collective identity was forged largely in ignorance of it's existence, when distance and backwardness (and a few campaigns to destroy slave trading ports) were more than sufficient to keep it contained. This is no longer the case, and the west is now struggling to understand what is going on without an awareness of its own history. Our ability to exclude the Muslim world when identifying western civilisation reveals how easily we forget that Islam once destroyed the west almost completely. The world is still a scary place, if you are prepared to turn over some rocks and see what is there.

= Muhammad =

Muhammad was born around 570 AD in Mecca, which at the time was a key site for an annual pagan pilgrimage, during which warring tribes declared a truce. The pagan Kaaba shrine held 360 idols f tribal pagan deities. There were also significant numbers of Jews and Christians in the area. Although a relatively barren area, it lies about 1000km south of the birthplace of western farming civilisation in modern day Iraq, which occurred about 10000 years earlier. Muhammad was orphaned at an early age, raised by his tribe, and became a relatively successful trader.

Muhammad received his first revelation in 607 and began preaching publicly in 610. His early teachings were more peaceful and tolerant than his later teachings, reflecting his weak position in Mecca. He and a small band of followers migrated to Medina in 622 after facing persecution in Mecca. This persecution resulted from Muhammad revealing verses that condemn polytheism and idol worship, as well as love of wealth (a significant declaration in a city built on trade). Muhammad's own tribe were the guardians of the pagan Kaaba, so his denunciation of their religion would have been particularly insulting to them, as well as being a risk to their income. An additional story relates that Muhammad received verses acknowledging three pagan Goddesses, and that this helped to reconcile him with the Meccans. However, he later recanted them as "satanic" verses. Most orthodox Islamic interpretations reject this authenticity of this particular story. In 619, leadership of Muhammad's own tribe was inherited by a tenacious enemy of Muhammad, and his tribe removed its protection of Muhammad (which took the form of the promise of blood vengeance for tribal members). Muhammad initially tried to gain protection in Taif, another prominent city.

Muhammad negotiated his way into a position of authority in Medina, which until then had no centralised political authority and was deeply divided. This was based on Muhammad's status as a neutral outsider. They were also jealous of Mecca's religious importance and hoped to gain power over the city with Muhammad's help. Muhammad created a constitution of sorts between 8 Medina clans and the new Muslim arrivals. There is no evidence of the other parties actually agreeing to the constitution, and the text implies acceptance of Muhammad as God's messenger. The constitution does not mention the three large Jewish tribes of Medina (Watt - Islam and the integration of society, p20), leading some scholars to believe that it dates from after Muhammad expelled them. The constitution specifically emphasised blood money and ransom payments, enshrined freedom of religious beliefs, and established women as second class citizens who were entirely at the mercy of the tribal group they belonged to. It declared Medina as a sacred place where the blood of people who were party to the treaty may not be spilled. The constitution also compels non-Muslims to participate in Islamic religious wars. In 624, Muhammad proclaimed that Muslims should face Mecca rather than Medina while praying.

Medina was an agricultural oasis. Although Mecca was barren, it had grown into the wealthiest town in the region through trade. In Medina, Muhammad revealed Quranic verses permitting his followers to rob Meccan caravans. They became very successful at this. They also ransomed prisoners captured in ensuing battles with forces sent by Mecca to protect the caravans. Muhammad also killed many prisoners, but generally released the poor ones for no charge. Quranic verses from this period focus on political issues, such as how to divide spoils of war.

Muhammad's success lead to rapid conversions by pagans. Embittered by this, two pagans composed poetry that mocked Muhammad. They were killed by Muslims, with Muhammad's blessing.

== Hostility towards Jews ==

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

In Mecca, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews was initially very positive, but their unwillingness to convert to Islam soured the relationship. It went rapidly downhill in Medina. Muhammad initially proclaimed several ordinances to win over the numerous and wealthy Jewish population. These were soon rescinded as the Jews insisted on preserving the entire Mosaic law, and did not recognize him as a prophet because he was not of the race of David. There were three large Jewish tribes in Medina when Muhammad arrived. The first to fall victim to Muhammad were the Banu Qaynuqa, who were wealthy artisans and traders. In addition to being Jewish and rejecting Muhammad's prophethood, they close links to Mecca and were the least likely to support his agenda of revenge against Mecca, posing a political threat to Muhammad's quest for power. Anecdotally, a Banu Qaynuqa goldsmith assaulted a Muslim woman, causing her to be stripped naked. He was killed by a Muslim, which sparked a series of revenge killings. Under the constitution, Muhammad's role was supposedly to resolve this conflict using the tradition of blood money and to protect religious freedom. However, having been strengthened by a recent military victory over Meccan traders, Muhammad sought to consolidate his power. Muhammad gathered the tribe in the market and addressed them as follows:

"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."

Muslims will try to whitewash this incident by 'interpreting' it as not being a threat. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626/397#397]

The Quraysh were Muhammad's tribe from Mecca, and the retribution is a reference to his recent military victory over them. Here, Muhammad clearly abandons his promises under the constitution of Medina, which was the initial basis of his authority. Muhammad besieged them until they surrendered, then expelled them from Medina. A Muslim who convinced Muhammad not to slaughter them, and then argued that they ought be allowed to stay in anticipation of an attack from Mecca has forever been dubbed the leader of the hypocrites. This was also the first time that Muhammad's Islamic state took 20% of the spoils of war. Following this was a second major battle with the Meccans, which the Muslims lost.

There were now two large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad assassinated the chief of one of them (the Banu-Nadir), who had written erotic poetry about Muslim women, then expelled them about a year later. As the Muslims did not defeat the Banu-Nadir militarily (they were even allowed to take some possessions) Muhammad claimed 100% of their remaining possessions on behalf of God. Following this, Muhammad attempted to prevent his enemies from uniting against him, by attacking smaller Arab groups one at a time with overwhelming force.

The next time the Meccans attacked, Muhammad built a trench around parts of Medina open to cavalry attack. The Meccan siege was a failure and the Meccans returned home. During the siege, the Meccas attempted, but failed, to negotiate an alliance with the last of the three large Jewish tribes in Medina - the Banu Qurayza. After the battle, Muhammad laid siege to the Banu Qurayza, who surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad slaughtered every male in the tribe who had reached puberty, with the exception of a small few who converted to Islam. Between 600 and 1000 men were executed in a single day. The women and children were enslaved. Today, Muslims cite the failed negotiations with the Meccans, or alleged attacks by the Banu Qurayza, or claims that the Banu Qurayza violated the constitution of Medina (despite it not even mentioning them) as justification for the genocide. Instead of acknowledging the "convert or die" choice given to the Jews, modern Muslims spin this incident as Muhammad showing mercy to any Jews who agreed to cease hostilities towards Muslims and re-enter the constitution of Medina.

In 628 Muhammad went on to attack and defeat the Jewish community of Kaybar, where many of the Banu Nadir had sought refuge. Muhammad ordered the torture of their treasurer, Kenana ibn al-Rabi to get him to reveal the location of the Jew gold he had hidden. He was then decapitated. Muhammad had the dead man's wife "beautified and combed" before consumating his "marriage" to her. Under the terms of their surrender, Muhammad took possession of all of their lands as a collective possession of his Islamic state, and required them to provide 50% of their annual produce as a tax. They were later expelled by Caliph Umar as part f his progrom to ethnically cleanse the Hijaz region.

=== Quran and Hadith ===

Islams two most canonical Hadith collections, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, both show Muhammad saying: "You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him."

From the Quran (5.82) "Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly."

Sahih Bukhari (53:392) - "While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

== Hostility Towards Pagans ==

Muhammad's hostility towards Jews was largely born of their reluctance to accept him as both a political and religious leader. Pagans tended to convert to Islam the most readily and Muhammad was initially tolerant of them in order to facilitate this. As his power grew, Muhammad became increasingly aggressive towards pagans also.

In AD 628, Muhammad and 1400 Muslims traveled to Mecca with sacrificial animals in order to demonstrate to them that Islam is an Arabic religion. He negotiated the right of Medinese Muslims to travel to Mecca for pilgrimage to the pagan shrine of the Kaaba. The peace treaty involved a cessation of hostilities and an agreement by Muhammad to return any Meccans who converted to Islam without permission. It was during this truce that Muhammad attacked the Jewish community of Kaybar and sent letters to many foreign rulers asking them to convert. Two years later, in AD 630, he marched on Mecca with 10 000 men and captured it with minimal casualties. He destroyed all the pagan statues and paintings in and around the Kaaba.

That same year, Muhammad had a military victory against the Hawazin. He then marched north with thirty thousand men, half of whom returned home on the second day. It was at this time that Muhammad received many verses damning Muslims who were reluctant to engage in warfare on behalf of the Islamic state.

Muhammad then ordered the destruction of all pagan idols in eastern Arabia. Muhammad ordered several wars with the specific purpose of killing pagans and destroying their religious monuments.

The last city in western Arabia to fall to Muhammad was Taif. Here again Muhammad decided to give them the stark choice of convert to Islam or die. He also ordered the men to destroy their statues of the goddess Allat.

Many Bedouins, as well as the Banu Thaqif, submitted to Muhammad to avoid being attacked, and also to share in the spoils of war.

In 632, Muhammad delivered a speech commanding Muslims to abandon many old traditions and pledges in acknowledgement of the new Muslim community.

=== Destruction of Monuments ===

== Women's rights ==

Muhammad never tried to abolish slavery. He bought, sold and owned his own slaves. Women made up the bulk of Islam's slaves, and the owners were permitted to have sex with them. Modern Muslims often make a distinction between sex slaves and "slaves that you can have sex with", in order to differentiate Muhammad's practice from modern sex trafficking for the purpose of prostitution.

The capture of land, spoils of war and women in combat was a key nation building strategy for Muhammad. Polygamy and sex slavery created a shortage of women. The purchase of female captives helped to fund war, while the prospect of being rewarded with a wife or a sex slave became a strong motivator for young men to participate in war. During one battle in which a village was being slaughtered, a Muslim archer prevented the escape of the women by firing an arrow over them so it landed in front of them, causing them to stop in fear of their lives. he was congratulated by Muhammad.

In the 632 speech, Muhammad cemented the inferior status of women in Islam. Muhammad asked his male followers to "be good to women, for they are powerless captives (awan) in your households. You took them in God's trust, and legitimated your sexual relations with the Word of God, so come to your senses people, and hear my words ..." He told them that they were entitled to discipline their wives but should do so with kindness.

Muhammad's favourite wife, the child bride Aisha, was accused of adultery for which Muhammad imposed the death penalty. Muhammad received a revelation that she was innocent of the charge, and thereafter insisted on four eye-witnesses (or a confession) to adultery charges. Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old, and she is regarded as the "mother if Islam" because of her status as Muhammad only virgin bride. According to Aisha, Muhammad first has sex with her when she was 9 years old. It is unlikely that Aisha had even reached puberty at this stage. Contrary to frequent claims by Muslims who wish to introduce an older age of consent under Islamic law, puberty is actually delayed in the harsh conditions experienced at the time, and there is not a single statement in Islamic literature stating that she had reached puberty.

Muhammad had 13 wives in total, 11 of them from after the migration to Medina. There is however some ambiguity as to whether two of them were wives or concubines. Muhammad's first marriage was to an older, wealthy widow whom he married prior to his career as a religious leader. This was a monogamous marriage until her death. Muhammad's other wives were the widows of men Muhammad and his Muslims had killed, the widows of slain Muslims, or were married for political reasons.

Muhammad died in 632, having brought the entire Arabian peninsula into his Islamic state. On his death, Aisha's father Abu Bakr became leader after being chosen by a small group called the Ansar. Many Muslims thought the role should have gone to a relative of Muhammad. Abu Bakr had to put down several rebellions from groups who had joined the Islamic state claiming only allegiance to Muhammad, as well as from other leaders claiming to be prophets. Abu Bakr was successful in forcing them to resubmit to Islam.

Curiously, Muhammad had few descendants. His first wife produced four daughters and two sons, who died in childbirth. Three of the daughters died before Muhammad. The other, Fatimah, is considered by some to be Muhammad's only daughter. A son to another wife died at the age of two. Fatimah's descendants are respected by Muslims, especially the Shiah. his favourite wife, Aisha, worked to cement his legacy through the Quran.

=== Relevant Verses ===

Quran (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." Contemporary translations sometimes water down the word 'beat', but it is the same one used in verse 8:12 and clearly means 'to strike'.

Quran (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..." Allah telling Job to beat his wife (Tafsir).

Sahih Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.

Sahih Bukhari (72:715) - "Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women'" Muhammad's own wife complained of the abuse that the women of her religion suffered relative to other women.

Sahih Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."

Sahih Muslim (9:3506) - Muhammad's fathers-in-law (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.

Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them." At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. Beatings in a Muslim marriage are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.

Abu Dawud (2142) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife." The authenticity of this verse is characterized as daif (weak), however, a similar verse from Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:1986 is said to be hasan (sufficient).

Abu Dawud (2126) - "A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: 'I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).' The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'" A Muslim thinks he is getting a virgin, then finds out that she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she delivers the child.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 969 - Requires that a married woman be "put in a separate room and beaten lightly" if she "act in a sexual manner toward others." According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related.

Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525) - [Muhammad said] "Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it"

== Religious apartheid and ethnic cleansing ==

Muhammad gained control of Medina by ethnically cleansing it of the three powerful Jewish tribes. The first two were evicted and then attacked wherever they sought refuge. The third was slaughtered, with the women and children being enslaved.

Shortly before his death, Muhammad achieved his lifelong dream of seizing control of Mecca. He kept the pagan Kaaba as Islam's holiest site, and made the pagan pilgrimage to the Kaaba one of the five central pillars of Islam. However, he destroyed all pagan artifacts and to rub salt into the wound, banned pagans from the Kaaba:

Quran 9:28 O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

Al-Masjid al-Haram Great Mosque of Mecca, which surrounds the Kaaba, the pre-Islamic centerpiece of pagan worship in Arabia.

Muhammad was still not satisfied:

Sahih Muslim, 21: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Muwatta Malik: Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula."
Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar."
Malik said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab expelled the jews from Najran (a jewish settlement in the Yemen) and Fadak (a Jewish settlement thirty miles from Medina). When the Jews of Khaybar left, they did not take any fruit or land. The Jews of Fadak took half the fruit and half the land, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had made a settlement with them for that. So Umar entrusted to them the value in gold, silver, camels, ropes and saddle bags of half the fruit and half the land, and handed the value over to them and expelled them."

The 'deens' referred to by Muhammad (two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula) are religions, or creeds.

Umar was successful in ethnically cleansing all non-Muslims from the Hijaz region, which includes Mecca, Medina and Kaybar - where under the terms of a surrender agreement to Muhammad the Jews were permitted to stay, albeit with an absurdly onerous taxation arrangement.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/images/hejaz-hijaz.jpg

This was achieved through forced conversions, slaughter, and forced mass migration.

Although Muhammad was successful in taking Mecca and banning pagans, his did not personally achieve his broader agenda of ethnically cleansing the entire Arabian peninsula. This was partly achieved his immediate successors, such as Umar. When the current nation of Israel was created, there were very few Jews remaining on the Arabian peninsula. A small population remained in Yemen. They were expelled, and many ended up in Israel. After WWII, there were in fact more Jewish immigrants to Israel from nearby Arab Muslim nations than from Europe.

=== Forced Conversions ===

Muhammad began spreading Islam by the sword as soon as he was in a position to do so. He focused his efforts at conversion on those most receptive to his message. For the rest, his strategy focused on slaughtering people in large numbers and letting them figure out for themselves what to do. His political strategy was tolerant of 'insincere' conversions because it combined politics and religion. Converting to Islam meant joining his Islamic state as well as his religion. The state then imposed the death penalty on anyone who changed their mind, and brought the full force of the state to bear on coercing people to comply with the functionary aspects of the religion. Muhammad's strategy was not all stick - he also offered the significant carrot of a share in the spoils of his successful military campaigns, which included land and crops, livestock such as goats, women and children.

Pagans were far more willing than Jews to convert to Islam, so it is no surprise that Jews were Muhammad's first targets. When Muhammad negotiated himself into a position of power in Medina, he established a constitution that protected freedom of religion, binding his small group of Muslim immigrants and eight other tribes. Medina's three large Jewish tribes were not included in this treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/150#164] The constitution compelled the pagans to assist Muhammad in his religious war, which they were apparently willing to do because they were jealous of the position of Mecca as the centre of Arabian paganism. Soon after, Muhammad had a significant military victory against his own tribe from Mecca, the Quraysh. He had been robbing their caravans, with the assistence of his new Medinese friends, for years. Following this, Muhammad assembled one of the Jewish tribes in the marketplace and addressed them as follows:

"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."

Even though Muhammad still did not have complete control over Medina, he was already emboldened enough to confront a large tribe of already-hostile Jews, threaten them and demand they convert to Islam. Shortly after, he expelled the tribe from Medina. A second tribe soon followed, leaving only one of the original three large Jewish tribes. Muhammad wiped this tribe out, killing all the adult (post pubescent) men and taking the women and children as slaves. Muslims have gone to significant effort to rewrite history on this incident, claiming for example that the tribe was party to the treaty of Medina [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/150#164] and thus deserved to die for treacherously violating it, that they were judged according to Talmudic law so it was fair to wipe out the entire tribe, that only warriors were executed (all men were killed, including old men and young boys), that they had all taken up arms against Muslims (they had surrendered unconditionally to Muhammad after he laid siege to their fortress), that they were not even bona fide Jews (not what the point of this one is, perhaps it is a reference to Islam's supposed 'protection' of Jews), that they were literally a mindless collective, that they planned genocide of Muslims (no evidence for this, and other battles against Muslims actually withdrew once they heard Muhammad had died), that they posed a threat to Muhammad's nascent Islamic state (which they did in a way, by not converting to the state religion), and that Muhammad generously offered to let them live if they 'disowned their treachery' (a very small number who converted to Islam were spared). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/145#145]

Having become a dictator in Medina, he turned his sights to subduing Mecca. As soon as Muhammad conquered Mecca, things changed for the pagans also. His first act was to destroy all symbols of paganism in and around the Kaaba, which at the time was the centrepiece of Arabian paganism. The Kaaba itself was spared as Muhammad declared it a Muslim artifact. Muhammad sent out missions to slaughter pagans and destroy pagan shrines and artifacts. He ordered destruction of any remaining pagan idols in Eastern Arabia. Many Arabic Bedouin converted when faced with the choice of being slaughtered or participating in the slaughter. Here, Muhammad capitalised on the fear generated by his genocide of a Jewish tribe in Medina and the unpredictable nature of the campaigns to attack pagans. His forces rarely confronted people and gave them a choice of converting. Muslims attempt to spin the outcome of this campaign as the whole Arabian peninsula suddenly converting voluntarily to Islam. Larger groups who could not be eradicated (eg the Jewish community in Kaybar, where many Medina Jews had fled) were subjected to forced mass migrations (or conversion). Any non-Muslim communities and individuals who found themselves subject to the Islamic state but still did not convert were faced with a range of punitive measures, including the Jizya tax and highly discriminatory laws that restricted their religious activities and denied them justice when wronged by Muslims. Muhammad also on occasion resorted to direct and explicit conversion by the sword. The last city to hold out against the Muslims in Western Arabia was Taif. Muhammad refused to accept the city's surrender until they agreed to convert to Islam and allowed men to destroy the statue of their goddess Allat.

Muhammad gave this general instruction to his military leaders:

''Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of the Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers).''

Thus, the Arabian peninsula, which until Muhammad's time had housed Pagans, Jews and Christians without the need for a central governing authority to manage their affairs, was ethnically cleansed into a homogenous and oppressive society. Thus Saudi Arabia today is not an aberration, but the inevitable fulfilment of Islam.

After Muhammad's death the military conquest continued. Muhammad's approach to spreading Islam by the sword was codified into a general instruction to all military leaders:

1) Call the Azaan (Islamic call to prayer).

2) If the tribe answers with the Azaan, do not attack. After the Azaan, ask the tribe to confirm its submission, including the payment of zakat. If confirmed, do not attack.

3) Those who submit will not be attacked.

4) Those who do not answer with the Azaan, or after the Azaan do not confirm full submission, will be dealt with by the sword.

5) All apostates who have killed Muslims will be killed.

6) With these instructions Abu Bakr launched the forces of his Caliphate against the apostates.

The strategy was successful. The Hijaz was soon ethnically cleansed of all non-Muslims. Within 120 years, the first Islamic state had spread west across North Africa and Spain, only stopping when it hit the Atlantic. In the same time it spread east to the modern border between Pakistan and India, where it was stopped by more effective local resistance. With the exception of Spain, where the Muslims were gradually pushed back by an entirely disorganised resistance, the territories it captured are the oppressive Islamic regimes we see today. Islam spread east-west rather than north-south because at the time that is where the vast wealth of civilisation lay. Islam followed that wealth. Today the countries within the Caliphate are some of the poorest, most oppressive and most violent places on earth, where slavery still has not been eradicated (and not just thanks to the modern Islamic state). Prior to Islam, these places housed a diverse range of Jews, Christians and various non-Abrahamic religions. Very few survived in North Africa and the Middle East. The process of military conquest and forced conversion had to be followed up with a prolonged effort to make the conversion real. Where Islam has dominated for the longest in a political and military sense, that is exactly what happened.

Slavery also played in to the strategy of forced conversion. Most directly, it was a threat to all who might collectively resist the advancing Islamic state, as well as a threat to any non-Muslims from within the Islamic state who might be tempted to break the myriad laws intended to restrict their freedom of religion. Women made up the majority of slaves, and although it is technically against Islam, the men were often castrated. Thus most children of slaves had a Muslim father and a non-Muslim mother, with the father having control over how the child was raised. Even where this was not the case, the child would most likely be faced with the choice of converting to Islam or being a slave. Thus slavery also worked to force conversion at the intergenerational scale. Furthermore, by creating such a large Islamic state in which Muslims could not be enslaved, Muhammad created a massive long distance trade in slaves. The result was that while the population grew, nearby areas saw a population reduction, both directly through the taking of slaves, and indirectly by people fleeing the area. This was most pronounced on the southern coastline of Europe. Thus, even when the Caliphate stopped expanding, Islam continued to expand through human trafficking. This human trafficking totaled over 4 million Europeans and even great numbers of Africans.

=== Saudi Arabia ===

Modern Saudi Arabia (which includes Mecca) is a reflection of Muhammad agenda of ethnic purity.

Non-Muslims public religious activities are banned in Saudi Arabia. The definition of "public" is left deliberately ambiguous. Jews are forbidden from entering Saudi Arabia. Non-Muslims are banned from Mecca and part of Medina. Non-Mulims clergy are forbidden from entering the country to perform religious rituals. Non-Muslim proselytising, including book distribution, is banned. Members of the Shi’a minority are the subjects of officially sanctioned political and economic discrimination.

Under the provisions of Shari’a law as practiced in the country, judges may discount the testimony of people who are not practicing Muslims or who do not adhere to the official interpretation of Islam. Legal sources report that testimony by Shi’a is often ignored in courts of law or is deemed to have less weight than testimony by Sunnis. Sentencing under the legal system is not uniform. Laws and regulations state that defendants should be treated equally; however, under Shari’a as interpreted and applied in the country, crimes against Muslims may result in harsher penalties than those against non-Muslims. Information regarding government practices was generally incomplete because judicial proceedings usually were not publicized or were closed to the public, despite provisions in the criminal procedure law requiring court proceedings to be open.

Customs officials regularly open postal material and cargo to search for non-Muslim materials, such as Bibles and religious videotapes. Such materials are subject to confiscation.

Islamic religious education is mandatory in public schools at all levels. All public school children receive religious instruction that conforms with the official version of Islam. Non-Muslim students in private schools are not required to study Islam. Private religious schools are permitted for non-Muslims or for Muslims adhering to unofficial interpretations of Islam.

In 2007, Saudi religious police detained Shiite pilgrims participating in the Hajj, allegedly calling them "infidels in Mecca"

Ahmadis are officially banned from entering the country and from performing the Hajj to Mecca.

Saudi Arabia has criminal statutes forbidding apostasy, which is punishable by death.[33][34] On 3 September 1992 Sadiq 'Abdul-Karim Malallah was publicly beheaded in Al-Qatif in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province after being convicted of apostasy and blasphemy. Sadiq Malallah, a Shi'a Muslim from Saudi Arabia, was arrested in April 1988 and charged with throwing stones at a police patrol. He was reportedly held in solitary confinement for long periods during his first months in detention and tortured prior to his first appearance before a judge in July 1988. The judge reportedly asked him to convert from Shi'a Islam to Sunni Wahhabi Islam, and allegedly promised him a lighter sentence if he complied. After he refused to do so, he was taken to al-Mabahith al-'Amma (General Intelligence) Prison in Dammam where he was held until April 1990. He was then transferred to al-Mabahith al-'Amma Prison in Riyadh, where he remained until the date of his execution. Sadiq Malallah is believed to have been involved in efforts to secure improved rights for Saudi Arabia's Shi'a Muslim minority.

In 1994, Hadi Al-Mutif a teenager who was a Shi’a Ismaili Muslim from Najran in southwestern Saudi Arabia, made a remark that a court deemed blasphemous and was sentenced to death for apostasy. As of 2010, he was still in prison, had alleged physical abuse and mistreatment during his years of incarceration, and had reportedly made numerous suicide attempts.

In 2012, Saudi poet and journalist Hamza Kashgari became the subject of a major controversy after being accused of insulting Muslim prophet Mohammad in three short messages (tweets) published on the Twitter online social networking service. King Abdullah ordered that Kashgari be arrested "for crossing red lines and denigrating religious beliefs in God and His Prophet.

Saudi Arabia uses the death penalty for crimes of sorcery and witchcraft and claims that it is doing so in "public interest"

Saudi Arabia's treatment of religious minorities has been described by both Saudis and non-Saudis as "apartheid" and "religious apartheid".

The branch of Imam Mohamed Bin Saud University in Fairfax, Virginia instructs its students that Shia Islam is a Jewish conspiracy.

The Saudi Ministry of Education Islamic studies textbooks ... continue to promote an ideology of hatred that teaches bigotry and deplores tolerance. These texts continue to instruct students to hold a dualistic worldview in which there exist two incompatible realms – one consisting of true believers in Islam ... and the other the unbelievers – realms that can never coexist in peace. Students are being taught that Christians and Jews and other Muslims are "enemies" of the true believer... The textbooks condemn and denigrate Shiite and Sufi Muslims' beliefs and practices as heretical and call them "polytheists", command Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other "non-believers", and teach that the Crusades never ended, and identify Western social service providers, centers for academic studies, and campaigns for women's rights as part of the modern phase of the Crusades.

== Schism ==

When Muhammad died, he left no clear instructions regarding succession or how the leadership of his Islamic state was to be decided. Given that he got into a position of power by killing a lot of people, it is no surprise that Muslims following his example soon started killing each other in the same quest for religious, political and military power. Today, most victims of Islamic terrorism and various forms of Islamic oppression are other Muslims of the 'wrong' type.

The modern struggle between Sunni and Shiite Muslims is a continuation of the very first disagreement over who should replace Muhammad as leader. Muslim governments, particularly in the middle east, make it very difficult to obtain accurate statistics on the number of Sunni and Shia muslims. It is estimated that Shiites make up 25 to 30% of the entire Muslim world. The overwhelming majority live between Pakistan and Lebanon. Sunnis make up almost all of the rest.

The Sunnis won the first battle and installed Abu Bakr as leader. Abu was the father of Muhammad's favourite child bride (Aisha, known as the mother of Islam) and perhaps Muhammad's closest ally. He was chosen by a small group of people to replace Muhammad. Aisha was among his supporters.

Shiites believe that Muhammad ordained Ali Ibn Abi Talib as his successor. Ali was Muhammad's first cousin, as well as his son in law. That is, he married Muhammad's daughter. He fathered Muhammad's two grandsons. Shiites believe that Muhammad's (ie Ali's) descendants are the rightful rulers under Islam, and that Muhammad quoted this in a hadith.

The Shia believe that Ali's descendants are the Imams. The role of an Imam is more of a prophetic role than that of a Caliph in Sunni theology. They believe the Imams to have special spiritual qualities. Twelvers believe the imams are immaculate from sin and human error, and can understand and interpret the hidden inner meaning of the teachings of Islam. In this way the Imams are trustees who bear the light of Muhammad.

Ali himself remained loyal to the first three Caliphs, and became the fourth Caliph. These four are regarded by Sunnis as the four "rightly guided Caliphs," but Shiites reject the legitimacy of the first three. Aisha wanted revenge against the assassins of the third Caliph, however Ali wanted to restore peace to the land. In 656, Aisha took up arms against Ali (her step son-in-law) over this point. Her forces were defeated. Ali later fought a three day long battle against those responsible for the assassination of the third Caliph. Eventually both sides agreed to stop fighting, but sporadic attacks continued whenever Ali pursued negotiations. Eventually Ali agreed to an arbitration, in which it was decided he is to be stripped of the Caliphate. He rejected the outcome, but the damage was done and his opposition grew. He won another battle against his opponents, but was assassinated three years later. These events are grouped by historians as the first Muslim civil war.

Next came the Umayyad Caliphate, defined by the rule of members of the Umayyad family. The second Muslim civil war occurred between AD 680 and 692, during the Umayyad dynasty, following the death of the first Umayyad Caliph. The first challenge came from Husayn ibn Ali, and later from his supporters seeking revenge for his death in 680. The second came from Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who was killed in 692. The Umayyad's also put down a Berber revolt between 740 and 743. They were weakened by the third Muslim civil war (744–747) and toppled by the Abbasids in 750.

The Abbasid Caliphate reigned from AD 750 to 1258, and AD 1261 to 1517. They descended from Muhammad's youngest uncle and used this to recruit Shia support. The Shia believed that they were promised the Caliphate, or at least that religious authority would be vested in Shia Imam. This did not happen and the Shia effectively went into hiding as a result of persecution.

The Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258. The leaders moved to Cairo and claimed religious authority until the Ottoman conquest of Egypt.

In the 16th century, many Shia migrated from Iran to Iraq. Shi'ism grew in Iran, particularly under the Safavid Empire (1501-1736).

Sunni–Shia clashes also occurred occasionally in the 20th century in South Asia. There were many between 1904 and 1908. These clashes revolved around the public cursing of the first three caliphs by Shias and the praising of them by Sunnis. To put a stop to the violence, public demonstrations were banned in 1909 on the three most sensitive days: Ashura, Chehlum and Ali's death on 21 Ramadan. Intercommunal violence resurfaced in 1935–36 and again in 1939 when many thousands of Sunni and Shias defied the ban on public demonstrations and took to the streets. Shia are estimated to be 21–35% of the Muslim population in South Asia, although the total number is difficult to estimate due to the intermingling between the two groups and practice of taqiyya by Shia

Sunni razzias which came to be known as Taarajs virtually devastated the community. History records 10 such Taarajs also known as Taraj-e-Shia between the 15th and 19th centuries in 1548, 1585, 1635, 1686, 1719, 1741, 1762, 1801, 1830, 1872 during which the Shia habitations were plundered, people slaughtered, libraries burnt and their sacred sites desecrated.

=== Modern Sunni Shia conflict ===

The Sunni-Shia schism is at the heart of the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, an ongoing struggle for regional influence between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The countries have provided varying degrees of support to opposing sides in nearby conflicts, including the civil wars in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq, as well as conflicts in Central Asia and Pakistan.

In what has been described as a cold war, the conflict is waged on multiple levels over geopolitical, economic, and sectarian influence. American support for Saudi Arabia and its allies along with growing Russian support for Iran have drawn comparisons to the Cold War era, and the proxy conflict has been characterized as a front in what Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has referred to as the "New Cold War".

This ongoing conflict was the trigger for the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, which killed hundreds of thousands of people. During the Arab spring of 2011, Saudi Arabia attempted to strengthen it's dominance of the region. ISIS is a largely Sunni venture, and Shia militias are a key part of the coalition fighting to destroy ISIS. The mistrust between Sunni and Shia in Iraq is at the heart of the dysfunction of Iraq's democracy.

Some scholars see the period from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire as a period of relative harmony between Sunni and Shia, caused by a percieved common enemy of secularism - both the western variety as well as Arab nationalism. Howeverm since 1980 sectarian violence has been on the rise, particularly in Iraq and Pakistan, leaving thousands dead. Many Muslims blame outside conspiracies for this violence. Some scholars attribute it to the end of colonialism and decline of Arab nationalism, which was to some extent replaced by religious fundamentalism.

Many attribute the trends towards fudnamentalism in Saudi Arabia as a response to the Iranian revolution, which the Saudis saw as potentially popular among all Muslims. As a result, the Saudis sought to shore up their religious legitimacy, which inevitably resulted in more oppression of local Shia. The Saudis were also heavily involved in Afghan jihadism. The Saudis fund Islamic schools around the world, so this shift had far reaching implications.

Today, Azerbaijan is probably the only country where there are still mixed mosques and Shia and Sunnis pray together. From 1994 to 2014 satellite television and high-speed Internet has spread "hate speech" against both Sunni and Shia. Fundamentalist Sunni clerics have popularized slurs against Shia such as "Safawis" (from the Safavid empire, thus implying their being an Iranian agents), or even worse rafidha (rejecters of the faith), and majus (Zoroastrian or crypto Persian). In turn, Shia religious scholars have "mocked and cursed" the first three caliphs and Aisha, Mohammed’s youngest wife who fought against Ali.

= Invasion of North Africa =

After Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr began what is known as the Riddah wars. He sent out 11 main military corps. In addition to specific missions, the commanders were given the following orders, which basically amount to conversion by the sword and follow a tradition established by Muhammad himself:

1) Call the Azaan (Islamic call to prayer).

2) If the tribe answers with the Azaan, do not attack. After the Azaan, ask the tribe to confirm its submission, including the payment of zakat. If confirmed, do not attack.

3) Those who submit will not be attacked.

4) Those who do not answer with the Azaan, or after the Azaan do not confirm full submission, will be dealt with by the sword.

5) All apostates who have killed Muslims will be killed.

6) With these instructions Abu Bakr launched the forces of his Caliphate against the apostates.

From 632 to 661, the Rashidun Caliphate spread halfway across North Africa, as well as east to the modern border of Pakistan. The next Caliphate captured the rest of the North African coastline by AD 750, bringing the bread basket of the Roman empire into the Caliphate. Despite capturing the largest land empire that had ever existed and an important trade route between east (China) and west, living standards did not increase. They remained well below the living standards of the previous Roman Republic and Empire, even during what Muslims call Islam's 'golden age'.

Christians and Jews became second class citizens, facing a variety of discriminatory laws, as well as outright hostility from Muslims. Conversion often happened under threat of death or as the result of ongoing persecution. Renouncing Islam attracted the death penalty. Women were captured as sex slaves. Muslims established the central African slave trade, paying locals to obtain women for them.

A community of Coptic Christians survived in Egypt, today making up approximately 10% to 20% of the population. The jizya tax on non-Muslims was only abolished in Egypt in the 19th century, when they were also permitted to enroll in the army. In law, the testimony of non-Muslims was considered inferior to that of Muslims (as was the testimony of women). This meant they had no effective legal representation and were at the mercy of their Muslim neighbors. More recently Egyptian coots have been forced to flee Islamic state militants after many were killed. They are still forced to obtain permission to repair Churches. Churches, crops and houses are occasionally burned. In 2013, 40 churches were looted and burned and 23 more heavily damaged. The Muslim brotherhood used their Facebook page to further foment hatred of coots. Police typically arrive to the scene of hate crimes and larger scale attacks after the violence is over, and no arrests are made. Members of U.S. Congress have expressed concern about "human trafficking" of Coptic women and girls who are victims of abductions, forced conversion to Islam, sexual exploitation and forced marriage to Muslim men. Conversion to Christianity is technically legal, but made difficult and often prevented by officials in case it provokes violence. This often extends to detaining those who apply for new identity papers.

Paganism largely ceased to exist in North Africa.

= Invasion of Europe =

In the final two years of Muhammad's life he used his stronghold in Medina to bring Mecca and the entire Arabian peninsula. Over the next 120 years, from 632 to 750, his immediate successors spread Islam by the sword, from Pakistan in the east, across North Africa and into Southern Europe. A small force landed in Byzantine Sicily in 652, just 20 years after Muhammad's death. This was quickly repelled. Parts of Sicily were again held between 827 and 1072. From 711, the Caliphate (Islamic state) established a foothold in Southern Spain by lending themselves to assist a local leader in a conflict, then turned on their previous allies and used the foothold to spread north. By 750 they had captured the Iberian Peninsula (modern day Spain and Portugal) as well as parts of what is now Southern France. They sent raids further into Europe.

The first victory against them occurred some time between 718 and 722. The area under Muslim rule shrunk gradually and by 1236 was limited to the southern province of Granada. In the 8th century, Muslim forces pushed beyond Spain into Aquitaine, in southern France, but suffered a temporary setback when defeated by Eudes, Duke of Aquitaine, at the Battle of Toulouse (721). In 725 Muslim forces captured Autun in France. The town would be the easternmost point of expansion of Umayyad forces into Europe; just seven years later in 732, the Umayyads would be forced to begin their withdrawal to al-Andalus after facing defeat at the Battle of Tours by Frankish King Charles Martel. From 719 to 759, Septimania was one of the five administrative areas of al-Andalus. The last Muslim forces were driven from France in 759, but maintained a presence, especially in Fraxinet all the way into Switzerland until the 10th century. At the same time, Muslim forces managed to capture Sicily and portions of southern Italy, and even sacked the Basilicas of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in Rome in 846 and later sacked Pisa in 1004. Granada surrendered in 1492 and by 1614 Muslim civilians had been expelled from Spain.

This was not an organised 'reconquista' as it is often portrayed. During the lengthy period, different Muslim groups fought each other, as did different Christian groups, and local hired mercenaries fought for either side.

In addition to Israel, many modern Muslims still consider Spain to 'belong' to Islam and consider its recapture to be both important and inevitable.

Throughout the 16th to 19th centuries, the Barbary States sent Barbary pirates to raid nearby parts of Europe in order to capture Christian slaves to sell at slave markets in the Arab World throughout the Renaissance period.[13][14] According to Robert Davis, from the 16th to 19th centuries, pirates captured 1 million to 1.25 million Europeans as slaves. These slaves were captured mainly from the crews of captured vessels[15] and from coastal villages in Spain and Portugal, and from farther places like Italy, France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland, the Azores Islands, and even Iceland.

For a long time, until the early 18th century, the Crimean Khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. The Crimean Tatars frequently mounted raids into the Danubian principalities, Poland-Lithuania, and Russia to enslave people whom they could capture.

The Ottoman Empire began its expansion into Europe by taking the European portions of the Byzantine Empire in the 14th and 15th centuries up until the 1453 capture of Constantinople, establishing Islam as the state religion in the region. The Ottoman Empire continued to stretch northwards, taking Hungary in the 16th century, and reaching as far north as the Podolia in the mid-17th century (Peace of Buczacz), by which time most of the Balkans was under Ottoman control. Ottoman expansion in Europe ended with their defeat in the Great Turkish War. In the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699), the Ottoman Empire lost most of its conquests in Central Europe. The Crimean Khanate was later annexed by Russia in 1783. Over the centuries, the Ottoman Empire gradually lost almost all of its European territories, until its collapse in 1922, when the former empire was transformed into the nation of Turkey.

Apart from the effect of a lengthy period under Ottoman domination, many of the subject population were converted to Islam as a result of a deliberate move by the Ottomans as part of a policy of ensuring the loyalty of the population against a potential Venetian invasion. However, Islam was spread by force in the areas under the control of the Ottoman Sultan through devşirme (taxation of sons to serve the Islamic state) and jizya (financial tax).

A 2013 poll by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung says that Islamic fundamentalism is widespread among European Muslims with the majority saying religious rules are more important than civil laws and three quarters rejecting religious pluralism within Islam.

= Slavery =

At the time of Muhammad's birth, slavery was an almost universal practice. One key exception was Europe, where slavery largely came to an end with the collapse of the Roman Empire and the spread of Christianity and Judaism - religions that hold the exodus story as central to their identity.

The rapid expansion of the Caliphate, combined with Muhammad's ruling the slavery was permitted and his ban on Muslim slaves, forced the establishment of an international slave trade. Slavery was a key motivator for war. Polygamy and concubinage (sexual slavery) caused a constant shortage of women, exacerbated by the death penalty for adultery, severe punishments for fornication, the segregation of men and women, extreme control over women's lives by men, and the dress codes imposed on women. War was the only way for many men to find women. In addition, children of slaves and prisoners of war became slaves, unless they converted to Islam. Slavery thus had the effect of supporting the political and military spread of Islam, as well as conversion to Islam within the Caliphate. This is in addition to the choice between converting and dying often offered to defeated foes, and other coercive pressures such as taxation, oppression, harassment and inferior legal status. Islam's codification of slavery did more to create and vastly expand the slave trade than to restrict it.

In the Atlantic slave trade, there were roughly two male slaves for every female slave, reflecting the economic focus on forced Labor. In the Islamic trade (at least as far as black slaves are concerned), the ratio was the opposite - two women for every male slave, reflecting the Islamic focus on sex.

In parts of Africa to the south of those controlled by the Caliphate, slaves were simply purchased from local traders. The flow of money had a massive impact on African society and has continued for the entirety of Islam's history. When Europeans traders started travelling between the Americas, Europe and Africa, they poured even more money into this established trade, for up to four centuries until European and American powers put an end to it. Europeans were far more reluctant to sell each other into slavery, however Muslim slave traders depopulated the Spanish and Italian coastline in efforts to satisfy the demand for slaves. They raided extensively along the rest of the European coastline, reaching as far north as Iceland.

From the 1440s into the 18th century, Europeans from Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, and England were sold into slavery by North Africans, as described in the book "Christian Slaves White Masters". This same book controversially states that "white slavery had been minimised or ignored because academics preferred to treat Europeans as evil colonialists rather than as victims," and likely overestimates the number of slaves taken. In 1575, the Tatars captured over 35,000 Ukrainians; a 1676 raid took almost 40,000. About 60,000 Ukrainians were captured in 1688; some were ransomed, but most were sold into slavery. Some of the Roma people were enslaved over five centuries in Romania until abolition in 1864.

The Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis describes the White Slave Trade as minimized by most modern historians in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800. Davis estimates that 1 million to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast), and roughly 700 Americans were held captive in this region as slaves between 1785 and 1815.

Sixteenth- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's additional slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700. The markets declined after the loss of the Barbary Wars and finally ended in the 1800s, after a US Navy expedition under Commodore Edward Preble engaging gunboats and fortifications in Tripoli, 1804 and later when Algeria was conquered by France. The Kingdom of Morocco had already suppressed piracy and recognized the United States as an independent country in 1776.

== European Intervention ==

Muhammad's codification of slavery made eradication of slavery in the Muslim world extremely difficult, given the strong economic pressures to continue the trade. In the end it was European and American intervention that finally brought it to an end, though this process is not yet complete. There are several key historical events that contributed to this. The Roman empire made extensive use of slavery. The fall of the Roman Empire, combined with the spread of Christianity and Judaism, gradually brought an end to slavery in Europe. The invasion by the Caliphate of Southern Europe temporarily reversed the trend away from slavery. Had the Caliphate succeeded in maintaining a foothold in Europe or capturing more of Europe, it would probably look similar to North Africa today, and the implications for the later enlightenment would have been dire.

When the Spanish discovered the Americas, they brought back vast wealth, in the form of gold and silver. This was used to purchase slaves from the established traders in Africa to bring to the Americas, where they were primarily used to establish the agricultural sector. Despite benefiting financially from this arrangement, the Spanish crown made genuine attempts to eradicate it. These attempts were not successful. Later, British and French traders joined the market. Slavery was being legally abolished across Europe, and North America eventually followed with the civil war. During this time, Europeans were also fending off raids from Islamic slave traders.

=== Barbary Pirates ===

Barbary pirates from North Africa were a major contributor to the slave raids on the European coast. This reached it's peak during the 17th century. By the second half of this century, European naval powers were able to effectively strike back against the pirates, however the pirates capitalised on the competition between European powers, who had an incentive to permit continued piracy on other nations.

Piracy was enough of a problem that some states entered into the redemption business. In Denmark, "At the beginning of the 18th century money was collected systematically in all churches, and a so called ‘slave fund’ (slavekasse) was established by the state in 1715. Funds were brought in through a compulsory insurance sum for seafarers. 165 slaves were ransomed by this institution between 1716 and 1736." "Between 1716 and 1754 19 ships from Denmark-Norway were captured with 208 men; piracy was thus a serious problem for the Danish merchant fleet."

In the late 18th century piracy began to arise again. In 1783 and 1784 the Spanish bombarded Algiers to end piracy. The second time Admiral Barceló damaged the city so severely that the Algerian Dey asked Spain to negotiate a peace treaty. From then on Spanish vessels and coasts were safe for several years. Separately, the Danish attacked Tripoli in 1797.

Until the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, British treaties with the North African states protected American ships from the Barbary corsairs. Morocco, which in 1777 was the first independent nation to publicly recognize the United States, in 1784 became the first Barbary power to seize an American vessel after the nation achieved independence. The Barbary threat led directly to the United States founding the United States Navy in March 1794. While the United States did secure peace treaties with the Barbary states, it was obliged to pay tribute for protection from attack. The burden was substantial: in 1800 payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States federal government's annual expenditures. The United States conducted the First Barbary War in 1801 and the Second Barbary War in 1815 to gain more favorable peace terms; it ended the payment of tribute. But, Algiers broke the 1805 peace treaty after two years, and refused to implement the 1815 treaty until compelled to do so by Britain in 1816.

The Congress of Vienna (1814–5), which ended the Napoleonic Wars, led to increased European consensus on the need to end Barbary raiding. The sacking of Palma on the island of Sardinia by a Tunisian squadron, which carried off 158 inhabitants, roused widespread indignation. Britain had by this time banned the slave trade and was seeking to induce other countries to do likewise. States that were more vulnerable to the corsairs complained that Britain cared more for ending the trade in African slaves than stopping the enslavement of Europeans and Americans by the Barbary States.

In order to neutralise this objection and further the anti-slavery campaign, in 1816 Britain sent Lord Exmouth to secure new concessions from Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers, including a pledge to treat Christian captives in any future conflict as prisoners of war rather than slaves. He imposed peace between Algiers and the kingdoms of Sardinia and Sicily. On his first visit, Lord Exmouth negotiated satisfactory treaties and sailed for home. While he was negotiating, a number of Sardinian fishermen who had settled at Bona on the Tunisian coast were brutally treated without his knowledge. As Sardinians they were technically under British protection, and the government sent Exmouth back to secure reparation. On August 17, in combination with a Dutch squadron under Admiral Van de Capellen, Exmouth bombarded Algiers. Both Algiers and Tunis made fresh concessions as a result.

The Barbary states had difficulty securing uniform compliance with a total prohibition of slave-raiding, as this had been traditionally of central importance to the North African economy. Slavers continued to take captives by preying on less well-protected peoples. Algiers subsequently renewed its slave-raiding, though on a smaller scale. Europeans at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 discussed possible retaliation. In 1820 a British fleet under Admiral Sir Harry Neal bombarded Algiers. Corsair activity based in Algiers did not entirely cease until France conquered the state in 1830.

Although the conditions in bagnios were harsh, they were better than those endured by galley slaves. Most Barbary galleys were at sea for around eighty to a hundred days a year, but when the slaves assigned to them were on land, they were forced to do hard manual labor. There were exceptions: "galley slaves of the Ottoman Sultan in Constantinople would be permanently confined to their galleys, and often served extremely long terms, averaging around nineteen years in the late seventeenth-century and early eighteenth-century periods. These slaves rarely got off the galley but lived there for years." During this time, rowers were shackled and chained where they sat, and never allowed to leave. Sleeping (which was limited), eating, defecation and urination took place at the seat to which they were shackled. There were usually five or six rowers on each oar. Overseers would walk back and forth and whip slaves considered not to be working hard enough.

Barbary slaves could hope to be freed through payment of a ransom. Despite the efforts of middlemen and charities to raise money to provide ransoms, they were still very difficult to come by. As European communities increased their charity funding for ransoming slaves, North African states increased the amount of ransom required. Lack of money to pay a ransom was not the only problem. Persons taken captive needed to notify their families of their status and tell them the ransom price. Mail charges were often beyond the reach of ordinary captive slaves, and it could take several months for the mail to be delivered.

In the first years of the 19th century, the United States of America and some European nations fought and won the First Barbary War and the Second Barbary War against the pirates. The Barbary Wars were a direct response of the British, French and the Dutch states to the raids and white slave trade by the Barbary pirates, which ended in the 1830s when the region was conquered by France. The white slave trade and markets in the Mediterranean declined and eventually disappeared after the European occupations.

After an Anglo-Dutch raid in 1816 on Algiers immobilized most of the Pirate fleet, the Dey of Algiers was forced to agree to terms which included a cessation of the practice of enslaving Christians, although slave trading in non-Europeans could still continue. After losing in this period of formal hostilities with European and American powers, the Barbary states went into decline.

The Barbary pirates did not cease their operations, and another British raid on Algiers took place in 1824. France invaded Algiers in 1830, placing it under colonial rule. Tunis was similarly invaded by France in 1881. Tripoli returned to direct Ottoman control in 1835, before falling into Italian hands in the 1911 Italo-Turkish War. As such, the slave traders now found that they had to work in accordance with the laws of their governors, and could no longer look to self-regulation. The slave trade ceased on the Barbary coast in the 19th and 20th centuries or when European governments passed laws granting emancipation to slaves.

=== Arab slave trade ===

Two rough estimates by scholars of the number of slaves held over twelve centuries in Muslim lands are 11.5 million and 14 million.

The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa, and Southeast Africa. In the early 20th century (post World War I), slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France. Among the last states to abolish slavery were Saudi Arabia and Yemen, which abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman in 1970, and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007. However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the predominantly Islamic countries of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.

ISIL also currently makes extensive use of sex slaves.

Slavery was a legal and important part of the economy of the Ottoman Empire and Ottoman society until the slavery of Caucasians was banned in the early 19th century, although slaves from other groups were allowed. In Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), the administrative and political center of the Empire, about a fifth of the population consisted of slaves in 1609. Even after several measures to ban slavery in the late 19th century, the practice continued largely unfazed into the early 20th century. As late as 1908, female slaves (Circassian and African) were still sold in the Ottoman Empire. Sexual slavery was a central part of the Ottoman slave system throughout the history of the institution.

Ottomans practiced devşirme, a sort of "blood tax" or "child collection", young Christian boys from the Balkans and Anatolia were taken from their homes and families, brought up as Muslims, and enlisted into the most famous branch of the Kapıkulu, the Janissaries, a special soldier class of the Ottoman army that became a decisive faction in the Ottoman invasions of Europe.

During the various 18th and 19th century persecution of Christians and the culminating Assyrian Genocide, Armenian Genocide and Greek Genocide of World War I, many indigenous Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christian women and children were carried off as slaves by the Ottoman Turks and their Kurdish allies.

= Footprint of the Caliphate =
= India =
= Southeast Asia =
= Modern Terrorism =

Islam and Australian values

2018-12-10T10:18:17Z

Freediver: /* Collective Punishment, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing */

[[Islam]]

= What real Muslims think =

This article was put together following interesting discussions with several Muslims on the OzPolitic forum. Follow the links for more information. This article has been criticised as being unrepresentative of the views of Muslims. However, surveys by the Pew society show that around the world, many Muslims support the most barbaric aspects of Islam. In many countries, the majority of Muslims support stoning people to death for adultery, the death penalty for apostasy, and believe that women must obey their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/570][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388997344] That is why Islam is the greatest modern barrier to freedom, democracy and human rights, and why the threat posed by Islam to these fragile [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet] ideals must not be understated out of a misguided sense of political correctness.

= Conflicts =

This is a list I am putting together of apparent conflicts between Islam and Australian values, or between Islam and 'western' values. It comes from this discussion:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243

Islam differs from what most Australians typically think of as religion in that it doubles as a system of government.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/144#144]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
Islam holds that the legal standards developed in 7th century tribal Arabia are eternal and unchanging. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/76#76] Islam is an outright rejection of concepts like freedom, democracy, and human rights [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327799946][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008], though it is rare for a Muslim to directly acknowledge this and they often attempt to create a different impression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826] Muslims are commanded to live by the local laws if they are living in a non-Muslim state, but are also obligated to attempt to impose Shariah law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367461526]
The appropriate mechanism for turning a non-Muslim state into a Muslim one is ambiguous (or at least, not openly discussed).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/129#129]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1262474745/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353933060]
Hostility towards Islam is considered justification for conquest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/91#91]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/116#116]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Such hostility seems inevitable if a large group of people try to undermine our values and system of government. Muslims are forbidden from voting in 'secular' elections, so the overthrow of non-Muslim governments is presumably by force, either external or internal, as soon as they are powerful enough.

The vast majority of the world's Muslims share the interpretation of Islam described below, even though it appears 'extremist' from our perspective.

[[Deception of Non-Muslims]]

[[Faith Ratchet]]

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

The list is currently split into three groups - Freedom and Human Rights, Justice, Sex, and Other.

== Freedom and Human Rights ==

=== Freedom ===
Islam means 'submission'. It is a rejection of individual freedom and human rights. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332061805][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]

=== Slavery ===
Islam permits the enslavement of people captured through military conquest [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434/68#68] and the children of slaves. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332196921][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392646116/59#59] In addition, Dhimmis risk slavery for not following a complex and arbitrary set of discriminatory rules. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] Female slaves become concubines. Slavery was gradually outlawed towards the end of the Ottoman Empire, partly due to pressure from Great Britain, though it still occurs in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, slavery of women has been the last form to die out. Several African states still practice slavery under Islamic law. Many Australian Muslims support slavery.

=== Freedom of religion ===
Islam has spread primarily through military conquest followed up by the denial of freedom of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216] Islam is extremely intolerant of polytheism, non-Abrahamic religions, atheism, agnosticism, or new Islamic 'cults' that are based on Islam but claim new prophets since Mohammed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Incorrect interpretations of Islam are not tolerated and freedom of speech is openly rejected. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214785726/1#1] 'Shirk' (idolatry, polytheism etc) is considered the worst possible crime in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6] Islam shows limited tolerance towards Christianity and Judaism. The construction or repair of churches, synagogues etc is banned. Islam encourages a parent to beat a child for not praying [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231993677/44#44]. Blasphemy and apostasy attract the death penalty. The sections on apostasy, discrimination, justice, theocracy and blasphemy/free speech outline other ways in which Islam denies people freedom of religion. Any 'cultural heritage' associated with other religions must be destroyed on the grounds that it has no value and may encourage idolatry (eg the recent destruction of the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan). Muslims consider this a favour to mankind. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334996843]

=== Blasphemy/free speech ===
The penalty for blasphemy is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/23#23][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/33#33] Islam forbids criticism of God, Muhammad or Islam. It also restricts other areas of free speech. Phone sex lines for example would be illegal. The punishment for talking or acting gay is death by stoning (see section on homosexuality). Muslims often attempt to portray the death penalty for blasphemy, apostasy etc as being a different 'take' on freedom of speech, rather than an outright rejection of it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944] Muslims have threatened to sue OzPolitic to get it shut down.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/81#81]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/15#15]
Even apparently progressive Muslims support the erosion of freedom of speech and consider it inevitable that Muslims will be violent in response to mockery of Islam or Muhammad in the west.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Blasphemy laws make any kind of progressive reform within Islam very difficult. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360382901]

Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but seek out the flimsiest excuses to support the denial of free speech to Islam's critics, for example by insisting that a citizen journalist should have been banned from walking down streets with mosques on them, from talking to Lakemba residents and from criticising Islam, because she was "accosting" people. This was based on a single media report that quoted a member of the public accusing her of "baiting" people - ie asking difficult questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1533643370/197#197]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1532831241/536#536]
They will then turn around and equate a ban on face coverings in a courtroom with support for a nationwide ban on wearing burkas in public.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1533809902/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1531979449/165#165]

Muslims will claim to be the standard bearer for freedom of speech [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/236#236]
and western liberal morals [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/221#221]
and that Muslims share our exact views on this issue, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/43#43]
while also mocking the Charlie Hebdo solidarity movement and insisting that the right to draw pictures of Muhammad, and the defence of that right in response to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, is a 'distortion' of the true meaning of freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/234#234]
The Charlie Hebdo terrorist "attacks reflect genuine grievances felt by" terrorists and the broader Muslim community that should be addressed first, along with other grievances such as alientation (which causes terrorism). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
Instead of considering the cartoonists martyrs for freedom of speech people should act more respectfully instead. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were hate mongers who were merely victims of their own bigotry and it is a distortion of freedom of speech to suggest it involves standing in solidarity with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/248#248]
The majority of Australians want to ban criticism of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
Anyone who supports the right to criticise religion is an extremist. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/354#354]
People being afraid to mock Islam is an "oversimplistic dichotomy". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
The cartoons are "offence for offence's sake". This, and other unidentified forms of expression are "wrong and should be avoided." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
This view "just happens to coincide with the terrorists campaign to force them to stop." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
The theats posed by Islamic terrorism to freedom of speech represent "faux threats" and "fake, wishy washy western liberal morals" that are used to cynically smear Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/121#121][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/148#148][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/186#186][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910]
Muslims are intolerant of a "free market" of political and intellectual ideas, particularly from white people. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Self censorship is "absolutely" a reasonable course of action when it comes to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/105#105]
It is unclear whether existing laws make it illegal to mock Muhammad, or whether they should be changed to make it illegal. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/1#1]
When the media refrains from publishing Muhammad cartoons, it is because they are being "considerate and responsible" rather than because they might get killed, and it is hysterical and pointless to discuss the matter any further. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/2#2]
The Jews in the Australian Labour Party are trying to censor criticism of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/3#3]

An organisation of Australian Muslim women who petitioned to stop Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a famous women's rights campaigner) visiting Australia called it a 'victory for free speech' when she had to cancel her visit due to threats to her life. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491466442] Her colleague Theo van Gogh was assassinated in response to a video they made together calling for women's rights in Muslim countries, and the assassin left a message pinned to the corpse threatening Ali, western countries and Jews. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491382260]

Muslims and their apologists will deny that Islam is he greatest modern threat to freedom and democracy without being able to identify a single other threat. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626/14#14]

=== Apostasy ===
The penalty for a Muslim who rejects Islam is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1409475944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329307987/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434596646/3#3]
The term 'shirkh' encompasses many of the sins that are considered to put a person 'outside' of Islam and thus subject to this penalty [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6], however it has been hard to get more details on this.
For Sunnis, this includes Shiites and other 'heretics'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583/0#0] Rejecting Islam is interpretted broadly. Acting gay for example is considered apostasy (see section on homosexuality). Some Muslim scholars tried to change this (most recently in 1839) so that the death penalty only applied to treasonous apostates. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy] However mainstream Islam still considers the death penalty for apostasy to be correct. Also, since Islam is both a state (or form of government) and a religion, many Muslims consider apostasy itself to be treason. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25] Muslims often portray the penalty as being limited to treason, even though they have a very broad interpretation of apostasy,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1316600915/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1254303083/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1236559378/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280880642/11#11]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/38#38]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/45#45]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
or to attempt to justify the death penalty for apostasy on the grounds that some countries execute traitors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/32#32]

=== Women’s rights ===
Muslims see no contradiction in stating that men have authority over women and also claiming that men and women are equal under Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302027801/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/154#154]
Muhammad allowed men to beat their wives until they were 'green'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/105#105]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338868086/39#39]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
According to Islam, all women are stupid, deficient of mind, like domestic animals, lack common sense, lie, fail in religion, rob the wisdom of the wise and should never be trusted.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Women make up the majority of people in hell (hanging by their breasts), because they were not grateful of the favours their husbands did for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Muslims often claim that the treatment of women in Islamic cultures is superior. It is frequently claimed that denial of basic rights such as freedom of dress [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] is liberating. Women are required to start covering their bodies from puberty, apparently to prevent the objectification of women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/74#74][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26] Muslims often claim that the downsides associated with personal freedom in the west are actually the purpose of personal freedom – ie that women are only allowed to do as they please to facilitate men who want to take advantage of them. Women may be subjected to domestic violence (see separate entry). Wives are expected to ‘hasten to satisfy’ their husbands sexual appetite on demand. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] The testimony of a woman in court is considered half that of a man. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1] Women are not allowed to mix freely with men who are not relatives and must have their husband’s permission to leave the house. Women may not travel without a close male relative or shake hands with a man who is not a close relative. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Islam stipulates the minutia of a woman's life, including how she must breastfeed her children [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294] Women are discriminated against in inheritance law, getting half the inheritance of a man (on the grounds that some other man will look after her). Muslim men may marry four wives, including non-Muslims (Christians and Jews only [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]), but a woman can only have a single husband, who must be Muslim. In addition, Muslim men may take female sex slaves and have sex with ‘whatever their right hand possesses’. Islam rejects the concept of a man and woman falling in love and getting married. Rather, an old man may marry a child bride, who is expected to ‘grow to love’ him in humble servitude during the course of the marriage.

=== Economics ===

Islam has it's own peculiar economic system. The Muslim community has a 'difficult' history with, and philosophical approach to, the use of government funds. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1534310293] When foreign governments set up regional monopolies within Australia to approve Halal meat for export (and charge extortionist prices for doing so [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468052946/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468233758][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378852212/25#25]), Muslims attempt to pass this off as an example of how capitalism is supposed to work. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1393493672] This money supposedly goes to educating children. Similar excuses are made when the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils siphons off millions of dollars from the Australian government that should have gone to educating their own children in private Muslim schools. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30]

== Justice ==

=== Justice ===
Islamic courts consider the testimony of non-Muslims to be inferior, on the grounds that non-Muslims are inherently dishonest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223872802]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317211760]
Women are also considered inferior witnesses, and some crimes require male witnesses for a conviction, on the grounds that the witnesses must be reliable.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
A non-Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225427458]
Islamic etiquette requires Muslims to extend to other Muslims the benefit of the doubt, to make excuses for them, and to conceal their faults.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/32#32]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170/39#39]
"Whosoever conceals the faults of a Muslim, Allah will conceal his faults in this world and the Hereafter. Allah will aid a servant (of His) so long as the servant aids his brother." This, combined with other forms of discrimination, would cause problems that further undermine justice and erode the rights of non-Muslims.

=== Equality ===

Muslims try to spin the various discriminatory aspects of Islam into a narrative of equality and social justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395533499] The reality is that there is only tentative equality and justice (of a sort) for male Muslims. Muhammad created a pernicious caste system in a society where Pagans, Jews and Christians previously interacted as genuine equals.

=== Death Penalty ===

Islam prescribes death by stoning, a particularly cruel punishment, to many crimes. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1383609440] These include adultery, incest, prostitution, female genital mutilation (see clarification below), sex with a pre-pubescent girl, apostasy, heresy, paganism, banditry (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft Theft]) etc. Lesser crimes, such as fornication and masturbation, are punished by whipping. Homosexuality is punished the same way as adultery or fornication. Death by stoning involves burying men up to their chests and women up to their necks and stoning them to death. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/43#43] There are rules regarding the size of stones and distance of throw to prevent a quick death. I have not been able to get a straight answer on which crimes invovle death by stoning and what the other methods for carrying out the death penalty are. Muhammad appears to have preferred decapitation by sword when a large number (hundreds) of people needed to be killed (see collective punishment - not usually the case with crimes of sexual nature).

=== Collective Punishment, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing ===

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

All Muslims Support Genocide[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1543371381].

Islam supports the collective punishment of non-Muslims, particularly Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354282385/24#24]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_antisemitism]
This includes slaughtering and expelling entire Jewish tribes in response to crimes against individual Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894]
Muslims will argue that neither the execution of every single man from a defeated Jewish tribe, nor forcing all the women into sexual slavery is an example of collective punishment. The sexual slavery is even described as "protective custody". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/1#1]
Muslims will argue that it was the Jews who were intent on committing genocide.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/213#213]
Muhammad "prophesied" the ethnic cleansing of all non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula by his second successor Umar. He told Umar of this prediction in person. Umar partially fulfilled this prophesy, expelling all non-Muslims from the Hijaz area. Of course, all the non-Muslims brought this upon themselves by breaking covenants with Muhammad, and the harsh punishment was necessitated by the dire threats posed by the Jews and others to the Islamic state, and by the hostility of the Pagans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/4#4] Muslims will also attempt to pass this off as 'voluntary' conversion to Islam by every single pagan on the peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Christians were also expelled as collective punishment, resulting in the population of a large area (around modern day Saudi Arabia) becoming 100% Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288] Geopolitical strategy is cited as an excuse for forced relocation from the Arabian peninsula, and Muslims consider that the people involved were lucky not to meet a worse fate. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894] Muhammad used pillage and murder as a form of punishment. Muslims justify Muhammad 'putting down' people by citing later examples where non-Muslims were the perpetrators. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] Muslims will attempt to derail discussing of collective punishment under Muhammad into a debate about the meaning of the term, without offering an alternative meaning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantics]

Muslims will also try to justify Muhammad's career robbing Meccan caravans from his base in Medina as collective punishment of the Meccans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/136#136]

=== Torture ===

Muhammad often used torture and beating to extract information from people and to punish them (eg for consuming alcohol). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392514541]
Muhammad ordered the torture (and then beheading) a Jewish man by lighting a fire on his stomach. The purpose of this torture was to make him reveal where the Jewish gold was hidden. Muhammad then married the man's wife as a "gesture of goodwill" towards the Jews (the woman was regarded as being very beautiful). The men of the tribe were then killed and the women and children sold into slavery.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/28#28]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367418236/260#260]
Muslims will often attempt to justify the decade or so in which Muhammad robbed caravans and then conquered the Arabian peninsula by insisting early Muslims were tortured and mistreated, however no details have been made available.[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft]

=== Domestic violence ===
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48] Muslims will also say that Islam permits them to slap their wife to keep them in line, but will deny that this is domestic violence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70]
There is disagreement over the extent to which husbands are allowed to beat their wives, ranging from wife beating being ‘permissible but not advisable’ to a husband being permitted to strike his wife with a miswak so as not to leave bruises, but in a sufficiently violent demonstration of anger and frustration to break the woman out of her ‘nasty mood’. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227877786/35#35] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] Humiliation is also often stated as the goal of domestic violence in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70] Obviously, once you permit domestic violence, whatever moral limits that are placed on wife beating are bound to be breached in the heat of the moment even by a pious man, and completely ignored by others, especially as the wife must cover her body in public and may not leave the house without the husband’s permission. Absurdly, one legal recourse for a wife who has been beaten beyond ‘legal limits’ is to gain a court order to be allowed to beat her husband in retaliation. Muslims cite this as a demonstration of the fairness of Islam towards women.

There are several accounts of Muhammad beating his wives and laughing when other Muslims beat his (Muhammad's) wives. There are verses in the Quran the specifically permit wife beating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/197#197]

=== Discrimination ===
Islam preaches the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/4#4]
Islam's economy is essentially a protection racket targetted at non-Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225870861]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/310#310]
Non-Muslims must pay a special tax for the privilege of not having to slaughter other non-Muslims on Islam's behalf. This tax is applicable at all times, not just times of war. In Islamic society, Christians and Jews are referred to as 'Dhimmis'. Limited tolerance is extended to them, conditional upon a number of seemingly arbitrary discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/2#2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39] This is to force Dhimmis into a condition of humiliation, segregation and discrimination, so that even the lowliest Muslim may feel superior to them and thus not feel tempted by their material success. These rules extend to greetings, behaviour, clothing, transport, employment, trade, housing etc. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887] Dhimmis risk death or slavery for violating these requirements. Limited autonomy in the form of Christian and Jewish civil courts and administrations are allowed, but this is not extended to non-Abrahamic religions. All other types of non-Muslim people are treated far worse. Fellow Muslims who follow a different branch of Islam are considered non-Muslims and risk the death penalty for apostasy, especially if they promote their views in any way.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/59#59]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
Non-Muslims face institutionalised injustice (see justice above).

=== Democracy vs Theocracy ===
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]
Islam requires establishment of theocracy. Democracy is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/64#64]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/145#145]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
Secularism is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Islam combines what westerners typically consider to be religion and politics.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]
Muslims may elect a representative to implement Islamic law, but this is not required and the representative has no mandate to implement anything other than Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1] Candidates are limited to the most learned Islamic Scholars. Islam even forbids the 'Islamic' party of Australia and forbids people from voting for it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232631004/14#14] Islam also requires the resurrection of the Caliphate, which would mean a return to the bad old days of expansionist military empires trying to take over the world.

=== Treason and national allegiance ===
There is currently no Caliphate, but as soon as one is (re)created, Muslims are required to abandon the countries they live in and move to the Caliphate, which is where their true allegiance lies. This is likely to be in the context of a war between the Caliphate and other nations. If Australia was at war with the Caliphate, Australian Muslims would be required to take up arms against Australia. There is no clear guideline for identifying when this should occur, however many Australian Muslims believe that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

=== War ===

Muhammad executed or oversaw the execution of approximately 700 prisoners of war from a single Jewish tribe after defeating them in battle. Muhammad and modern Muslims attempt to "wash his hands" of this extreme punishment. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476] Even apparently progressive Muslims will describe criticism of this episode as "cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam", [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910] as well as try to justify it as necessary defense of a (then non-existent) Islamic state. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392294329] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabaian peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375266038][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604]

Islam requires its followers to establish an empire called a Caliphate. The religion itself is based on Muhammad's rule over his empire. All Muslims are required to return to this empire and to perform military service on its behalf [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66], unless they can buy their way out of it.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344740521]
Islam’s history was dominated by the rise and gradual collapse of a Caliphate. It is only recently that they have been without a ‘homeland’. If an Islamic empire wins a war, it can take all of the land and possessions from the people. The victors get to choose, based on what is most beneficial to the empire, whether the conquered people have to flee their land with nothing, remain with no land or possessions, or become slaves to the invaders.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61]
Situations like Israel and Northern Ireland, except more extreme, are the norm rather than the exception.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581]
Muslims often claim that the empire only spread through self defence, but this is clearly not true. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/44#44] For example, at the height of the empire, Muslims crossed the Mediterranean to join in a war in modern day Spain. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/14#14] After their initial victory, they turned on their one-time allies and slaughtered them also. They then proceeded to conquer the entire peninsula and send raids into modern day France. Muslims expect an Islamic empire to one day recapture Spain.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345026756/87#87]
In dealing with prisoners of war, Islamic doctrine permits a ruler to choose the most profitable or beneficial of four options: killing them, enslavement and possible sale, ransom or pardon.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234931054]
Many Muslims believe that the west has been in a state of war with the Muslim world since the 1920's.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128]
Muslims oppose any 'surrender' by Palestinians after losing a war decades ago on the grounds that a military victory by Muslims is imminent. They support peace treaties in this situation, but do not see them as a form of surrender. Rather, they are merely an agreement to temporarily halt the war and restart it later.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1406593144/49#49]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279]
Any treaty can be broken in this context as Islam encourages deception. Islam only permits its followers to obey a peace treaty for a maximum of ten years, after which war must resume.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232015305]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345155967/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145]
Muslims even equate refusal to surrender with not actually losing a war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/31#31]
Like the German people afer world war one, Muslims will also reject the legitimacy of any modern peace agreement.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315637372/10#10]
Muslims consistently seek out historical military losses by Muslims to use as justification for past, current and planned future aggression against non-Muslims, no matter how disconnected the events are.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/9#9]

=== Racism and antisemitism ===

Muslims believe that in historical conflicts between Jews and Muslims, the Jews were always to blame. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294] Muhammad set many examples of blaming Jews when he in fact was slaughtering or ethnically cleansing them. (See also Collective Punishment [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing]) At the same time, Muslims will insist that Islam is tolerant towards Jews and even encourages the protection of Jews.

Racism is technically against Islam, yet it is widespread, especially among politically active promoters of Islam. Nazis toured the middle east prior to WWII to drum up support for Hitler's cause and win allies. They brought the fervent antisemitism with them, which proved very popular with the locals. While the west was repulsed by the consequences of Hitler's antisemitism, the middle east and Muslims held onto it. The middle east had suffered a similar defeat to Germany, being part of a once glorious empire that slowly crumbled and was eventually dismantled by foreign powers. As always, Jews were an easy scapegoat for their misery. Having a tiny corner of 'their' territory handed over to Jews after WWII fueled the antisemitism among Muslims all over the world, to a far greater extent than the amount of land involved would suggest. Modern conspiracy theories about Jews are rife in the Muslim community and have not progressed very far beyond the crude style promoted by Hitler. Muhammad himself used anti-Jewish propaganda to further his political career and slaughtered many Jews. The justifications that modern Muslims give for the historical slaughter of Jews by Muhammad and for modern antagonism towards Jews is eerily similar to Nazi propaganda.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327483631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1343475620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212726620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338504963]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299483524]

Many Muslims consider Israel's destruction to be inevitable and oppose any surrender to Israel for this reason (see war [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War]). Muslims often portray Israel as being inflicted on the middle east by Europe and insist the Jews be sent back to Europe, however the greatest contributor to Israel's Jewish population were Jews that were expelled by Muslims from middle eastern countries - thus nearly completing Muhammad's prediction that this ethnic cleansing would happen. Those countries then attempted to invade Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372552172][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434]

Islam is not antagonistic towards Jews alone. Jews supposedly receive a measure of protection in Islam. Atheists, polytheists etc receive far worse treatment (see freedom of religion [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_of_religion]), while Shiites and any other Muslim groups that stray outside of what is considered mainstream Islam receive the death penalty for apostasy (see above).
Anti-white racism is also common and provides an easy way to blame non-Muslims for the collapse of the Islamic empire and the current state of affairs in the middle east. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330731658]

Muslims will also 'play the race card' to promote Islam. For example, they often insist that all criticism of Islam is based on racism, rather than a rational or moral objection to the teachings of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416194100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1319026216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231418706]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1437265164]
The same Muslims will also insist that calls to move Israel's population out of the middle east, justified on the basis that "Arabia is for Arabs" (and a clip from Lawrence of Arabia to show us what proper Arabs look like) is not in fact racism.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1461906947/332#332]
The explanation for why this is not racist included the fact that 'Arab' is a reference to a linguistic (and not racial) group, that the ethnic cleansing of the middle east can be justified by its history, and that critics of Islam were not sufficiently critical of other instances of racism directed at Muslims.

Muslims often fuel existing or historical racial hatred in order to create a sense of solidarity with a group of people through a shared victimhood narrative. For example, Muslims have claimed that Australian Aborigines had universities, embassies and effective quarantine programs for imports prior to the arrival of Europeans, thanks to the influence of Muslim traders from Indonesia. These Muslims also taught the Aborigines to violently repel Europeans and inspired them to several great military victories over European farmers. Part of this narrative is that Aborigines should have been more violent and that this would have led to a better outcome for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341787168]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338172056]
In the USA, the Nation of Islam is a racist Muslim 'black power' movement - ironic given that the biggest racism problem in Islam's heartland is against Africans.

==== The Jewish tribes of Medina ====

Early in his career, Muhammad was expelled from Mecca. He was later invited to broker peace in nearby Medina, a city with diverse groups that were frequently in conflict with each other. Muhammad was seen as being independent. However for Muhammad, Medina was of strategic military importance. It was a stronghold from which he could rob caravans trading with Mecca, and he wanted to obtain absolute control of it. At the time there were three powerful Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad saw them as a strategic threat. Muhammad soon started openly preaching hostility towards the Jewish tribes, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/145#145] and within a few years had gotten rid of all three of them, on weak pretexts. After each major battle, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of some form of treachery and used this as an excuse to reneg on his agreement with them. The first tribe to be expelled were the Banu Qaynuqa, who as artisans and traders were in close contact with Mecca. After being strengthened by victory in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad publicly demanded they convert to Islam or meet the same fate. Muhammad besieged them and they surrendered after a fortnight. Muhammad wanted to slaughter them, but was convinced by a Muslim convert to be 'lenient' to them. This succeeded, however the convert was forever dubbed 'leader of the hypocrits'. Muhammad expelled the tribe, and kept all of their posessions. The other two tribes either remained neutral or supported Muhammad. After losing the battle of Mount Uhud, Muhammad accused members of the Banu Nadir of plotting to assassinate him (apparently an angel warned him of the plot). Muhammad expelled them also, again keeping their property. He became personally very wealthy by taking a large amount of their land for himself. The tribe initially agreed to leave, then refused, believing the third Jewish tribe would assist them. This help did not materialise and they surrendered after Muhammad besieged them for a fortnight. Muhammad later attcked them again, forcing them to become his subjects, hand over all the new land they had acquired, and pay 50% of what they grew as tax. In the battle of the trench, members of the third tribe (Banu Qurayza) assisted Muhammad, however the tribe entered into failed negotiations with the enemy. After the enemy departed, Muhammad was directed by an angel to attack the tribe, again besieging them for about a month. They surrendered, and Muhammad had all adult men in the tribe executed. The women were taken as sex slaves. Muhammad forced other Jewish tribes to pass the judgement and carry out the executions in order to distance himself from it and make it harder for the other Jews to hold it against him. Muslims will insist that the Jews were a borg-like, mindless collective in order to justify the collective punishment (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing Collective Punishment]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/122#122]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/9#9]

Thus, Muhammad established a pattern of behaviour of claiming victimhood while slaughtering Jews, taking Jewish women as sex slaves, confiscating their property, all the while while blaming Jews for their own mistreatment.

Muslims will attempt to 'flood' a discussion about the Jewish tribes a Medina with a long list of excuses and justifications. None of these justifications stand up to scrutiny, however Muslims will change between them rapidly in order to avoid detailed consideration of any one of them, in the hope that people will loose interest before gaining an appreciation of what happened. Some examples:

Jews were tribal and had no concept of individuality. The Jews were a 'mindless collective'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544]
The fact that there were only 700 of them shows they had a collective mind. The Jewish tribe failed to act consistently as a collective.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/22#22]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
The 'tribe' was punished for it's actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
The Jews were to blame for every conflict between Muslims and Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Muhammad needed a 'permanent solution' and it was impractical to continue detaining them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
Cricising this action is 'cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
The actions of Muhammad are morally equivalent to modern punishments for treason.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/27#27]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/24#24]
Current anti-terror and bikie laws also invoke guilt by association.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/35#35]
Their presence at the time of surrender proves their guilt, because they previously had the opportunity to commit treason by turning against their own tribe and joining the enemy that had laid siege to them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
Muhammad had learnt his lesson about the dangers of letting Jews live.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It is reasonable to ascribe collective guilt if they had the opportunity to distance themselves from the actions of other Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The Jews violated a treated that compelled them to come to the defence of the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
The fact that many of them actually helped Muhammad and the Muslims defend themselves is irrelevant to their guilt, because the tribe also acted against Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
Their treachery had nothing to do with refusing to help the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The tribe was judged by a Jew, according to Talmudic law and thus Muhammad was not responsible for the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
There was an ongoing war and the Muslims were fighting for their very existence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
One of the tribes had 'effectively declared war'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
The Jews and their allies were planning genocide of the Muslims, so it is only reasonable for Muhammad to commit genocide in anticipation of this.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
It is OK because Muhammad was not motivated by racism (he 'had Jewish friends').
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler was much worse, even if you adjust for the number of Jews available for slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler actually acted irrationally and undermined his quest for power by dedicating so many resources to slaughtering Jews, whereas Muhammad did it for more practical reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
You need to consider the historical context.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
The enslavement of all the women after the men were slaughtered was actually a form of protective custody.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
Sex slavery does not necessarily mean serial rape and there was a possibility of emancipation (eg by bearing a male child to their Muslim owner).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Other, more evil rulers, would have slaughtered the women and children also.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Only the Jewish POWs who had participated in fighting against Muslims were executed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
It just looks bad because of the holocaust, and thus Muslims are being blamed for the attrocities of Europeans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
The leaders had conspired against the fledgling Islamic State which had to be protected.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
By remaining in Medina, the Jewish tribe posed an ongoing threat to the new Islamic State, which was surrounded by enemies.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/6#6]
The tribe was too powerful and autonomous and acted beligerantly.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Primacy of self preservation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It was a serious situation and the Jews could not be handled with 'kid gloves'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/15#15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It doesn't matter whether their actions were right or wrong.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
It was not actually about punishment and it does not matter who was actually to blame.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
It is irrelevant whether they deserved the punishment. It's like a Clint Eastwood movie.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15#15]
The 'proper meaning' of collective punishment somehow excludes mass executions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
Collective punishment is an overly emotive term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
Collective punishment is a meaningless term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There is no point discussing whether it was collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Collective punishment has a different meaning today.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/98#98]
It was collective punishment, but it was justified.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
Punishing a group collectively is not the same as collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/49#49]
It has nothing to do with slaughtering POWs.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/239#239]
The expulsion/eradication of all three large Jewish tribes should be viewed as 'power-politics' rather than religious persecution.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/71#71]
Merely banishing two of the tribes instead of slaughtering them was a level of mercy previously unheard of.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/15#15]
Slaughtering 800 Jews in one day cannot be seen as intimidating.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There are significant differences between practicing and achieving ethnic cleansing.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/68#68]
Muhammad merely 'prophesised' the ethnic cleansing of Arabia, which is different from commanding it, and it was not completed until after Muhammad died.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was 'forced' to remove all non-Muslims from the Hijaz. Non-Muslims were given a 'chance' to live in peace with Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was committed to living peacefully with non-Muslims but was force to change for strategic reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Only those who actually fought the Muslims were killed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/61#61]
Punishing a group for a crime commited by their leader is perfectly consistent with punishing them for their own actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
Muhammad offered to let them go if they promised not to do it again, but they refused.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
It is not up to Muslims to back up any of the claims they make to justify the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/65#65]
It's OK because they were not bona fide Jews.

==== Blaming races for diseases ====

Muslims will hold Europeans collectively accountable for 'European' diseases introduced to the Americas. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/348#348] Arabs are also collectively accountable for 'Arab' diseases introduced by Arabs, but generally get an exception because their diseases were introduced "as a result of friendly traders making contact with natives in good faith and instigating trade based on mutual respect" (in fact the main item traded by Muslim Arabs were female sex slaves). Europeans get no such exemptions because European diseases were introduced to the Americas by Spaniards with the intention of raping the locals (Europeans were actually trying to discover an alternative trade route to Asia after the Muslim Ottomans made the land route too dangerous). Europeans are to be blamed regardless of whether the introduction of diseases was intentional. Muslims will even argue that the native Americans would have somehow avoided introduced diseases were it not for the sinister intentions of Europeans.

=== Honesty ===

Muslims often attempt to conceal aspects of Islam that they believe their audience will object to, or to mislead them about it
(see [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712]
Islam even forbids Muslims from making inquiries about Islam where they may feel uncomfortable with the answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360487801]
Muslims will insist that lying is permissible in a very limited set of situations, such as war (Muslims refer to this as taqiyya [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348]). They will attempt to argue that this means lying is not permitted in Islam, but also claim that they believe the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595] Historically (during the Caliphate) Islam divided the world into two parts - the house of peace and the house of war (outside the Caliphate, where lying about Islam is presumably permitted). Muslims are also encouraged to deceive in order to achieve peace, in particular by inventing 'good' information. However such fabrications are considered by Islam to not be lies, thus allowing Muslims to lie about Islam at the same time as insisting Islam forbids lying, without actually lying. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/79#79]
Sunni Muslims will also claim that Shiites permit themselves to lie, but not Sunnis.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583]

=== Honour ===

Islam regards honour highly, placing it above truth, compassion, freedom etc. A key reason given for the standards of evidence and for the death penalty by stoning for crimes of a sexual nature is to conceal people and to "make societies avoid accusations against people’s honour and aspersions on their lineages." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48] This is taken to the extent of claiming that they are liars in Allah's eyes (an issue of truth) if they cannot produce witnesses to back up their claims of sexual indiscretion, even if they know the claim to be truthful. A Muslim's honour is considered to be of 'grave sanctity'.

=== Theft ===

The penalty for theft is getting your hand cut off. Kleptomaniacs would get their hand cut off. If a weapon is used, then the punishment for 'banditry' applies: "they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474]

Although Muhammad forbade theft on a 'personal' level, he engaged in theft as part of his nation-building process, by robbing caravans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604] Muslims justify this theft by arguing that they felt persecuted by the people they were stealing from. They will also insist Muslims were tortured and mistreated by the people they were stealing from, however no details are ever provided to back up these claims. In a broader sense, this theft was performed by the Muslim community as a whole (often by a few hundred men) against non-Muslims. Muhammad later commanded his followers not to fight Jews and Christians if they paid a special tax (jizya).

== Sex ==

=== Sex slaves ===

In addition to their wives, Muslim men may have sex with female slaves (concubines [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1326238283/15#21]). Islam "abrogates" the marriage of captured (non-Muslim) women to make this permissible. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887]

=== Rape ===

Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332074116] Where sex is not permitted, rape is punished the same way as consensual sex. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/27#27][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474/13#13] Muslims reject the concept of 'consenting adults' and do not consider sex to be consensual unless God (ie Islamic law) permits it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/43#43] Islam requires a wife to satisfy her husband's sexual desires and does not recognise the need for consent based on the wife's choice.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/60#60]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
In other words, for a woman sex is either completely forbidden or obligatory at the whim of the man, depending on the context. Muslim men may have sex with slaves or 'whatever their right hand possesses', however Muslims distinguish between slaves that you have sex with and 'sex slaves', presumably on the grounds that only the owner of the slave may rape her legally.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330835332]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566]
Women caught through conquest may also be raped. Muslim's consider the rape of their slaves as a 'right' and even go so far as to describe it as liberating for captured women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/15#15] Rape of a non-Muslim woman under other circumstances is technically illegal under Islam, but the courts discount the testimony of non-Muslims as unreliable. In addition to the punishment for consensual sex, an 'illegal' rapist must also pay a dowry to the victim. If the victim is a slave, the rapist must reimburse for the reduction in value of the slave (presumably to the owner of the slave). This payment must be made regardless of whether the victim is a virgin (though this would presumably have an impact on the value of a slave). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Muslims often claim that the low rate of reporting of rape and pedophilia in Islamic societies is evidence of low occurrence, rather than legalisation of rape, the difficulties in achieving conviction and the barriers to reporting (many women who report rape often get convicted of sex related crimes). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773]

=== Pedophilia and child brides ===

Pedophilia was apparently common in Muhammad's time, and Muhammad is considered by Muslims to have been within his rights (according to the customs of the time [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/141#141]) to have sex with his child bride before she reached puberty. The most reliable sources explicitly state that she was 9 years old when he had sex with her. Despite numerous later references to her menstruating, there is no record in any Islamic texts of whether she had reached puberty at this time. Aisha possessed dolls at the time Muhammad had sex with her, but this is not proof she was prepubescent, as the ban on dolls for post-pubescent girls applies to playing with them, not possessing them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176] The meaning of 'maturity' in terms of age of consent depends on the context. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/174#174] In Muhammad's time girls were 'conditioned' to grow up quickly. Muhammad and Aisha were 'in love' when they married (when she was 6 years old and he was about 50). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176]

Although many Muslims insist that the age of consent in Islamic law is puberty, the concept of age of consent is not mentioned in any Islamic texts, despite for example puberty being stated as the age at which an orphan may be given rights to his property. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/225#228] There are some verses regarding the withholding period for divorced women that condone sex with prepubescent girls. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/144#144] These have been used by some Muslim clerics to specifically permit sex with pre-pubescent wives and even issue instructions on how to "deal with them" during the consummation. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/228#228] Child brides, including pre-pubescent child brides, are still a big problem in many parts of the Middle East and North Africa where Islam has had a strong influence on the culture.

Even where Muslim leaders rule that a husband must wait until his wife reaches puberty to have sex with her, Islam still effectively institutionalises pedophilia in marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057] A pedophile may have up to four prepubescent wives at any time, and as many slave girls as he can get his hands on. He does not have to marry the girls for life but can divorce them and get a new prepubescent wife as soon as they become too mature for his taste. The only caveat on this is that society trusts him not to actually have sex with them until they reach puberty. However, he may live with the girls and move wherever he wants. This, combined with the Islamic requirement for women to cover themselves from head to toe, the dislocation imposed on their lives, and the strict control that men exert over the women they own (eg, a wife requires her husband's permission to leave the house) means that institutionalised pedophilia is impossible to eradicate within Islamic law. Pedophilia outside of marriage is punishable the same way as consensual sex, however given the severe punishment for this and the pedophile-friendly marriage laws it is likely that many pedophiles will satisfy themselves within the confines of marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28] Attempts to eradicate organised 'extra marital' pedophilia (ie, pedophile rings) would be hampered by the same laws that prevent the discovery of pedophilia within marriage.

Pedophile marriages among Muslim communities within the west can go largely unnoticed, due to lack of interest within the Muslim community in preventing it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391854581][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773/10#10]

=== Incest ===

Muhammad married his first cousin. In Islam's traditional heartland the practice is common and causes many problems - both biological, in terms of congenital abnormalities, and social, in terms of arranged marriages, child brides, women's rights, etc. Up to 80% of marriages in some places are blood related. The level drops for immigrant Muslim groups in the west, but can still be as high as 40%. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1382857194/32#32] Muhammad's example no doubt makes it hard to advise people of the risks, given the inevitable hostility to the suggestion that Muhammad did something wrong and that his example should not be followed. The penalty for incest outside of marriage is the same as for consensual sex (death by stoning). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Arranged marriages ===

Islam prescribes arranged marriages. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196/15#15]

=== Polygamy ===

A man may have up to four wives (at a time) in addition to sex slaves (see below). A woman may have only one husband. She only needs one, as he provides whatever she needs. A Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but not an atheist one or one from a 'non-Abrahamic' religion. A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man. Muhammad was permitted roughly 11 wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480/3#3]

=== Love ===

Islam does not accept the conventional view of love, which is discarded as nothing more than infatuation, which disables reason and logic. Instead, women grow to love the husband who was chosen for them. This love is based around a belief in Islam as the one true religion. For this reason it makes no difference if a girl is married at the age of 6, 12 or 18, or how much older her chosen husband is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196] Islam facilitates domestic violence, and women are expected to be subservient to their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/9#9] If she cheats on her chosen husband, she is stoned to death (see adultery below). Muslims believe that this facilitates 'normal and healthy relationships within the confines of marriage'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

=== Adultery ===

The penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753]
No concessions are given in the case of organised marriage, which is the norm.

=== Fornication ===

The penalty for fornication (premarital sex) is 100 lashes. The penalty may be waived if the fornicators were not given the opportunity to marry before sex (eg because they couldn't afford it).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/5#5]

=== Prostitution ===

The penalty for prostitution is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Homosexuality ===

The penalty for acting gay or talking in an effeminate or gay manner by choice (ie excluding physical 'defect') is death by stoning. This is considered to be apostasy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/3#3]. The penalty for homosexual sex itself is the same as for adultery or fornication, depending on whether you are married.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28]
Apparently, very few gays would actually be executed because homosexuality simply disappears under Islam. That is, it is not driven underground by the death penalty; rather men just stop having sex with each other because they are Muslims and they live under Shariah law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11]
This can be contrasted with modern Saudi Arabia, where men can often be found having sex with each other in public toilets. Apparently, this can be attributed to the laws governing the lives of women being slightly stricter than the correct Islamic standards.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/15#15]
Such men are using other men as a substitute for women and are thus not gay, merely have gay sex. However the penalty for gay sex is the same regardless of whether you are actually gay. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11] An Islamic society that permits four wives per man, requires women to cover everything except their face and hands, to get permission from a man to leave the house and that bans unrelated women and men from interacting socially would apparently not run out of women and lead to the same situation as Saudi Arabia because not every man would have four wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24]

=== Masturbation ===

Masturbation is forbidden in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] The punishment is of a broad category called "ta'zeer". In the later Ottoman times, ta'zeer punishments ranged from fines and mild lashings to short prison terms.

=== Bestiality ===

The penalty for bestiality is death by stoning. The animal must also be killed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170] Some Muslims believe there is no punishment, except for killing the animal and selling it to a neighbouring village. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511]

=== Necrophilia ===

Necrophilia is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted, with the added restriction that the corpse has to be fresh. The Arab spring gave birth to serious efforts to legalise necrophilia (with a 6 hour time limit) and reduce the age of consent in Egypt. The legislation is currently before parliament. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1310028601/21#21]

=== Privacy ===

Muslims believe that what happens in the bedroom rarely stays in the bedroom and is harmful to society. They also believe that the law cannot be separated from morality on this or any other issue. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]

== Other ==

=== Art ===
Islam specifically forbids any depiction of any of the prophets (including Muhammad, Jesus, Moses etc). This includes pictures and statues. It also forbids any depiction of any revered person, or any person at all. Islam still permits art, but it is strictly abstract. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/20#20]

=== Alcohol ===
All intoxicants are forbidden. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347337305/7#7]

=== Circumcision ===
Circumcision of both men and women is practiced under Islam, though there is disagreement over whether it is required, recommended or merely permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215611509/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395430570/82#82]. The extent of female genital mutilation is controlled and those who cut too much off are punished with death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/7#7]

=== Clothing ===
A woman must cover everything except her face and hands. Her clothes must not be too tight fitting, in case her figure can be made out. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] Penalty????

=== Music ===
Musical instruments are generally forbidden, as they are 'pure evil'. Some Muslims consider singing to be illegal, while others will accept singing and possibly instruments provided the message of the song is acceptable, and also depending on the occasion (eg a wedding).

=== Personal hygiene ===
Muslims are required to remove all of their public hair, but no facial hair. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225352862] Islam provides detailed instructions on ablutions, wiping yourself with your hand, drinking camel urine etc.

== Achieving Change ==

I am still not sure how 'hard' Islam requires its followers to 'lobby' for these changes. There appears to be some confusion on this issue. The general rule seems to be for Muslims to peacefully tolerate modern laws until they are in a powerful enough position to force the adoption of Islamic law.

Wikipedia has a series of articles on controversies related to Islam and Muslims. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_related_to_Islam_and_Muslims]

= Can Islam Adapt? =

It is important not to view Islam, or compare it with other religions, in a historical vacuum. The rampant conservatism in the middle east is no doubt attributable to the longevity of the Ottoman empire and recent western 'progressive' influence which has been just as negative as positive. The 'closure of the gates of ijtihad' (cessation of religious enquiry) some time during or after the 10th century no doubt played a role. However this closure was more by consensus than by Quranic decree, so ultimately there is nothing ruling out a reopening. Western society took a long time to adopt separation of church and state as a core value. Islam appears to rule this out, which poses perhaps the biggest barrier to reform.
Islam requires its followers to contribute productively to any new society they move to. While this may be reassuring for the short term outlook, in the long term it does nothing to rule out a return to military conquest, terrorism and violent struggles for power.

On the upside, the abolition of slavery creates a valuable precedent for modern theologists to challenge what seem to be core tenets of Islam. Another factor in favour of change is that Islam has no generally accepted clerical hierarchy or bureaucratic organization. Thus, liberal movements can arise easily within Islam, as is currently happening. The same problem that allows extremists and terrorists to go relatively unchallenged also allows for progressive reform. Inevitably, Islam will undergo significant reform at some point in the future, or drag the rest of the world back into barbarism. It is crucial that the west allow this to happen, and not 'poison the well' by making the Muslim world associate western values with oppression and decadence.

= European Court of Human Rights and Sharia Law =

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the '''European Court of Human Rights''' determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-RefahPartisi2001jude.html

On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving the RP on the ground that it had become a "centre of activities against the principle of secularism". It also declared that the RP’s assets were to be transferred by operation of law to the Treasury. The Constitutional Court further held that the public declarations of the RP’s leaders, and in particular Necmettin Erbakan, Sevket Kazan and Ahmet Tekdal, had a direct bearing on the constitutionality of the RP’s activities. Consequently, it imposed a further sanction in the form of a ban on their sitting in Parliament or holding certain other forms of political office for a period of five years.

The Court considered that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions: (1) the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and (2) the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognised could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

= OIC vs Freedom of Speech =

In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination.

A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call “Islamophobia.”

Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own “ten-year program of action” which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan’s Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, “Fitna” — Wilders’ short documentary film that ties certain Quranic passages to Islamist terrorism —

is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code.

Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign” which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has “confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.”

In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned “Islamophobes” like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as “dhimmitude.”

Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from “politically incorrect” to “criminally punishable” activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do.

We are witnessing the spectacle of authors’ books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called “Human Rights Councils” on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other “Islamophobic” conduct.

Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of “Shariah-Compliant Finance.”

Let’s be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22:

If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.

On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don’t, you can legitimately be killed.

It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies’ demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today’s totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah —

and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.

www.rashmanly.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/7616/

Deception of Non-Muslims

2018-09-07T11:38:15Z

Freediver: /* Freedom */

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

Muslim spokesmen employ a peculiar style of deceptive propaganda that so far has caught western media off-guard. It takes advantage of a common assumption among those who have only been exposed to other religions – the assumption that the statements of religious leaders can be taken at face value because religious leaders want people to understand their religion. It takes advantage of western ignorance of Islam while at the same time seeking to maintain that ignorance. It takes advantage of people's tendency to see Islam as a religion in the traditional sense, rather than as a combination of a militant political ideology and a religion. Thus a Muslim religious leader should not be seen in the same way as most religious leaders. He should be viewed as a combination of politician and religious leader. When addressing a western, non-Muslim audience, he should not be viewed as a typical missionary, but as an astute politician addressing a hostile audience who won't like all of his policies - he will tell you what you want to hear. Viewing them as a politician can be a difficult task as they often combine this with a hypersensitivity to criticism or direct questioning that a politician could not get away with. 'How dare you accuse me of lying' is a powerful challenge coming from a cleric with his 'religious leader' hat on, but would be ridiculed if it came from a politician.

Muslims use a number of strategies to either conceal the more barbaric aspects of their religion or to deceive people about Islamic doctrine. The initial deception is semantic. Literally, they say one thing and mean another, the opposite of calling a spade a spade. This typically involves using a dual meaning that is generally only understood by Muslims, or using Arabic terms. The initial deception is followed up with a number of rhetorical techniques that create a barrier to effective communication. These are essentially a form of diversion. While some of these tricks are familiar to a western audience, some are largely unfamiliar and play on Islamic concepts with which the west is unfamiliar.

Muslims will discuss with each other deliberate attempts to strategically generate propaganda for the political aspects of Islam. This looks far more like the actions of a political party intent on winning at all costs rather than a religion trying to promote the truth. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276]

= Textual justifications for deception =

There are several textual sources of that justify deception by Muslims. Some are given below:

''Abu Hurairah narrates that the Prophet said: “One who keeps the faults of a Muslim secret in this world, Allah will keep his faults in the Hereafter and Allah remains in the help of the (Muslim) man until he is in the help of his brother.”'' (Musnad Ahmad: 274/2)

Muslims have built a strong tradition and culture around this hadith that places reputation above truth and calls on Muslims to, first and foremost, protect the reputation of other Muslims. Muslims who become aware of illegal or immoral behaviour by fellow Muslims are severely restricted, by Islam, in how they can respond. The inevitable result of this is an oppressive, corrupt society that is completely unwilling to have an open dialogue about it's own oppression and corruption.

Another interesting verse, this time directly from the Quran, forbids Muslims from asking questions about troubling aspects of Islam:

''O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.'' (Surah 5:101-102).

A similar verse:

''The clerk of Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba narrated, "Muawiya wrote to Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba: Write to me something which you have heard from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ." So Al-Mughira wrote: I heard the Prophet saying, "Allah has hated for you three things: ... 3. And asking too many questions (in disputed religious matters)'' (Bukhari vol. 2, Hadith#. 555)

Although this is a call to self-delusion, it is a necessary psychological strategy for the deception of others - both Muslim and non-Muslim - regarding Islam. Feeling constantly pressured to knowingly deceive others might cause Muslims to lose faith. But if Muslims never inform themselves of the troublesome aspects of Islam in the first place, they will have at best only a vague awareness of them, and will more likely accept outright lies about the matter. The version of Islam they pass onto fellow Muslims and non-Muslims will be appropriately 'cleansed' according to whatever the society wants to hear, based on the values of the time. While this may appear to be a recipe for the destruction of Islam from within, it must be remembered that Islam requires its spread to be followed closely by the imposition of a militant Islamic state that is utterly hostile to any 'incorrect' versions of the religion being promoted. This includes the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy, where apostasy is taken to include adopting the 'wrong' version of Islam. Thus, Islam spreads through a combination of willful self-delusion, concealment and deception, followed by the ruthless imposition of the harsh realities of true Islam.

One last example from the Quran:

''And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.'' Qur'an (3:54)

Ironically, many Muslim websites translate this as "plan" rather than "scheme". Technically, the Arabic term can be translated as plan, but only in the context of planning to do someone harm through deceipt.

= Lying about the Quran =

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]]

Muslims will lie about the Quran, primarily to whitewash the promotion of violence.

For example, Chapter 9 of the Quran is entirely devoted to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Muslims will claim that the fist verse of the chapter states that the entire chapter is restricted in context to pagans who violate their treaties with Muslims. Not only does the first verse not actually say this, there are verses in the chapter that clearly go beyond this scope, as well as other broad contextual statements similar to verse one that have a broader scope.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/212#212]
Muslims will argue that a reference to a subgroup of pagans (those with a treaty) must imply that all references to pagans in the chapter must refer to those with a treaty (even when it does not make sense), because the it does specifically mention pagans without a treaty. It was never explained why this was necessary in order to refer to pagans in general.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/223#223]

Muhammad committed genocide by wiping out the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe - the last remaining of three large tribes of Jews in Medina. Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran states that members of the tribe were freed, in order to contradict other Muslim sources who state that all 'adult' (those who had pubic hair) men were killed and the rest taken prisoner. They will 'paraphrase' the Quran to insert the claim that some were freed. The Quran does not state that some were freed, but does confirm they were either executed or taken prisoner.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran forbids rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Sex_Slaves]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran is not anti-semitic (despite clearly anti-semitic content) on the grounds that Jews are technically considered to be Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Religious_Motivation]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Islam.E2.80.99s_Just_War_Doctrine_is_a_Lie]
that the Quran limits war to situations of self defence, without ever mentioning self defence,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]
that quoting chapter 9 of the Quran in its entirety is actually taking it out of context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Context]
that a verse saying to convert people to Islam by the sword actually means war can only be fought against oppression,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Oppression]
that a verse promoting violent retribution is actually a statement of proportionality in war, despite not making even a subtle reference to proportionality
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Proportionality]
Note that the Quran does explicitly limit war to self defence and also offers a clear an unambiguous statement of proportionality in war, but limits these restrictions to the 'holy months'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#When_the_Koran_does_impose_self_defence_and_proportionality]

Muslims will attempt to justify lying about the Quran to non-Muslims by insisting it will make Muslims more peaceful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Justifying_Lies_about_the_Quran]

Muslims have a broad variety of more subtle ways of distancing themselves from their religion
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Disowning_Islam]
or misleading people by changing the meaning of words.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantic_deceptions]

= Some common strategies =

== Exploiting positive assumptions ==

One of the most irony-laden discussions with Muslims revolved around the concept of taqiyya. This rule permits Muslims to deceive people, break the law or commit blasphemy under certain circumstances. When asked whether this gives Muslims free reign to lie to non-Muslims, several Muslims pointed out that it only applies in certain circumstances, such as war. This was an indirect response that relied heavily on the assumption that we are not at war. One of those Muslims later explained that he believed that the West had been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920’s and that the west had declared and carried out this war. This is a good example of a very subtle deception taking advantage of positive assumptions, in the context of discussing deception itself. This strategy works well when combined with hypersensitivity to discourage people from seeking a more direct response when only an indirect response was given. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

== Islamic law follows belief ==

Islam requires the imposition of Shariah law on both Muslims and non-Muslims. Having the law imposed on you is considered necessary and an integral part of Islam. Islam also requires Muslims to follow Islamic law in foreign countries. The process for turning a foreign country into an Islamic one has always been through a process of empire building, often through outright violence, but always with the threat of violence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924] Muslims see no contradiction between this and the 'peaceful empire' fairytale. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581] Muslims will go so far as to insist they are not allowed to lobby for Islamic law and that it merely 'follows naturally' after everyone has converted to Islam, even though this never happened historically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

== Revising history: science and the 'peaceful' empire fairytale ==

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims have created an elaborate fantasy about Islam restricting war to self-defence. This relies on misleading people about trends in historical military strategy, misleading people about Muhammad's actions, and misleading people about the content of the Quran.

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine]]

Revising history appears to be a favourite pastime of Muslims. This usually involves going to absurd lengths to overstate the contributions made by Muslims (especially to science) and undervalue the contribution of non-Muslims, or to pass blame for every historical evil by Muhammad and his successors to the non-Muslim victims. This can in part be attributed to the obligation of Muslims to look more favourably on fellow Muslims than non-Muslims
(see for example
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2 Justice] and
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty Honesty]).
Apparently Muslims made vast contributions to science. For example, the bloke who jumped off a tower with feathers glued to his arms, making a nasty stain on the pavement below, made a valuable contribution to our understanding of flight.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1362655638][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218803024]
One of the most outrageous claims is that the Caliphate (Islamic empire) was peaceful and spread only through self defense, even when it crossed the Mediterranean to invade modern day Spain and France. Muslims actually expect people to take this absurd version of history seriously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493]
A favourite justification for this claim is that Christians welcomed Muslims into Spain with open arms, in order to get lower taxes. What really happened is that the Muslim hordes allied themselves with one Spanish kingdom so they could cross a massive natural protective barrier (the Mediterranean) and slaughter another Spanish kingdom. Then they turned their swords on their allies and slaughtered them too. Then they slaughtered their way across the whole peninsula. Then they started sending raids into modern day France. Eventually the French and Italians booted them out of Europe.
Muslims frequently claim that various towns and Kingdom's welcomed the Empire with open arms. They will describe an offer to submit to the caliphate as entirely peaceful, even when there was a naked threat of violence if the town did not submit. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]

Muslims will deny that Muhammad committed genocide when he exterminated an entire tribe of Jews by killing 800 innocent people (almost all of the post pubescent men) in a single day, and taking the women and children as slaves. They will falsely claim that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina and deserved to die for violating it. However, the tribes concerned were not even a part of the treaty, and in any case the treaty stipulated that members would maintain freedom of religion, which Muhammad had long since abandoned when he started threatening Jews with violence if they did not convert to Islam. A few members of the tribe were allowed to live if they converted to Islam. Rather than acknowledging this as an example of forced conversion, Muslims will try to spin it as Muhammad generously pardoning them for their 'crime' if they disowned their treachery. The Jews surrendered unconditionally when Muhammad laid siege to their fortress and were taken prisoner. Muslims will argue that there was no war and they were thus not prisoners of war and not to be granted any protection as such, on the grounds that they did not notify Muhammad that they were reneging on their treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/145#145] Muslims will falsely claim that only 'warriors' were executed, despite the victims including old men and young boys. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1488589434/18#18]

Muslims will make particularly ludicrous and misleading claims about history, then later justify this by claiming that they made more accurate statements elsewhere and blaming their critics for not quoting the statements that 'matter'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1508378680/261#261]

Muslims will claim that Dhimmitude is specifically against oppression of non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1535727444] The reality is that Muhammad's system of government created a caste system where there was previous Pagans, Jews and Christians living side by side as political equals. Under Dhimmitude, Muslims are on top, Christians and Jews are next, but suffer a variety of deprivations, including genocide when convenient, while pagans are at the bottom and were wiped out very quickly.

== Statistics ==

Muslims often attempt to misrepresent the threat posed by Islamic terrorism with statistics that equate attacks such as 9/11, the London bombings, Madrid and Bali with vandalism attacks by other extremist political groups. They do this by measuring the 'rate' of terrorism by the number of individual events, rather than a more appropriate measure of risk, such as death toll.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340791727]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294223444]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1349425752]

Muslims will also often misrepresent crime statistics, for example by attributing differences in reported rates of crime with actual rates of crime, when there is an obvious difference in reporting patterns. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/225#225] This is most pronounced with crimes such as rape, which are obviously less likely to be reported in middle eastern countries, where the rape victim often ends up being punished. Muslims will often claim that certain crimes were almost non-existent in the historical Caliphate (common examples are [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Homosexuality homosexuality], murder, rape, apostasy etc). They will use their inability to find evidence of successful convictions as evidence that the convictions and punishments were rare, particularly when insisting that the punishment of death by stoning would only be implemented rarely (the classic logical fallacy of equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence). They will then turn this reasoning on it's head and demand that people who disagree with them produce crime statistics from 1000 years ago. On another tangent, apparently a Muslim country will not 'run out of women' until all men have four wives. If not all men can afford four wives, it will not be a problem. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24] (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape].)

Muslims will claim that a survey shows a majority of Australians supporting them in their efforts to make it illegal to mock religion or depict historical religious figures
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that the survey shows them supporting that right. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]

Muslims will offer endless explanations for global surveys revealing the opinions of Muslims - anything other than the survey reflecting what Muslims actually think.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#Malaysia]

= Deflections =

== Simple diversion ==

The first trick usually employed on forums is a simple diversion. If you ask 'do Muslims think it is OK to do this?', they will respond by listing examples of where something similar (no matter how remote the similarity) has been done to Muslims. This shifts the debate away from Islamic doctrine and how it seems immoral to most westerners, to a blame game over who is responsible for past atrocities. Thus Islamic doctrine is not exposed and the debate switches to from moral standards to politics or history.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390612677/11#11]

The most obvious example of this is terrorism. Most Muslims will say that terrorism is wrong, but they then go on to list all the grievances of the middle east. They may also deny that Muslims bear any responsibility for reigning in Islamic terrorists. Many claim that the reigning in of terrorists should not be a first step in the peace process, but rather a last step. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224827866] That is, we must first satisfy all the grievances of the terrorists and give Muslim extremists whatever they want (mostly more political power and geopolitical restructuring of the middle east), and only after that can they be expected to stop slaughtering people. However that is where the explanation stops. Muslims will not explain why they think this. Instead they will bring up some media report of an accidental civilian death attributable to a western army. I suspect that Muslims think this way because they see all non-Muslim lands as being a place of war. One hint of this is that they will refuse to distinguish the deliberate mass murder of civilians by terrorist organisations for which no person or nation can be held accountable, and the accidental death of civilians in an armed conflict with a guerrilla army that hides among civilians. Thus, destroying the twin towers is an act of war in a place of war and is no different to the death of civilians in a 'real' war zone. However, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get a Muslim to either admit to this or to offer some other explanation for why terrorist organisations should be given free reign until their various (largely unspecified) demands have been met.

== Et tu ==

'Et tu' is a reference to a logical fallacy. It refers to the debating strategy of accusing your opponent of something that you yourself have been accused of (or something worse). It is a logical error in the sense that it is used to justify your own actions. In the case of Islam, this tactic is used in an astonishingly predictable manner every time historical injustices committed by Muslims are brought up. The response is to ignore the injustice and how it may relate to Islam (or not) and instead give examples where non-Muslims have done similar things. There does not have to be any causative relationship. For example Muslims have attempted to justify mass murder by Muhammad himself by citing an example of non-Muslims doing something worse in the same town 600 years later (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). This of course helps to completely avoid the issue of whether such behaviour should be incorporated into timeless religious law, or whether it is even endorsed by Islam.

Muslims will falsely claim that Jesus stipulated the inferior status of women in order to insist that Muhammad's Quranic command to beat women, and the account of Muhammad himself beating his favourite child bride for leaving the house without his permission, place no more of a barrier on Muslims stamping out domestic violence than Jesus' teachings place on Christians. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/107#107] They will insist that Muhammad beating his wife is nothing like modern domestic violence because he was not a drunk bogan, and that beating his wife was merely a way of asking her what she was thinking. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/36#36][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/309#309]

== Moral equivalence ==

Arguing moral equivalence is similar to 'et tu'. It is most commonly used in discussing the incident in which Muhammad executed approximately 700 Prisoners of War (POWs). The deception comes in the misleading or missing details required to make the comparison stick. Muslims will argue for example that only combatants were killed, or that only those found guilty of treason were executed (and thus the incident is morally equivalent to the death penalty for treason in some western countries). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/6#6] Muhammad apparently punished them for either assisting his enemies in an earlier attack, not coming to his aid to the extent required by an agreement with them, conspiring with the enemy, or because the angel Gabriel told him to. The excuses offered omit or misrepresent key facts, such as:
* Many of the tribe members actually assisted Muhammad in defending against the earlier attack.
* Muslims will accuse the tribe members of attacking Muhammad when his army was under siege from a different group, however these attacks never actually happened.
* Muhammad attacked the tribe in question.
* The tribe surrendered unconditionally.
* After the they surrendered and were taken away, all able bodied male prisoners of war (and one female) were executed.
* The rest of the women ended up us sex slaves, though some were purchased by another Jewish tribe who felt guilty over their involvement in Muhammad's slaughter.
* Even the children ended up as slaves.
* Muhammad took all the land and possessions also.
Muslims will also attempt to argue that this incident is similar to various atrocities committed during recent wars, completely ignoring the point that we do not worship the soldiers involved as God's messenger and do not condone the execution of POWs, sexual slavery, the enslavement of children, or collective punishment in general. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/37#37]

Some other examples:
* Wife beating is morally equivalent to smacking a child to prevent the child from running onto the road, putting his life at risk. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/227#227]
* Muhammad spent approximately 6 years robbing caravans on their way to Mecca. Muslims will argue that this was just compensation for earlier persecution by Meccans, or that it was a legitimate act in an ongoing war that had been declared but not actually begun. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/4#4]
* Forbidding all non-Muslims from Mecca is no different to being unable to purchase land privately in Vatican city, or to the creation of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374893194/8#8]

== Victimhood ==

One of the most common responses from Muslims to accusations is to cry victimhood. Muhammad lead the way in this. Shortly after moving into Medina and making peace agreements with the other three Jewish tribes there, Muhammad managed to get rid of all of them by preaching anti-semitism, executing their leaders, expelling the first two, then attacking the last and executing 700 prisoners of war and enslaving the women and children. Muslims (and Islamic doctrine) claim they were victims of Jewish treachery at every step along the way. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475] Muhammad "predicted" even more widespread ethnic cleansing and slaughter of Jews and non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Prediction_vs_order] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabian peninsula, again because they were victims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft] Although Muhammad tortured a Jewish man to get his gold, Muslims will use a fabricated story of torture and mistreatment of early Muslims to justify Muhammad's career of caravan robbing. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Torture] Muslims will even attempt to argue that the rapid expansion of the militant Islamic empire over most of the known world was entirely in self defense, even while acknowledging aggressive military tactics and invasion of lands with which they had barely came into contact with previously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War] This attitude is reflected in the handling of conflicts and disagreements by the modern Muslim community. It is reinforced by Islamic doctrine encouraging Muslims to look favourably upon and only see the best in other Muslims, and to conceal their faults. The principle is also reflected in Islamic concepts of justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Already answered ==

The next trick is usually to claim that the question has already been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224424523/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224359891/80#80][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/54#54][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224071707/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711/3#3][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216217395/104#104][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/69#69][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/6#6] This is usually combined with the implication that you are stupid for having to ask for clarification. This trick is basically a throwback to the deceptive use of dual meanings and unfamiliar terminology, except that it avoids the need to explain it again and risk giving away too much information. This trick is usually first used when you start asking more specific questions that are getting closer to exposing the particular deception.

== Hypersensitivity ==

The next trick is usually employed if you try to justify a request for clarification after Muslims insist that questions have already been answered or that you have no reason to be interested anyway. The Muslim will become hypersensitive at the suggestion that you do not trust them to give you a straight answer. Alternatively, they will accuse you of asking 'loaded' questions, as if there is something wrong with discovering the truth about Islam. Curiously, the more specific and direct the question is, the greater the tendency to claim it is loaded, even if it carries no assumptions at all, or only assumes what has just been verified. That is, a question is loaded if it is a simple, direct question about Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223943323/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/7#7][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226113417/37#37]

'Impure' motives are behind the question. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503891772/39#39]

=== Criticising Islam is racist ===

Muslims will argue that criticising Islam is racist. When it is pointed out that Islam is a religion, not a race, they will make the absurd argument that traditional concepts of race (black, white, asian etc) do not exist, and for this reason the meaning of racism must be changed to include religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504875360][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504234775/71#71] They will also argue that if Jews and Sikhs can get away with self-identifying on racial grounds, Muslims should be able to also, even if they are recent white converts.

== Dummy spit ==

If all else fails, spit the dummy. Make more accusations of ulterior motives, stirring up trouble, asking loaded questions etc. Then, simply refuse to answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155] After one such dummy spit I started a new topic specifically about concubines and after more criticism of my questioning style, I got a limited affirmative response, but no more questions about concubines and their treatment have been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224649993] Yet I have been told in great detail how badly the west treats women.

== Accusations of Insincerity ==

Muslims will use an accusation of insincerity as a justification for refusal to answer simple questions about Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]

== Answering a question with a question ==

For example, demanding to know how elections are run before saying whether Islam supports democracy [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/11#11], demanding to know what the law is before saying whether Islam supports justice, demanding to know what the truth is before giving an honest answer.

== Me no speaka da english ==

Muslims will occasionally find it extremely difficult to comprehend simple questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504877081]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/301#301]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454967711/170#170]
They will even ask questions that they later decide make no sense if asked of them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/155#155]

== Silence ==

Silence as a tactic is reserved for the more disturbing aspects of Islam. While it was employed to a limited extent on the issue of sex slaves, it was employed far more diligently for the issue of the treatment of Hindus, atheists, pagans etc. Muslims will go to great lengths to put a positive spin on Dhimmitude – the institutionalised humiliation of Christians and Jews. However if you ask them about the treatment of those who are not ‘people of the book’ they will likely pretend you don’t exist. The issue of sex slaves was generally avoided, partly by accident. However, numerous questions were asked over a long period of time about the treat of non-Dhimmi non-Muslims. Even when I started a new thread asking specifically about the treatment of these people, it was ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000] I started raising the issue in a few other related threads and posting links. It was still ignored. Only after I posted evidence that Islam promotes wholesale slaughter of these people, and others began complaining that they can’t get a straight answer either, was a response posted by resident Muslims. Of course, these responses did not answer the question about Islamic doctrine regarding the treatment of these people. For the most part, the actual question was ignored, as best it could be. When it was approached, the reverse “Islam does not exist” argument was the most common tactic (after the obvious deflections to the ‘evil west’). Where Muslims will usually respond that the various unfortunate situations across the middle east have nothing to do with Islam, in this case the argument was that the situation in the middle east is the only valid indicator of what Islamic doctrine is. Thus the mere presence of these other religions in the middle east is now ‘proof’ of the positive approach to them in Islamic doctrine.

== Outcomes vs ideology ==

Muslims will argue that an outcome strongly linked to Islam (eg Afghans stoning people to death without the appropriate paperwork) has nothing to do with Islam because it did not occur under official Shariah law. They will also argue the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
- that for example the failure of Muslims to wipe out Hindus in India (despite conceding that they tried) is evidence that Islam does not support this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] This is a strategy of 'shifting the goal posts'. If you ask a Muslim about Islamic doctrine, they will tell you about an outcome that makes Islam appear more benign to you (usually a long way from the Arabian peninsula where Islam only reached in later centuries). If you ask them about the actions of Muslims that are apparently identical to the actions decreed by Muhammad, they will complain about how it differs from doctrine - for modern examples the most convenient is the 'Islam does not exist' argument. Another example of shifting the goal to 'outcomes' is this claim that Islamic lands have more religious diversity. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/3#3] This is from the same Muslim that conceded that Islam was successful in wiping out every single non-Muslim in the Arabian peninsula (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). The relative diversity further from the heart of Islam can be attributed to two fairly obvious reasons: the relative youth of the religion, and the aggressive empire building that was characteristic of it's spread - Islam would first conquer a land in a military sense, then set about making the people convert to Islam using whatever means worked best. This of course worked to avoid the actual question, which was specifically about doctrine, not outcomes. In the same thread, this argument claims that remaining a Muslim is evidence that Islam is not brutal [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/7#7] rather than the more obvious reason that apostasy attracts the death penalty.

== Changing the question ==

If you ask a Muslim a question about Islam, he may go to some lengths to 're-interpret' the question so it is no longer about Islam in order to avoid discussing Islam. This example is from an eight page thread about the penalty for blasphemy where several Muslims attempt to change the topic to anything except the punishment for blasphemy: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347783816/10#10]. This strategy is also often used in response to questions about whether Muslims want Shariah law implemented in the west and how they ought to go about achieving this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]

== Prove the existence of a question ==

Muslims will often demand proof of something before answering a simple question. This can be taken to absurd lengths, for example effectively demanding proof that a question exists. The demands are often for evidence of historical events, where the evidence is highly unlikely to exist. This is often in the context of Muslims claiming for example that the lack of surviving documentation of people being stoned to death for homosexuality is evidence that this did not occur, and even that homosexuality did not exist and that Shariah law is a 'cure' for it. It is similar to the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, except that it is often in the form of a demand for evidence as a way of avoiding directly addressing a topic or question.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

== Lobbying ==

A typical response to what societal changes Muslims should lobby for is that it is pointless to lobby for an activity to be punished if it is still encouraged by society (never mind that making an activity illegal, and lobbying for this discourages it), and to equate the question with an accusation of being a fanatic. Another common angle is that Islam is an 'all or nothing' system, which means Muslims cannot lobby for any specific change as it is invalid in isolation (you will not get a straight answer on how to implement everything all at once either). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

= Semantic deceptions =

Many deceptions rely on manipulating the meaning of words. Some examples:

== Dual meaning ==

A common tactic is to attach a dual meaning to common English words such as war, peace, slave, innocent, rape, domestic violence etc. This tactic is so successful because it is so different from the typical 'western propaganda' approach of inventing new jargon. For example, where a deceptive western leader may talk about 'collateral damage' to make civilian deaths in war sound more benign, a deceptive Muslim leader may say 'no one was murdered', on the grounds that the killing was legal. In this case, the deception is obvious because most English speaking people understand the subtle difference between murder and kill. However, by carefully controlling how Islamic doctrine is translated into English, Muslim scholars have created a situation where many common words have an entirely different meaning when used in the context of Muslims or Islamic law. This is combined with an insistence that to 'truly understand' the Quran one must study it in Arabic [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/146#146], thus putting the context or meaning of the words used beyond the reach of most non-Muslims. Thus, Muslims will understand what their leaders are saying, even if most westerners do not. This can be quite blatant manipulation, such as when some UK clerics stated in public that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then said to their followers in private that only Muslims can be considered innocent. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224813886/0#0][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224158764/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/141#141][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/119#119][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116]

Being so simple, this tactic is most often employed in press releases. As an example, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens appeared to support the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie during question time after giving a lecture at a western university. The next day he released a statement to the press reassuring the public that he does not support vigilantism. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/2#2] Of course, he was not available to give any further details. Most assumed he did not want Rushdie dead. However, closer inspection appears to show that Cat Stevens did not actually oppose the death penalty for Salman Rushdie. He did think it would be wrong to shoot Salman in the back of the head in some dark alley. Rather, Salman should have been hauled before the relevant cleric, who had already found him guilty, so that he could be stoned to death in an orderly, 'civilised' manner.

Another common example is the claim that Islam is peace, or is peaceful. The ultimate objective of Islam is indeed a peaceful existence, however this peace is achieved by Islam conquering the world. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] Until that time, all non-Muslim areas are considered to be at war. Those areas that are ruled by Islam are by definition at peace, even if Shiites and Sunnis are blowing up each others' Mosques. Thus, 'Islam is peace' is a technically correct statement about the 'final solution' of Islam and about those lands that are ruled by Islam, but is totally deceptive to those who do not already know what it means.

Muslim leaders will claim in public that Australia shares a lot of values in common with Islam, or that Australia is a Muslim nation, or that Australians already practice Muslim values. In private, they will call for the destruction of western decadence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/106#106][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] They will express outrage at new citizens being expected to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition as the basis of Australia's values system. They will claim that Muslims strive to obey local laws, but will also call on other Muslims to reject anything other than Sharia law as heresy. They will claim friendship with non-Muslims, but privately preach that friendship with non-Muslims is wrong and should lead to ostracism. They will claim that Islam is peace, but privately preach that there can be no peace until the entire world has been subjugated to Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] They will make friends with Christians, then preach in private that Christianity is vile. There are even passages in the Quran that promote the use of terror. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] By redefining equality, Muslims will claim that Islam creates equality between the sexes, even though it gives men authority over women and allows them to be beaten until they are 'green'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/106#106]

Rather than making a plain English translation available to the general public along with explanations, the Quran is made impenetrable by mixing up the verses so that they are out of order and the context is lacking.

An article was presented on our forum claiming, among other things, that the Islamic ban on mutilating bodies makes suicide bombing illegal under Islamic law. Any rational interpretation of the law confines it to the mutilation of corpses, as Muhammad himself did a lot of mutilating of bodies in the process of killing people. Although unwilling to directly support the argument, the Muslims present took rather elaborate measures to indirectly support it or create the impression that they support it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1407127340]

== Arabic terms ==

Rather than inventing new jargon, Muslims insert Arabic terms into English. These terms have a complex meaning that is relatively well understood to most Muslims, but is totally unknown to the target audience. A Muslim spokesperson can thus make a statement that appears to be a universal principle, but which Muslims understand only applies to certain situations.

Taqiyya, ironically enough, refers to deception. A Muslim may say for example that taqiyya forbids lying, which is technically true, depending of course on the context. However it does not appear to forbid deception. Furthermore lying is only allowed in certain situations, such as war. But remember the dual meaning – any non-Muslim land is a place of war. Using the word Taqiyya in public carries all of these complex and contradictory connotations, which are known to Muslims. Thus Muslims are not lied to even when non-Muslims get the wrong idea.

These two tactics are usually sufficient to dupe most disinterested audiences. They work well in press releases where further explanation is not available, as the media has no choice but to pass them on as-is, leaving the public unaware that the true meaning is totally different from the face value. However several more interesting techniques are used in online forums where dialogue is inevitable. Even though this medium encourages direct questions and the resolution of ambiguities, it can still be remarkably difficult to get the real story from a Muslim. Muslims achieve this by creating as many barriers to effective communication as possible. Again, this relies on the underlying assumption that a Muslim would want you to know what Islam is really about. However, in reality a Muslim is more than happy to wait until some time in the future when your country has been conquered by Muslims before you find out how nasty it can be. All of these strategies have been observed on the OzPolitic forum.

== Semantics ==

If both of these tricks fail, the next option is another diversion. This time instead of diverting to politics or history, the Muslim diverts to semantic issues. This takes advantage of the control that Muslim scholars have over translation of the Quran. It works in a similar manner to criticising someone's spelling in the middle of a heated debate – except of course that it is part of a broader strategy. First, they simply point out that you used an incorrect term. The correct term is not suggested and the actual question is ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134] If you ask for the correct term they may suggest you ask someone else. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/1#1] They cannot possibly 'just answer it anyway' and explain what the issue is. One example is a Muslim starting a discussion about collective punishment to argue that it did not happen under Muhammad, then attempting to turn the discussion into a disagreement about the meaning of the term collective punishment when it became obvious that Muhammad did indeed engage in it, by vaguely alluding to possible alternative meanings. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]

Muslims steering a topic to a discussion of the meaning of:
spineless [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/185#185],
retarded [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376013300/170#170],
child (in the context of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl) [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/219#219],
moral standard [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/128#128].

== War ==

Muslims will use war as an excuse or justification for abandoning every moral principle they espouse. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1397466069] For example, Muslims may only lie in the context of war. In a completely unrelated matter, the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. Muhammad's early career robbing caravans traveling to and from Mecca is justified by some Muslims either on the grounds that the Meccans had declared war on the Muslims, or the Muslims were waging war on the Meccans. No evidence for either of these claims is available. The evidence makes it clear that it was a clear case of robbery and murder. Later, when the real wars began, Muslims use the opposite argument to justify slaughtering POWs - on the grounds that it was not war (and the prisoners captured were thus not POWs), even though it was a clear case of genuine warfare. In one event, Muhammad slaughtered 800 such prisoners of war in one day.

== Clerics don't exist ==

One favourite term for this diversion tactic is cleric, which is used in the media to refer to Muslim religious leaders. If you ask why a cleric said something, or why a person is still a cleric after doing or saying something objectionable, they will simply respond that there is no such thing as a cleric.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/0]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225010762]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222556298/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/355#355]
Technically this can be true, but only if you assume that cleric means clergy, rather than the currently accepted additional meaning of Muslim religious leader (as is used by the media). The absence of an 'official' clergy has another advantage for Muslim propagandists, in that it allows total diffusion of responsibility. There is no leader or institution to be held accountable, therefor Islam is not to blame. More specifically, a Muslim leader who does or promotes evil acts can be simply dismissed on the grounds that they are not a 'genuine' Islamic leader, while at the same time denying any responsibility among the broader Muslim community for actually preventing it or disowning the leader. Despite direct requests, I have still not been able to get a straight answer on how a non-Muslim should go about verifying what is a 'genuine' Islamic law (other than not asking direct questions in the first place. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225588455]). Muslims will even claim that there is no such thing as a Muslim leader in the absence of a perfect Islamic state.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367751235]

== Prediction vs order ==

Muhammad "predicted" that his followers would do a lot of evil things. Even in a situation where Muhammad tells a man in person that he will do something (eg ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the Arabian peninsula [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]) and the man does it, or attempts to, Muslims will accept no moral responsibility on Muhammad's part. They will insist that the obvious chain of causation simply does not exist. In this way, Muslims can abandon any moral responsibility for the more ominous predictions made by Muhammad, for example that Muslims will slaughter every last Jew [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/91#91], or that the "last times" will not come until (variously) Muslims slaughter Muslims in pursuit of gold in a large scale massacre in which 99% of people die, Muslims slaughter non-Muslims and Muslims slaughter every Jew. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354839800]

== Sex slavery ==

On another issue, I had been asking a group of Muslims for some months about two issues – slavery [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] and sex (eg [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480 Polygamy], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027 women in Islam], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650340 Sufism, sodomy and Satan]). I had been lead to believe that sex outside of marriage is punishable by death, and that Muslims are only allowed four wives. This had covered just about every conceivable 'crime', including prostitution, extramarital affairs [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753], homosexuality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962], bestiality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511], pedophilia, masturbation [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] etc. Naturally it eventually came up in one of the slavery topics, as a simple question about sex slaves, which had been mentioned in a media article. The usual tricks were employed – diversion to examples of sex slavery in non-Muslim countries, insisting all my questions had already been answered, accusations of ulterior motives and 'loaded questions'. When I still kept asking, I was told that sex slave is the wrong term, so there are no sex slaves. Eventually I figured out what the correct term is – concubines. By this stage it was fairly obvious that Islam does permit concubines, but I had no idea under what circumstances.

== Rape ==

Muslims will change the definition of [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape rape] to match Islamic law and to create the impression that Islam is strict when it comes to rape. Islam permits rape wherever sex is permitted. Where sex is forbidden, rape and consensual sex receive the same punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
Islam permits the capture of sex slaves in battle. Muslims will argue that Islam forbids 'battlefield rape' or any rape at all in this context, on the grounds that the women must first be removed from the battlefield to become sex slaves. Muslims will attempt to portray the serial rape and enslavement of captured women as 'liberating'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654] Muslim men are specifically permitted to have sex with 'whatever their right hand possesses', and this rule alone is regarded as sufficient consent.

Muslims go to some length to characterise rape as a western problem, effectively blaming rape and domestic violence on rights and freedoms that the west permits but Islam forbids, and will use absurd demands for evidence to back up claims that rape is rare under Islam.

Muslims will also misrepresent a command by Muhammad forbidding Muslims from forcing their sex slaves into prostitution as a blanket ban on the rape of sex slaves by their owners. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/63#63]

== Domestic Violence ==

As with rape, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Domestic_violence domestic violence] to match Islamic law and focus on portraying it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Consider this classic quote from a Muslim on our forum: "Domestic violence is a disease which must be stamped out of all societies. But it has nothing to do with giving your wife a 'smack' when she's gotten out of control" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47] Muhammad pardoned a man who had beaten his wife until her skin was green with bruises.

Muslims will claim that Muhammad never beat his wives, despite documented cases. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/49#49]

== Pedophilia ==

Again, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia pedophilia] to match Islamic law, then attempt to portray it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Islamic law effectively institutionalises pedophilia within marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Apostasy vs Treason ==

Under Islam the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning. Muslims often attempt to disguise this unpalatable fact by confusing it with treason and equating it to the death penalty for treason in some western countries. This takes several forms. The Muslim may insist that the punishment only applies to treason - ie that the apostasy is irrelevant and the punishment only applies when there is also an act that is commonly regarded as treason. The Muslim may attempt to justify the punishment by pointing out that some western countries have the death penalty for treason, while ignoring the difference between apostasy and treason. The Muslim may simply attempt to confuse the two 'crimes'. Yet these Muslims believe that the penalty should apply for apostasy alone, including crimes that take you outside of Islam (eg acting gay), and may concede that they believe apostasy itself to be a form of treason - another example of self delusion reinforcing the deception of others.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy Apostasy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/251#251]

== Freedom ==

Muslims will often attempt to portray the oppression of non-Muslims under Shariah law as being merely a different 'interpretation' of freedom.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom Freedom]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/4#4]

Muslims will misrepresent the opinions and values of the non-Muslim and the Muslim community in order to cover up significant differences on issues such as freedom of speech. They will claim that the Australian public supports them in their efforts to make mockery or even criticism of religion illegal
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416042880/50#50]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that Australians support people's right to say things they find distasteful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]
Muslims will claim that mainstream Australians think it is foolish to say we have the right to draw cartoons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
Muslims will present an example of a Muslim leader failing to mention freedom of speech as an example of a Muslim leader expressing support for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/48#48]
Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but qualify this heavily, then refuse to explain their qualifications. For example, they will insist they support the right to depict and mock Muhammad (even more so than mainstream Australians) but add the qualification that no Muslims feel vilified by such a depiction.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/161#161]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
In attempting to justify lack of direct support for freedom of speech from the Muslim community, Muslims will equate support for freedom of speech with 'jumping up and down demanding people insult them'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/157#157]
Muslims will justify opposition to freedom of speech by saying that victims of physical assault by neo-nazis are not suffering discrimination, prejudice or intimidation, but that Muslims are or will be if people are free to mock religion or depict religious figures.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
Muslims will insist that restrictions on journalists publishing details of ASIO's intelligence operations (as well as several other laws that are even more irrelevant to freedom of speech) are "are some of the most egregious and effective attacks on our freedom of speech we have ever seen," while downplaying the significance of Muslims successfully making people fear for their life if they are involved in making a video, cartoon or book that criticises or mocks Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/211#211]
Muslims will insist that George Brandis and his "merry band of fringe ideologues" (ie, the government) were the only people who wanted to water down Australia's section 18c legislation on the grounds that it restricted freedom of speech, that the heated debate over the implications for freedom of speech are not evidence that mainstream Australians value freedom of speech, and also that the civil libertarians who entered the debate in support of watering down the legislation did not have genuine concerns for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/226#226]
Muslims will claim that merely living within the law is sufficient to protect freedom of speech and deny that others have even suggested otherwise [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/280#280], at the same time as insulting others for not doing enough to protect freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/283#283]

== Temporary rights are human rights ==

When discussing human rights with Muslims, and Muslims claim to support rights, Muslims will assume the discussion is about temporary rights granted only while Muslims are not in a position to take them away, unless you specifically state that you do not mean temporary rights. For example, Muslims will argue that Dhimmitude is against oppression and that Muhammad granted rights to pagans, Jews, etc. They will provide 'evidence' for this in the form of specific examples of Muhammad negotiating rights with a small group of people from a position of weakness, then later discarding them when in a position of power. They will insist that it is honest to claim, based on these limited examples, that Muhammad granted rights to Jews and pagans, and that Dhimmitude is against oppression, unless it is specifically stated that "rights" does not mean "temporary rights," or rights granted only in a position of weakness. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1535727444/144#144]

== Democracy ==

Muslims will often attempt to claim that Islam is democratic, a different 'interpretation' of democracy, or attempt to argue that western countries are not in fact democratic either.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Democracy_vs_Theocracy Democracy vs Theocracy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]

== Secularism ==

Muslims will claim to personally support secularism, insist that Islam is compatible with secularism and claim that the Muslim community supports secularism. But they will also claim that Muhammad himself was a secular leader and that his Islamic state was in fact a secular one. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]

== Citizenship ==

Muslims will attempt to portray Dhimmitude as 'full' citizenship, despite the denial of justice, fundamental human rights, democracy, freedom etc and living under a different set of rules to Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Discrimination]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/53#53]

== Compulsion ==

Muslims will often claim that Islam supports the concept of 'no compulsion in religion'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/281#281] The stretches the definition of compulsion to absurd lengths, given the inevitable 'problems' of trying to live as a non-Muslim under Shariah law (see for example [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_and_Human_Rights Freedom and Human Rights] and [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice Justice]). Muhammad himself would often put people in a position of convert or die, as a last resort when other methods failed.

== Vigilantism ==

Muslims often interpret a question about the death penalty (see Cat Stevens example above) as a question about vigilantism. That is, they will avoid giving an answer about whether a crime attracts the death penalty in Islam by insisting that you are instead asking whether Islam permits them to conduct extra-judicial executions. More subtly, questions about introducing Shariah law are replaced with hypersensitivity to accusations of vigilantism. This can even be taken to the extent of equating any political lobbying with vigilantism. How Muslims ought to achieve the change they want is one of the hardest topics to get a straight answer from and this is one of the most common ways of avoiding it.

== Extremism ==

In an effort to portray non-Muslims as extremists (and in order to argue that 'mainstream' Muslims are 'holding hands' with the non-Muslim community on issues such as freedom), Muslims will attempt to redefine extremism as any view that is not shared by 50% or more of the population, essentially building a rather convoluted 'et tu' fallacy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414661030]

== Peace treaties ==

Islam forbids Muslims to be at peace with infidels (non-Muslims) for more than 10 years (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War war]). Muslims attempt to justify this by redefining the concept of a peace treaty as only a temporary agreement. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145] Islam even redefines the concepts of war and peace, by dividing the world into two regions - the house of peace and the house of war (where all the tactics of war are permitted). By this definition, the entire world is currently at war. Modern Muslims will argue that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century (ie since the final collapse of the Caliphate). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Muslims ==

Muslims will even use the definition of what is a Muslim to deceive people, for example a Sunni Muslim may insist that Muslims are not killing Muslims in North Africa, and that the Muslims are blameless victims, because he blames the conflict on Shiite Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

= Disowning Islam =

Misrepresenting the Quran: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]]

Justifying and misrepresenting Muhammad's genocide of Jews: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims disown Islam in many subtle (and not so subtle) ways when it assists in creating a false impression about Islam, see for example 'Muslims' above. Some other examples:

== Islam doesn't exist ==

This is a more interesting form of diversion. If you ask why something happens in a specific Muslim country, you will be told that that country is run by a western imposed dictatorship, monarchy, democracy or whatever. Even though the particular barbaric practice strongly resembles Islamic law, it is the west's fault for preventing Muslims from setting up a 'prefect' Islamic state. For example, it is the west's fault that Saudi women must cover up from head to foot because they are responsible for the Saudi royal family, which prevent the 'correct' Sharia law that allows women to expose their face and hands, provided other standards of dress are met. It has nothing to do with 1400 years of Islamic law that instilled a belief that women are responsible for their own rape if they act like a 'piece of flesh'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225800482/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/149#149]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/62#62]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/65#65]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/100#100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/113#113]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650747/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220167584/12#12]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225865544/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315482532]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]

In an amazing feat of mental gymnastics, Muslims will also do the opposite, sometimes even in the same discussion. If you ask them about an aspect of Islamic law they wish to hide, they will claim that it is irrelevant because there are no true Islamic states. That is, if no country in existence today is ruled totally by Sharia law, you have no reason to be interested in what Sharia law is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]

== Islam won't exist ==

A slightly different approach is taken when Muslims insist that their only goal is the short term goal of converting a few people, while pretending that the long term goals of Islam do not exist. They will conveniently deny that they seek to overthrow the Australian government and destroy personal freedom and other Australian values, and justify this by claiming that they aren't in the process of plotting the actual takeover. Yet it would be an inevitable outcome if they were sufficiently successful with their short term goals. They expect to openly promote an ideology of dictatorship and servitude, but not get criticised for it because they don't yet have the numbers to follow through with it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233236170/21#21] It is as if the Nazi party started recruiting in your neighbourhood, but insisting they don't want to kill Jews because they're only goal at the moment is to recruit more members.

== Denying personal responsibility for the consequences of Islam ==

An even stranger tactic is attempting to play down the significance of support for the unpalatable aspects of Islam (particularly stoning people to death) by denying direct responsibility for the consequences, for example by arguing that support for the death penalty is irrelevant unless you have a job as an executioner. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/242#242]
Islam does not actually have a role of state executioner. Stoning people to death is done publicly [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/107#107], with as many members of the public as possible encouraged to join in. The size of the stones is limited to prevent a quick death.

== Equating impotence with benign intent ==

Muslims will often answer a question about what they want to achieve or what they want their society to look like with an explanation of what they are able to achieve or a complaint about being unable to achieve what they want. This is a strategy to avoid admitting to wanting something that their audience is likely to find unpalatable. This is often used in the context of reinforcing positive misconceptions about Islam, for example if a person claims that a Muslim does not actually want Shariah law, the Muslim will avoid correcting the misconception and do everything to reinforce it, short of outright lies that they can be held accountable for. The Muslim attempts to equate their inability to achieve Islamic law with lack of desire for Islamic law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344636735]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/214#214]
This can be taken to the extreme, in arguing that it is somehow only valid to discuss what is achievable in the short term,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/4#4]
even from a Muslim who considers it inevitable that Islam will come to dominate the world and who also considers it his religious duty to help bring this about.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876/1#1]
This is often accompanied by an attempt to rephrase a simple question, for example by equating a question about what sort of Australia a Muslim would like to see with a question about whether that Muslim is about to take over the country in a military sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
The Muslim may switch between admitting to wanting Islamic law and refusing to discuss it, depending on context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99] and may also claim Islamic law to be inevitable
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16],
then change tack and play down it's likelihood.
A slightly different approach is to claim to not intend to impose shariah law on people as a way of implying they do not want to impose it on people, or would not do so if the opportunity arose. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/243#243]

== Denying personal responsibility for Islamic politics ==

Muslims will often refuse to answer direct questions about Islam and deny any personal responsibility for the consequences of Shariah law or the process of re-establishing a Caliphate (a 'proper' Islamic state) and expanding the Caliphate as a militant empire. They offer the excuse that the law is the responsibility of the state, not the individual. This is particularly common when it comes to stoning people to death as a punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Death_Penalty Death Penalty]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/101#101]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/106#106]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257]
Muslims will use this reasoning to argue that Shariah law is 'irrelevant', but in the same sentence argue that Islamic economic policy or historical scientific achievements are relevant.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]

== Encouraging useful idiots ==

A common tactic is to encourage non-Muslims who make false claims about Islam that suit the Islamic agenda, creating the impression that the Muslim agrees with the claims, and not correcting obvious errors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying following the Quran ==

A Muslim will even find a way to claim that they do not follow the Quran, if there is someone around who is willing to believe it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying significance of Muhammad's example ==

Muslims will describe Muhammad's slaughter of 800 POWs as an "excellent example to follow", at the same time as distancing themselves from his actions by describing them as "merely the earthly actions of a statesman protecting his people" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226].
Muslims will claim that Muhammad specifically instructed his followers to do what he says, but not what he does. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412650210]

== Reinterpreting Muhammad's commands ==

Muslims will claim that Muhammad's order to execute gay people was not in fact an order to execute gay people.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226/14#14]

= Lying about other religions =

Muslims will lie about other religions. This applies particularly to Christianity and Judaism. A central tenet of Islam is that these religions are essentially corrupted versions of Islam. Muhammad himself was not afraid to tell Christians and Jews what they believe and what their religion is, though he was largely ignorant of them. This earned him mockery at first, then hostility when he attempted to force Jews to accept his version of their religion. See [[Political_History_of_Islam#Hostility_towards_Jews]] for more info.

Today, Muslims will lie about Christianity in an attempt to make it appear as misogynistic as Islam, for example by misquoting a Bible verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head as actually saying that they must cover it or have their hair cut off.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491114010/10#10]

= Contradictory spin =

Obviously with so much spin it is inevitable that different Muslims will contradict each other with different stories or excuses, or individual Muslims will contradict themselves. Some examples:

== Slaughtering pagans ==

Were the pagans on the Arabian peninsula slaughtered for reasons of geopolitical strategy, because they were hostile to Islam, or did they in fact all suddenly 'see the light' and voluntarily convert to Islam after Muhammad decreed they should be wiped out? If they did convert voluntarily, why the attempts to justify the slaughter?
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide])
A Muslim will also argue that the fact that paganism was not eradicated in the middle east is evidence that Islam did not decree its eradication, in the same post as claiming that Muhammad did in fact decree it and that the outcome was 'successful' due to every pagan voluntarily converting to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] All other religions were also wiped out from the area.

== Antisemitism ==

Islam inculcates a particular hatred of Jews (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_anti-semitism] Racism and antisemitism). Yet Muslims will also argue that Islam saved Judaism itself. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338909288] Muslims will even argue over the definition of antisemitism to deflect from the mistreatment of Jews under Islam.

= Other examples =

== Editing News Articles ==

To start with, an example of a more direct and traditional form of deception from a Muslim on our forum: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339540208]

== Claiming to represent Australian values ==

One of the more absurd claims: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20] [[Islam and Australian values]]

== Marriage prior to puberty ==

Muhammad married one of his wives prior to her reaching puberty, and this is permitted under Islam provided that the husband does not have sex with her until she reaches puberty (but they may live together... [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia Pedophilia]). However Muslims will often claim the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/71#71]
or refuse to answer and offer every other deflection mentioned above.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Four witnesses for the death penalty ==

Muslims will often claim that people can only be stoned to death for sexual crimes if there are four male witnesses,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
however there are several other ways to satisfy evidentiary requirements.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/52#52]

== Islam stricter than the Geneva convention ==

A quote should do for this one: "Islam recognises this, and lays down strict rules of conduct during conflicts between states, it is most certainly not a violence-oriented doctrine as you've claimed. No more than the Geneva convention is a violent doctrine, because it lays down a code of conduct for nations at war. In fact the Qur'anic rules of conduct in conflict are probably the strictest in human history, to the point that even trees are not permitted to be damaged during war." Remember that Muhammad himself slaughtered prisoners of war, displaced entire tribes, permitted his followers to capture and rape women as part of war and took plenty of captured wives for himself, and completely eradicated every religion except Islam from the Arabian peninsula. (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War War]) Not killing trees is about as generous as not killing the women, and certainly not out of concern for either.

== How hard may I beat my wife? ==

There is genuine disagreement among Islamic scholars as to hard hard a man may beat his wife, and it runs the full gamut. When addressing people who are concerned about women's rights (ie non-Muslims) they invariably choose the most appropriate view (eg beating with a feather). Muhammad on the other hand pardoned a man who beat his wife until her skin was literally green with bruises (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Women.E2.80.99s_rights Women's_rights]).

== Distinguishing rape and consensual sex ==

In Islam, rape is permitted wherever consensual sex is permitted (marriage, sex slaves). Where sex is not permitted rape and consensual sex receive almost the same punishment. Muslims have attempted to portray Islam as taking rape seriously by focusing on some minor differences. For example, in the case of rape a court may order the perpetrator to pay a dowry to the victim. If the sex was consensual, no dowry is required. But the perpetrator gets whipped or stoned to death either way, depending on whether he is married. The marital status of the perpetrator has a bigger influence on the punishment for rape than anything else, to the extent that it dictates the punishment entirely. Whether or not there was actually a rape or merely consensual sex has no bearing on the punishment, except for the fine. Obviously rape vs consensual sex makes a big difference to whether the woman/victim gets stoned to death, but this barely rates a mention. In addition, if a weapon is used in the rape, then the punishment is that for banditry, which is death. Of course, bandits get this punishment for using a weapon in a crime, regardless of whether there is a rape involved
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape]).

== The concubine saga ==

The discussion of sex slaves is what originally drove me to write this article. After writing the first draft, I went back through that particular discussion and noted all the different deflection tactics used. I was actually quite surprised at how 'thick' the discussion was with various deceptions. Here are some of them. I include the URL for each link, as the number on the end of the URL indicates the post number in the thread.

Initially, the topic of sex slaves was asked by another member in the 'women in Islam' thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

The various deflection tactics were employed over the next 53 posts. A summary is given below:

semantics, Islam doesn't exist, deflection with an insult, accusation of loaded question

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to other religions, direct answer to related question that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to Judaism

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125

attempt to justify deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/128#128

refusal to answer and already answered - ironically in same post, semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134

Islam doesn't exist, respond to question 'is it allowed' with 'it is not a priority'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136

Islam is 'realistic', but won't say how

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/138#138

deflects to attacking democracy, Quran can only be read in Arabic

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/140#140

deflection to generic attack on 'the west'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/142#142

ad hominem (insult), refusal to answer, already answered,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/144#144

deflection to homophobia in Europe, other religions, semantics, deflection to history rather than Islamic law, deflection to Catholics, Islam doesn't exist, response on whether it is required rather than allowed, subjectivity of immorality

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145

ad hominem, already answered, lie (false claim that sex slavery does not exist in Islam), deflection to the west,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/146#146

deflection to other religions, ad hominem

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/149#149

Islam doesn't exist, deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/152#152

deflection to 'the west', Islam doesn't exist, refusal to answer

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155

semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/159#159

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/163#163

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/167#167

It was only after I started a new thread that I got a direct answer to the question of whether Islam permits sex slaves. However, no further details were given.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466

= Changing Strategies =

Muslims who publicly promote Islam appear to be becoming more savvy. The issues from [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Islam and Australian values] were raised during discussions with a few Muslims on the [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum forum]. The list was compiled in response to increasing complexity in the debate and a tendency by promoters of Islam to repeat the same debate and pretend that the above issues had never been raised and that there was no potential conflict between Islam and western values. However, after compiling the list with links to quotes from Muslims on the forum there was an abrupt change in strategy. In discussion with other Muslims, the people involved have been promoting a stronger focus on strategy and propaganda in public discussions with non-Muslims, but have not clarified what that strategy is [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276].

The new strategy seems to involve avoiding the contentious issues altogether. Muslims will respond to the more extreme anti-Islam rants or anything that can make Islam look good, or at least neutral in comparison. They will make equally 'ill considered' anti American or anti-western rants and point to the anti-Islam rants as justification.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/39#39]
In contrast, requests for more details on the more 'problematic' issues raised, or any additional issues not mentioned in the list, are either ignored
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295869559]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295959087]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241872871]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298984703/35#35]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298078457/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1296943972/0#0]
or met with some kind of deflection.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302388394]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]
These deflections typically involve personal attacks on the intelligence of the person making the request,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295520546/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/14#14]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302177029/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/74#74]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/97#97]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1265359994/9#9]
criticism of the motive of the person making the request (eg, you are only asking so you can add it to the wiki
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1267178556/1#1]
or so you can mislead people about the answer),
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/23#23]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302389291/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/38#38]
a change in topic (usually to current geopolitics) or insisting the question has already been answered.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/4#4]
Current geopolitics, usually along the lines of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/58#58]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/31#31]
and historical grievances seem to be favourite topic changers. These arguments can be easily made without direct reference to Islam or any of the conflicts outlined above. In fact it can help to steer the argument away from Islam. Questions about Islam that are based on current events are met with the common 'Islam doesn't exist' deflection
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/34#34]
and a denial of Islam's involvement (eg people being stoned to death in the middle east is unrelated to Islamic law that requires stoning people to death because Shariah law is not implemented properly). Issues involving Islam's rules regarding sex usually get the 'priests rape little boys' response.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/4#4]
The net result of these strategies is that promotion or defense of Islam to a savvy audience involves steering the argument away from Islam itself towards mostly political issues.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/1#1]
This strategy would probably be attractive to people who oppose their government's foreign policy and are unaware of the political nature of Islam and what it would replace that foreign policy with.

= What to do? =

All of these tricks ultimately take advantage of ignorance. The antidote to this is to make people aware of them. A lie becomes ineffective when enough people see it for what it is.

== Islam forbids asking questions ==

Part of the reason for the attempts by Muslims to deflect all 'difficult' questions about Islam, is that Islam itself forbids people from asking questions they may not like the answer to. That is, they are only allowed to try to inform themselves of those aspects of Islam which they personally approve of. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216/6#6] With this in mind, the deception of non-Muslims can be viewed as an extension of this mandatory self deception through omission.

In other words, in order to deceive others, one must first delude oneself.

Deception of Non-Muslims

2018-08-31T23:54:15Z

Freediver: /* Revising history: science and the 'peaceful' empire fairytale */

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

Muslim spokesmen employ a peculiar style of deceptive propaganda that so far has caught western media off-guard. It takes advantage of a common assumption among those who have only been exposed to other religions – the assumption that the statements of religious leaders can be taken at face value because religious leaders want people to understand their religion. It takes advantage of western ignorance of Islam while at the same time seeking to maintain that ignorance. It takes advantage of people's tendency to see Islam as a religion in the traditional sense, rather than as a combination of a militant political ideology and a religion. Thus a Muslim religious leader should not be seen in the same way as most religious leaders. He should be viewed as a combination of politician and religious leader. When addressing a western, non-Muslim audience, he should not be viewed as a typical missionary, but as an astute politician addressing a hostile audience who won't like all of his policies - he will tell you what you want to hear. Viewing them as a politician can be a difficult task as they often combine this with a hypersensitivity to criticism or direct questioning that a politician could not get away with. 'How dare you accuse me of lying' is a powerful challenge coming from a cleric with his 'religious leader' hat on, but would be ridiculed if it came from a politician.

Muslims use a number of strategies to either conceal the more barbaric aspects of their religion or to deceive people about Islamic doctrine. The initial deception is semantic. Literally, they say one thing and mean another, the opposite of calling a spade a spade. This typically involves using a dual meaning that is generally only understood by Muslims, or using Arabic terms. The initial deception is followed up with a number of rhetorical techniques that create a barrier to effective communication. These are essentially a form of diversion. While some of these tricks are familiar to a western audience, some are largely unfamiliar and play on Islamic concepts with which the west is unfamiliar.

Muslims will discuss with each other deliberate attempts to strategically generate propaganda for the political aspects of Islam. This looks far more like the actions of a political party intent on winning at all costs rather than a religion trying to promote the truth. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276]

= Textual justifications for deception =

There are several textual sources of that justify deception by Muslims. Some are given below:

''Abu Hurairah narrates that the Prophet said: “One who keeps the faults of a Muslim secret in this world, Allah will keep his faults in the Hereafter and Allah remains in the help of the (Muslim) man until he is in the help of his brother.”'' (Musnad Ahmad: 274/2)

Muslims have built a strong tradition and culture around this hadith that places reputation above truth and calls on Muslims to, first and foremost, protect the reputation of other Muslims. Muslims who become aware of illegal or immoral behaviour by fellow Muslims are severely restricted, by Islam, in how they can respond. The inevitable result of this is an oppressive, corrupt society that is completely unwilling to have an open dialogue about it's own oppression and corruption.

Another interesting verse, this time directly from the Quran, forbids Muslims from asking questions about troubling aspects of Islam:

''O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.'' (Surah 5:101-102).

A similar verse:

''The clerk of Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba narrated, "Muawiya wrote to Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba: Write to me something which you have heard from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ." So Al-Mughira wrote: I heard the Prophet saying, "Allah has hated for you three things: ... 3. And asking too many questions (in disputed religious matters)'' (Bukhari vol. 2, Hadith#. 555)

Although this is a call to self-delusion, it is a necessary psychological strategy for the deception of others - both Muslim and non-Muslim - regarding Islam. Feeling constantly pressured to knowingly deceive others might cause Muslims to lose faith. But if Muslims never inform themselves of the troublesome aspects of Islam in the first place, they will have at best only a vague awareness of them, and will more likely accept outright lies about the matter. The version of Islam they pass onto fellow Muslims and non-Muslims will be appropriately 'cleansed' according to whatever the society wants to hear, based on the values of the time. While this may appear to be a recipe for the destruction of Islam from within, it must be remembered that Islam requires its spread to be followed closely by the imposition of a militant Islamic state that is utterly hostile to any 'incorrect' versions of the religion being promoted. This includes the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy, where apostasy is taken to include adopting the 'wrong' version of Islam. Thus, Islam spreads through a combination of willful self-delusion, concealment and deception, followed by the ruthless imposition of the harsh realities of true Islam.

One last example from the Quran:

''And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.'' Qur'an (3:54)

Ironically, many Muslim websites translate this as "plan" rather than "scheme". Technically, the Arabic term can be translated as plan, but only in the context of planning to do someone harm through deceipt.

= Lying about the Quran =

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]]

Muslims will lie about the Quran, primarily to whitewash the promotion of violence.

For example, Chapter 9 of the Quran is entirely devoted to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Muslims will claim that the fist verse of the chapter states that the entire chapter is restricted in context to pagans who violate their treaties with Muslims. Not only does the first verse not actually say this, there are verses in the chapter that clearly go beyond this scope, as well as other broad contextual statements similar to verse one that have a broader scope.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/212#212]
Muslims will argue that a reference to a subgroup of pagans (those with a treaty) must imply that all references to pagans in the chapter must refer to those with a treaty (even when it does not make sense), because the it does specifically mention pagans without a treaty. It was never explained why this was necessary in order to refer to pagans in general.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/223#223]

Muhammad committed genocide by wiping out the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe - the last remaining of three large tribes of Jews in Medina. Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran states that members of the tribe were freed, in order to contradict other Muslim sources who state that all 'adult' (those who had pubic hair) men were killed and the rest taken prisoner. They will 'paraphrase' the Quran to insert the claim that some were freed. The Quran does not state that some were freed, but does confirm they were either executed or taken prisoner.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran forbids rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Sex_Slaves]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran is not anti-semitic (despite clearly anti-semitic content) on the grounds that Jews are technically considered to be Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Religious_Motivation]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Islam.E2.80.99s_Just_War_Doctrine_is_a_Lie]
that the Quran limits war to situations of self defence, without ever mentioning self defence,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]
that quoting chapter 9 of the Quran in its entirety is actually taking it out of context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Context]
that a verse saying to convert people to Islam by the sword actually means war can only be fought against oppression,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Oppression]
that a verse promoting violent retribution is actually a statement of proportionality in war, despite not making even a subtle reference to proportionality
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Proportionality]
Note that the Quran does explicitly limit war to self defence and also offers a clear an unambiguous statement of proportionality in war, but limits these restrictions to the 'holy months'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#When_the_Koran_does_impose_self_defence_and_proportionality]

Muslims will attempt to justify lying about the Quran to non-Muslims by insisting it will make Muslims more peaceful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Justifying_Lies_about_the_Quran]

Muslims have a broad variety of more subtle ways of distancing themselves from their religion
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Disowning_Islam]
or misleading people by changing the meaning of words.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantic_deceptions]

= Some common strategies =

== Exploiting positive assumptions ==

One of the most irony-laden discussions with Muslims revolved around the concept of taqiyya. This rule permits Muslims to deceive people, break the law or commit blasphemy under certain circumstances. When asked whether this gives Muslims free reign to lie to non-Muslims, several Muslims pointed out that it only applies in certain circumstances, such as war. This was an indirect response that relied heavily on the assumption that we are not at war. One of those Muslims later explained that he believed that the West had been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920’s and that the west had declared and carried out this war. This is a good example of a very subtle deception taking advantage of positive assumptions, in the context of discussing deception itself. This strategy works well when combined with hypersensitivity to discourage people from seeking a more direct response when only an indirect response was given. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

== Islamic law follows belief ==

Islam requires the imposition of Shariah law on both Muslims and non-Muslims. Having the law imposed on you is considered necessary and an integral part of Islam. Islam also requires Muslims to follow Islamic law in foreign countries. The process for turning a foreign country into an Islamic one has always been through a process of empire building, often through outright violence, but always with the threat of violence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924] Muslims see no contradiction between this and the 'peaceful empire' fairytale. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581] Muslims will go so far as to insist they are not allowed to lobby for Islamic law and that it merely 'follows naturally' after everyone has converted to Islam, even though this never happened historically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

== Revising history: science and the 'peaceful' empire fairytale ==

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims have created an elaborate fantasy about Islam restricting war to self-defence. This relies on misleading people about trends in historical military strategy, misleading people about Muhammad's actions, and misleading people about the content of the Quran.

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine]]

Revising history appears to be a favourite pastime of Muslims. This usually involves going to absurd lengths to overstate the contributions made by Muslims (especially to science) and undervalue the contribution of non-Muslims, or to pass blame for every historical evil by Muhammad and his successors to the non-Muslim victims. This can in part be attributed to the obligation of Muslims to look more favourably on fellow Muslims than non-Muslims
(see for example
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2 Justice] and
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty Honesty]).
Apparently Muslims made vast contributions to science. For example, the bloke who jumped off a tower with feathers glued to his arms, making a nasty stain on the pavement below, made a valuable contribution to our understanding of flight.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1362655638][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218803024]
One of the most outrageous claims is that the Caliphate (Islamic empire) was peaceful and spread only through self defense, even when it crossed the Mediterranean to invade modern day Spain and France. Muslims actually expect people to take this absurd version of history seriously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493]
A favourite justification for this claim is that Christians welcomed Muslims into Spain with open arms, in order to get lower taxes. What really happened is that the Muslim hordes allied themselves with one Spanish kingdom so they could cross a massive natural protective barrier (the Mediterranean) and slaughter another Spanish kingdom. Then they turned their swords on their allies and slaughtered them too. Then they slaughtered their way across the whole peninsula. Then they started sending raids into modern day France. Eventually the French and Italians booted them out of Europe.
Muslims frequently claim that various towns and Kingdom's welcomed the Empire with open arms. They will describe an offer to submit to the caliphate as entirely peaceful, even when there was a naked threat of violence if the town did not submit. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]

Muslims will deny that Muhammad committed genocide when he exterminated an entire tribe of Jews by killing 800 innocent people (almost all of the post pubescent men) in a single day, and taking the women and children as slaves. They will falsely claim that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina and deserved to die for violating it. However, the tribes concerned were not even a part of the treaty, and in any case the treaty stipulated that members would maintain freedom of religion, which Muhammad had long since abandoned when he started threatening Jews with violence if they did not convert to Islam. A few members of the tribe were allowed to live if they converted to Islam. Rather than acknowledging this as an example of forced conversion, Muslims will try to spin it as Muhammad generously pardoning them for their 'crime' if they disowned their treachery. The Jews surrendered unconditionally when Muhammad laid siege to their fortress and were taken prisoner. Muslims will argue that there was no war and they were thus not prisoners of war and not to be granted any protection as such, on the grounds that they did not notify Muhammad that they were reneging on their treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/145#145] Muslims will falsely claim that only 'warriors' were executed, despite the victims including old men and young boys. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1488589434/18#18]

Muslims will make particularly ludicrous and misleading claims about history, then later justify this by claiming that they made more accurate statements elsewhere and blaming their critics for not quoting the statements that 'matter'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1508378680/261#261]

Muslims will claim that Dhimmitude is specifically against oppression of non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1535727444] The reality is that Muhammad's system of government created a caste system where there was previous Pagans, Jews and Christians living side by side as political equals. Under Dhimmitude, Muslims are on top, Christians and Jews are next, but suffer a variety of deprivations, including genocide when convenient, while pagans are at the bottom and were wiped out very quickly.

== Statistics ==

Muslims often attempt to misrepresent the threat posed by Islamic terrorism with statistics that equate attacks such as 9/11, the London bombings, Madrid and Bali with vandalism attacks by other extremist political groups. They do this by measuring the 'rate' of terrorism by the number of individual events, rather than a more appropriate measure of risk, such as death toll.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340791727]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294223444]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1349425752]

Muslims will also often misrepresent crime statistics, for example by attributing differences in reported rates of crime with actual rates of crime, when there is an obvious difference in reporting patterns. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/225#225] This is most pronounced with crimes such as rape, which are obviously less likely to be reported in middle eastern countries, where the rape victim often ends up being punished. Muslims will often claim that certain crimes were almost non-existent in the historical Caliphate (common examples are [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Homosexuality homosexuality], murder, rape, apostasy etc). They will use their inability to find evidence of successful convictions as evidence that the convictions and punishments were rare, particularly when insisting that the punishment of death by stoning would only be implemented rarely (the classic logical fallacy of equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence). They will then turn this reasoning on it's head and demand that people who disagree with them produce crime statistics from 1000 years ago. On another tangent, apparently a Muslim country will not 'run out of women' until all men have four wives. If not all men can afford four wives, it will not be a problem. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24] (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape].)

Muslims will claim that a survey shows a majority of Australians supporting them in their efforts to make it illegal to mock religion or depict historical religious figures
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that the survey shows them supporting that right. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]

Muslims will offer endless explanations for global surveys revealing the opinions of Muslims - anything other than the survey reflecting what Muslims actually think.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#Malaysia]

= Deflections =

== Simple diversion ==

The first trick usually employed on forums is a simple diversion. If you ask 'do Muslims think it is OK to do this?', they will respond by listing examples of where something similar (no matter how remote the similarity) has been done to Muslims. This shifts the debate away from Islamic doctrine and how it seems immoral to most westerners, to a blame game over who is responsible for past atrocities. Thus Islamic doctrine is not exposed and the debate switches to from moral standards to politics or history.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390612677/11#11]

The most obvious example of this is terrorism. Most Muslims will say that terrorism is wrong, but they then go on to list all the grievances of the middle east. They may also deny that Muslims bear any responsibility for reigning in Islamic terrorists. Many claim that the reigning in of terrorists should not be a first step in the peace process, but rather a last step. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224827866] That is, we must first satisfy all the grievances of the terrorists and give Muslim extremists whatever they want (mostly more political power and geopolitical restructuring of the middle east), and only after that can they be expected to stop slaughtering people. However that is where the explanation stops. Muslims will not explain why they think this. Instead they will bring up some media report of an accidental civilian death attributable to a western army. I suspect that Muslims think this way because they see all non-Muslim lands as being a place of war. One hint of this is that they will refuse to distinguish the deliberate mass murder of civilians by terrorist organisations for which no person or nation can be held accountable, and the accidental death of civilians in an armed conflict with a guerrilla army that hides among civilians. Thus, destroying the twin towers is an act of war in a place of war and is no different to the death of civilians in a 'real' war zone. However, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get a Muslim to either admit to this or to offer some other explanation for why terrorist organisations should be given free reign until their various (largely unspecified) demands have been met.

== Et tu ==

'Et tu' is a reference to a logical fallacy. It refers to the debating strategy of accusing your opponent of something that you yourself have been accused of (or something worse). It is a logical error in the sense that it is used to justify your own actions. In the case of Islam, this tactic is used in an astonishingly predictable manner every time historical injustices committed by Muslims are brought up. The response is to ignore the injustice and how it may relate to Islam (or not) and instead give examples where non-Muslims have done similar things. There does not have to be any causative relationship. For example Muslims have attempted to justify mass murder by Muhammad himself by citing an example of non-Muslims doing something worse in the same town 600 years later (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). This of course helps to completely avoid the issue of whether such behaviour should be incorporated into timeless religious law, or whether it is even endorsed by Islam.

Muslims will falsely claim that Jesus stipulated the inferior status of women in order to insist that Muhammad's Quranic command to beat women, and the account of Muhammad himself beating his favourite child bride for leaving the house without his permission, place no more of a barrier on Muslims stamping out domestic violence than Jesus' teachings place on Christians. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/107#107] They will insist that Muhammad beating his wife is nothing like modern domestic violence because he was not a drunk bogan, and that beating his wife was merely a way of asking her what she was thinking. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/36#36][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/309#309]

== Moral equivalence ==

Arguing moral equivalence is similar to 'et tu'. It is most commonly used in discussing the incident in which Muhammad executed approximately 700 Prisoners of War (POWs). The deception comes in the misleading or missing details required to make the comparison stick. Muslims will argue for example that only combatants were killed, or that only those found guilty of treason were executed (and thus the incident is morally equivalent to the death penalty for treason in some western countries). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/6#6] Muhammad apparently punished them for either assisting his enemies in an earlier attack, not coming to his aid to the extent required by an agreement with them, conspiring with the enemy, or because the angel Gabriel told him to. The excuses offered omit or misrepresent key facts, such as:
* Many of the tribe members actually assisted Muhammad in defending against the earlier attack.
* Muslims will accuse the tribe members of attacking Muhammad when his army was under siege from a different group, however these attacks never actually happened.
* Muhammad attacked the tribe in question.
* The tribe surrendered unconditionally.
* After the they surrendered and were taken away, all able bodied male prisoners of war (and one female) were executed.
* The rest of the women ended up us sex slaves, though some were purchased by another Jewish tribe who felt guilty over their involvement in Muhammad's slaughter.
* Even the children ended up as slaves.
* Muhammad took all the land and possessions also.
Muslims will also attempt to argue that this incident is similar to various atrocities committed during recent wars, completely ignoring the point that we do not worship the soldiers involved as God's messenger and do not condone the execution of POWs, sexual slavery, the enslavement of children, or collective punishment in general. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/37#37]

Some other examples:
* Wife beating is morally equivalent to smacking a child to prevent the child from running onto the road, putting his life at risk. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/227#227]
* Muhammad spent approximately 6 years robbing caravans on their way to Mecca. Muslims will argue that this was just compensation for earlier persecution by Meccans, or that it was a legitimate act in an ongoing war that had been declared but not actually begun. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/4#4]
* Forbidding all non-Muslims from Mecca is no different to being unable to purchase land privately in Vatican city, or to the creation of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374893194/8#8]

== Victimhood ==

One of the most common responses from Muslims to accusations is to cry victimhood. Muhammad lead the way in this. Shortly after moving into Medina and making peace agreements with the other three Jewish tribes there, Muhammad managed to get rid of all of them by preaching anti-semitism, executing their leaders, expelling the first two, then attacking the last and executing 700 prisoners of war and enslaving the women and children. Muslims (and Islamic doctrine) claim they were victims of Jewish treachery at every step along the way. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475] Muhammad "predicted" even more widespread ethnic cleansing and slaughter of Jews and non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Prediction_vs_order] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabian peninsula, again because they were victims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft] Although Muhammad tortured a Jewish man to get his gold, Muslims will use a fabricated story of torture and mistreatment of early Muslims to justify Muhammad's career of caravan robbing. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Torture] Muslims will even attempt to argue that the rapid expansion of the militant Islamic empire over most of the known world was entirely in self defense, even while acknowledging aggressive military tactics and invasion of lands with which they had barely came into contact with previously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War] This attitude is reflected in the handling of conflicts and disagreements by the modern Muslim community. It is reinforced by Islamic doctrine encouraging Muslims to look favourably upon and only see the best in other Muslims, and to conceal their faults. The principle is also reflected in Islamic concepts of justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Already answered ==

The next trick is usually to claim that the question has already been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224424523/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224359891/80#80][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/54#54][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224071707/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711/3#3][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216217395/104#104][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/69#69][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/6#6] This is usually combined with the implication that you are stupid for having to ask for clarification. This trick is basically a throwback to the deceptive use of dual meanings and unfamiliar terminology, except that it avoids the need to explain it again and risk giving away too much information. This trick is usually first used when you start asking more specific questions that are getting closer to exposing the particular deception.

== Hypersensitivity ==

The next trick is usually employed if you try to justify a request for clarification after Muslims insist that questions have already been answered or that you have no reason to be interested anyway. The Muslim will become hypersensitive at the suggestion that you do not trust them to give you a straight answer. Alternatively, they will accuse you of asking 'loaded' questions, as if there is something wrong with discovering the truth about Islam. Curiously, the more specific and direct the question is, the greater the tendency to claim it is loaded, even if it carries no assumptions at all, or only assumes what has just been verified. That is, a question is loaded if it is a simple, direct question about Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223943323/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/7#7][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226113417/37#37]

'Impure' motives are behind the question. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503891772/39#39]

=== Criticising Islam is racist ===

Muslims will argue that criticising Islam is racist. When it is pointed out that Islam is a religion, not a race, they will make the absurd argument that traditional concepts of race (black, white, asian etc) do not exist, and for this reason the meaning of racism must be changed to include religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504875360][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504234775/71#71] They will also argue that if Jews and Sikhs can get away with self-identifying on racial grounds, Muslims should be able to also, even if they are recent white converts.

== Dummy spit ==

If all else fails, spit the dummy. Make more accusations of ulterior motives, stirring up trouble, asking loaded questions etc. Then, simply refuse to answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155] After one such dummy spit I started a new topic specifically about concubines and after more criticism of my questioning style, I got a limited affirmative response, but no more questions about concubines and their treatment have been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224649993] Yet I have been told in great detail how badly the west treats women.

== Accusations of Insincerity ==

Muslims will use an accusation of insincerity as a justification for refusal to answer simple questions about Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]

== Answering a question with a question ==

For example, demanding to know how elections are run before saying whether Islam supports democracy [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/11#11], demanding to know what the law is before saying whether Islam supports justice, demanding to know what the truth is before giving an honest answer.

== Me no speaka da english ==

Muslims will occasionally find it extremely difficult to comprehend simple questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504877081]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/301#301]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454967711/170#170]
They will even ask questions that they later decide make no sense if asked of them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/155#155]

== Silence ==

Silence as a tactic is reserved for the more disturbing aspects of Islam. While it was employed to a limited extent on the issue of sex slaves, it was employed far more diligently for the issue of the treatment of Hindus, atheists, pagans etc. Muslims will go to great lengths to put a positive spin on Dhimmitude – the institutionalised humiliation of Christians and Jews. However if you ask them about the treatment of those who are not ‘people of the book’ they will likely pretend you don’t exist. The issue of sex slaves was generally avoided, partly by accident. However, numerous questions were asked over a long period of time about the treat of non-Dhimmi non-Muslims. Even when I started a new thread asking specifically about the treatment of these people, it was ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000] I started raising the issue in a few other related threads and posting links. It was still ignored. Only after I posted evidence that Islam promotes wholesale slaughter of these people, and others began complaining that they can’t get a straight answer either, was a response posted by resident Muslims. Of course, these responses did not answer the question about Islamic doctrine regarding the treatment of these people. For the most part, the actual question was ignored, as best it could be. When it was approached, the reverse “Islam does not exist” argument was the most common tactic (after the obvious deflections to the ‘evil west’). Where Muslims will usually respond that the various unfortunate situations across the middle east have nothing to do with Islam, in this case the argument was that the situation in the middle east is the only valid indicator of what Islamic doctrine is. Thus the mere presence of these other religions in the middle east is now ‘proof’ of the positive approach to them in Islamic doctrine.

== Outcomes vs ideology ==

Muslims will argue that an outcome strongly linked to Islam (eg Afghans stoning people to death without the appropriate paperwork) has nothing to do with Islam because it did not occur under official Shariah law. They will also argue the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
- that for example the failure of Muslims to wipe out Hindus in India (despite conceding that they tried) is evidence that Islam does not support this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] This is a strategy of 'shifting the goal posts'. If you ask a Muslim about Islamic doctrine, they will tell you about an outcome that makes Islam appear more benign to you (usually a long way from the Arabian peninsula where Islam only reached in later centuries). If you ask them about the actions of Muslims that are apparently identical to the actions decreed by Muhammad, they will complain about how it differs from doctrine - for modern examples the most convenient is the 'Islam does not exist' argument. Another example of shifting the goal to 'outcomes' is this claim that Islamic lands have more religious diversity. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/3#3] This is from the same Muslim that conceded that Islam was successful in wiping out every single non-Muslim in the Arabian peninsula (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). The relative diversity further from the heart of Islam can be attributed to two fairly obvious reasons: the relative youth of the religion, and the aggressive empire building that was characteristic of it's spread - Islam would first conquer a land in a military sense, then set about making the people convert to Islam using whatever means worked best. This of course worked to avoid the actual question, which was specifically about doctrine, not outcomes. In the same thread, this argument claims that remaining a Muslim is evidence that Islam is not brutal [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/7#7] rather than the more obvious reason that apostasy attracts the death penalty.

== Changing the question ==

If you ask a Muslim a question about Islam, he may go to some lengths to 're-interpret' the question so it is no longer about Islam in order to avoid discussing Islam. This example is from an eight page thread about the penalty for blasphemy where several Muslims attempt to change the topic to anything except the punishment for blasphemy: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347783816/10#10]. This strategy is also often used in response to questions about whether Muslims want Shariah law implemented in the west and how they ought to go about achieving this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]

== Prove the existence of a question ==

Muslims will often demand proof of something before answering a simple question. This can be taken to absurd lengths, for example effectively demanding proof that a question exists. The demands are often for evidence of historical events, where the evidence is highly unlikely to exist. This is often in the context of Muslims claiming for example that the lack of surviving documentation of people being stoned to death for homosexuality is evidence that this did not occur, and even that homosexuality did not exist and that Shariah law is a 'cure' for it. It is similar to the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, except that it is often in the form of a demand for evidence as a way of avoiding directly addressing a topic or question.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

== Lobbying ==

A typical response to what societal changes Muslims should lobby for is that it is pointless to lobby for an activity to be punished if it is still encouraged by society (never mind that making an activity illegal, and lobbying for this discourages it), and to equate the question with an accusation of being a fanatic. Another common angle is that Islam is an 'all or nothing' system, which means Muslims cannot lobby for any specific change as it is invalid in isolation (you will not get a straight answer on how to implement everything all at once either). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

= Semantic deceptions =

Many deceptions rely on manipulating the meaning of words. Some examples:

== Dual meaning ==

A common tactic is to attach a dual meaning to common English words such as war, peace, slave, innocent, rape, domestic violence etc. This tactic is so successful because it is so different from the typical 'western propaganda' approach of inventing new jargon. For example, where a deceptive western leader may talk about 'collateral damage' to make civilian deaths in war sound more benign, a deceptive Muslim leader may say 'no one was murdered', on the grounds that the killing was legal. In this case, the deception is obvious because most English speaking people understand the subtle difference between murder and kill. However, by carefully controlling how Islamic doctrine is translated into English, Muslim scholars have created a situation where many common words have an entirely different meaning when used in the context of Muslims or Islamic law. This is combined with an insistence that to 'truly understand' the Quran one must study it in Arabic [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/146#146], thus putting the context or meaning of the words used beyond the reach of most non-Muslims. Thus, Muslims will understand what their leaders are saying, even if most westerners do not. This can be quite blatant manipulation, such as when some UK clerics stated in public that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then said to their followers in private that only Muslims can be considered innocent. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224813886/0#0][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224158764/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/141#141][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/119#119][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116]

Being so simple, this tactic is most often employed in press releases. As an example, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens appeared to support the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie during question time after giving a lecture at a western university. The next day he released a statement to the press reassuring the public that he does not support vigilantism. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/2#2] Of course, he was not available to give any further details. Most assumed he did not want Rushdie dead. However, closer inspection appears to show that Cat Stevens did not actually oppose the death penalty for Salman Rushdie. He did think it would be wrong to shoot Salman in the back of the head in some dark alley. Rather, Salman should have been hauled before the relevant cleric, who had already found him guilty, so that he could be stoned to death in an orderly, 'civilised' manner.

Another common example is the claim that Islam is peace, or is peaceful. The ultimate objective of Islam is indeed a peaceful existence, however this peace is achieved by Islam conquering the world. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] Until that time, all non-Muslim areas are considered to be at war. Those areas that are ruled by Islam are by definition at peace, even if Shiites and Sunnis are blowing up each others' Mosques. Thus, 'Islam is peace' is a technically correct statement about the 'final solution' of Islam and about those lands that are ruled by Islam, but is totally deceptive to those who do not already know what it means.

Muslim leaders will claim in public that Australia shares a lot of values in common with Islam, or that Australia is a Muslim nation, or that Australians already practice Muslim values. In private, they will call for the destruction of western decadence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/106#106][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] They will express outrage at new citizens being expected to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition as the basis of Australia's values system. They will claim that Muslims strive to obey local laws, but will also call on other Muslims to reject anything other than Sharia law as heresy. They will claim friendship with non-Muslims, but privately preach that friendship with non-Muslims is wrong and should lead to ostracism. They will claim that Islam is peace, but privately preach that there can be no peace until the entire world has been subjugated to Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] They will make friends with Christians, then preach in private that Christianity is vile. There are even passages in the Quran that promote the use of terror. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] By redefining equality, Muslims will claim that Islam creates equality between the sexes, even though it gives men authority over women and allows them to be beaten until they are 'green'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/106#106]

Rather than making a plain English translation available to the general public along with explanations, the Quran is made impenetrable by mixing up the verses so that they are out of order and the context is lacking.

An article was presented on our forum claiming, among other things, that the Islamic ban on mutilating bodies makes suicide bombing illegal under Islamic law. Any rational interpretation of the law confines it to the mutilation of corpses, as Muhammad himself did a lot of mutilating of bodies in the process of killing people. Although unwilling to directly support the argument, the Muslims present took rather elaborate measures to indirectly support it or create the impression that they support it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1407127340]

== Arabic terms ==

Rather than inventing new jargon, Muslims insert Arabic terms into English. These terms have a complex meaning that is relatively well understood to most Muslims, but is totally unknown to the target audience. A Muslim spokesperson can thus make a statement that appears to be a universal principle, but which Muslims understand only applies to certain situations.

Taqiyya, ironically enough, refers to deception. A Muslim may say for example that taqiyya forbids lying, which is technically true, depending of course on the context. However it does not appear to forbid deception. Furthermore lying is only allowed in certain situations, such as war. But remember the dual meaning – any non-Muslim land is a place of war. Using the word Taqiyya in public carries all of these complex and contradictory connotations, which are known to Muslims. Thus Muslims are not lied to even when non-Muslims get the wrong idea.

These two tactics are usually sufficient to dupe most disinterested audiences. They work well in press releases where further explanation is not available, as the media has no choice but to pass them on as-is, leaving the public unaware that the true meaning is totally different from the face value. However several more interesting techniques are used in online forums where dialogue is inevitable. Even though this medium encourages direct questions and the resolution of ambiguities, it can still be remarkably difficult to get the real story from a Muslim. Muslims achieve this by creating as many barriers to effective communication as possible. Again, this relies on the underlying assumption that a Muslim would want you to know what Islam is really about. However, in reality a Muslim is more than happy to wait until some time in the future when your country has been conquered by Muslims before you find out how nasty it can be. All of these strategies have been observed on the OzPolitic forum.

== Semantics ==

If both of these tricks fail, the next option is another diversion. This time instead of diverting to politics or history, the Muslim diverts to semantic issues. This takes advantage of the control that Muslim scholars have over translation of the Quran. It works in a similar manner to criticising someone's spelling in the middle of a heated debate – except of course that it is part of a broader strategy. First, they simply point out that you used an incorrect term. The correct term is not suggested and the actual question is ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134] If you ask for the correct term they may suggest you ask someone else. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/1#1] They cannot possibly 'just answer it anyway' and explain what the issue is. One example is a Muslim starting a discussion about collective punishment to argue that it did not happen under Muhammad, then attempting to turn the discussion into a disagreement about the meaning of the term collective punishment when it became obvious that Muhammad did indeed engage in it, by vaguely alluding to possible alternative meanings. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]

Muslims steering a topic to a discussion of the meaning of:
spineless [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/185#185],
retarded [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376013300/170#170],
child (in the context of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl) [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/219#219],
moral standard [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/128#128].

== War ==

Muslims will use war as an excuse or justification for abandoning every moral principle they espouse. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1397466069] For example, Muslims may only lie in the context of war. In a completely unrelated matter, the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. Muhammad's early career robbing caravans traveling to and from Mecca is justified by some Muslims either on the grounds that the Meccans had declared war on the Muslims, or the Muslims were waging war on the Meccans. No evidence for either of these claims is available. The evidence makes it clear that it was a clear case of robbery and murder. Later, when the real wars began, Muslims use the opposite argument to justify slaughtering POWs - on the grounds that it was not war (and the prisoners captured were thus not POWs), even though it was a clear case of genuine warfare. In one event, Muhammad slaughtered 800 such prisoners of war in one day.

== Clerics don't exist ==

One favourite term for this diversion tactic is cleric, which is used in the media to refer to Muslim religious leaders. If you ask why a cleric said something, or why a person is still a cleric after doing or saying something objectionable, they will simply respond that there is no such thing as a cleric.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/0]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225010762]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222556298/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/355#355]
Technically this can be true, but only if you assume that cleric means clergy, rather than the currently accepted additional meaning of Muslim religious leader (as is used by the media). The absence of an 'official' clergy has another advantage for Muslim propagandists, in that it allows total diffusion of responsibility. There is no leader or institution to be held accountable, therefor Islam is not to blame. More specifically, a Muslim leader who does or promotes evil acts can be simply dismissed on the grounds that they are not a 'genuine' Islamic leader, while at the same time denying any responsibility among the broader Muslim community for actually preventing it or disowning the leader. Despite direct requests, I have still not been able to get a straight answer on how a non-Muslim should go about verifying what is a 'genuine' Islamic law (other than not asking direct questions in the first place. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225588455]). Muslims will even claim that there is no such thing as a Muslim leader in the absence of a perfect Islamic state.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367751235]

== Prediction vs order ==

Muhammad "predicted" that his followers would do a lot of evil things. Even in a situation where Muhammad tells a man in person that he will do something (eg ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the Arabian peninsula [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]) and the man does it, or attempts to, Muslims will accept no moral responsibility on Muhammad's part. They will insist that the obvious chain of causation simply does not exist. In this way, Muslims can abandon any moral responsibility for the more ominous predictions made by Muhammad, for example that Muslims will slaughter every last Jew [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/91#91], or that the "last times" will not come until (variously) Muslims slaughter Muslims in pursuit of gold in a large scale massacre in which 99% of people die, Muslims slaughter non-Muslims and Muslims slaughter every Jew. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354839800]

== Sex slavery ==

On another issue, I had been asking a group of Muslims for some months about two issues – slavery [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] and sex (eg [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480 Polygamy], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027 women in Islam], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650340 Sufism, sodomy and Satan]). I had been lead to believe that sex outside of marriage is punishable by death, and that Muslims are only allowed four wives. This had covered just about every conceivable 'crime', including prostitution, extramarital affairs [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753], homosexuality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962], bestiality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511], pedophilia, masturbation [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] etc. Naturally it eventually came up in one of the slavery topics, as a simple question about sex slaves, which had been mentioned in a media article. The usual tricks were employed – diversion to examples of sex slavery in non-Muslim countries, insisting all my questions had already been answered, accusations of ulterior motives and 'loaded questions'. When I still kept asking, I was told that sex slave is the wrong term, so there are no sex slaves. Eventually I figured out what the correct term is – concubines. By this stage it was fairly obvious that Islam does permit concubines, but I had no idea under what circumstances.

== Rape ==

Muslims will change the definition of [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape rape] to match Islamic law and to create the impression that Islam is strict when it comes to rape. Islam permits rape wherever sex is permitted. Where sex is forbidden, rape and consensual sex receive the same punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
Islam permits the capture of sex slaves in battle. Muslims will argue that Islam forbids 'battlefield rape' or any rape at all in this context, on the grounds that the women must first be removed from the battlefield to become sex slaves. Muslims will attempt to portray the serial rape and enslavement of captured women as 'liberating'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654] Muslim men are specifically permitted to have sex with 'whatever their right hand possesses', and this rule alone is regarded as sufficient consent.

Muslims go to some length to characterise rape as a western problem, effectively blaming rape and domestic violence on rights and freedoms that the west permits but Islam forbids, and will use absurd demands for evidence to back up claims that rape is rare under Islam.

Muslims will also misrepresent a command by Muhammad forbidding Muslims from forcing their sex slaves into prostitution as a blanket ban on the rape of sex slaves by their owners. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/63#63]

== Domestic Violence ==

As with rape, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Domestic_violence domestic violence] to match Islamic law and focus on portraying it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Consider this classic quote from a Muslim on our forum: "Domestic violence is a disease which must be stamped out of all societies. But it has nothing to do with giving your wife a 'smack' when she's gotten out of control" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47] Muhammad pardoned a man who had beaten his wife until her skin was green with bruises.

Muslims will claim that Muhammad never beat his wives, despite documented cases. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/49#49]

== Pedophilia ==

Again, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia pedophilia] to match Islamic law, then attempt to portray it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Islamic law effectively institutionalises pedophilia within marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Apostasy vs Treason ==

Under Islam the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning. Muslims often attempt to disguise this unpalatable fact by confusing it with treason and equating it to the death penalty for treason in some western countries. This takes several forms. The Muslim may insist that the punishment only applies to treason - ie that the apostasy is irrelevant and the punishment only applies when there is also an act that is commonly regarded as treason. The Muslim may attempt to justify the punishment by pointing out that some western countries have the death penalty for treason, while ignoring the difference between apostasy and treason. The Muslim may simply attempt to confuse the two 'crimes'. Yet these Muslims believe that the penalty should apply for apostasy alone, including crimes that take you outside of Islam (eg acting gay), and may concede that they believe apostasy itself to be a form of treason - another example of self delusion reinforcing the deception of others.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy Apostasy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/251#251]

== Freedom ==

Muslims will often attempt to portray the oppression of non-Muslims under Shariah law as being merely a different 'interpretation' of freedom.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom Freedom]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/4#4]

Muslims will misrepresent the opinions and values of the non-Muslim and the Muslim community in order to cover up significant differences on issues such as freedom of speech. They will claim that the Australian public supports them in their efforts to make mockery or even criticism of religion illegal
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416042880/50#50]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that Australians support people's right to say things they find distasteful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]
Muslims will claim that mainstream Australians think it is foolish to say we have the right to draw cartoons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
Muslims will present an example of a Muslim leader failing to mention freedom of speech as an example of a Muslim leader expressing support for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/48#48]
Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but qualify this heavily, then refuse to explain their qualifications. For example, they will insist they support the right to depict and mock Muhammad (even more so than mainstream Australians) but add the qualification that no Muslims feel vilified by such a depiction.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/161#161]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
In attempting to justify lack of direct support for freedom of speech from the Muslim community, Muslims will equate support for freedom of speech with 'jumping up and down demanding people insult them'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/157#157]
Muslims will justify opposition to freedom of speech by saying that victims of physical assault by neo-nazis are not suffering discrimination, prejudice or intimidation, but that Muslims are or will be if people are free to mock religion or depict religious figures.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
Muslims will insist that restrictions on journalists publishing details of ASIO's intelligence operations (as well as several other laws that are even more irrelevant to freedom of speech) are "are some of the most egregious and effective attacks on our freedom of speech we have ever seen," while downplaying the significance of Muslims successfully making people fear for their life if they are involved in making a video, cartoon or book that criticises or mocks Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/211#211]
Muslims will insist that George Brandis and his "merry band of fringe ideologues" (ie, the government) were the only people who wanted to water down Australia's section 18c legislation on the grounds that it restricted freedom of speech, that the heated debate over the implications for freedom of speech are not evidence that mainstream Australians value freedom of speech, and also that the civil libertarians who entered the debate in support of watering down the legislation did not have genuine concerns for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/226#226]
Muslims will claim that merely living within the law is sufficient to protect freedom of speech and deny that others have even suggested otherwise [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/280#280], at the same time as insulting others for not doing enough to protect freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/283#283]

== Democracy ==

Muslims will often attempt to claim that Islam is democratic, a different 'interpretation' of democracy, or attempt to argue that western countries are not in fact democratic either.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Democracy_vs_Theocracy Democracy vs Theocracy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]

== Secularism ==

Muslims will claim to personally support secularism, insist that Islam is compatible with secularism and claim that the Muslim community supports secularism. But they will also claim that Muhammad himself was a secular leader and that his Islamic state was in fact a secular one. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]

== Citizenship ==

Muslims will attempt to portray Dhimmitude as 'full' citizenship, despite the denial of justice, fundamental human rights, democracy, freedom etc and living under a different set of rules to Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Discrimination]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/53#53]

== Compulsion ==

Muslims will often claim that Islam supports the concept of 'no compulsion in religion'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/281#281] The stretches the definition of compulsion to absurd lengths, given the inevitable 'problems' of trying to live as a non-Muslim under Shariah law (see for example [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_and_Human_Rights Freedom and Human Rights] and [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice Justice]). Muhammad himself would often put people in a position of convert or die, as a last resort when other methods failed.

== Vigilantism ==

Muslims often interpret a question about the death penalty (see Cat Stevens example above) as a question about vigilantism. That is, they will avoid giving an answer about whether a crime attracts the death penalty in Islam by insisting that you are instead asking whether Islam permits them to conduct extra-judicial executions. More subtly, questions about introducing Shariah law are replaced with hypersensitivity to accusations of vigilantism. This can even be taken to the extent of equating any political lobbying with vigilantism. How Muslims ought to achieve the change they want is one of the hardest topics to get a straight answer from and this is one of the most common ways of avoiding it.

== Extremism ==

In an effort to portray non-Muslims as extremists (and in order to argue that 'mainstream' Muslims are 'holding hands' with the non-Muslim community on issues such as freedom), Muslims will attempt to redefine extremism as any view that is not shared by 50% or more of the population, essentially building a rather convoluted 'et tu' fallacy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414661030]

== Peace treaties ==

Islam forbids Muslims to be at peace with infidels (non-Muslims) for more than 10 years (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War war]). Muslims attempt to justify this by redefining the concept of a peace treaty as only a temporary agreement. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145] Islam even redefines the concepts of war and peace, by dividing the world into two regions - the house of peace and the house of war (where all the tactics of war are permitted). By this definition, the entire world is currently at war. Modern Muslims will argue that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century (ie since the final collapse of the Caliphate). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Muslims ==

Muslims will even use the definition of what is a Muslim to deceive people, for example a Sunni Muslim may insist that Muslims are not killing Muslims in North Africa, and that the Muslims are blameless victims, because he blames the conflict on Shiite Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

= Disowning Islam =

Misrepresenting the Quran: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]]

Justifying and misrepresenting Muhammad's genocide of Jews: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims disown Islam in many subtle (and not so subtle) ways when it assists in creating a false impression about Islam, see for example 'Muslims' above. Some other examples:

== Islam doesn't exist ==

This is a more interesting form of diversion. If you ask why something happens in a specific Muslim country, you will be told that that country is run by a western imposed dictatorship, monarchy, democracy or whatever. Even though the particular barbaric practice strongly resembles Islamic law, it is the west's fault for preventing Muslims from setting up a 'prefect' Islamic state. For example, it is the west's fault that Saudi women must cover up from head to foot because they are responsible for the Saudi royal family, which prevent the 'correct' Sharia law that allows women to expose their face and hands, provided other standards of dress are met. It has nothing to do with 1400 years of Islamic law that instilled a belief that women are responsible for their own rape if they act like a 'piece of flesh'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225800482/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/149#149]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/62#62]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/65#65]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/100#100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/113#113]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650747/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220167584/12#12]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225865544/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315482532]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]

In an amazing feat of mental gymnastics, Muslims will also do the opposite, sometimes even in the same discussion. If you ask them about an aspect of Islamic law they wish to hide, they will claim that it is irrelevant because there are no true Islamic states. That is, if no country in existence today is ruled totally by Sharia law, you have no reason to be interested in what Sharia law is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]

== Islam won't exist ==

A slightly different approach is taken when Muslims insist that their only goal is the short term goal of converting a few people, while pretending that the long term goals of Islam do not exist. They will conveniently deny that they seek to overthrow the Australian government and destroy personal freedom and other Australian values, and justify this by claiming that they aren't in the process of plotting the actual takeover. Yet it would be an inevitable outcome if they were sufficiently successful with their short term goals. They expect to openly promote an ideology of dictatorship and servitude, but not get criticised for it because they don't yet have the numbers to follow through with it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233236170/21#21] It is as if the Nazi party started recruiting in your neighbourhood, but insisting they don't want to kill Jews because they're only goal at the moment is to recruit more members.

== Denying personal responsibility for the consequences of Islam ==

An even stranger tactic is attempting to play down the significance of support for the unpalatable aspects of Islam (particularly stoning people to death) by denying direct responsibility for the consequences, for example by arguing that support for the death penalty is irrelevant unless you have a job as an executioner. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/242#242]
Islam does not actually have a role of state executioner. Stoning people to death is done publicly [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/107#107], with as many members of the public as possible encouraged to join in. The size of the stones is limited to prevent a quick death.

== Equating impotence with benign intent ==

Muslims will often answer a question about what they want to achieve or what they want their society to look like with an explanation of what they are able to achieve or a complaint about being unable to achieve what they want. This is a strategy to avoid admitting to wanting something that their audience is likely to find unpalatable. This is often used in the context of reinforcing positive misconceptions about Islam, for example if a person claims that a Muslim does not actually want Shariah law, the Muslim will avoid correcting the misconception and do everything to reinforce it, short of outright lies that they can be held accountable for. The Muslim attempts to equate their inability to achieve Islamic law with lack of desire for Islamic law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344636735]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/214#214]
This can be taken to the extreme, in arguing that it is somehow only valid to discuss what is achievable in the short term,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/4#4]
even from a Muslim who considers it inevitable that Islam will come to dominate the world and who also considers it his religious duty to help bring this about.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876/1#1]
This is often accompanied by an attempt to rephrase a simple question, for example by equating a question about what sort of Australia a Muslim would like to see with a question about whether that Muslim is about to take over the country in a military sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
The Muslim may switch between admitting to wanting Islamic law and refusing to discuss it, depending on context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99] and may also claim Islamic law to be inevitable
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16],
then change tack and play down it's likelihood.
A slightly different approach is to claim to not intend to impose shariah law on people as a way of implying they do not want to impose it on people, or would not do so if the opportunity arose. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/243#243]

== Denying personal responsibility for Islamic politics ==

Muslims will often refuse to answer direct questions about Islam and deny any personal responsibility for the consequences of Shariah law or the process of re-establishing a Caliphate (a 'proper' Islamic state) and expanding the Caliphate as a militant empire. They offer the excuse that the law is the responsibility of the state, not the individual. This is particularly common when it comes to stoning people to death as a punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Death_Penalty Death Penalty]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/101#101]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/106#106]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257]
Muslims will use this reasoning to argue that Shariah law is 'irrelevant', but in the same sentence argue that Islamic economic policy or historical scientific achievements are relevant.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]

== Encouraging useful idiots ==

A common tactic is to encourage non-Muslims who make false claims about Islam that suit the Islamic agenda, creating the impression that the Muslim agrees with the claims, and not correcting obvious errors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying following the Quran ==

A Muslim will even find a way to claim that they do not follow the Quran, if there is someone around who is willing to believe it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying significance of Muhammad's example ==

Muslims will describe Muhammad's slaughter of 800 POWs as an "excellent example to follow", at the same time as distancing themselves from his actions by describing them as "merely the earthly actions of a statesman protecting his people" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226].
Muslims will claim that Muhammad specifically instructed his followers to do what he says, but not what he does. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412650210]

== Reinterpreting Muhammad's commands ==

Muslims will claim that Muhammad's order to execute gay people was not in fact an order to execute gay people.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226/14#14]

= Lying about other religions =

Muslims will lie about other religions. This applies particularly to Christianity and Judaism. A central tenet of Islam is that these religions are essentially corrupted versions of Islam. Muhammad himself was not afraid to tell Christians and Jews what they believe and what their religion is, though he was largely ignorant of them. This earned him mockery at first, then hostility when he attempted to force Jews to accept his version of their religion. See [[Political_History_of_Islam#Hostility_towards_Jews]] for more info.

Today, Muslims will lie about Christianity in an attempt to make it appear as misogynistic as Islam, for example by misquoting a Bible verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head as actually saying that they must cover it or have their hair cut off.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491114010/10#10]

= Contradictory spin =

Obviously with so much spin it is inevitable that different Muslims will contradict each other with different stories or excuses, or individual Muslims will contradict themselves. Some examples:

== Slaughtering pagans ==

Were the pagans on the Arabian peninsula slaughtered for reasons of geopolitical strategy, because they were hostile to Islam, or did they in fact all suddenly 'see the light' and voluntarily convert to Islam after Muhammad decreed they should be wiped out? If they did convert voluntarily, why the attempts to justify the slaughter?
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide])
A Muslim will also argue that the fact that paganism was not eradicated in the middle east is evidence that Islam did not decree its eradication, in the same post as claiming that Muhammad did in fact decree it and that the outcome was 'successful' due to every pagan voluntarily converting to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] All other religions were also wiped out from the area.

== Antisemitism ==

Islam inculcates a particular hatred of Jews (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_anti-semitism] Racism and antisemitism). Yet Muslims will also argue that Islam saved Judaism itself. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338909288] Muslims will even argue over the definition of antisemitism to deflect from the mistreatment of Jews under Islam.

= Other examples =

== Editing News Articles ==

To start with, an example of a more direct and traditional form of deception from a Muslim on our forum: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339540208]

== Claiming to represent Australian values ==

One of the more absurd claims: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20] [[Islam and Australian values]]

== Marriage prior to puberty ==

Muhammad married one of his wives prior to her reaching puberty, and this is permitted under Islam provided that the husband does not have sex with her until she reaches puberty (but they may live together... [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia Pedophilia]). However Muslims will often claim the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/71#71]
or refuse to answer and offer every other deflection mentioned above.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Four witnesses for the death penalty ==

Muslims will often claim that people can only be stoned to death for sexual crimes if there are four male witnesses,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
however there are several other ways to satisfy evidentiary requirements.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/52#52]

== Islam stricter than the Geneva convention ==

A quote should do for this one: "Islam recognises this, and lays down strict rules of conduct during conflicts between states, it is most certainly not a violence-oriented doctrine as you've claimed. No more than the Geneva convention is a violent doctrine, because it lays down a code of conduct for nations at war. In fact the Qur'anic rules of conduct in conflict are probably the strictest in human history, to the point that even trees are not permitted to be damaged during war." Remember that Muhammad himself slaughtered prisoners of war, displaced entire tribes, permitted his followers to capture and rape women as part of war and took plenty of captured wives for himself, and completely eradicated every religion except Islam from the Arabian peninsula. (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War War]) Not killing trees is about as generous as not killing the women, and certainly not out of concern for either.

== How hard may I beat my wife? ==

There is genuine disagreement among Islamic scholars as to hard hard a man may beat his wife, and it runs the full gamut. When addressing people who are concerned about women's rights (ie non-Muslims) they invariably choose the most appropriate view (eg beating with a feather). Muhammad on the other hand pardoned a man who beat his wife until her skin was literally green with bruises (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Women.E2.80.99s_rights Women's_rights]).

== Distinguishing rape and consensual sex ==

In Islam, rape is permitted wherever consensual sex is permitted (marriage, sex slaves). Where sex is not permitted rape and consensual sex receive almost the same punishment. Muslims have attempted to portray Islam as taking rape seriously by focusing on some minor differences. For example, in the case of rape a court may order the perpetrator to pay a dowry to the victim. If the sex was consensual, no dowry is required. But the perpetrator gets whipped or stoned to death either way, depending on whether he is married. The marital status of the perpetrator has a bigger influence on the punishment for rape than anything else, to the extent that it dictates the punishment entirely. Whether or not there was actually a rape or merely consensual sex has no bearing on the punishment, except for the fine. Obviously rape vs consensual sex makes a big difference to whether the woman/victim gets stoned to death, but this barely rates a mention. In addition, if a weapon is used in the rape, then the punishment is that for banditry, which is death. Of course, bandits get this punishment for using a weapon in a crime, regardless of whether there is a rape involved
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape]).

== The concubine saga ==

The discussion of sex slaves is what originally drove me to write this article. After writing the first draft, I went back through that particular discussion and noted all the different deflection tactics used. I was actually quite surprised at how 'thick' the discussion was with various deceptions. Here are some of them. I include the URL for each link, as the number on the end of the URL indicates the post number in the thread.

Initially, the topic of sex slaves was asked by another member in the 'women in Islam' thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

The various deflection tactics were employed over the next 53 posts. A summary is given below:

semantics, Islam doesn't exist, deflection with an insult, accusation of loaded question

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to other religions, direct answer to related question that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to Judaism

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125

attempt to justify deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/128#128

refusal to answer and already answered - ironically in same post, semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134

Islam doesn't exist, respond to question 'is it allowed' with 'it is not a priority'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136

Islam is 'realistic', but won't say how

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/138#138

deflects to attacking democracy, Quran can only be read in Arabic

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/140#140

deflection to generic attack on 'the west'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/142#142

ad hominem (insult), refusal to answer, already answered,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/144#144

deflection to homophobia in Europe, other religions, semantics, deflection to history rather than Islamic law, deflection to Catholics, Islam doesn't exist, response on whether it is required rather than allowed, subjectivity of immorality

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145

ad hominem, already answered, lie (false claim that sex slavery does not exist in Islam), deflection to the west,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/146#146

deflection to other religions, ad hominem

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/149#149

Islam doesn't exist, deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/152#152

deflection to 'the west', Islam doesn't exist, refusal to answer

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155

semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/159#159

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/163#163

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/167#167

It was only after I started a new thread that I got a direct answer to the question of whether Islam permits sex slaves. However, no further details were given.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466

= Changing Strategies =

Muslims who publicly promote Islam appear to be becoming more savvy. The issues from [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Islam and Australian values] were raised during discussions with a few Muslims on the [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum forum]. The list was compiled in response to increasing complexity in the debate and a tendency by promoters of Islam to repeat the same debate and pretend that the above issues had never been raised and that there was no potential conflict between Islam and western values. However, after compiling the list with links to quotes from Muslims on the forum there was an abrupt change in strategy. In discussion with other Muslims, the people involved have been promoting a stronger focus on strategy and propaganda in public discussions with non-Muslims, but have not clarified what that strategy is [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276].

The new strategy seems to involve avoiding the contentious issues altogether. Muslims will respond to the more extreme anti-Islam rants or anything that can make Islam look good, or at least neutral in comparison. They will make equally 'ill considered' anti American or anti-western rants and point to the anti-Islam rants as justification.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/39#39]
In contrast, requests for more details on the more 'problematic' issues raised, or any additional issues not mentioned in the list, are either ignored
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295869559]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295959087]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241872871]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298984703/35#35]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298078457/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1296943972/0#0]
or met with some kind of deflection.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302388394]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]
These deflections typically involve personal attacks on the intelligence of the person making the request,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295520546/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/14#14]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302177029/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/74#74]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/97#97]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1265359994/9#9]
criticism of the motive of the person making the request (eg, you are only asking so you can add it to the wiki
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1267178556/1#1]
or so you can mislead people about the answer),
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/23#23]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302389291/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/38#38]
a change in topic (usually to current geopolitics) or insisting the question has already been answered.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/4#4]
Current geopolitics, usually along the lines of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/58#58]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/31#31]
and historical grievances seem to be favourite topic changers. These arguments can be easily made without direct reference to Islam or any of the conflicts outlined above. In fact it can help to steer the argument away from Islam. Questions about Islam that are based on current events are met with the common 'Islam doesn't exist' deflection
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/34#34]
and a denial of Islam's involvement (eg people being stoned to death in the middle east is unrelated to Islamic law that requires stoning people to death because Shariah law is not implemented properly). Issues involving Islam's rules regarding sex usually get the 'priests rape little boys' response.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/4#4]
The net result of these strategies is that promotion or defense of Islam to a savvy audience involves steering the argument away from Islam itself towards mostly political issues.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/1#1]
This strategy would probably be attractive to people who oppose their government's foreign policy and are unaware of the political nature of Islam and what it would replace that foreign policy with.

= What to do? =

All of these tricks ultimately take advantage of ignorance. The antidote to this is to make people aware of them. A lie becomes ineffective when enough people see it for what it is.

== Islam forbids asking questions ==

Part of the reason for the attempts by Muslims to deflect all 'difficult' questions about Islam, is that Islam itself forbids people from asking questions they may not like the answer to. That is, they are only allowed to try to inform themselves of those aspects of Islam which they personally approve of. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216/6#6] With this in mind, the deception of non-Muslims can be viewed as an extension of this mandatory self deception through omission.

In other words, in order to deceive others, one must first delude oneself.

Islam and Australian values

2018-08-22T08:39:18Z

Freediver: /* Blasphemy/free speech */

[[Islam]]

= What real Muslims think =

This article was put together following interesting discussions with several Muslims on the OzPolitic forum. Follow the links for more information. This article has been criticised as being unrepresentative of the views of Muslims. However, surveys by the Pew society show that around the world, many Muslims support the most barbaric aspects of Islam. In many countries, the majority of Muslims support stoning people to death for adultery, the death penalty for apostasy, and believe that women must obey their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/570][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388997344] That is why Islam is the greatest modern barrier to freedom, democracy and human rights, and why the threat posed by Islam to these fragile [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet] ideals must not be understated out of a misguided sense of political correctness.

= Conflicts =

This is a list I am putting together of apparent conflicts between Islam and Australian values, or between Islam and 'western' values. It comes from this discussion:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243

Islam differs from what most Australians typically think of as religion in that it doubles as a system of government.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/144#144]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
Islam holds that the legal standards developed in 7th century tribal Arabia are eternal and unchanging. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/76#76] Islam is an outright rejection of concepts like freedom, democracy, and human rights [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327799946][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008], though it is rare for a Muslim to directly acknowledge this and they often attempt to create a different impression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826] Muslims are commanded to live by the local laws if they are living in a non-Muslim state, but are also obligated to attempt to impose Shariah law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367461526]
The appropriate mechanism for turning a non-Muslim state into a Muslim one is ambiguous (or at least, not openly discussed).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/129#129]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1262474745/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353933060]
Hostility towards Islam is considered justification for conquest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/91#91]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/116#116]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Such hostility seems inevitable if a large group of people try to undermine our values and system of government. Muslims are forbidden from voting in 'secular' elections, so the overthrow of non-Muslim governments is presumably by force, either external or internal, as soon as they are powerful enough.

The vast majority of the world's Muslims share the interpretation of Islam described below, even though it appears 'extremist' from our perspective.

[[Deception of Non-Muslims]]

[[Faith Ratchet]]

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

The list is currently split into three groups - Freedom and Human Rights, Justice, Sex, and Other.

== Freedom and Human Rights ==

=== Freedom ===
Islam means 'submission'. It is a rejection of individual freedom and human rights. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332061805][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]

=== Slavery ===
Islam permits the enslavement of people captured through military conquest [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434/68#68] and the children of slaves. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332196921][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392646116/59#59] In addition, Dhimmis risk slavery for not following a complex and arbitrary set of discriminatory rules. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] Female slaves become concubines. Slavery was gradually outlawed towards the end of the Ottoman Empire, partly due to pressure from Great Britain, though it still occurs in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, slavery of women has been the last form to die out. Several African states still practice slavery under Islamic law. Many Australian Muslims support slavery.

=== Freedom of religion ===
Islam has spread primarily through military conquest followed up by the denial of freedom of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216] Islam is extremely intolerant of polytheism, non-Abrahamic religions, atheism, agnosticism, or new Islamic 'cults' that are based on Islam but claim new prophets since Mohammed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Incorrect interpretations of Islam are not tolerated and freedom of speech is openly rejected. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214785726/1#1] 'Shirk' (idolatry, polytheism etc) is considered the worst possible crime in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6] Islam shows limited tolerance towards Christianity and Judaism. The construction or repair of churches, synagogues etc is banned. Islam encourages a parent to beat a child for not praying [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231993677/44#44]. Blasphemy and apostasy attract the death penalty. The sections on apostasy, discrimination, justice, theocracy and blasphemy/free speech outline other ways in which Islam denies people freedom of religion. Any 'cultural heritage' associated with other religions must be destroyed on the grounds that it has no value and may encourage idolatry (eg the recent destruction of the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan). Muslims consider this a favour to mankind. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334996843]

=== Blasphemy/free speech ===
The penalty for blasphemy is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/23#23][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/33#33] Islam forbids criticism of God, Muhammad or Islam. It also restricts other areas of free speech. Phone sex lines for example would be illegal. The punishment for talking or acting gay is death by stoning (see section on homosexuality). Muslims often attempt to portray the death penalty for blasphemy, apostasy etc as being a different 'take' on freedom of speech, rather than an outright rejection of it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944] Muslims have threatened to sue OzPolitic to get it shut down.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/81#81]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/15#15]
Even apparently progressive Muslims support the erosion of freedom of speech and consider it inevitable that Muslims will be violent in response to mockery of Islam or Muhammad in the west.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Blasphemy laws make any kind of progressive reform within Islam very difficult. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360382901]

Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but seek out the flimsiest excuses to support the denial of free speech to Islam's critics, for example by insisting that a citizen journalist should have been banned from walking down streets with mosques on them, from talking to Lakemba residents and from criticising Islam, because she was "accosting" people. This was based on a single media report that quoted a member of the public accusing her of "baiting" people - ie asking difficult questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1533643370/197#197]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1532831241/536#536]
They will then turn around and equate a ban on face coverings in a courtroom with support for a nationwide ban on wearing burkas in public.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1533809902/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1531979449/165#165]

Muslims will claim to be the standard bearer for freedom of speech [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/236#236]
and western liberal morals [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/221#221]
and that Muslims share our exact views on this issue, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/43#43]
while also mocking the Charlie Hebdo solidarity movement and insisting that the right to draw pictures of Muhammad, and the defence of that right in response to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, is a 'distortion' of the true meaning of freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/234#234]
The Charlie Hebdo terrorist "attacks reflect genuine grievances felt by" terrorists and the broader Muslim community that should be addressed first, along with other grievances such as alientation (which causes terrorism). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
Instead of considering the cartoonists martyrs for freedom of speech people should act more respectfully instead. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were hate mongers who were merely victims of their own bigotry and it is a distortion of freedom of speech to suggest it involves standing in solidarity with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/248#248]
The majority of Australians want to ban criticism of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
Anyone who supports the right to criticise religion is an extremist. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/354#354]
People being afraid to mock Islam is an "oversimplistic dichotomy". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
The cartoons are "offence for offence's sake". This, and other unidentified forms of expression are "wrong and should be avoided." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
This view "just happens to coincide with the terrorists campaign to force them to stop." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
The theats posed by Islamic terrorism to freedom of speech represent "faux threats" and "fake, wishy washy western liberal morals" that are used to cynically smear Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/121#121][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/148#148][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/186#186][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910]
Muslims are intolerant of a "free market" of political and intellectual ideas, particularly from white people. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Self censorship is "absolutely" a reasonable course of action when it comes to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/105#105]
It is unclear whether existing laws make it illegal to mock Muhammad, or whether they should be changed to make it illegal. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/1#1]
When the media refrains from publishing Muhammad cartoons, it is because they are being "considerate and responsible" rather than because they might get killed, and it is hysterical and pointless to discuss the matter any further. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/2#2]
The Jews in the Australian Labour Party are trying to censor criticism of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/3#3]

An organisation of Australian Muslim women who petitioned to stop Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a famous women's rights campaigner) visiting Australia called it a 'victory for free speech' when she had to cancel her visit due to threats to her life. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491466442] Her colleague Theo van Gogh was assassinated in response to a video they made together calling for women's rights in Muslim countries, and the assassin left a message pinned to the corpse threatening Ali, western countries and Jews. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491382260]

Muslims and their apologists will deny that Islam is he greatest modern threat to freedom and democracy without being able to identify a single other threat. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626/14#14]

=== Apostasy ===
The penalty for a Muslim who rejects Islam is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1409475944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329307987/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434596646/3#3]
The term 'shirkh' encompasses many of the sins that are considered to put a person 'outside' of Islam and thus subject to this penalty [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6], however it has been hard to get more details on this.
For Sunnis, this includes Shiites and other 'heretics'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583/0#0] Rejecting Islam is interpretted broadly. Acting gay for example is considered apostasy (see section on homosexuality). Some Muslim scholars tried to change this (most recently in 1839) so that the death penalty only applied to treasonous apostates. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy] However mainstream Islam still considers the death penalty for apostasy to be correct. Also, since Islam is both a state (or form of government) and a religion, many Muslims consider apostasy itself to be treason. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25] Muslims often portray the penalty as being limited to treason, even though they have a very broad interpretation of apostasy,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1316600915/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1254303083/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1236559378/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280880642/11#11]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/38#38]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/45#45]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
or to attempt to justify the death penalty for apostasy on the grounds that some countries execute traitors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/32#32]

=== Women’s rights ===
Muslims see no contradiction in stating that men have authority over women and also claiming that men and women are equal under Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302027801/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/154#154]
Muhammad allowed men to beat their wives until they were 'green'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/105#105]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338868086/39#39]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
According to Islam, all women are stupid, deficient of mind, like domestic animals, lack common sense, lie, fail in religion, rob the wisdom of the wise and should never be trusted.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Women make up the majority of people in hell (hanging by their breasts), because they were not grateful of the favours their husbands did for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Muslims often claim that the treatment of women in Islamic cultures is superior. It is frequently claimed that denial of basic rights such as freedom of dress [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] is liberating. Women are required to start covering their bodies from puberty, apparently to prevent the objectification of women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/74#74][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26] Muslims often claim that the downsides associated with personal freedom in the west are actually the purpose of personal freedom – ie that women are only allowed to do as they please to facilitate men who want to take advantage of them. Women may be subjected to domestic violence (see separate entry). Wives are expected to ‘hasten to satisfy’ their husbands sexual appetite on demand. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] The testimony of a woman in court is considered half that of a man. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1] Women are not allowed to mix freely with men who are not relatives and must have their husband’s permission to leave the house. Women may not travel without a close male relative or shake hands with a man who is not a close relative. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Islam stipulates the minutia of a woman's life, including how she must breastfeed her children [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294] Women are discriminated against in inheritance law, getting half the inheritance of a man (on the grounds that some other man will look after her). Muslim men may marry four wives, including non-Muslims (Christians and Jews only [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]), but a woman can only have a single husband, who must be Muslim. In addition, Muslim men may take female sex slaves and have sex with ‘whatever their right hand possesses’. Islam rejects the concept of a man and woman falling in love and getting married. Rather, an old man may marry a child bride, who is expected to ‘grow to love’ him in humble servitude during the course of the marriage.

=== Economics ===

Islam has it's own peculiar economic system. The Muslim community has a 'difficult' history with, and philosophical approach to, the use of government funds. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1534310293] When foreign governments set up regional monopolies within Australia to approve Halal meat for export (and charge extortionist prices for doing so [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468052946/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468233758][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378852212/25#25]), Muslims attempt to pass this off as an example of how capitalism is supposed to work. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1393493672] This money supposedly goes to educating children. Similar excuses are made when the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils siphons off millions of dollars from the Australian government that should have gone to educating their own children in private Muslim schools. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30]

== Justice ==

=== Justice ===
Islamic courts consider the testimony of non-Muslims to be inferior, on the grounds that non-Muslims are inherently dishonest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223872802]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317211760]
Women are also considered inferior witnesses, and some crimes require male witnesses for a conviction, on the grounds that the witnesses must be reliable.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
A non-Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225427458]
Islamic etiquette requires Muslims to extend to other Muslims the benefit of the doubt, to make excuses for them, and to conceal their faults.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/32#32]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170/39#39]
"Whosoever conceals the faults of a Muslim, Allah will conceal his faults in this world and the Hereafter. Allah will aid a servant (of His) so long as the servant aids his brother." This, combined with other forms of discrimination, would cause problems that further undermine justice and erode the rights of non-Muslims.

=== Equality ===

Muslims try to spin the various discriminatory aspects of Islam into a narrative of equality and social justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395533499] The reality is that there is only tentative equality and justice (of a sort) for male Muslims. Muhammad created a pernicious caste system in a society where Pagans, Jews and Christians previously interacted as genuine equals.

=== Death Penalty ===

Islam prescribes death by stoning, a particularly cruel punishment, to many crimes. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1383609440] These include adultery, incest, prostitution, female genital mutilation (see clarification below), sex with a pre-pubescent girl, apostasy, heresy, paganism, banditry (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft Theft]) etc. Lesser crimes, such as fornication and masturbation, are punished by whipping. Homosexuality is punished the same way as adultery or fornication. Death by stoning involves burying men up to their chests and women up to their necks and stoning them to death. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/43#43] There are rules regarding the size of stones and distance of throw to prevent a quick death. I have not been able to get a straight answer on which crimes invovle death by stoning and what the other methods for carrying out the death penalty are. Muhammad appears to have preferred decapitation by sword when a large number (hundreds) of people needed to be killed (see collective punishment - not usually the case with crimes of sexual nature).

=== Collective Punishment, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing ===

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Islam supports the collective punishment of non-Muslims, particularly Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354282385/24#24]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_antisemitism]
This includes slaughtering and expelling entire Jewish tribes in response to crimes against individual Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894]
Muslims will argue that neither the execution of every single man from a defeated Jewish tribe, nor forcing all the women into sexual slavery is an example of collective punishment. The sexual slavery is even described as "protective custody". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/1#1]
Muslims will argue that it was the Jews who were intent on committing genocide.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/213#213]
Muhammad "prophesied" the ethnic cleansing of all non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula by his second successor Umar. He told Umar of this prediction in person. Umar partially fulfilled this prophesy, expelling all non-Muslims from the Hijaz area. Of course, all the non-Muslims brought this upon themselves by breaking covenants with Muhammad, and the harsh punishment was necessitated by the dire threats posed by the Jews and others to the Islamic state, and by the hostility of the Pagans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/4#4] Muslims will also attempt to pass this off as 'voluntary' conversion to Islam by every single pagan on the peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Christians were also expelled as collective punishment, resulting in the population of a large area (around modern day Saudi Arabia) becoming 100% Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288] Geopolitical strategy is cited as an excuse for forced relocation from the Arabian peninsula, and Muslims consider that the people involved were lucky not to meet a worse fate. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894] Muhammad used pillage and murder as a form of punishment. Muslims justify Muhammad 'putting down' people by citing later examples where non-Muslims were the perpetrators. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] Muslims will attempt to derail discussing of collective punishment under Muhammad into a debate about the meaning of the term, without offering an alternative meaning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantics]

Muslims will also try to justify Muhammad's career robbing Meccan caravans from his base in Medina as collective punishment of the Meccans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/136#136]

=== Torture ===

Muhammad often used torture and beating to extract information from people and to punish them (eg for consuming alcohol). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392514541]
Muhammad ordered the torture (and then beheading) a Jewish man by lighting a fire on his stomach. The purpose of this torture was to make him reveal where the Jewish gold was hidden. Muhammad then married the man's wife as a "gesture of goodwill" towards the Jews (the woman was regarded as being very beautiful). The men of the tribe were then killed and the women and children sold into slavery.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/28#28]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367418236/260#260]
Muslims will often attempt to justify the decade or so in which Muhammad robbed caravans and then conquered the Arabian peninsula by insisting early Muslims were tortured and mistreated, however no details have been made available.[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft]

=== Domestic violence ===
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48] Muslims will also say that Islam permits them to slap their wife to keep them in line, but will deny that this is domestic violence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70]
There is disagreement over the extent to which husbands are allowed to beat their wives, ranging from wife beating being ‘permissible but not advisable’ to a husband being permitted to strike his wife with a miswak so as not to leave bruises, but in a sufficiently violent demonstration of anger and frustration to break the woman out of her ‘nasty mood’. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227877786/35#35] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] Humiliation is also often stated as the goal of domestic violence in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70] Obviously, once you permit domestic violence, whatever moral limits that are placed on wife beating are bound to be breached in the heat of the moment even by a pious man, and completely ignored by others, especially as the wife must cover her body in public and may not leave the house without the husband’s permission. Absurdly, one legal recourse for a wife who has been beaten beyond ‘legal limits’ is to gain a court order to be allowed to beat her husband in retaliation. Muslims cite this as a demonstration of the fairness of Islam towards women.

There are several accounts of Muhammad beating his wives and laughing when other Muslims beat his (Muhammad's) wives. There are verses in the Quran the specifically permit wife beating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/197#197]

=== Discrimination ===
Islam preaches the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/4#4]
Islam's economy is essentially a protection racket targetted at non-Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225870861]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/310#310]
Non-Muslims must pay a special tax for the privilege of not having to slaughter other non-Muslims on Islam's behalf. This tax is applicable at all times, not just times of war. In Islamic society, Christians and Jews are referred to as 'Dhimmis'. Limited tolerance is extended to them, conditional upon a number of seemingly arbitrary discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/2#2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39] This is to force Dhimmis into a condition of humiliation, segregation and discrimination, so that even the lowliest Muslim may feel superior to them and thus not feel tempted by their material success. These rules extend to greetings, behaviour, clothing, transport, employment, trade, housing etc. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887] Dhimmis risk death or slavery for violating these requirements. Limited autonomy in the form of Christian and Jewish civil courts and administrations are allowed, but this is not extended to non-Abrahamic religions. All other types of non-Muslim people are treated far worse. Fellow Muslims who follow a different branch of Islam are considered non-Muslims and risk the death penalty for apostasy, especially if they promote their views in any way.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/59#59]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
Non-Muslims face institutionalised injustice (see justice above).

=== Democracy vs Theocracy ===
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]
Islam requires establishment of theocracy. Democracy is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/64#64]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/145#145]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
Secularism is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Islam combines what westerners typically consider to be religion and politics.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]
Muslims may elect a representative to implement Islamic law, but this is not required and the representative has no mandate to implement anything other than Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1] Candidates are limited to the most learned Islamic Scholars. Islam even forbids the 'Islamic' party of Australia and forbids people from voting for it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232631004/14#14] Islam also requires the resurrection of the Caliphate, which would mean a return to the bad old days of expansionist military empires trying to take over the world.

=== Treason and national allegiance ===
There is currently no Caliphate, but as soon as one is (re)created, Muslims are required to abandon the countries they live in and move to the Caliphate, which is where their true allegiance lies. This is likely to be in the context of a war between the Caliphate and other nations. If Australia was at war with the Caliphate, Australian Muslims would be required to take up arms against Australia. There is no clear guideline for identifying when this should occur, however many Australian Muslims believe that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

=== War ===

Muhammad executed or oversaw the execution of approximately 700 prisoners of war from a single Jewish tribe after defeating them in battle. Muhammad and modern Muslims attempt to "wash his hands" of this extreme punishment. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476] Even apparently progressive Muslims will describe criticism of this episode as "cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam", [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910] as well as try to justify it as necessary defense of a (then non-existent) Islamic state. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392294329] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabaian peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375266038][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604]

Islam requires its followers to establish an empire called a Caliphate. The religion itself is based on Muhammad's rule over his empire. All Muslims are required to return to this empire and to perform military service on its behalf [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66], unless they can buy their way out of it.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344740521]
Islam’s history was dominated by the rise and gradual collapse of a Caliphate. It is only recently that they have been without a ‘homeland’. If an Islamic empire wins a war, it can take all of the land and possessions from the people. The victors get to choose, based on what is most beneficial to the empire, whether the conquered people have to flee their land with nothing, remain with no land or possessions, or become slaves to the invaders.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61]
Situations like Israel and Northern Ireland, except more extreme, are the norm rather than the exception.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581]
Muslims often claim that the empire only spread through self defence, but this is clearly not true. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/44#44] For example, at the height of the empire, Muslims crossed the Mediterranean to join in a war in modern day Spain. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/14#14] After their initial victory, they turned on their one-time allies and slaughtered them also. They then proceeded to conquer the entire peninsula and send raids into modern day France. Muslims expect an Islamic empire to one day recapture Spain.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345026756/87#87]
In dealing with prisoners of war, Islamic doctrine permits a ruler to choose the most profitable or beneficial of four options: killing them, enslavement and possible sale, ransom or pardon.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234931054]
Many Muslims believe that the west has been in a state of war with the Muslim world since the 1920's.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128]
Muslims oppose any 'surrender' by Palestinians after losing a war decades ago on the grounds that a military victory by Muslims is imminent. They support peace treaties in this situation, but do not see them as a form of surrender. Rather, they are merely an agreement to temporarily halt the war and restart it later.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1406593144/49#49]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279]
Any treaty can be broken in this context as Islam encourages deception. Islam only permits its followers to obey a peace treaty for a maximum of ten years, after which war must resume.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232015305]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345155967/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145]
Muslims even equate refusal to surrender with not actually losing a war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/31#31]
Like the German people afer world war one, Muslims will also reject the legitimacy of any modern peace agreement.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315637372/10#10]
Muslims consistently seek out historical military losses by Muslims to use as justification for past, current and planned future aggression against non-Muslims, no matter how disconnected the events are.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/9#9]

=== Racism and antisemitism ===

Muslims believe that in historical conflicts between Jews and Muslims, the Jews were always to blame. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294] Muhammad set many examples of blaming Jews when he in fact was slaughtering or ethnically cleansing them. (See also Collective Punishment [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing]) At the same time, Muslims will insist that Islam is tolerant towards Jews and even encourages the protection of Jews.

Racism is technically against Islam, yet it is widespread, especially among politically active promoters of Islam. Nazis toured the middle east prior to WWII to drum up support for Hitler's cause and win allies. They brought the fervent antisemitism with them, which proved very popular with the locals. While the west was repulsed by the consequences of Hitler's antisemitism, the middle east and Muslims held onto it. The middle east had suffered a similar defeat to Germany, being part of a once glorious empire that slowly crumbled and was eventually dismantled by foreign powers. As always, Jews were an easy scapegoat for their misery. Having a tiny corner of 'their' territory handed over to Jews after WWII fueled the antisemitism among Muslims all over the world, to a far greater extent than the amount of land involved would suggest. Modern conspiracy theories about Jews are rife in the Muslim community and have not progressed very far beyond the crude style promoted by Hitler. Muhammad himself used anti-Jewish propaganda to further his political career and slaughtered many Jews. The justifications that modern Muslims give for the historical slaughter of Jews by Muhammad and for modern antagonism towards Jews is eerily similar to Nazi propaganda.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327483631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1343475620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212726620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338504963]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299483524]

Many Muslims consider Israel's destruction to be inevitable and oppose any surrender to Israel for this reason (see war [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War]). Muslims often portray Israel as being inflicted on the middle east by Europe and insist the Jews be sent back to Europe, however the greatest contributor to Israel's Jewish population were Jews that were expelled by Muslims from middle eastern countries - thus nearly completing Muhammad's prediction that this ethnic cleansing would happen. Those countries then attempted to invade Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372552172][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434]

Islam is not antagonistic towards Jews alone. Jews supposedly receive a measure of protection in Islam. Atheists, polytheists etc receive far worse treatment (see freedom of religion [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_of_religion]), while Shiites and any other Muslim groups that stray outside of what is considered mainstream Islam receive the death penalty for apostasy (see above).
Anti-white racism is also common and provides an easy way to blame non-Muslims for the collapse of the Islamic empire and the current state of affairs in the middle east. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330731658]

Muslims will also 'play the race card' to promote Islam. For example, they often insist that all criticism of Islam is based on racism, rather than a rational or moral objection to the teachings of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416194100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1319026216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231418706]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1437265164]
The same Muslims will also insist that calls to move Israel's population out of the middle east, justified on the basis that "Arabia is for Arabs" (and a clip from Lawrence of Arabia to show us what proper Arabs look like) is not in fact racism.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1461906947/332#332]
The explanation for why this is not racist included the fact that 'Arab' is a reference to a linguistic (and not racial) group, that the ethnic cleansing of the middle east can be justified by its history, and that critics of Islam were not sufficiently critical of other instances of racism directed at Muslims.

Muslims often fuel existing or historical racial hatred in order to create a sense of solidarity with a group of people through a shared victimhood narrative. For example, Muslims have claimed that Australian Aborigines had universities, embassies and effective quarantine programs for imports prior to the arrival of Europeans, thanks to the influence of Muslim traders from Indonesia. These Muslims also taught the Aborigines to violently repel Europeans and inspired them to several great military victories over European farmers. Part of this narrative is that Aborigines should have been more violent and that this would have led to a better outcome for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341787168]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338172056]
In the USA, the Nation of Islam is a racist Muslim 'black power' movement - ironic given that the biggest racism problem in Islam's heartland is against Africans.

==== The Jewish tribes of Medina ====

Early in his career, Muhammad was expelled from Mecca. He was later invited to broker peace in nearby Medina, a city with diverse groups that were frequently in conflict with each other. Muhammad was seen as being independent. However for Muhammad, Medina was of strategic military importance. It was a stronghold from which he could rob caravans trading with Mecca, and he wanted to obtain absolute control of it. At the time there were three powerful Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad saw them as a strategic threat. Muhammad soon started openly preaching hostility towards the Jewish tribes, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/145#145] and within a few years had gotten rid of all three of them, on weak pretexts. After each major battle, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of some form of treachery and used this as an excuse to reneg on his agreement with them. The first tribe to be expelled were the Banu Qaynuqa, who as artisans and traders were in close contact with Mecca. After being strengthened by victory in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad publicly demanded they convert to Islam or meet the same fate. Muhammad besieged them and they surrendered after a fortnight. Muhammad wanted to slaughter them, but was convinced by a Muslim convert to be 'lenient' to them. This succeeded, however the convert was forever dubbed 'leader of the hypocrits'. Muhammad expelled the tribe, and kept all of their posessions. The other two tribes either remained neutral or supported Muhammad. After losing the battle of Mount Uhud, Muhammad accused members of the Banu Nadir of plotting to assassinate him (apparently an angel warned him of the plot). Muhammad expelled them also, again keeping their property. He became personally very wealthy by taking a large amount of their land for himself. The tribe initially agreed to leave, then refused, believing the third Jewish tribe would assist them. This help did not materialise and they surrendered after Muhammad besieged them for a fortnight. Muhammad later attcked them again, forcing them to become his subjects, hand over all the new land they had acquired, and pay 50% of what they grew as tax. In the battle of the trench, members of the third tribe (Banu Qurayza) assisted Muhammad, however the tribe entered into failed negotiations with the enemy. After the enemy departed, Muhammad was directed by an angel to attack the tribe, again besieging them for about a month. They surrendered, and Muhammad had all adult men in the tribe executed. The women were taken as sex slaves. Muhammad forced other Jewish tribes to pass the judgement and carry out the executions in order to distance himself from it and make it harder for the other Jews to hold it against him. Muslims will insist that the Jews were a borg-like, mindless collective in order to justify the collective punishment (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing Collective Punishment]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/122#122]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/9#9]

Thus, Muhammad established a pattern of behaviour of claiming victimhood while slaughtering Jews, taking Jewish women as sex slaves, confiscating their property, all the while while blaming Jews for their own mistreatment.

Muslims will attempt to 'flood' a discussion about the Jewish tribes a Medina with a long list of excuses and justifications. None of these justifications stand up to scrutiny, however Muslims will change between them rapidly in order to avoid detailed consideration of any one of them, in the hope that people will loose interest before gaining an appreciation of what happened. Some examples:

Jews were tribal and had no concept of individuality. The Jews were a 'mindless collective'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544]
The fact that there were only 700 of them shows they had a collective mind. The Jewish tribe failed to act consistently as a collective.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/22#22]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
The 'tribe' was punished for it's actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
The Jews were to blame for every conflict between Muslims and Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Muhammad needed a 'permanent solution' and it was impractical to continue detaining them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
Cricising this action is 'cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
The actions of Muhammad are morally equivalent to modern punishments for treason.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/27#27]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/24#24]
Current anti-terror and bikie laws also invoke guilt by association.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/35#35]
Their presence at the time of surrender proves their guilt, because they previously had the opportunity to commit treason by turning against their own tribe and joining the enemy that had laid siege to them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
Muhammad had learnt his lesson about the dangers of letting Jews live.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It is reasonable to ascribe collective guilt if they had the opportunity to distance themselves from the actions of other Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The Jews violated a treated that compelled them to come to the defence of the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
The fact that many of them actually helped Muhammad and the Muslims defend themselves is irrelevant to their guilt, because the tribe also acted against Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
Their treachery had nothing to do with refusing to help the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The tribe was judged by a Jew, according to Talmudic law and thus Muhammad was not responsible for the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
There was an ongoing war and the Muslims were fighting for their very existence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
One of the tribes had 'effectively declared war'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
The Jews and their allies were planning genocide of the Muslims, so it is only reasonable for Muhammad to commit genocide in anticipation of this.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
It is OK because Muhammad was not motivated by racism (he 'had Jewish friends').
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler was much worse, even if you adjust for the number of Jews available for slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler actually acted irrationally and undermined his quest for power by dedicating so many resources to slaughtering Jews, whereas Muhammad did it for more practical reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
You need to consider the historical context.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
The enslavement of all the women after the men were slaughtered was actually a form of protective custody.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
Sex slavery does not necessarily mean serial rape and there was a possibility of emancipation (eg by bearing a male child to their Muslim owner).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Other, more evil rulers, would have slaughtered the women and children also.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Only the Jewish POWs who had participated in fighting against Muslims were executed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
It just looks bad because of the holocaust, and thus Muslims are being blamed for the attrocities of Europeans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
The leaders had conspired against the fledgling Islamic State which had to be protected.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
By remaining in Medina, the Jewish tribe posed an ongoing threat to the new Islamic State, which was surrounded by enemies.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/6#6]
The tribe was too powerful and autonomous and acted beligerantly.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Primacy of self preservation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It was a serious situation and the Jews could not be handled with 'kid gloves'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/15#15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It doesn't matter whether their actions were right or wrong.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
It was not actually about punishment and it does not matter who was actually to blame.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
It is irrelevant whether they deserved the punishment. It's like a Clint Eastwood movie.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15#15]
The 'proper meaning' of collective punishment somehow excludes mass executions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
Collective punishment is an overly emotive term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
Collective punishment is a meaningless term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There is no point discussing whether it was collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Collective punishment has a different meaning today.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/98#98]
It was collective punishment, but it was justified.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
Punishing a group collectively is not the same as collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/49#49]
It has nothing to do with slaughtering POWs.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/239#239]
The expulsion/eradication of all three large Jewish tribes should be viewed as 'power-politics' rather than religious persecution.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/71#71]
Merely banishing two of the tribes instead of slaughtering them was a level of mercy previously unheard of.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/15#15]
Slaughtering 800 Jews in one day cannot be seen as intimidating.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There are significant differences between practicing and achieving ethnic cleansing.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/68#68]
Muhammad merely 'prophesised' the ethnic cleansing of Arabia, which is different from commanding it, and it was not completed until after Muhammad died.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was 'forced' to remove all non-Muslims from the Hijaz. Non-Muslims were given a 'chance' to live in peace with Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was committed to living peacefully with non-Muslims but was force to change for strategic reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Only those who actually fought the Muslims were killed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/61#61]
Punishing a group for a crime commited by their leader is perfectly consistent with punishing them for their own actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
Muhammad offered to let them go if they promised not to do it again, but they refused.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
It is not up to Muslims to back up any of the claims they make to justify the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/65#65]
It's OK because they were not bona fide Jews.

==== Blaming races for diseases ====

Muslims will hold Europeans collectively accountable for 'European' diseases introduced to the Americas. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/348#348] Arabs are also collectively accountable for 'Arab' diseases introduced by Arabs, but generally get an exception because their diseases were introduced "as a result of friendly traders making contact with natives in good faith and instigating trade based on mutual respect" (in fact the main item traded by Muslim Arabs were female sex slaves). Europeans get no such exemptions because European diseases were introduced to the Americas by Spaniards with the intention of raping the locals (Europeans were actually trying to discover an alternative trade route to Asia after the Muslim Ottomans made the land route too dangerous). Europeans are to be blamed regardless of whether the introduction of diseases was intentional. Muslims will even argue that the native Americans would have somehow avoided introduced diseases were it not for the sinister intentions of Europeans.

=== Honesty ===

Muslims often attempt to conceal aspects of Islam that they believe their audience will object to, or to mislead them about it
(see [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712]
Islam even forbids Muslims from making inquiries about Islam where they may feel uncomfortable with the answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360487801]
Muslims will insist that lying is permissible in a very limited set of situations, such as war (Muslims refer to this as taqiyya [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348]). They will attempt to argue that this means lying is not permitted in Islam, but also claim that they believe the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595] Historically (during the Caliphate) Islam divided the world into two parts - the house of peace and the house of war (outside the Caliphate, where lying about Islam is presumably permitted). Muslims are also encouraged to deceive in order to achieve peace, in particular by inventing 'good' information. However such fabrications are considered by Islam to not be lies, thus allowing Muslims to lie about Islam at the same time as insisting Islam forbids lying, without actually lying. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/79#79]
Sunni Muslims will also claim that Shiites permit themselves to lie, but not Sunnis.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583]

=== Honour ===

Islam regards honour highly, placing it above truth, compassion, freedom etc. A key reason given for the standards of evidence and for the death penalty by stoning for crimes of a sexual nature is to conceal people and to "make societies avoid accusations against people’s honour and aspersions on their lineages." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48] This is taken to the extent of claiming that they are liars in Allah's eyes (an issue of truth) if they cannot produce witnesses to back up their claims of sexual indiscretion, even if they know the claim to be truthful. A Muslim's honour is considered to be of 'grave sanctity'.

=== Theft ===

The penalty for theft is getting your hand cut off. Kleptomaniacs would get their hand cut off. If a weapon is used, then the punishment for 'banditry' applies: "they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474]

Although Muhammad forbade theft on a 'personal' level, he engaged in theft as part of his nation-building process, by robbing caravans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604] Muslims justify this theft by arguing that they felt persecuted by the people they were stealing from. They will also insist Muslims were tortured and mistreated by the people they were stealing from, however no details are ever provided to back up these claims. In a broader sense, this theft was performed by the Muslim community as a whole (often by a few hundred men) against non-Muslims. Muhammad later commanded his followers not to fight Jews and Christians if they paid a special tax (jizya).

== Sex ==

=== Sex slaves ===

In addition to their wives, Muslim men may have sex with female slaves (concubines [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1326238283/15#21]). Islam "abrogates" the marriage of captured (non-Muslim) women to make this permissible. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887]

=== Rape ===

Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332074116] Where sex is not permitted, rape is punished the same way as consensual sex. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/27#27][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474/13#13] Muslims reject the concept of 'consenting adults' and do not consider sex to be consensual unless God (ie Islamic law) permits it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/43#43] Islam requires a wife to satisfy her husband's sexual desires and does not recognise the need for consent based on the wife's choice.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/60#60]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
In other words, for a woman sex is either completely forbidden or obligatory at the whim of the man, depending on the context. Muslim men may have sex with slaves or 'whatever their right hand possesses', however Muslims distinguish between slaves that you have sex with and 'sex slaves', presumably on the grounds that only the owner of the slave may rape her legally.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330835332]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566]
Women caught through conquest may also be raped. Muslim's consider the rape of their slaves as a 'right' and even go so far as to describe it as liberating for captured women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/15#15] Rape of a non-Muslim woman under other circumstances is technically illegal under Islam, but the courts discount the testimony of non-Muslims as unreliable. In addition to the punishment for consensual sex, an 'illegal' rapist must also pay a dowry to the victim. If the victim is a slave, the rapist must reimburse for the reduction in value of the slave (presumably to the owner of the slave). This payment must be made regardless of whether the victim is a virgin (though this would presumably have an impact on the value of a slave). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Muslims often claim that the low rate of reporting of rape and pedophilia in Islamic societies is evidence of low occurrence, rather than legalisation of rape, the difficulties in achieving conviction and the barriers to reporting (many women who report rape often get convicted of sex related crimes). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773]

=== Pedophilia and child brides ===

Pedophilia was apparently common in Muhammad's time, and Muhammad is considered by Muslims to have been within his rights (according to the customs of the time [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/141#141]) to have sex with his child bride before she reached puberty. The most reliable sources explicitly state that she was 9 years old when he had sex with her. Despite numerous later references to her menstruating, there is no record in any Islamic texts of whether she had reached puberty at this time. Aisha possessed dolls at the time Muhammad had sex with her, but this is not proof she was prepubescent, as the ban on dolls for post-pubescent girls applies to playing with them, not possessing them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176] The meaning of 'maturity' in terms of age of consent depends on the context. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/174#174] In Muhammad's time girls were 'conditioned' to grow up quickly. Muhammad and Aisha were 'in love' when they married (when she was 6 years old and he was about 50). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176]

Although many Muslims insist that the age of consent in Islamic law is puberty, the concept of age of consent is not mentioned in any Islamic texts, despite for example puberty being stated as the age at which an orphan may be given rights to his property. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/225#228] There are some verses regarding the withholding period for divorced women that condone sex with prepubescent girls. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/144#144] These have been used by some Muslim clerics to specifically permit sex with pre-pubescent wives and even issue instructions on how to "deal with them" during the consummation. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/228#228] Child brides, including pre-pubescent child brides, are still a big problem in many parts of the Middle East and North Africa where Islam has had a strong influence on the culture.

Even where Muslim leaders rule that a husband must wait until his wife reaches puberty to have sex with her, Islam still effectively institutionalises pedophilia in marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057] A pedophile may have up to four prepubescent wives at any time, and as many slave girls as he can get his hands on. He does not have to marry the girls for life but can divorce them and get a new prepubescent wife as soon as they become too mature for his taste. The only caveat on this is that society trusts him not to actually have sex with them until they reach puberty. However, he may live with the girls and move wherever he wants. This, combined with the Islamic requirement for women to cover themselves from head to toe, the dislocation imposed on their lives, and the strict control that men exert over the women they own (eg, a wife requires her husband's permission to leave the house) means that institutionalised pedophilia is impossible to eradicate within Islamic law. Pedophilia outside of marriage is punishable the same way as consensual sex, however given the severe punishment for this and the pedophile-friendly marriage laws it is likely that many pedophiles will satisfy themselves within the confines of marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28] Attempts to eradicate organised 'extra marital' pedophilia (ie, pedophile rings) would be hampered by the same laws that prevent the discovery of pedophilia within marriage.

Pedophile marriages among Muslim communities within the west can go largely unnoticed, due to lack of interest within the Muslim community in preventing it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391854581][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773/10#10]

=== Incest ===

Muhammad married his first cousin. In Islam's traditional heartland the practice is common and causes many problems - both biological, in terms of congenital abnormalities, and social, in terms of arranged marriages, child brides, women's rights, etc. Up to 80% of marriages in some places are blood related. The level drops for immigrant Muslim groups in the west, but can still be as high as 40%. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1382857194/32#32] Muhammad's example no doubt makes it hard to advise people of the risks, given the inevitable hostility to the suggestion that Muhammad did something wrong and that his example should not be followed. The penalty for incest outside of marriage is the same as for consensual sex (death by stoning). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Arranged marriages ===

Islam prescribes arranged marriages. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196/15#15]

=== Polygamy ===

A man may have up to four wives (at a time) in addition to sex slaves (see below). A woman may have only one husband. She only needs one, as he provides whatever she needs. A Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but not an atheist one or one from a 'non-Abrahamic' religion. A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man. Muhammad was permitted roughly 11 wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480/3#3]

=== Love ===

Islam does not accept the conventional view of love, which is discarded as nothing more than infatuation, which disables reason and logic. Instead, women grow to love the husband who was chosen for them. This love is based around a belief in Islam as the one true religion. For this reason it makes no difference if a girl is married at the age of 6, 12 or 18, or how much older her chosen husband is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196] Islam facilitates domestic violence, and women are expected to be subservient to their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/9#9] If she cheats on her chosen husband, she is stoned to death (see adultery below). Muslims believe that this facilitates 'normal and healthy relationships within the confines of marriage'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

=== Adultery ===

The penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753]
No concessions are given in the case of organised marriage, which is the norm.

=== Fornication ===

The penalty for fornication (premarital sex) is 100 lashes. The penalty may be waived if the fornicators were not given the opportunity to marry before sex (eg because they couldn't afford it).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/5#5]

=== Prostitution ===

The penalty for prostitution is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Homosexuality ===

The penalty for acting gay or talking in an effeminate or gay manner by choice (ie excluding physical 'defect') is death by stoning. This is considered to be apostasy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/3#3]. The penalty for homosexual sex itself is the same as for adultery or fornication, depending on whether you are married.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28]
Apparently, very few gays would actually be executed because homosexuality simply disappears under Islam. That is, it is not driven underground by the death penalty; rather men just stop having sex with each other because they are Muslims and they live under Shariah law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11]
This can be contrasted with modern Saudi Arabia, where men can often be found having sex with each other in public toilets. Apparently, this can be attributed to the laws governing the lives of women being slightly stricter than the correct Islamic standards.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/15#15]
Such men are using other men as a substitute for women and are thus not gay, merely have gay sex. However the penalty for gay sex is the same regardless of whether you are actually gay. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11] An Islamic society that permits four wives per man, requires women to cover everything except their face and hands, to get permission from a man to leave the house and that bans unrelated women and men from interacting socially would apparently not run out of women and lead to the same situation as Saudi Arabia because not every man would have four wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24]

=== Masturbation ===

Masturbation is forbidden in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] The punishment is of a broad category called "ta'zeer". In the later Ottoman times, ta'zeer punishments ranged from fines and mild lashings to short prison terms.

=== Bestiality ===

The penalty for bestiality is death by stoning. The animal must also be killed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170] Some Muslims believe there is no punishment, except for killing the animal and selling it to a neighbouring village. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511]

=== Necrophilia ===

Necrophilia is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted, with the added restriction that the corpse has to be fresh. The Arab spring gave birth to serious efforts to legalise necrophilia (with a 6 hour time limit) and reduce the age of consent in Egypt. The legislation is currently before parliament. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1310028601/21#21]

=== Privacy ===

Muslims believe that what happens in the bedroom rarely stays in the bedroom and is harmful to society. They also believe that the law cannot be separated from morality on this or any other issue. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]

== Other ==

=== Art ===
Islam specifically forbids any depiction of any of the prophets (including Muhammad, Jesus, Moses etc). This includes pictures and statues. It also forbids any depiction of any revered person, or any person at all. Islam still permits art, but it is strictly abstract. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/20#20]

=== Alcohol ===
All intoxicants are forbidden. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347337305/7#7]

=== Circumcision ===
Circumcision of both men and women is practiced under Islam, though there is disagreement over whether it is required, recommended or merely permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215611509/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395430570/82#82]. The extent of female genital mutilation is controlled and those who cut too much off are punished with death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/7#7]

=== Clothing ===
A woman must cover everything except her face and hands. Her clothes must not be too tight fitting, in case her figure can be made out. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] Penalty????

=== Music ===
Musical instruments are generally forbidden, as they are 'pure evil'. Some Muslims consider singing to be illegal, while others will accept singing and possibly instruments provided the message of the song is acceptable, and also depending on the occasion (eg a wedding).

=== Personal hygiene ===
Muslims are required to remove all of their public hair, but no facial hair. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225352862] Islam provides detailed instructions on ablutions, wiping yourself with your hand, drinking camel urine etc.

== Achieving Change ==

I am still not sure how 'hard' Islam requires its followers to 'lobby' for these changes. There appears to be some confusion on this issue. The general rule seems to be for Muslims to peacefully tolerate modern laws until they are in a powerful enough position to force the adoption of Islamic law.

Wikipedia has a series of articles on controversies related to Islam and Muslims. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_related_to_Islam_and_Muslims]

= Can Islam Adapt? =

It is important not to view Islam, or compare it with other religions, in a historical vacuum. The rampant conservatism in the middle east is no doubt attributable to the longevity of the Ottoman empire and recent western 'progressive' influence which has been just as negative as positive. The 'closure of the gates of ijtihad' (cessation of religious enquiry) some time during or after the 10th century no doubt played a role. However this closure was more by consensus than by Quranic decree, so ultimately there is nothing ruling out a reopening. Western society took a long time to adopt separation of church and state as a core value. Islam appears to rule this out, which poses perhaps the biggest barrier to reform.
Islam requires its followers to contribute productively to any new society they move to. While this may be reassuring for the short term outlook, in the long term it does nothing to rule out a return to military conquest, terrorism and violent struggles for power.

On the upside, the abolition of slavery creates a valuable precedent for modern theologists to challenge what seem to be core tenets of Islam. Another factor in favour of change is that Islam has no generally accepted clerical hierarchy or bureaucratic organization. Thus, liberal movements can arise easily within Islam, as is currently happening. The same problem that allows extremists and terrorists to go relatively unchallenged also allows for progressive reform. Inevitably, Islam will undergo significant reform at some point in the future, or drag the rest of the world back into barbarism. It is crucial that the west allow this to happen, and not 'poison the well' by making the Muslim world associate western values with oppression and decadence.

= European Court of Human Rights and Sharia Law =

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the '''European Court of Human Rights''' determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-RefahPartisi2001jude.html

On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving the RP on the ground that it had become a "centre of activities against the principle of secularism". It also declared that the RP’s assets were to be transferred by operation of law to the Treasury. The Constitutional Court further held that the public declarations of the RP’s leaders, and in particular Necmettin Erbakan, Sevket Kazan and Ahmet Tekdal, had a direct bearing on the constitutionality of the RP’s activities. Consequently, it imposed a further sanction in the form of a ban on their sitting in Parliament or holding certain other forms of political office for a period of five years.

The Court considered that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions: (1) the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and (2) the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognised could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

= OIC vs Freedom of Speech =

In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination.

A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call “Islamophobia.”

Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own “ten-year program of action” which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan’s Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, “Fitna” — Wilders’ short documentary film that ties certain Quranic passages to Islamist terrorism —

is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code.

Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign” which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has “confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.”

In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned “Islamophobes” like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as “dhimmitude.”

Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from “politically incorrect” to “criminally punishable” activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do.

We are witnessing the spectacle of authors’ books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called “Human Rights Councils” on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other “Islamophobic” conduct.

Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of “Shariah-Compliant Finance.”

Let’s be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22:

If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.

On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don’t, you can legitimately be killed.

It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies’ demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today’s totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah —

and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.

www.rashmanly.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/7616/

Islam and Australian values

2018-08-15T05:30:06Z

Freediver: /* Economics */

[[Islam]]

= What real Muslims think =

This article was put together following interesting discussions with several Muslims on the OzPolitic forum. Follow the links for more information. This article has been criticised as being unrepresentative of the views of Muslims. However, surveys by the Pew society show that around the world, many Muslims support the most barbaric aspects of Islam. In many countries, the majority of Muslims support stoning people to death for adultery, the death penalty for apostasy, and believe that women must obey their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387754522][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/570][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388997344] That is why Islam is the greatest modern barrier to freedom, democracy and human rights, and why the threat posed by Islam to these fragile [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet] ideals must not be understated out of a misguided sense of political correctness.

= Conflicts =

This is a list I am putting together of apparent conflicts between Islam and Australian values, or between Islam and 'western' values. It comes from this discussion:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243

Islam differs from what most Australians typically think of as religion in that it doubles as a system of government.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/144#144]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
Islam holds that the legal standards developed in 7th century tribal Arabia are eternal and unchanging. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/76#76] Islam is an outright rejection of concepts like freedom, democracy, and human rights [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327799946][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008], though it is rare for a Muslim to directly acknowledge this and they often attempt to create a different impression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826] Muslims are commanded to live by the local laws if they are living in a non-Muslim state, but are also obligated to attempt to impose Shariah law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367461526]
The appropriate mechanism for turning a non-Muslim state into a Muslim one is ambiguous (or at least, not openly discussed).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/129#129]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1262474745/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353933060]
Hostility towards Islam is considered justification for conquest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/91#91]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/116#116]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Such hostility seems inevitable if a large group of people try to undermine our values and system of government. Muslims are forbidden from voting in 'secular' elections, so the overthrow of non-Muslim governments is presumably by force, either external or internal, as soon as they are powerful enough.

The vast majority of the world's Muslims share the interpretation of Islam described below, even though it appears 'extremist' from our perspective.

[[Deception of Non-Muslims]]

[[Faith Ratchet]]

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

The list is currently split into three groups - Freedom and Human Rights, Justice, Sex, and Other.

== Freedom and Human Rights ==

=== Freedom ===
Islam means 'submission'. It is a rejection of individual freedom and human rights. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332061805][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341115826]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]

=== Slavery ===
Islam permits the enslavement of people captured through military conquest [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434/68#68] and the children of slaves. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332196921][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392646116/59#59] In addition, Dhimmis risk slavery for not following a complex and arbitrary set of discriminatory rules. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] Female slaves become concubines. Slavery was gradually outlawed towards the end of the Ottoman Empire, partly due to pressure from Great Britain, though it still occurs in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, slavery of women has been the last form to die out. Several African states still practice slavery under Islamic law. Many Australian Muslims support slavery.

=== Freedom of religion ===
Islam has spread primarily through military conquest followed up by the denial of freedom of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216] Islam is extremely intolerant of polytheism, non-Abrahamic religions, atheism, agnosticism, or new Islamic 'cults' that are based on Islam but claim new prophets since Mohammed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Incorrect interpretations of Islam are not tolerated and freedom of speech is openly rejected. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214785726/1#1] 'Shirk' (idolatry, polytheism etc) is considered the worst possible crime in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6] Islam shows limited tolerance towards Christianity and Judaism. The construction or repair of churches, synagogues etc is banned. Islam encourages a parent to beat a child for not praying [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231993677/44#44]. Blasphemy and apostasy attract the death penalty. The sections on apostasy, discrimination, justice, theocracy and blasphemy/free speech outline other ways in which Islam denies people freedom of religion. Any 'cultural heritage' associated with other religions must be destroyed on the grounds that it has no value and may encourage idolatry (eg the recent destruction of the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan). Muslims consider this a favour to mankind. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334996843]

=== Blasphemy/free speech ===
The penalty for blasphemy is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/23#23][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/33#33] Islam forbids criticism of God, Muhammad or Islam. It also restricts other areas of free speech. Phone sex lines for example would be illegal. The punishment for talking or acting gay is death by stoning (see section on homosexuality). Muslims often attempt to portray the death penalty for blasphemy, apostasy etc as being a different 'take' on freedom of speech, rather than an outright rejection of it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944] Muslims have threatened to sue OzPolitic to get it shut down.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/81#81]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/15#15]
Even apparently progressive Muslims support the erosion of freedom of speech and consider it inevitable that Muslims will be violent in response to mockery of Islam or Muhammad in the west.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Blasphemy laws make any kind of progressive reform within Islam very difficult. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360382901]

Muslims will claim to be the standard bearer for freedom of speech [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/236#236]
and western liberal morals [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/221#221]
and that Muslims share our exact views on this issue, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/43#43]
while also mocking the Charlie Hebdo solidarity movement and insisting that the right to draw pictures of Muhammad, and the defence of that right in response to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, is a 'distortion' of the true meaning of freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/234#234]
The Charlie Hebdo terrorist "attacks reflect genuine grievances felt by" terrorists and the broader Muslim community that should be addressed first, along with other grievances such as alientation (which causes terrorism). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
Instead of considering the cartoonists martyrs for freedom of speech people should act more respectfully instead. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/225#225]
The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were hate mongers who were merely victims of their own bigotry and it is a distortion of freedom of speech to suggest it involves standing in solidarity with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/248#248]
The majority of Australians want to ban criticism of religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
Anyone who supports the right to criticise religion is an extremist. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/354#354]
People being afraid to mock Islam is an "oversimplistic dichotomy". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
The cartoons are "offence for offence's sake". This, and other unidentified forms of expression are "wrong and should be avoided." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
This view "just happens to coincide with the terrorists campaign to force them to stop." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441709460/19#19]
The theats posed by Islamic terrorism to freedom of speech represent "faux threats" and "fake, wishy washy western liberal morals" that are used to cynically smear Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/121#121][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/148#148][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439514326/186#186][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910]
Muslims are intolerant of a "free market" of political and intellectual ideas, particularly from white people. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
Self censorship is "absolutely" a reasonable course of action when it comes to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1368872008/105#105]
It is unclear whether existing laws make it illegal to mock Muhammad, or whether they should be changed to make it illegal. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/1#1]
When the media refrains from publishing Muhammad cartoons, it is because they are being "considerate and responsible" rather than because they might get killed, and it is hysterical and pointless to discuss the matter any further. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/2#2]
The Jews in the Australian Labour Party are trying to censor criticism of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1369558442/3#3]

An organisation of Australian Muslim women who petitioned to stop Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a famous women's rights campaigner) visiting Australia called it a 'victory for free speech' when she had to cancel her visit due to threats to her life. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491466442] Her colleague Theo van Gogh was assassinated in response to a video they made together calling for women's rights in Muslim countries, and the assassin left a message pinned to the corpse threatening Ali, western countries and Jews. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491382260]

Muslims and their apologists will deny that Islam is he greatest modern threat to freedom and democracy without being able to identify a single other threat. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626/14#14]

=== Apostasy ===
The penalty for a Muslim who rejects Islam is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1409475944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329307987/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434596646/3#3]
The term 'shirkh' encompasses many of the sins that are considered to put a person 'outside' of Islam and thus subject to this penalty [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/6#6], however it has been hard to get more details on this.
For Sunnis, this includes Shiites and other 'heretics'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583/0#0] Rejecting Islam is interpretted broadly. Acting gay for example is considered apostasy (see section on homosexuality). Some Muslim scholars tried to change this (most recently in 1839) so that the death penalty only applied to treasonous apostates. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy] However mainstream Islam still considers the death penalty for apostasy to be correct. Also, since Islam is both a state (or form of government) and a religion, many Muslims consider apostasy itself to be treason. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25] Muslims often portray the penalty as being limited to treason, even though they have a very broad interpretation of apostasy,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1316600915/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1254303083/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1236559378/46#46]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234698603/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280880642/11#11]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/38#38]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/45#45]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
or to attempt to justify the death penalty for apostasy on the grounds that some countries execute traitors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017/25#25][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/32#32]

=== Women’s rights ===
Muslims see no contradiction in stating that men have authority over women and also claiming that men and women are equal under Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302027801/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/154#154]
Muhammad allowed men to beat their wives until they were 'green'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/105#105]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338868086/39#39]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
According to Islam, all women are stupid, deficient of mind, like domestic animals, lack common sense, lie, fail in religion, rob the wisdom of the wise and should never be trusted.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Women make up the majority of people in hell (hanging by their breasts), because they were not grateful of the favours their husbands did for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1]
Muslims often claim that the treatment of women in Islamic cultures is superior. It is frequently claimed that denial of basic rights such as freedom of dress [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] is liberating. Women are required to start covering their bodies from puberty, apparently to prevent the objectification of women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/74#74][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26] Muslims often claim that the downsides associated with personal freedom in the west are actually the purpose of personal freedom – ie that women are only allowed to do as they please to facilitate men who want to take advantage of them. Women may be subjected to domestic violence (see separate entry). Wives are expected to ‘hasten to satisfy’ their husbands sexual appetite on demand. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] The testimony of a woman in court is considered half that of a man. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379744257/1#1] Women are not allowed to mix freely with men who are not relatives and must have their husband’s permission to leave the house. Women may not travel without a close male relative or shake hands with a man who is not a close relative. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Islam stipulates the minutia of a woman's life, including how she must breastfeed her children [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294] Women are discriminated against in inheritance law, getting half the inheritance of a man (on the grounds that some other man will look after her). Muslim men may marry four wives, including non-Muslims (Christians and Jews only [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]), but a woman can only have a single husband, who must be Muslim. In addition, Muslim men may take female sex slaves and have sex with ‘whatever their right hand possesses’. Islam rejects the concept of a man and woman falling in love and getting married. Rather, an old man may marry a child bride, who is expected to ‘grow to love’ him in humble servitude during the course of the marriage.

=== Economics ===

Islam has it's own peculiar economic system. The Muslim community has a 'difficult' history with, and philosophical approach to, the use of government funds. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1534310293] When foreign governments set up regional monopolies within Australia to approve Halal meat for export (and charge extortionist prices for doing so [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468052946/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468233758][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378852212/25#25]), Muslims attempt to pass this off as an example of how capitalism is supposed to work. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1393493672] This money supposedly goes to educating children. Similar excuses are made when the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils siphons off millions of dollars from the Australian government that should have gone to educating their own children in private Muslim schools. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392774047/30#30]

== Justice ==

=== Justice ===
Islamic courts consider the testimony of non-Muslims to be inferior, on the grounds that non-Muslims are inherently dishonest.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223872802]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317211760]
Women are also considered inferior witnesses, and some crimes require male witnesses for a conviction, on the grounds that the witnesses must be reliable.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
A non-Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225427458]
Islamic etiquette requires Muslims to extend to other Muslims the benefit of the doubt, to make excuses for them, and to conceal their faults.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/32#32]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170/39#39]
"Whosoever conceals the faults of a Muslim, Allah will conceal his faults in this world and the Hereafter. Allah will aid a servant (of His) so long as the servant aids his brother." This, combined with other forms of discrimination, would cause problems that further undermine justice and erode the rights of non-Muslims.

=== Equality ===

Muslims try to spin the various discriminatory aspects of Islam into a narrative of equality and social justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395533499] The reality is that there is only tentative equality and justice (of a sort) for male Muslims. Muhammad created a pernicious caste system in a society where Pagans, Jews and Christians previously interacted as genuine equals.

=== Death Penalty ===

Islam prescribes death by stoning, a particularly cruel punishment, to many crimes. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1383609440] These include adultery, incest, prostitution, female genital mutilation (see clarification below), sex with a pre-pubescent girl, apostasy, heresy, paganism, banditry (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft Theft]) etc. Lesser crimes, such as fornication and masturbation, are punished by whipping. Homosexuality is punished the same way as adultery or fornication. Death by stoning involves burying men up to their chests and women up to their necks and stoning them to death. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/43#43] There are rules regarding the size of stones and distance of throw to prevent a quick death. I have not been able to get a straight answer on which crimes invovle death by stoning and what the other methods for carrying out the death penalty are. Muhammad appears to have preferred decapitation by sword when a large number (hundreds) of people needed to be killed (see collective punishment - not usually the case with crimes of sexual nature).

=== Collective Punishment, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing ===

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Islam supports the collective punishment of non-Muslims, particularly Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354282385/24#24]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_antisemitism]
This includes slaughtering and expelling entire Jewish tribes in response to crimes against individual Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894]
Muslims will argue that neither the execution of every single man from a defeated Jewish tribe, nor forcing all the women into sexual slavery is an example of collective punishment. The sexual slavery is even described as "protective custody". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/1#1]
Muslims will argue that it was the Jews who were intent on committing genocide.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/213#213]
Muhammad "prophesied" the ethnic cleansing of all non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula by his second successor Umar. He told Umar of this prediction in person. Umar partially fulfilled this prophesy, expelling all non-Muslims from the Hijaz area. Of course, all the non-Muslims brought this upon themselves by breaking covenants with Muhammad, and the harsh punishment was necessitated by the dire threats posed by the Jews and others to the Islamic state, and by the hostility of the Pagans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/4#4] Muslims will also attempt to pass this off as 'voluntary' conversion to Islam by every single pagan on the peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] Christians were also expelled as collective punishment, resulting in the population of a large area (around modern day Saudi Arabia) becoming 100% Muslim. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/288#288] Geopolitical strategy is cited as an excuse for forced relocation from the Arabian peninsula, and Muslims consider that the people involved were lucky not to meet a worse fate. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/294#2894] Muhammad used pillage and murder as a form of punishment. Muslims justify Muhammad 'putting down' people by citing later examples where non-Muslims were the perpetrators. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] Muslims will attempt to derail discussing of collective punishment under Muhammad into a debate about the meaning of the term, without offering an alternative meaning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantics]

Muslims will also try to justify Muhammad's career robbing Meccan caravans from his base in Medina as collective punishment of the Meccans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/136#136]

=== Torture ===

Muhammad often used torture and beating to extract information from people and to punish them (eg for consuming alcohol). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392514541]
Muhammad ordered the torture (and then beheading) a Jewish man by lighting a fire on his stomach. The purpose of this torture was to make him reveal where the Jewish gold was hidden. Muhammad then married the man's wife as a "gesture of goodwill" towards the Jews (the woman was regarded as being very beautiful). The men of the tribe were then killed and the women and children sold into slavery.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/28#28]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367418236/260#260]
Muslims will often attempt to justify the decade or so in which Muhammad robbed caravans and then conquered the Arabian peninsula by insisting early Muslims were tortured and mistreated, however no details have been made available.[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft]

=== Domestic violence ===
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48] Muslims will also say that Islam permits them to slap their wife to keep them in line, but will deny that this is domestic violence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70]
There is disagreement over the extent to which husbands are allowed to beat their wives, ranging from wife beating being ‘permissible but not advisable’ to a husband being permitted to strike his wife with a miswak so as not to leave bruises, but in a sufficiently violent demonstration of anger and frustration to break the woman out of her ‘nasty mood’. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227877786/35#35] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/17#17] Humiliation is also often stated as the goal of domestic violence in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/70#70] Obviously, once you permit domestic violence, whatever moral limits that are placed on wife beating are bound to be breached in the heat of the moment even by a pious man, and completely ignored by others, especially as the wife must cover her body in public and may not leave the house without the husband’s permission. Absurdly, one legal recourse for a wife who has been beaten beyond ‘legal limits’ is to gain a court order to be allowed to beat her husband in retaliation. Muslims cite this as a demonstration of the fairness of Islam towards women.

There are several accounts of Muhammad beating his wives and laughing when other Muslims beat his (Muhammad's) wives. There are verses in the Quran the specifically permit wife beating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/197#197]

=== Discrimination ===
Islam preaches the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226024795/4#4]
Islam's economy is essentially a protection racket targetted at non-Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225870861]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/264#264]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/310#310]
Non-Muslims must pay a special tax for the privilege of not having to slaughter other non-Muslims on Islam's behalf. This tax is applicable at all times, not just times of war. In Islamic society, Christians and Jews are referred to as 'Dhimmis'. Limited tolerance is extended to them, conditional upon a number of seemingly arbitrary discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/2#2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/39#39] This is to force Dhimmis into a condition of humiliation, segregation and discrimination, so that even the lowliest Muslim may feel superior to them and thus not feel tempted by their material success. These rules extend to greetings, behaviour, clothing, transport, employment, trade, housing etc. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887] Dhimmis risk death or slavery for violating these requirements. Limited autonomy in the form of Christian and Jewish civil courts and administrations are allowed, but this is not extended to non-Abrahamic religions. All other types of non-Muslim people are treated far worse. Fellow Muslims who follow a different branch of Islam are considered non-Muslims and risk the death penalty for apostasy, especially if they promote their views in any way.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/59#59]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
Non-Muslims face institutionalised injustice (see justice above).

=== Democracy vs Theocracy ===
Islam is openly hostile to freedom and democracy.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487846626]
Islam requires establishment of theocracy. Democracy is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/33#33]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/64#64]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/145#145]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
Secularism is forbidden.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281248510/7#7]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211960725/2#2]
Islam combines what westerners typically consider to be religion and politics.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]
Muslims may elect a representative to implement Islamic law, but this is not required and the representative has no mandate to implement anything other than Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1] Candidates are limited to the most learned Islamic Scholars. Islam even forbids the 'Islamic' party of Australia and forbids people from voting for it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/51#51][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232631004/14#14] Islam also requires the resurrection of the Caliphate, which would mean a return to the bad old days of expansionist military empires trying to take over the world.

=== Treason and national allegiance ===
There is currently no Caliphate, but as soon as one is (re)created, Muslims are required to abandon the countries they live in and move to the Caliphate, which is where their true allegiance lies. This is likely to be in the context of a war between the Caliphate and other nations. If Australia was at war with the Caliphate, Australian Muslims would be required to take up arms against Australia. There is no clear guideline for identifying when this should occur, however many Australian Muslims believe that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

=== War ===

Muhammad executed or oversaw the execution of approximately 700 prisoners of war from a single Jewish tribe after defeating them in battle. Muhammad and modern Muslims attempt to "wash his hands" of this extreme punishment. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476] Even apparently progressive Muslims will describe criticism of this episode as "cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam", [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293910] as well as try to justify it as necessary defense of a (then non-existent) Islamic state. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392294329] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabaian peninsula. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375266038][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604]

Islam requires its followers to establish an empire called a Caliphate. The religion itself is based on Muhammad's rule over his empire. All Muslims are required to return to this empire and to perform military service on its behalf [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/66#66], unless they can buy their way out of it.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344740521]
Islam’s history was dominated by the rise and gradual collapse of a Caliphate. It is only recently that they have been without a ‘homeland’. If an Islamic empire wins a war, it can take all of the land and possessions from the people. The victors get to choose, based on what is most beneficial to the empire, whether the conquered people have to flee their land with nothing, remain with no land or possessions, or become slaves to the invaders.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/61#61]
Situations like Israel and Northern Ireland, except more extreme, are the norm rather than the exception.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581]
Muslims often claim that the empire only spread through self defence, but this is clearly not true. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/44#44] For example, at the height of the empire, Muslims crossed the Mediterranean to join in a war in modern day Spain. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/14#14] After their initial victory, they turned on their one-time allies and slaughtered them also. They then proceeded to conquer the entire peninsula and send raids into modern day France. Muslims expect an Islamic empire to one day recapture Spain.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345026756/87#87]
In dealing with prisoners of war, Islamic doctrine permits a ruler to choose the most profitable or beneficial of four options: killing them, enslavement and possible sale, ransom or pardon.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234931054]
Many Muslims believe that the west has been in a state of war with the Muslim world since the 1920's.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128]
Muslims oppose any 'surrender' by Palestinians after losing a war decades ago on the grounds that a military victory by Muslims is imminent. They support peace treaties in this situation, but do not see them as a form of surrender. Rather, they are merely an agreement to temporarily halt the war and restart it later.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1406593144/49#49]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279]
Any treaty can be broken in this context as Islam encourages deception. Islam only permits its followers to obey a peace treaty for a maximum of ten years, after which war must resume.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232015305]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1345155967/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145]
Muslims even equate refusal to surrender with not actually losing a war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/31#31]
Like the German people afer world war one, Muslims will also reject the legitimacy of any modern peace agreement.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315637372/10#10]
Muslims consistently seek out historical military losses by Muslims to use as justification for past, current and planned future aggression against non-Muslims, no matter how disconnected the events are.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/9#9]

=== Racism and antisemitism ===

Muslims believe that in historical conflicts between Jews and Muslims, the Jews were always to blame. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294] Muhammad set many examples of blaming Jews when he in fact was slaughtering or ethnically cleansing them. (See also Collective Punishment [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing]) At the same time, Muslims will insist that Islam is tolerant towards Jews and even encourages the protection of Jews.

Racism is technically against Islam, yet it is widespread, especially among politically active promoters of Islam. Nazis toured the middle east prior to WWII to drum up support for Hitler's cause and win allies. They brought the fervent antisemitism with them, which proved very popular with the locals. While the west was repulsed by the consequences of Hitler's antisemitism, the middle east and Muslims held onto it. The middle east had suffered a similar defeat to Germany, being part of a once glorious empire that slowly crumbled and was eventually dismantled by foreign powers. As always, Jews were an easy scapegoat for their misery. Having a tiny corner of 'their' territory handed over to Jews after WWII fueled the antisemitism among Muslims all over the world, to a far greater extent than the amount of land involved would suggest. Modern conspiracy theories about Jews are rife in the Muslim community and have not progressed very far beyond the crude style promoted by Hitler. Muhammad himself used anti-Jewish propaganda to further his political career and slaughtered many Jews. The justifications that modern Muslims give for the historical slaughter of Jews by Muhammad and for modern antagonism towards Jews is eerily similar to Nazi propaganda.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327483631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1343475620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212726620]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/40#40]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338504963]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1299483524]

Many Muslims consider Israel's destruction to be inevitable and oppose any surrender to Israel for this reason (see war [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War]). Muslims often portray Israel as being inflicted on the middle east by Europe and insist the Jews be sent back to Europe, however the greatest contributor to Israel's Jewish population were Jews that were expelled by Muslims from middle eastern countries - thus nearly completing Muhammad's prediction that this ethnic cleansing would happen. Those countries then attempted to invade Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372552172][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1353809434]

Islam is not antagonistic towards Jews alone. Jews supposedly receive a measure of protection in Islam. Atheists, polytheists etc receive far worse treatment (see freedom of religion [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_of_religion]), while Shiites and any other Muslim groups that stray outside of what is considered mainstream Islam receive the death penalty for apostasy (see above).
Anti-white racism is also common and provides an easy way to blame non-Muslims for the collapse of the Islamic empire and the current state of affairs in the middle east. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330731658]

Muslims will also 'play the race card' to promote Islam. For example, they often insist that all criticism of Islam is based on racism, rather than a rational or moral objection to the teachings of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416194100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1319026216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231418706]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1437265164]
The same Muslims will also insist that calls to move Israel's population out of the middle east, justified on the basis that "Arabia is for Arabs" (and a clip from Lawrence of Arabia to show us what proper Arabs look like) is not in fact racism.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1461906947/332#332]
The explanation for why this is not racist included the fact that 'Arab' is a reference to a linguistic (and not racial) group, that the ethnic cleansing of the middle east can be justified by its history, and that critics of Islam were not sufficiently critical of other instances of racism directed at Muslims.

Muslims often fuel existing or historical racial hatred in order to create a sense of solidarity with a group of people through a shared victimhood narrative. For example, Muslims have claimed that Australian Aborigines had universities, embassies and effective quarantine programs for imports prior to the arrival of Europeans, thanks to the influence of Muslim traders from Indonesia. These Muslims also taught the Aborigines to violently repel Europeans and inspired them to several great military victories over European farmers. Part of this narrative is that Aborigines should have been more violent and that this would have led to a better outcome for them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1341787168]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338172056]
In the USA, the Nation of Islam is a racist Muslim 'black power' movement - ironic given that the biggest racism problem in Islam's heartland is against Africans.

==== The Jewish tribes of Medina ====

Early in his career, Muhammad was expelled from Mecca. He was later invited to broker peace in nearby Medina, a city with diverse groups that were frequently in conflict with each other. Muhammad was seen as being independent. However for Muhammad, Medina was of strategic military importance. It was a stronghold from which he could rob caravans trading with Mecca, and he wanted to obtain absolute control of it. At the time there were three powerful Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad saw them as a strategic threat. Muhammad soon started openly preaching hostility towards the Jewish tribes, [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/145#145] and within a few years had gotten rid of all three of them, on weak pretexts. After each major battle, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of some form of treachery and used this as an excuse to reneg on his agreement with them. The first tribe to be expelled were the Banu Qaynuqa, who as artisans and traders were in close contact with Mecca. After being strengthened by victory in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad publicly demanded they convert to Islam or meet the same fate. Muhammad besieged them and they surrendered after a fortnight. Muhammad wanted to slaughter them, but was convinced by a Muslim convert to be 'lenient' to them. This succeeded, however the convert was forever dubbed 'leader of the hypocrits'. Muhammad expelled the tribe, and kept all of their posessions. The other two tribes either remained neutral or supported Muhammad. After losing the battle of Mount Uhud, Muhammad accused members of the Banu Nadir of plotting to assassinate him (apparently an angel warned him of the plot). Muhammad expelled them also, again keeping their property. He became personally very wealthy by taking a large amount of their land for himself. The tribe initially agreed to leave, then refused, believing the third Jewish tribe would assist them. This help did not materialise and they surrendered after Muhammad besieged them for a fortnight. Muhammad later attcked them again, forcing them to become his subjects, hand over all the new land they had acquired, and pay 50% of what they grew as tax. In the battle of the trench, members of the third tribe (Banu Qurayza) assisted Muhammad, however the tribe entered into failed negotiations with the enemy. After the enemy departed, Muhammad was directed by an angel to attack the tribe, again besieging them for about a month. They surrendered, and Muhammad had all adult men in the tribe executed. The women were taken as sex slaves. Muhammad forced other Jewish tribes to pass the judgement and carry out the executions in order to distance himself from it and make it harder for the other Jews to hold it against him. Muslims will insist that the Jews were a borg-like, mindless collective in order to justify the collective punishment (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment.2C_Genocide_and_Ethnic_Cleansing Collective Punishment]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/122#122]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486610591/9#9]

Thus, Muhammad established a pattern of behaviour of claiming victimhood while slaughtering Jews, taking Jewish women as sex slaves, confiscating their property, all the while while blaming Jews for their own mistreatment.

Muslims will attempt to 'flood' a discussion about the Jewish tribes a Medina with a long list of excuses and justifications. None of these justifications stand up to scrutiny, however Muslims will change between them rapidly in order to avoid detailed consideration of any one of them, in the hope that people will loose interest before gaining an appreciation of what happened. Some examples:

Jews were tribal and had no concept of individuality. The Jews were a 'mindless collective'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544]
The fact that there were only 700 of them shows they had a collective mind. The Jewish tribe failed to act consistently as a collective.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463911375/22#22]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/5#5]
The 'tribe' was punished for it's actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
The Jews were to blame for every conflict between Muslims and Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Muhammad needed a 'permanent solution' and it was impractical to continue detaining them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
Cricising this action is 'cynically using wishy-washy western liberal morals as a tool to smear Muhammad and Islam'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
The actions of Muhammad are morally equivalent to modern punishments for treason.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/27#27]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/24#24]
Current anti-terror and bikie laws also invoke guilt by association.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/35#35]
Their presence at the time of surrender proves their guilt, because they previously had the opportunity to commit treason by turning against their own tribe and joining the enemy that had laid siege to them.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
Muhammad had learnt his lesson about the dangers of letting Jews live.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It is reasonable to ascribe collective guilt if they had the opportunity to distance themselves from the actions of other Jews.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The Jews violated a treated that compelled them to come to the defence of the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
The fact that many of them actually helped Muhammad and the Muslims defend themselves is irrelevant to their guilt, because the tribe also acted against Muhammad.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
Their treachery had nothing to do with refusing to help the Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
The tribe was judged by a Jew, according to Talmudic law and thus Muhammad was not responsible for the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
There was an ongoing war and the Muslims were fighting for their very existence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
One of the tribes had 'effectively declared war'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
The Jews and their allies were planning genocide of the Muslims, so it is only reasonable for Muhammad to commit genocide in anticipation of this.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
It is OK because Muhammad was not motivated by racism (he 'had Jewish friends').
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler was much worse, even if you adjust for the number of Jews available for slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/28#28]
Hitler actually acted irrationally and undermined his quest for power by dedicating so many resources to slaughtering Jews, whereas Muhammad did it for more practical reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
You need to consider the historical context.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
The enslavement of all the women after the men were slaughtered was actually a form of protective custody.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
Sex slavery does not necessarily mean serial rape and there was a possibility of emancipation (eg by bearing a male child to their Muslim owner).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Other, more evil rulers, would have slaughtered the women and children also.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
Only the Jewish POWs who had participated in fighting against Muslims were executed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]
It just looks bad because of the holocaust, and thus Muslims are being blamed for the attrocities of Europeans.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/46#46]
The leaders had conspired against the fledgling Islamic State which had to be protected.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/213#213]
By remaining in Medina, the Jewish tribe posed an ongoing threat to the new Islamic State, which was surrounded by enemies.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/54#54]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/6#6]
The tribe was too powerful and autonomous and acted beligerantly.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Primacy of self preservation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It was a serious situation and the Jews could not be handled with 'kid gloves'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435390100/15#15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/81#81]
It doesn't matter whether their actions were right or wrong.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/9#9]
It was not actually about punishment and it does not matter who was actually to blame.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
It is irrelevant whether they deserved the punishment. It's like a Clint Eastwood movie.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/15#15]
The 'proper meaning' of collective punishment somehow excludes mass executions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/21#21]
Collective punishment is an overly emotive term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56]
Collective punishment is a meaningless term.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There is no point discussing whether it was collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
Collective punishment has a different meaning today.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/98#98]
It was collective punishment, but it was justified.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/41#41]
Punishing a group collectively is not the same as collective punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/49#49]
It has nothing to do with slaughtering POWs.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/239#239]
The expulsion/eradication of all three large Jewish tribes should be viewed as 'power-politics' rather than religious persecution.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/71#71]
Merely banishing two of the tribes instead of slaughtering them was a level of mercy previously unheard of.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576/15#15]
Slaughtering 800 Jews in one day cannot be seen as intimidating.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/58#58]
There are significant differences between practicing and achieving ethnic cleansing.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/68#68]
Muhammad merely 'prophesised' the ethnic cleansing of Arabia, which is different from commanding it, and it was not completed until after Muhammad died.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was 'forced' to remove all non-Muslims from the Hijaz. Non-Muslims were given a 'chance' to live in peace with Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/79#79]
Muhammad was committed to living peacefully with non-Muslims but was force to change for strategic reasons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/85#85]
Only those who actually fought the Muslims were killed.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/61#61]
Punishing a group for a crime commited by their leader is perfectly consistent with punishing them for their own actions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
Muhammad offered to let them go if they promised not to do it again, but they refused.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/57#57]
It is not up to Muslims to back up any of the claims they make to justify the slaughter.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/65#65]
It's OK because they were not bona fide Jews.

==== Blaming races for diseases ====

Muslims will hold Europeans collectively accountable for 'European' diseases introduced to the Americas. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/348#348] Arabs are also collectively accountable for 'Arab' diseases introduced by Arabs, but generally get an exception because their diseases were introduced "as a result of friendly traders making contact with natives in good faith and instigating trade based on mutual respect" (in fact the main item traded by Muslim Arabs were female sex slaves). Europeans get no such exemptions because European diseases were introduced to the Americas by Spaniards with the intention of raping the locals (Europeans were actually trying to discover an alternative trade route to Asia after the Muslim Ottomans made the land route too dangerous). Europeans are to be blamed regardless of whether the introduction of diseases was intentional. Muslims will even argue that the native Americans would have somehow avoided introduced diseases were it not for the sinister intentions of Europeans.

=== Honesty ===

Muslims often attempt to conceal aspects of Islam that they believe their audience will object to, or to mislead them about it
(see [[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712]
Islam even forbids Muslims from making inquiries about Islam where they may feel uncomfortable with the answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360487801]
Muslims will insist that lying is permissible in a very limited set of situations, such as war (Muslims refer to this as taqiyya [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348]). They will attempt to argue that this means lying is not permitted in Islam, but also claim that they believe the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595] Historically (during the Caliphate) Islam divided the world into two parts - the house of peace and the house of war (outside the Caliphate, where lying about Islam is presumably permitted). Muslims are also encouraged to deceive in order to achieve peace, in particular by inventing 'good' information. However such fabrications are considered by Islam to not be lies, thus allowing Muslims to lie about Islam at the same time as insisting Islam forbids lying, without actually lying. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/79#79]
Sunni Muslims will also claim that Shiites permit themselves to lie, but not Sunnis.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337120583]

=== Honour ===

Islam regards honour highly, placing it above truth, compassion, freedom etc. A key reason given for the standards of evidence and for the death penalty by stoning for crimes of a sexual nature is to conceal people and to "make societies avoid accusations against people’s honour and aspersions on their lineages." [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48] This is taken to the extent of claiming that they are liars in Allah's eyes (an issue of truth) if they cannot produce witnesses to back up their claims of sexual indiscretion, even if they know the claim to be truthful. A Muslim's honour is considered to be of 'grave sanctity'.

=== Theft ===

The penalty for theft is getting your hand cut off. Kleptomaniacs would get their hand cut off. If a weapon is used, then the punishment for 'banditry' applies: "they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land". [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474]

Although Muhammad forbade theft on a 'personal' level, he engaged in theft as part of his nation-building process, by robbing caravans. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604] Muslims justify this theft by arguing that they felt persecuted by the people they were stealing from. They will also insist Muslims were tortured and mistreated by the people they were stealing from, however no details are ever provided to back up these claims. In a broader sense, this theft was performed by the Muslim community as a whole (often by a few hundred men) against non-Muslims. Muhammad later commanded his followers not to fight Jews and Christians if they paid a special tax (jizya).

== Sex ==

=== Sex slaves ===

In addition to their wives, Muslim men may have sex with female slaves (concubines [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1326238283/15#21]). Islam "abrogates" the marriage of captured (non-Muslim) women to make this permissible. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388161887]

=== Rape ===

Rape is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1332074116] Where sex is not permitted, rape is punished the same way as consensual sex. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/27#27][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474/13#13] Muslims reject the concept of 'consenting adults' and do not consider sex to be consensual unless God (ie Islamic law) permits it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330935607/43#43] Islam requires a wife to satisfy her husband's sexual desires and does not recognise the need for consent based on the wife's choice.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/60#60]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
In other words, for a woman sex is either completely forbidden or obligatory at the whim of the man, depending on the context. Muslim men may have sex with slaves or 'whatever their right hand possesses', however Muslims distinguish between slaves that you have sex with and 'sex slaves', presumably on the grounds that only the owner of the slave may rape her legally.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330835332]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264373261/43#43]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225539453/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566]
Women caught through conquest may also be raped. Muslim's consider the rape of their slaves as a 'right' and even go so far as to describe it as liberating for captured women. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/15#15] Rape of a non-Muslim woman under other circumstances is technically illegal under Islam, but the courts discount the testimony of non-Muslims as unreliable. In addition to the punishment for consensual sex, an 'illegal' rapist must also pay a dowry to the victim. If the victim is a slave, the rapist must reimburse for the reduction in value of the slave (presumably to the owner of the slave). This payment must be made regardless of whether the victim is a virgin (though this would presumably have an impact on the value of a slave). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474] Muslims often claim that the low rate of reporting of rape and pedophilia in Islamic societies is evidence of low occurrence, rather than legalisation of rape, the difficulties in achieving conviction and the barriers to reporting (many women who report rape often get convicted of sex related crimes). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773]

=== Pedophilia and child brides ===

Pedophilia was apparently common in Muhammad's time, and Muhammad is considered by Muslims to have been within his rights (according to the customs of the time [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/141#141]) to have sex with his child bride before she reached puberty. The most reliable sources explicitly state that she was 9 years old when he had sex with her. Despite numerous later references to her menstruating, there is no record in any Islamic texts of whether she had reached puberty at this time. Aisha possessed dolls at the time Muhammad had sex with her, but this is not proof she was prepubescent, as the ban on dolls for post-pubescent girls applies to playing with them, not possessing them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176] The meaning of 'maturity' in terms of age of consent depends on the context. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/174#174] In Muhammad's time girls were 'conditioned' to grow up quickly. Muhammad and Aisha were 'in love' when they married (when she was 6 years old and he was about 50). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112477/176#176]

Although many Muslims insist that the age of consent in Islamic law is puberty, the concept of age of consent is not mentioned in any Islamic texts, despite for example puberty being stated as the age at which an orphan may be given rights to his property. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/225#228] There are some verses regarding the withholding period for divorced women that condone sex with prepubescent girls. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/144#144] These have been used by some Muslim clerics to specifically permit sex with pre-pubescent wives and even issue instructions on how to "deal with them" during the consummation. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057/228#228] Child brides, including pre-pubescent child brides, are still a big problem in many parts of the Middle East and North Africa where Islam has had a strong influence on the culture.

Even where Muslim leaders rule that a husband must wait until his wife reaches puberty to have sex with her, Islam still effectively institutionalises pedophilia in marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379120057] A pedophile may have up to four prepubescent wives at any time, and as many slave girls as he can get his hands on. He does not have to marry the girls for life but can divorce them and get a new prepubescent wife as soon as they become too mature for his taste. The only caveat on this is that society trusts him not to actually have sex with them until they reach puberty. However, he may live with the girls and move wherever he wants. This, combined with the Islamic requirement for women to cover themselves from head to toe, the dislocation imposed on their lives, and the strict control that men exert over the women they own (eg, a wife requires her husband's permission to leave the house) means that institutionalised pedophilia is impossible to eradicate within Islamic law. Pedophilia outside of marriage is punishable the same way as consensual sex, however given the severe punishment for this and the pedophile-friendly marriage laws it is likely that many pedophiles will satisfy themselves within the confines of marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28] Attempts to eradicate organised 'extra marital' pedophilia (ie, pedophile rings) would be hampered by the same laws that prevent the discovery of pedophilia within marriage.

Pedophile marriages among Muslim communities within the west can go largely unnoticed, due to lack of interest within the Muslim community in preventing it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391854581][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1387360773/10#10]

=== Incest ===

Muhammad married his first cousin. In Islam's traditional heartland the practice is common and causes many problems - both biological, in terms of congenital abnormalities, and social, in terms of arranged marriages, child brides, women's rights, etc. Up to 80% of marriages in some places are blood related. The level drops for immigrant Muslim groups in the west, but can still be as high as 40%. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1382857194/32#32] Muhammad's example no doubt makes it hard to advise people of the risks, given the inevitable hostility to the suggestion that Muhammad did something wrong and that his example should not be followed. The penalty for incest outside of marriage is the same as for consensual sex (death by stoning). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Arranged marriages ===

Islam prescribes arranged marriages. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196/15#15]

=== Polygamy ===

A man may have up to four wives (at a time) in addition to sex slaves (see below). A woman may have only one husband. She only needs one, as he provides whatever she needs. A Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but not an atheist one or one from a 'non-Abrahamic' religion. A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man. Muhammad was permitted roughly 11 wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480/3#3]

=== Love ===

Islam does not accept the conventional view of love, which is discarded as nothing more than infatuation, which disables reason and logic. Instead, women grow to love the husband who was chosen for them. This love is based around a belief in Islam as the one true religion. For this reason it makes no difference if a girl is married at the age of 6, 12 or 18, or how much older her chosen husband is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225592196] Islam facilitates domestic violence, and women are expected to be subservient to their husbands. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/9#9] If she cheats on her chosen husband, she is stoned to death (see adultery below). Muslims believe that this facilitates 'normal and healthy relationships within the confines of marriage'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

=== Adultery ===

The penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753]
No concessions are given in the case of organised marriage, which is the norm.

=== Fornication ===

The penalty for fornication (premarital sex) is 100 lashes. The penalty may be waived if the fornicators were not given the opportunity to marry before sex (eg because they couldn't afford it).
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/56#56]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/5#5]

=== Prostitution ===

The penalty for prostitution is death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]

=== Homosexuality ===

The penalty for acting gay or talking in an effeminate or gay manner by choice (ie excluding physical 'defect') is death by stoning. This is considered to be apostasy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962/3#3]. The penalty for homosexual sex itself is the same as for adultery or fornication, depending on whether you are married.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28]
Apparently, very few gays would actually be executed because homosexuality simply disappears under Islam. That is, it is not driven underground by the death penalty; rather men just stop having sex with each other because they are Muslims and they live under Shariah law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11]
This can be contrasted with modern Saudi Arabia, where men can often be found having sex with each other in public toilets. Apparently, this can be attributed to the laws governing the lives of women being slightly stricter than the correct Islamic standards.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/15#15]
Such men are using other men as a substitute for women and are thus not gay, merely have gay sex. However the penalty for gay sex is the same regardless of whether you are actually gay. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/11#11] An Islamic society that permits four wives per man, requires women to cover everything except their face and hands, to get permission from a man to leave the house and that bans unrelated women and men from interacting socially would apparently not run out of women and lead to the same situation as Saudi Arabia because not every man would have four wives. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24]

=== Masturbation ===

Masturbation is forbidden in Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] The punishment is of a broad category called "ta'zeer". In the later Ottoman times, ta'zeer punishments ranged from fines and mild lashings to short prison terms.

=== Bestiality ===

The penalty for bestiality is death by stoning. The animal must also be killed. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335271170] Some Muslims believe there is no punishment, except for killing the animal and selling it to a neighbouring village. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511]

=== Necrophilia ===

Necrophilia is permitted in Islam in the same situations that sex is permitted, with the added restriction that the corpse has to be fresh. The Arab spring gave birth to serious efforts to legalise necrophilia (with a 6 hour time limit) and reduce the age of consent in Egypt. The legislation is currently before parliament. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1310028601/21#21]

=== Privacy ===

Muslims believe that what happens in the bedroom rarely stays in the bedroom and is harmful to society. They also believe that the law cannot be separated from morality on this or any other issue. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16]

== Other ==

=== Art ===
Islam specifically forbids any depiction of any of the prophets (including Muhammad, Jesus, Moses etc). This includes pictures and statues. It also forbids any depiction of any revered person, or any person at all. Islam still permits art, but it is strictly abstract. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375098020/20#20]

=== Alcohol ===
All intoxicants are forbidden. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347337305/7#7]

=== Circumcision ===
Circumcision of both men and women is practiced under Islam, though there is disagreement over whether it is required, recommended or merely permitted. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215611509/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395430570/82#82]. The extent of female genital mutilation is controlled and those who cut too much off are punished with death by stoning. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/7#7]

=== Clothing ===
A woman must cover everything except her face and hands. Her clothes must not be too tight fitting, in case her figure can be made out. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228563614/25#25] Penalty????

=== Music ===
Musical instruments are generally forbidden, as they are 'pure evil'. Some Muslims consider singing to be illegal, while others will accept singing and possibly instruments provided the message of the song is acceptable, and also depending on the occasion (eg a wedding).

=== Personal hygiene ===
Muslims are required to remove all of their public hair, but no facial hair. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225352862] Islam provides detailed instructions on ablutions, wiping yourself with your hand, drinking camel urine etc.

== Achieving Change ==

I am still not sure how 'hard' Islam requires its followers to 'lobby' for these changes. There appears to be some confusion on this issue. The general rule seems to be for Muslims to peacefully tolerate modern laws until they are in a powerful enough position to force the adoption of Islamic law.

Wikipedia has a series of articles on controversies related to Islam and Muslims. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_related_to_Islam_and_Muslims]

= Can Islam Adapt? =

It is important not to view Islam, or compare it with other religions, in a historical vacuum. The rampant conservatism in the middle east is no doubt attributable to the longevity of the Ottoman empire and recent western 'progressive' influence which has been just as negative as positive. The 'closure of the gates of ijtihad' (cessation of religious enquiry) some time during or after the 10th century no doubt played a role. However this closure was more by consensus than by Quranic decree, so ultimately there is nothing ruling out a reopening. Western society took a long time to adopt separation of church and state as a core value. Islam appears to rule this out, which poses perhaps the biggest barrier to reform.
Islam requires its followers to contribute productively to any new society they move to. While this may be reassuring for the short term outlook, in the long term it does nothing to rule out a return to military conquest, terrorism and violent struggles for power.

On the upside, the abolition of slavery creates a valuable precedent for modern theologists to challenge what seem to be core tenets of Islam. Another factor in favour of change is that Islam has no generally accepted clerical hierarchy or bureaucratic organization. Thus, liberal movements can arise easily within Islam, as is currently happening. The same problem that allows extremists and terrorists to go relatively unchallenged also allows for progressive reform. Inevitably, Islam will undergo significant reform at some point in the future, or drag the rest of the world back into barbarism. It is crucial that the west allow this to happen, and not 'poison the well' by making the Muslim world associate western values with oppression and decadence.

= European Court of Human Rights and Sharia Law =

In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the '''European Court of Human Rights''' determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-RefahPartisi2001jude.html

On 16 January 1998 the Constitutional Court made an order dissolving the RP on the ground that it had become a "centre of activities against the principle of secularism". It also declared that the RP’s assets were to be transferred by operation of law to the Treasury. The Constitutional Court further held that the public declarations of the RP’s leaders, and in particular Necmettin Erbakan, Sevket Kazan and Ahmet Tekdal, had a direct bearing on the constitutionality of the RP’s activities. Consequently, it imposed a further sanction in the form of a ban on their sitting in Parliament or holding certain other forms of political office for a period of five years.

The Court considered that, when campaigning for changes in legislation or to the legal or constitutional structures of the State, political parties continued to enjoy the protection of the provisions of the Convention and of Article 11 in particular provided they complied with two conditions: (1) the means used to those ends had to be lawful and democratic from all standpoints and (2) the proposed changes had to be compatible with fundamental democratic principles. It necessarily followed that political parties whose leaders incited others to use violence and/or supported political aims that were inconsistent with one or more rules of democracy or sought the destruction of democracy and the suppression of the rights and freedoms it recognised could not rely on the Convention to protect them from sanctions imposed as a result.

The Court held that the sanctions imposed on the applicants could reasonably be considered to meet a pressing social need for the protection of democratic society, since, on the pretext of giving a different meaning to the principle of secularism, the leaders of the Refah Partisi had declared their intention to establish a plurality of legal systems based on differences in religious belief, to institute Islamic law (the Sharia), a system of law that was in marked contrast to the values embodied in the Convention. They had also left in doubt their position regarding recourse to force in order to come to power and, more particularly, to retain power.

= OIC vs Freedom of Speech =

In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination.

A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call “Islamophobia.”

Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own “ten-year program of action” which will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the world.

• Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan’s Prosecutor General has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. According to a lawsuit, “Fitna” — Wilders’ short documentary film that ties certain Quranic passages to Islamist terrorism —

is said to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code.

Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will be issued.

Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign” which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has “confirmed that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.”

In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations that have spawned “Islamophobes” like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.

• Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as “dhimmitude.”

Western officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents from “politically incorrect” to “criminally punishable” activity.

For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases, prosecute — those who do.

We are witnessing the spectacle of authors’ books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists hauled before so-called “Human Rights Councils” on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other “Islamophobic” conduct.

Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of “Shariah-Compliant Finance.”

Let’s be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22:

If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.

On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that theo-political-legal program. If you don’t, you can legitimately be killed.

It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being Islamophobes!

If we go along with our enemies’ demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond recognition. Ultimately, today’s totalitarian ideologues will triumph where their predecessors were defeated.

To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious program the Islamists call Shariah —

and all efforts to impose its 1st Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of preventing Western Islamophobia.

www.rashmanly.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/7616/

Main Page

2018-06-07T03:43:28Z

Freediver:

Welcome to the Australian Politics wiki. You can use this wiki for just about anything you want, so be creative and bold.

I am restricting editing rights to cut back on spam. New accounts require admin approval. Anonymous editing is not allowed.

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl]

You can add articles about yourself, your party or an issue you are interested in, no matter how minor. You can add blogs. You can even use this wiki to make yourself a home page for the OzPolitic forum. This wiki is intended to fill any useful purpose. Note that if blogs are popular I can also add a proper blog facility to OzPolitic.

Please delete or undo any spam that you see. Be ruthless with it.

[[Fishing Party courts Coalition]]

[[Lefties take over]]

[[Political Animal]]

[[Australia]]

[[Politics of Australia]]

[[List of political parties in Australia]]

[[Islam]]

Main Page

2018-06-07T03:41:10Z

Freediver:

I am restricting editing rights to cut back on spam. New accounts require admin approval. Anonymous editing is not allowed. If your password has changed it may have reverted to an old password. Use the 'forgot my password' link if necessary.

Welcome to the Australian Politics wiki. You can use this wiki for just about anything you want, so be creative and bold.

Anonymous edits are allowed, but your IP address will be displayed. You should create an account and login if you don't want your IP address displayed, or you want to be able to track or take credit for your contributions, discuss issues with other members etc.

To add a page about a 'major topic' (eg our government) copy the equivalent page on wikipedia. This is perfectly legal and wikipedia has a license scheme that encourages this. To copy it, hit the edit button in wikipedia then copy and paste the contents then create a new page here and edit it by pasting in the contents. This wiki is less restrictive regarding rules, so you are welcome to add your own opinion to articles about political parties or events. However, please identify it as such and place it at the bottom of the page, below everything else, including other people's opinions. The first section on any topic should be 'objective and factual' along the same lines as wikipedia's rules. You may rearrange different opinion contributions, with the goal of putting the most interesting opinions at the top. You may edit someone else's opinion piece, but only to make it more clear or concise, not to disagree with or correct it. Note that a wiki makes a poor forum and should not be used to respond to people's opinions. Use the following forum for that

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl]

You can add articles about yourself, your party or an issue you are interested in, no matter how minor. You can add blogs. You can even use this wiki to make yourself a home page for the OzPolitic forum. This wiki is intended to fill any useful purpose. Note that if blogs are popular I can also add a proper blog facility to OzPolitic.

Please deleteundo any spam that you see. Be ruthless with it.

[[Fishing Party courts Coalition]]

[[Lefties take over]]

[[Political Animal]]

[[Australia]]

[[Politics of Australia]]

[[List of political parties in Australia]]

[[Islam]]

Deception of Non-Muslims

2018-03-11T06:24:03Z

Freediver: /* Domestic Violence */

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

Muslim spokesmen employ a peculiar style of deceptive propaganda that so far has caught western media off-guard. It takes advantage of a common assumption among those who have only been exposed to other religions – the assumption that the statements of religious leaders can be taken at face value because religious leaders want people to understand their religion. It takes advantage of western ignorance of Islam while at the same time seeking to maintain that ignorance. It takes advantage of people's tendency to see Islam as a religion in the traditional sense, rather than as a combination of a militant political ideology and a religion. Thus a Muslim religious leader should not be seen in the same way as most religious leaders. He should be viewed as a combination of politician and religious leader. When addressing a western, non-Muslim audience, he should not be viewed as a typical missionary, but as an astute politician addressing a hostile audience who won't like all of his policies - he will tell you what you want to hear. Viewing them as a politician can be a difficult task as they often combine this with a hypersensitivity to criticism or direct questioning that a politician could not get away with. 'How dare you accuse me of lying' is a powerful challenge coming from a cleric with his 'religious leader' hat on, but would be ridiculed if it came from a politician.

Muslims use a number of strategies to either conceal the more barbaric aspects of their religion or to deceive people about Islamic doctrine. The initial deception is semantic. Literally, they say one thing and mean another, the opposite of calling a spade a spade. This typically involves using a dual meaning that is generally only understood by Muslims, or using Arabic terms. The initial deception is followed up with a number of rhetorical techniques that create a barrier to effective communication. These are essentially a form of diversion. While some of these tricks are familiar to a western audience, some are largely unfamiliar and play on Islamic concepts with which the west is unfamiliar.

Muslims will discuss with each other deliberate attempts to strategically generate propaganda for the political aspects of Islam. This looks far more like the actions of a political party intent on winning at all costs rather than a religion trying to promote the truth. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276]

= Textual justifications for deception =

There are several textual sources of that justify deception by Muslims. Some are given below:

''Abu Hurairah narrates that the Prophet said: “One who keeps the faults of a Muslim secret in this world, Allah will keep his faults in the Hereafter and Allah remains in the help of the (Muslim) man until he is in the help of his brother.”'' (Musnad Ahmad: 274/2)

Muslims have built a strong tradition and culture around this hadith that places reputation above truth and calls on Muslims to, first and foremost, protect the reputation of other Muslims. Muslims who become aware of illegal or immoral behaviour by fellow Muslims are severely restricted, by Islam, in how they can respond. The inevitable result of this is an oppressive, corrupt society that is completely unwilling to have an open dialogue about it's own oppression and corruption.

Another interesting verse, this time directly from the Quran, forbids Muslims from asking questions about troubling aspects of Islam:

''O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.'' (Surah 5:101-102).

A similar verse:

''The clerk of Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba narrated, "Muawiya wrote to Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba: Write to me something which you have heard from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ." So Al-Mughira wrote: I heard the Prophet saying, "Allah has hated for you three things: ... 3. And asking too many questions (in disputed religious matters)'' (Bukhari vol. 2, Hadith#. 555)

Although this is a call to self-delusion, it is a necessary psychological strategy for the deception of others - both Muslim and non-Muslim - regarding Islam. Feeling constantly pressured to knowingly deceive others might cause Muslims to lose faith. But if Muslims never inform themselves of the troublesome aspects of Islam in the first place, they will have at best only a vague awareness of them, and will more likely accept outright lies about the matter. The version of Islam they pass onto fellow Muslims and non-Muslims will be appropriately 'cleansed' according to whatever the society wants to hear, based on the values of the time. While this may appear to be a recipe for the destruction of Islam from within, it must be remembered that Islam requires its spread to be followed closely by the imposition of a militant Islamic state that is utterly hostile to any 'incorrect' versions of the religion being promoted. This includes the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy, where apostasy is taken to include adopting the 'wrong' version of Islam. Thus, Islam spreads through a combination of willful self-delusion, concealment and deception, followed by the ruthless imposition of the harsh realities of true Islam.

One last example from the Quran:

''And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.'' Qur'an (3:54)

Ironically, many Muslim websites translate this as "plan" rather than "scheme". Technically, the Arabic term can be translated as plan, but only in the context of planning to do someone harm through deceipt.

= Lying about the Quran =

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]]

Muslims will lie about the Quran, primarily to whitewash the promotion of violence.

For example, Chapter 9 of the Quran is entirely devoted to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Muslims will claim that the fist verse of the chapter states that the entire chapter is restricted in context to pagans who violate their treaties with Muslims. Not only does the first verse not actually say this, there are verses in the chapter that clearly go beyond this scope, as well as other broad contextual statements similar to verse one that have a broader scope.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/212#212]
Muslims will argue that a reference to a subgroup of pagans (those with a treaty) must imply that all references to pagans in the chapter must refer to those with a treaty (even when it does not make sense), because the it does specifically mention pagans without a treaty. It was never explained why this was necessary in order to refer to pagans in general.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/223#223]

Muhammad committed genocide by wiping out the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe - the last remaining of three large tribes of Jews in Medina. Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran states that members of the tribe were freed, in order to contradict other Muslim sources who state that all 'adult' (those who had pubic hair) men were killed and the rest taken prisoner. They will 'paraphrase' the Quran to insert the claim that some were freed. The Quran does not state that some were freed, but does confirm they were either executed or taken prisoner.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran forbids rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Sex_Slaves]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran is not anti-semitic (despite clearly anti-semitic content) on the grounds that Jews are technically considered to be Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Religious_Motivation]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Islam.E2.80.99s_Just_War_Doctrine_is_a_Lie]
that the Quran limits war to situations of self defence, without ever mentioning self defence,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]
that quoting chapter 9 of the Quran in its entirety is actually taking it out of context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Context]
that a verse saying to convert people to Islam by the sword actually means war can only be fought against oppression,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Oppression]
that a verse promoting violent retribution is actually a statement of proportionality in war, despite not making even a subtle reference to proportionality
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Proportionality]
Note that the Quran does explicitly limit war to self defence and also offers a clear an unambiguous statement of proportionality in war, but limits these restrictions to the 'holy months'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#When_the_Koran_does_impose_self_defence_and_proportionality]

Muslims will attempt to justify lying about the Quran to non-Muslims by insisting it will make Muslims more peaceful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Justifying_Lies_about_the_Quran]

Muslims have a broad variety of more subtle ways of distancing themselves from their religion
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Disowning_Islam]
or misleading people by changing the meaning of words.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantic_deceptions]

= Some common strategies =

== Exploiting positive assumptions ==

One of the most irony-laden discussions with Muslims revolved around the concept of taqiyya. This rule permits Muslims to deceive people, break the law or commit blasphemy under certain circumstances. When asked whether this gives Muslims free reign to lie to non-Muslims, several Muslims pointed out that it only applies in certain circumstances, such as war. This was an indirect response that relied heavily on the assumption that we are not at war. One of those Muslims later explained that he believed that the West had been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920’s and that the west had declared and carried out this war. This is a good example of a very subtle deception taking advantage of positive assumptions, in the context of discussing deception itself. This strategy works well when combined with hypersensitivity to discourage people from seeking a more direct response when only an indirect response was given. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

== Islamic law follows belief ==

Islam requires the imposition of Shariah law on both Muslims and non-Muslims. Having the law imposed on you is considered necessary and an integral part of Islam. Islam also requires Muslims to follow Islamic law in foreign countries. The process for turning a foreign country into an Islamic one has always been through a process of empire building, often through outright violence, but always with the threat of violence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924] Muslims see no contradiction between this and the 'peaceful empire' fairytale. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581] Muslims will go so far as to insist they are not allowed to lobby for Islamic law and that it merely 'follows naturally' after everyone has converted to Islam, even though this never happened historically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

== Revising history: science and the 'peaceful' empire fairytale ==

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims have created an elaborate fantasy about Islam restricting war to self-defence. This relies on misleading people about trends in historical military strategy, misleading people about Muhammad's actions, and misleading people about the content of the Quran.

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine]]

Revising history appears to be a favourite pastime of Muslims. This usually involves going to absurd lengths to overstate the contributions made by Muslims (especially to science) and undervalue the contribution of non-Muslims, or to pass blame for every historical evil by Muhammad and his successors to the non-Muslim victims. This can in part be attributed to the obligation of Muslims to look more favourably on fellow Muslims than non-Muslims
(see for example
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2 Justice] and
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty Honesty]).
Apparently Muslims made vast contributions to science. For example, the bloke who jumped off a tower with feathers glued to his arms, making a nasty stain on the pavement below, made a valuable contribution to our understanding of flight.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1362655638][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218803024]
One of the most outrageous claims is that the Caliphate (Islamic empire) was peaceful and spread only through self defense, even when it crossed the Mediterranean to invade modern day Spain and France. Muslims actually expect people to take this absurd version of history seriously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493]
A favourite justification for this claim is that Christians welcomed Muslims into Spain with open arms, in order to get lower taxes. What really happened is that the Muslim hordes allied themselves with one Spanish kingdom so they could cross a massive natural protective barrier (the Mediterranean) and slaughter another Spanish kingdom. Then they turned their swords on their allies and slaughtered them too. Then they slaughtered their way across the whole peninsula. Then they started sending raids into modern day France. Eventually the French and Italians booted them out of Europe.
Muslims frequently claim that various towns and Kingdom's welcomed the Empire with open arms. They will describe an offer to submit to the caliphate as entirely peaceful, even when there was a naked threat of violence if the town did not submit. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]

Muslims will deny that Muhammad committed genocide when he exterminated an entire tribe of Jews by killing 800 innocent people (almost all of the post pubescent men) in a single day, and taking the women and children as slaves. They will falsely claim that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina and deserved to die for violating it. However, the tribes concerned were not even a part of the treaty, and in any case the treaty stipulated that members would maintain freedom of religion, which Muhammad had long since abandoned when he started threatening Jews with violence if they did not convert to Islam. A few members of the tribe were allowed to live if they converted to Islam. Rather than acknowledging this as an example of forced conversion, Muslims will try to spin it as Muhammad generously pardoning them for their 'crime' if they disowned their treachery. The Jews surrendered unconditionally when Muhammad laid siege to their fortress and were taken prisoner. Muslims will argue that there was no war and they were thus not prisoners of war and not to be granted any protection as such, on the grounds that they did not notify Muhammad that they were reneging on their treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/145#145] Muslims will falsely claim that only 'warriors' were executed, despite the victims including old men and young boys. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1488589434/18#18]

Muslims will make particularly ludicrous and misleading claims about history, then later justify this by claiming that they made more accurate statements elsewhere and blaming their critics for not quoting the statements that 'matter'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1508378680/261#261]

== Statistics ==

Muslims often attempt to misrepresent the threat posed by Islamic terrorism with statistics that equate attacks such as 9/11, the London bombings, Madrid and Bali with vandalism attacks by other extremist political groups. They do this by measuring the 'rate' of terrorism by the number of individual events, rather than a more appropriate measure of risk, such as death toll.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340791727]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294223444]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1349425752]

Muslims will also often misrepresent crime statistics, for example by attributing differences in reported rates of crime with actual rates of crime, when there is an obvious difference in reporting patterns. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/225#225] This is most pronounced with crimes such as rape, which are obviously less likely to be reported in middle eastern countries, where the rape victim often ends up being punished. Muslims will often claim that certain crimes were almost non-existent in the historical Caliphate (common examples are [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Homosexuality homosexuality], murder, rape, apostasy etc). They will use their inability to find evidence of successful convictions as evidence that the convictions and punishments were rare, particularly when insisting that the punishment of death by stoning would only be implemented rarely (the classic logical fallacy of equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence). They will then turn this reasoning on it's head and demand that people who disagree with them produce crime statistics from 1000 years ago. On another tangent, apparently a Muslim country will not 'run out of women' until all men have four wives. If not all men can afford four wives, it will not be a problem. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24] (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape].)

Muslims will claim that a survey shows a majority of Australians supporting them in their efforts to make it illegal to mock religion or depict historical religious figures
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that the survey shows them supporting that right. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]

Muslims will offer endless explanations for global surveys revealing the opinions of Muslims - anything other than the survey reflecting what Muslims actually think.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#Malaysia]

= Deflections =

== Simple diversion ==

The first trick usually employed on forums is a simple diversion. If you ask 'do Muslims think it is OK to do this?', they will respond by listing examples of where something similar (no matter how remote the similarity) has been done to Muslims. This shifts the debate away from Islamic doctrine and how it seems immoral to most westerners, to a blame game over who is responsible for past atrocities. Thus Islamic doctrine is not exposed and the debate switches to from moral standards to politics or history.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390612677/11#11]

The most obvious example of this is terrorism. Most Muslims will say that terrorism is wrong, but they then go on to list all the grievances of the middle east. They may also deny that Muslims bear any responsibility for reigning in Islamic terrorists. Many claim that the reigning in of terrorists should not be a first step in the peace process, but rather a last step. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224827866] That is, we must first satisfy all the grievances of the terrorists and give Muslim extremists whatever they want (mostly more political power and geopolitical restructuring of the middle east), and only after that can they be expected to stop slaughtering people. However that is where the explanation stops. Muslims will not explain why they think this. Instead they will bring up some media report of an accidental civilian death attributable to a western army. I suspect that Muslims think this way because they see all non-Muslim lands as being a place of war. One hint of this is that they will refuse to distinguish the deliberate mass murder of civilians by terrorist organisations for which no person or nation can be held accountable, and the accidental death of civilians in an armed conflict with a guerrilla army that hides among civilians. Thus, destroying the twin towers is an act of war in a place of war and is no different to the death of civilians in a 'real' war zone. However, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get a Muslim to either admit to this or to offer some other explanation for why terrorist organisations should be given free reign until their various (largely unspecified) demands have been met.

== Et tu ==

'Et tu' is a reference to a logical fallacy. It refers to the debating strategy of accusing your opponent of something that you yourself have been accused of (or something worse). It is a logical error in the sense that it is used to justify your own actions. In the case of Islam, this tactic is used in an astonishingly predictable manner every time historical injustices committed by Muslims are brought up. The response is to ignore the injustice and how it may relate to Islam (or not) and instead give examples where non-Muslims have done similar things. There does not have to be any causative relationship. For example Muslims have attempted to justify mass murder by Muhammad himself by citing an example of non-Muslims doing something worse in the same town 600 years later (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). This of course helps to completely avoid the issue of whether such behaviour should be incorporated into timeless religious law, or whether it is even endorsed by Islam.

Muslims will falsely claim that Jesus stipulated the inferior status of women in order to insist that Muhammad's Quranic command to beat women, and the account of Muhammad himself beating his favourite child bride for leaving the house without his permission, place no more of a barrier on Muslims stamping out domestic violence than Jesus' teachings place on Christians. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/107#107] They will insist that Muhammad beating his wife is nothing like modern domestic violence because he was not a drunk bogan, and that beating his wife was merely a way of asking her what she was thinking. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/36#36][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/309#309]

== Moral equivalence ==

Arguing moral equivalence is similar to 'et tu'. It is most commonly used in discussing the incident in which Muhammad executed approximately 700 Prisoners of War (POWs). The deception comes in the misleading or missing details required to make the comparison stick. Muslims will argue for example that only combatants were killed, or that only those found guilty of treason were executed (and thus the incident is morally equivalent to the death penalty for treason in some western countries). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/6#6] Muhammad apparently punished them for either assisting his enemies in an earlier attack, not coming to his aid to the extent required by an agreement with them, conspiring with the enemy, or because the angel Gabriel told him to. The excuses offered omit or misrepresent key facts, such as:
* Many of the tribe members actually assisted Muhammad in defending against the earlier attack.
* Muslims will accuse the tribe members of attacking Muhammad when his army was under siege from a different group, however these attacks never actually happened.
* Muhammad attacked the tribe in question.
* The tribe surrendered unconditionally.
* After the they surrendered and were taken away, all able bodied male prisoners of war (and one female) were executed.
* The rest of the women ended up us sex slaves, though some were purchased by another Jewish tribe who felt guilty over their involvement in Muhammad's slaughter.
* Even the children ended up as slaves.
* Muhammad took all the land and possessions also.
Muslims will also attempt to argue that this incident is similar to various atrocities committed during recent wars, completely ignoring the point that we do not worship the soldiers involved as God's messenger and do not condone the execution of POWs, sexual slavery, the enslavement of children, or collective punishment in general. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/37#37]

Some other examples:
* Wife beating is morally equivalent to smacking a child to prevent the child from running onto the road, putting his life at risk. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/227#227]
* Muhammad spent approximately 6 years robbing caravans on their way to Mecca. Muslims will argue that this was just compensation for earlier persecution by Meccans, or that it was a legitimate act in an ongoing war that had been declared but not actually begun. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/4#4]
* Forbidding all non-Muslims from Mecca is no different to being unable to purchase land privately in Vatican city, or to the creation of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374893194/8#8]

== Victimhood ==

One of the most common responses from Muslims to accusations is to cry victimhood. Muhammad lead the way in this. Shortly after moving into Medina and making peace agreements with the other three Jewish tribes there, Muhammad managed to get rid of all of them by preaching anti-semitism, executing their leaders, expelling the first two, then attacking the last and executing 700 prisoners of war and enslaving the women and children. Muslims (and Islamic doctrine) claim they were victims of Jewish treachery at every step along the way. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475] Muhammad "predicted" even more widespread ethnic cleansing and slaughter of Jews and non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Prediction_vs_order] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabian peninsula, again because they were victims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft] Although Muhammad tortured a Jewish man to get his gold, Muslims will use a fabricated story of torture and mistreatment of early Muslims to justify Muhammad's career of caravan robbing. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Torture] Muslims will even attempt to argue that the rapid expansion of the militant Islamic empire over most of the known world was entirely in self defense, even while acknowledging aggressive military tactics and invasion of lands with which they had barely came into contact with previously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War] This attitude is reflected in the handling of conflicts and disagreements by the modern Muslim community. It is reinforced by Islamic doctrine encouraging Muslims to look favourably upon and only see the best in other Muslims, and to conceal their faults. The principle is also reflected in Islamic concepts of justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Already answered ==

The next trick is usually to claim that the question has already been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224424523/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224359891/80#80][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/54#54][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224071707/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711/3#3][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216217395/104#104][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/69#69][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/6#6] This is usually combined with the implication that you are stupid for having to ask for clarification. This trick is basically a throwback to the deceptive use of dual meanings and unfamiliar terminology, except that it avoids the need to explain it again and risk giving away too much information. This trick is usually first used when you start asking more specific questions that are getting closer to exposing the particular deception.

== Hypersensitivity ==

The next trick is usually employed if you try to justify a request for clarification after Muslims insist that questions have already been answered or that you have no reason to be interested anyway. The Muslim will become hypersensitive at the suggestion that you do not trust them to give you a straight answer. Alternatively, they will accuse you of asking 'loaded' questions, as if there is something wrong with discovering the truth about Islam. Curiously, the more specific and direct the question is, the greater the tendency to claim it is loaded, even if it carries no assumptions at all, or only assumes what has just been verified. That is, a question is loaded if it is a simple, direct question about Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223943323/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/7#7][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226113417/37#37]

'Impure' motives are behind the question. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503891772/39#39]

=== Criticising Islam is racist ===

Muslims will argue that criticising Islam is racist. When it is pointed out that Islam is a religion, not a race, they will make the absurd argument that traditional concepts of race (black, white, asian etc) do not exist, and for this reason the meaning of racism must be changed to include religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504875360][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504234775/71#71] They will also argue that if Jews and Sikhs can get away with self-identifying on racial grounds, Muslims should be able to also, even if they are recent white converts.

== Dummy spit ==

If all else fails, spit the dummy. Make more accusations of ulterior motives, stirring up trouble, asking loaded questions etc. Then, simply refuse to answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155] After one such dummy spit I started a new topic specifically about concubines and after more criticism of my questioning style, I got a limited affirmative response, but no more questions about concubines and their treatment have been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224649993] Yet I have been told in great detail how badly the west treats women.

== Accusations of Insincerity ==

Muslims will use an accusation of insincerity as a justification for refusal to answer simple questions about Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]

== Answering a question with a question ==

For example, demanding to know how elections are run before saying whether Islam supports democracy [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/11#11], demanding to know what the law is before saying whether Islam supports justice, demanding to know what the truth is before giving an honest answer.

== Me no speaka da english ==

Muslims will occasionally find it extremely difficult to comprehend simple questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504877081]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/301#301]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454967711/170#170]
They will even ask questions that they later decide make no sense if asked of them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/155#155]

== Silence ==

Silence as a tactic is reserved for the more disturbing aspects of Islam. While it was employed to a limited extent on the issue of sex slaves, it was employed far more diligently for the issue of the treatment of Hindus, atheists, pagans etc. Muslims will go to great lengths to put a positive spin on Dhimmitude – the institutionalised humiliation of Christians and Jews. However if you ask them about the treatment of those who are not ‘people of the book’ they will likely pretend you don’t exist. The issue of sex slaves was generally avoided, partly by accident. However, numerous questions were asked over a long period of time about the treat of non-Dhimmi non-Muslims. Even when I started a new thread asking specifically about the treatment of these people, it was ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000] I started raising the issue in a few other related threads and posting links. It was still ignored. Only after I posted evidence that Islam promotes wholesale slaughter of these people, and others began complaining that they can’t get a straight answer either, was a response posted by resident Muslims. Of course, these responses did not answer the question about Islamic doctrine regarding the treatment of these people. For the most part, the actual question was ignored, as best it could be. When it was approached, the reverse “Islam does not exist” argument was the most common tactic (after the obvious deflections to the ‘evil west’). Where Muslims will usually respond that the various unfortunate situations across the middle east have nothing to do with Islam, in this case the argument was that the situation in the middle east is the only valid indicator of what Islamic doctrine is. Thus the mere presence of these other religions in the middle east is now ‘proof’ of the positive approach to them in Islamic doctrine.

== Outcomes vs ideology ==

Muslims will argue that an outcome strongly linked to Islam (eg Afghans stoning people to death without the appropriate paperwork) has nothing to do with Islam because it did not occur under official Shariah law. They will also argue the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
- that for example the failure of Muslims to wipe out Hindus in India (despite conceding that they tried) is evidence that Islam does not support this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] This is a strategy of 'shifting the goal posts'. If you ask a Muslim about Islamic doctrine, they will tell you about an outcome that makes Islam appear more benign to you (usually a long way from the Arabian peninsula where Islam only reached in later centuries). If you ask them about the actions of Muslims that are apparently identical to the actions decreed by Muhammad, they will complain about how it differs from doctrine - for modern examples the most convenient is the 'Islam does not exist' argument. Another example of shifting the goal to 'outcomes' is this claim that Islamic lands have more religious diversity. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/3#3] This is from the same Muslim that conceded that Islam was successful in wiping out every single non-Muslim in the Arabian peninsula (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). The relative diversity further from the heart of Islam can be attributed to two fairly obvious reasons: the relative youth of the religion, and the aggressive empire building that was characteristic of it's spread - Islam would first conquer a land in a military sense, then set about making the people convert to Islam using whatever means worked best. This of course worked to avoid the actual question, which was specifically about doctrine, not outcomes. In the same thread, this argument claims that remaining a Muslim is evidence that Islam is not brutal [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/7#7] rather than the more obvious reason that apostasy attracts the death penalty.

== Changing the question ==

If you ask a Muslim a question about Islam, he may go to some lengths to 're-interpret' the question so it is no longer about Islam in order to avoid discussing Islam. This example is from an eight page thread about the penalty for blasphemy where several Muslims attempt to change the topic to anything except the punishment for blasphemy: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347783816/10#10]. This strategy is also often used in response to questions about whether Muslims want Shariah law implemented in the west and how they ought to go about achieving this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]

== Prove the existence of a question ==

Muslims will often demand proof of something before answering a simple question. This can be taken to absurd lengths, for example effectively demanding proof that a question exists. The demands are often for evidence of historical events, where the evidence is highly unlikely to exist. This is often in the context of Muslims claiming for example that the lack of surviving documentation of people being stoned to death for homosexuality is evidence that this did not occur, and even that homosexuality did not exist and that Shariah law is a 'cure' for it. It is similar to the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, except that it is often in the form of a demand for evidence as a way of avoiding directly addressing a topic or question.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

== Lobbying ==

A typical response to what societal changes Muslims should lobby for is that it is pointless to lobby for an activity to be punished if it is still encouraged by society (never mind that making an activity illegal, and lobbying for this discourages it), and to equate the question with an accusation of being a fanatic. Another common angle is that Islam is an 'all or nothing' system, which means Muslims cannot lobby for any specific change as it is invalid in isolation (you will not get a straight answer on how to implement everything all at once either). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

= Semantic deceptions =

Many deceptions rely on manipulating the meaning of words. Some examples:

== Dual meaning ==

A common tactic is to attach a dual meaning to common English words such as war, peace, slave, innocent, rape, domestic violence etc. This tactic is so successful because it is so different from the typical 'western propaganda' approach of inventing new jargon. For example, where a deceptive western leader may talk about 'collateral damage' to make civilian deaths in war sound more benign, a deceptive Muslim leader may say 'no one was murdered', on the grounds that the killing was legal. In this case, the deception is obvious because most English speaking people understand the subtle difference between murder and kill. However, by carefully controlling how Islamic doctrine is translated into English, Muslim scholars have created a situation where many common words have an entirely different meaning when used in the context of Muslims or Islamic law. This is combined with an insistence that to 'truly understand' the Quran one must study it in Arabic [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/146#146], thus putting the context or meaning of the words used beyond the reach of most non-Muslims. Thus, Muslims will understand what their leaders are saying, even if most westerners do not. This can be quite blatant manipulation, such as when some UK clerics stated in public that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then said to their followers in private that only Muslims can be considered innocent. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224813886/0#0][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224158764/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/141#141][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/119#119][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116]

Being so simple, this tactic is most often employed in press releases. As an example, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens appeared to support the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie during question time after giving a lecture at a western university. The next day he released a statement to the press reassuring the public that he does not support vigilantism. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/2#2] Of course, he was not available to give any further details. Most assumed he did not want Rushdie dead. However, closer inspection appears to show that Cat Stevens did not actually oppose the death penalty for Salman Rushdie. He did think it would be wrong to shoot Salman in the back of the head in some dark alley. Rather, Salman should have been hauled before the relevant cleric, who had already found him guilty, so that he could be stoned to death in an orderly, 'civilised' manner.

Another common example is the claim that Islam is peace, or is peaceful. The ultimate objective of Islam is indeed a peaceful existence, however this peace is achieved by Islam conquering the world. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] Until that time, all non-Muslim areas are considered to be at war. Those areas that are ruled by Islam are by definition at peace, even if Shiites and Sunnis are blowing up each others' Mosques. Thus, 'Islam is peace' is a technically correct statement about the 'final solution' of Islam and about those lands that are ruled by Islam, but is totally deceptive to those who do not already know what it means.

Muslim leaders will claim in public that Australia shares a lot of values in common with Islam, or that Australia is a Muslim nation, or that Australians already practice Muslim values. In private, they will call for the destruction of western decadence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/106#106][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] They will express outrage at new citizens being expected to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition as the basis of Australia's values system. They will claim that Muslims strive to obey local laws, but will also call on other Muslims to reject anything other than Sharia law as heresy. They will claim friendship with non-Muslims, but privately preach that friendship with non-Muslims is wrong and should lead to ostracism. They will claim that Islam is peace, but privately preach that there can be no peace until the entire world has been subjugated to Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] They will make friends with Christians, then preach in private that Christianity is vile. There are even passages in the Quran that promote the use of terror. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] By redefining equality, Muslims will claim that Islam creates equality between the sexes, even though it gives men authority over women and allows them to be beaten until they are 'green'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/106#106]

Rather than making a plain English translation available to the general public along with explanations, the Quran is made impenetrable by mixing up the verses so that they are out of order and the context is lacking.

An article was presented on our forum claiming, among other things, that the Islamic ban on mutilating bodies makes suicide bombing illegal under Islamic law. Any rational interpretation of the law confines it to the mutilation of corpses, as Muhammad himself did a lot of mutilating of bodies in the process of killing people. Although unwilling to directly support the argument, the Muslims present took rather elaborate measures to indirectly support it or create the impression that they support it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1407127340]

== Arabic terms ==

Rather than inventing new jargon, Muslims insert Arabic terms into English. These terms have a complex meaning that is relatively well understood to most Muslims, but is totally unknown to the target audience. A Muslim spokesperson can thus make a statement that appears to be a universal principle, but which Muslims understand only applies to certain situations.

Taqiyya, ironically enough, refers to deception. A Muslim may say for example that taqiyya forbids lying, which is technically true, depending of course on the context. However it does not appear to forbid deception. Furthermore lying is only allowed in certain situations, such as war. But remember the dual meaning – any non-Muslim land is a place of war. Using the word Taqiyya in public carries all of these complex and contradictory connotations, which are known to Muslims. Thus Muslims are not lied to even when non-Muslims get the wrong idea.

These two tactics are usually sufficient to dupe most disinterested audiences. They work well in press releases where further explanation is not available, as the media has no choice but to pass them on as-is, leaving the public unaware that the true meaning is totally different from the face value. However several more interesting techniques are used in online forums where dialogue is inevitable. Even though this medium encourages direct questions and the resolution of ambiguities, it can still be remarkably difficult to get the real story from a Muslim. Muslims achieve this by creating as many barriers to effective communication as possible. Again, this relies on the underlying assumption that a Muslim would want you to know what Islam is really about. However, in reality a Muslim is more than happy to wait until some time in the future when your country has been conquered by Muslims before you find out how nasty it can be. All of these strategies have been observed on the OzPolitic forum.

== Semantics ==

If both of these tricks fail, the next option is another diversion. This time instead of diverting to politics or history, the Muslim diverts to semantic issues. This takes advantage of the control that Muslim scholars have over translation of the Quran. It works in a similar manner to criticising someone's spelling in the middle of a heated debate – except of course that it is part of a broader strategy. First, they simply point out that you used an incorrect term. The correct term is not suggested and the actual question is ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134] If you ask for the correct term they may suggest you ask someone else. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/1#1] They cannot possibly 'just answer it anyway' and explain what the issue is. One example is a Muslim starting a discussion about collective punishment to argue that it did not happen under Muhammad, then attempting to turn the discussion into a disagreement about the meaning of the term collective punishment when it became obvious that Muhammad did indeed engage in it, by vaguely alluding to possible alternative meanings. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]

Muslims steering a topic to a discussion of the meaning of:
spineless [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/185#185],
retarded [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376013300/170#170],
child (in the context of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl) [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/219#219],
moral standard [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/128#128].

== War ==

Muslims will use war as an excuse or justification for abandoning every moral principle they espouse. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1397466069] For example, Muslims may only lie in the context of war. In a completely unrelated matter, the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. Muhammad's early career robbing caravans traveling to and from Mecca is justified by some Muslims either on the grounds that the Meccans had declared war on the Muslims, or the Muslims were waging war on the Meccans. No evidence for either of these claims is available. The evidence makes it clear that it was a clear case of robbery and murder. Later, when the real wars began, Muslims use the opposite argument to justify slaughtering POWs - on the grounds that it was not war (and the prisoners captured were thus not POWs), even though it was a clear case of genuine warfare. In one event, Muhammad slaughtered 800 such prisoners of war in one day.

== Clerics don't exist ==

One favourite term for this diversion tactic is cleric, which is used in the media to refer to Muslim religious leaders. If you ask why a cleric said something, or why a person is still a cleric after doing or saying something objectionable, they will simply respond that there is no such thing as a cleric.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/0]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225010762]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222556298/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/355#355]
Technically this can be true, but only if you assume that cleric means clergy, rather than the currently accepted additional meaning of Muslim religious leader (as is used by the media). The absence of an 'official' clergy has another advantage for Muslim propagandists, in that it allows total diffusion of responsibility. There is no leader or institution to be held accountable, therefor Islam is not to blame. More specifically, a Muslim leader who does or promotes evil acts can be simply dismissed on the grounds that they are not a 'genuine' Islamic leader, while at the same time denying any responsibility among the broader Muslim community for actually preventing it or disowning the leader. Despite direct requests, I have still not been able to get a straight answer on how a non-Muslim should go about verifying what is a 'genuine' Islamic law (other than not asking direct questions in the first place. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225588455]). Muslims will even claim that there is no such thing as a Muslim leader in the absence of a perfect Islamic state.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367751235]

== Prediction vs order ==

Muhammad "predicted" that his followers would do a lot of evil things. Even in a situation where Muhammad tells a man in person that he will do something (eg ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the Arabian peninsula [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]) and the man does it, or attempts to, Muslims will accept no moral responsibility on Muhammad's part. They will insist that the obvious chain of causation simply does not exist. In this way, Muslims can abandon any moral responsibility for the more ominous predictions made by Muhammad, for example that Muslims will slaughter every last Jew [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/91#91], or that the "last times" will not come until (variously) Muslims slaughter Muslims in pursuit of gold in a large scale massacre in which 99% of people die, Muslims slaughter non-Muslims and Muslims slaughter every Jew. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354839800]

== Sex slavery ==

On another issue, I had been asking a group of Muslims for some months about two issues – slavery [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] and sex (eg [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480 Polygamy], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027 women in Islam], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650340 Sufism, sodomy and Satan]). I had been lead to believe that sex outside of marriage is punishable by death, and that Muslims are only allowed four wives. This had covered just about every conceivable 'crime', including prostitution, extramarital affairs [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753], homosexuality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962], bestiality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511], pedophilia, masturbation [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] etc. Naturally it eventually came up in one of the slavery topics, as a simple question about sex slaves, which had been mentioned in a media article. The usual tricks were employed – diversion to examples of sex slavery in non-Muslim countries, insisting all my questions had already been answered, accusations of ulterior motives and 'loaded questions'. When I still kept asking, I was told that sex slave is the wrong term, so there are no sex slaves. Eventually I figured out what the correct term is – concubines. By this stage it was fairly obvious that Islam does permit concubines, but I had no idea under what circumstances.

== Rape ==

Muslims will change the definition of [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape rape] to match Islamic law and to create the impression that Islam is strict when it comes to rape. Islam permits rape wherever sex is permitted. Where sex is forbidden, rape and consensual sex receive the same punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
Islam permits the capture of sex slaves in battle. Muslims will argue that Islam forbids 'battlefield rape' or any rape at all in this context, on the grounds that the women must first be removed from the battlefield to become sex slaves. Muslims will attempt to portray the serial rape and enslavement of captured women as 'liberating'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654] Muslim men are specifically permitted to have sex with 'whatever their right hand possesses', and this rule alone is regarded as sufficient consent.

Muslims go to some length to characterise rape as a western problem, effectively blaming rape and domestic violence on rights and freedoms that the west permits but Islam forbids, and will use absurd demands for evidence to back up claims that rape is rare under Islam.

Muslims will also misrepresent a command by Muhammad forbidding Muslims from forcing their sex slaves into prostitution as a blanket ban on the rape of sex slaves by their owners. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/63#63]

== Domestic Violence ==

As with rape, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Domestic_violence domestic violence] to match Islamic law and focus on portraying it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Consider this classic quote from a Muslim on our forum: "Domestic violence is a disease which must be stamped out of all societies. But it has nothing to do with giving your wife a 'smack' when she's gotten out of control" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47] Muhammad pardoned a man who had beaten his wife until her skin was green with bruises.

Muslims will claim that Muhammad never beat his wives, despite documented cases. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/49#49]

== Pedophilia ==

Again, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia pedophilia] to match Islamic law, then attempt to portray it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Islamic law effectively institutionalises pedophilia within marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Apostasy vs Treason ==

Under Islam the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning. Muslims often attempt to disguise this unpalatable fact by confusing it with treason and equating it to the death penalty for treason in some western countries. This takes several forms. The Muslim may insist that the punishment only applies to treason - ie that the apostasy is irrelevant and the punishment only applies when there is also an act that is commonly regarded as treason. The Muslim may attempt to justify the punishment by pointing out that some western countries have the death penalty for treason, while ignoring the difference between apostasy and treason. The Muslim may simply attempt to confuse the two 'crimes'. Yet these Muslims believe that the penalty should apply for apostasy alone, including crimes that take you outside of Islam (eg acting gay), and may concede that they believe apostasy itself to be a form of treason - another example of self delusion reinforcing the deception of others.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy Apostasy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/251#251]

== Freedom ==

Muslims will often attempt to portray the oppression of non-Muslims under Shariah law as being merely a different 'interpretation' of freedom.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom Freedom]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/4#4]

Muslims will misrepresent the opinions and values of the non-Muslim and the Muslim community in order to cover up significant differences on issues such as freedom of speech. They will claim that the Australian public supports them in their efforts to make mockery or even criticism of religion illegal
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416042880/50#50]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that Australians support people's right to say things they find distasteful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]
Muslims will claim that mainstream Australians think it is foolish to say we have the right to draw cartoons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
Muslims will present an example of a Muslim leader failing to mention freedom of speech as an example of a Muslim leader expressing support for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/48#48]
Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but qualify this heavily, then refuse to explain their qualifications. For example, they will insist they support the right to depict and mock Muhammad (even more so than mainstream Australians) but add the qualification that no Muslims feel vilified by such a depiction.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/161#161]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
In attempting to justify lack of direct support for freedom of speech from the Muslim community, Muslims will equate support for freedom of speech with 'jumping up and down demanding people insult them'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/157#157]
Muslims will justify opposition to freedom of speech by saying that victims of physical assault by neo-nazis are not suffering discrimination, prejudice or intimidation, but that Muslims are or will be if people are free to mock religion or depict religious figures.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
Muslims will insist that restrictions on journalists publishing details of ASIO's intelligence operations (as well as several other laws that are even more irrelevant to freedom of speech) are "are some of the most egregious and effective attacks on our freedom of speech we have ever seen," while downplaying the significance of Muslims successfully making people fear for their life if they are involved in making a video, cartoon or book that criticises or mocks Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/211#211]
Muslims will insist that George Brandis and his "merry band of fringe ideologues" (ie, the government) were the only people who wanted to water down Australia's section 18c legislation on the grounds that it restricted freedom of speech, that the heated debate over the implications for freedom of speech are not evidence that mainstream Australians value freedom of speech, and also that the civil libertarians who entered the debate in support of watering down the legislation did not have genuine concerns for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/226#226]
Muslims will claim that merely living within the law is sufficient to protect freedom of speech and deny that others have even suggested otherwise [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/280#280], at the same time as insulting others for not doing enough to protect freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/283#283]

== Democracy ==

Muslims will often attempt to claim that Islam is democratic, a different 'interpretation' of democracy, or attempt to argue that western countries are not in fact democratic either.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Democracy_vs_Theocracy Democracy vs Theocracy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]

== Secularism ==

Muslims will claim to personally support secularism, insist that Islam is compatible with secularism and claim that the Muslim community supports secularism. But they will also claim that Muhammad himself was a secular leader and that his Islamic state was in fact a secular one. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]

== Citizenship ==

Muslims will attempt to portray Dhimmitude as 'full' citizenship, despite the denial of justice, fundamental human rights, democracy, freedom etc and living under a different set of rules to Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Discrimination]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/53#53]

== Compulsion ==

Muslims will often claim that Islam supports the concept of 'no compulsion in religion'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/281#281] The stretches the definition of compulsion to absurd lengths, given the inevitable 'problems' of trying to live as a non-Muslim under Shariah law (see for example [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_and_Human_Rights Freedom and Human Rights] and [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice Justice]). Muhammad himself would often put people in a position of convert or die, as a last resort when other methods failed.

== Vigilantism ==

Muslims often interpret a question about the death penalty (see Cat Stevens example above) as a question about vigilantism. That is, they will avoid giving an answer about whether a crime attracts the death penalty in Islam by insisting that you are instead asking whether Islam permits them to conduct extra-judicial executions. More subtly, questions about introducing Shariah law are replaced with hypersensitivity to accusations of vigilantism. This can even be taken to the extent of equating any political lobbying with vigilantism. How Muslims ought to achieve the change they want is one of the hardest topics to get a straight answer from and this is one of the most common ways of avoiding it.

== Extremism ==

In an effort to portray non-Muslims as extremists (and in order to argue that 'mainstream' Muslims are 'holding hands' with the non-Muslim community on issues such as freedom), Muslims will attempt to redefine extremism as any view that is not shared by 50% or more of the population, essentially building a rather convoluted 'et tu' fallacy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414661030]

== Peace treaties ==

Islam forbids Muslims to be at peace with infidels (non-Muslims) for more than 10 years (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War war]). Muslims attempt to justify this by redefining the concept of a peace treaty as only a temporary agreement. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145] Islam even redefines the concepts of war and peace, by dividing the world into two regions - the house of peace and the house of war (where all the tactics of war are permitted). By this definition, the entire world is currently at war. Modern Muslims will argue that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century (ie since the final collapse of the Caliphate). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Muslims ==

Muslims will even use the definition of what is a Muslim to deceive people, for example a Sunni Muslim may insist that Muslims are not killing Muslims in North Africa, and that the Muslims are blameless victims, because he blames the conflict on Shiite Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

= Disowning Islam =

Misrepresenting the Quran: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]]

Justifying and misrepresenting Muhammad's genocide of Jews: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims disown Islam in many subtle (and not so subtle) ways when it assists in creating a false impression about Islam, see for example 'Muslims' above. Some other examples:

== Islam doesn't exist ==

This is a more interesting form of diversion. If you ask why something happens in a specific Muslim country, you will be told that that country is run by a western imposed dictatorship, monarchy, democracy or whatever. Even though the particular barbaric practice strongly resembles Islamic law, it is the west's fault for preventing Muslims from setting up a 'prefect' Islamic state. For example, it is the west's fault that Saudi women must cover up from head to foot because they are responsible for the Saudi royal family, which prevent the 'correct' Sharia law that allows women to expose their face and hands, provided other standards of dress are met. It has nothing to do with 1400 years of Islamic law that instilled a belief that women are responsible for their own rape if they act like a 'piece of flesh'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225800482/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/149#149]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/62#62]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/65#65]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/100#100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/113#113]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650747/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220167584/12#12]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225865544/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315482532]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]

In an amazing feat of mental gymnastics, Muslims will also do the opposite, sometimes even in the same discussion. If you ask them about an aspect of Islamic law they wish to hide, they will claim that it is irrelevant because there are no true Islamic states. That is, if no country in existence today is ruled totally by Sharia law, you have no reason to be interested in what Sharia law is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]

== Islam won't exist ==

A slightly different approach is taken when Muslims insist that their only goal is the short term goal of converting a few people, while pretending that the long term goals of Islam do not exist. They will conveniently deny that they seek to overthrow the Australian government and destroy personal freedom and other Australian values, and justify this by claiming that they aren't in the process of plotting the actual takeover. Yet it would be an inevitable outcome if they were sufficiently successful with their short term goals. They expect to openly promote an ideology of dictatorship and servitude, but not get criticised for it because they don't yet have the numbers to follow through with it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233236170/21#21] It is as if the Nazi party started recruiting in your neighbourhood, but insisting they don't want to kill Jews because they're only goal at the moment is to recruit more members.

== Denying personal responsibility for the consequences of Islam ==

An even stranger tactic is attempting to play down the significance of support for the unpalatable aspects of Islam (particularly stoning people to death) by denying direct responsibility for the consequences, for example by arguing that support for the death penalty is irrelevant unless you have a job as an executioner. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/242#242]
Islam does not actually have a role of state executioner. Stoning people to death is done publicly [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/107#107], with as many members of the public as possible encouraged to join in. The size of the stones is limited to prevent a quick death.

== Equating impotence with benign intent ==

Muslims will often answer a question about what they want to achieve or what they want their society to look like with an explanation of what they are able to achieve or a complaint about being unable to achieve what they want. This is a strategy to avoid admitting to wanting something that their audience is likely to find unpalatable. This is often used in the context of reinforcing positive misconceptions about Islam, for example if a person claims that a Muslim does not actually want Shariah law, the Muslim will avoid correcting the misconception and do everything to reinforce it, short of outright lies that they can be held accountable for. The Muslim attempts to equate their inability to achieve Islamic law with lack of desire for Islamic law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344636735]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/214#214]
This can be taken to the extreme, in arguing that it is somehow only valid to discuss what is achievable in the short term,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/4#4]
even from a Muslim who considers it inevitable that Islam will come to dominate the world and who also considers it his religious duty to help bring this about.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876/1#1]
This is often accompanied by an attempt to rephrase a simple question, for example by equating a question about what sort of Australia a Muslim would like to see with a question about whether that Muslim is about to take over the country in a military sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
The Muslim may switch between admitting to wanting Islamic law and refusing to discuss it, depending on context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99] and may also claim Islamic law to be inevitable
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16],
then change tack and play down it's likelihood.
A slightly different approach is to claim to not intend to impose shariah law on people as a way of implying they do not want to impose it on people, or would not do so if the opportunity arose. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/243#243]

== Denying personal responsibility for Islamic politics ==

Muslims will often refuse to answer direct questions about Islam and deny any personal responsibility for the consequences of Shariah law or the process of re-establishing a Caliphate (a 'proper' Islamic state) and expanding the Caliphate as a militant empire. They offer the excuse that the law is the responsibility of the state, not the individual. This is particularly common when it comes to stoning people to death as a punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Death_Penalty Death Penalty]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/101#101]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/106#106]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257]
Muslims will use this reasoning to argue that Shariah law is 'irrelevant', but in the same sentence argue that Islamic economic policy or historical scientific achievements are relevant.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]

== Encouraging useful idiots ==

A common tactic is to encourage non-Muslims who make false claims about Islam that suit the Islamic agenda, creating the impression that the Muslim agrees with the claims, and not correcting obvious errors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying following the Quran ==

A Muslim will even find a way to claim that they do not follow the Quran, if there is someone around who is willing to believe it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying significance of Muhammad's example ==

Muslims will describe Muhammad's slaughter of 800 POWs as an "excellent example to follow", at the same time as distancing themselves from his actions by describing them as "merely the earthly actions of a statesman protecting his people" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226].
Muslims will claim that Muhammad specifically instructed his followers to do what he says, but not what he does. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412650210]

== Reinterpreting Muhammad's commands ==

Muslims will claim that Muhammad's order to execute gay people was not in fact an order to execute gay people.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226/14#14]

= Lying about other religions =

Muslims will lie about other religions. This applies particularly to Christianity and Judaism. A central tenet of Islam is that these religions are essentially corrupted versions of Islam. Muhammad himself was not afraid to tell Christians and Jews what they believe and what their religion is, though he was largely ignorant of them. This earned him mockery at first, then hostility when he attempted to force Jews to accept his version of their religion. See [[Political_History_of_Islam#Hostility_towards_Jews]] for more info.

Today, Muslims will lie about Christianity in an attempt to make it appear as misogynistic as Islam, for example by misquoting a Bible verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head as actually saying that they must cover it or have their hair cut off.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491114010/10#10]

= Contradictory spin =

Obviously with so much spin it is inevitable that different Muslims will contradict each other with different stories or excuses, or individual Muslims will contradict themselves. Some examples:

== Slaughtering pagans ==

Were the pagans on the Arabian peninsula slaughtered for reasons of geopolitical strategy, because they were hostile to Islam, or did they in fact all suddenly 'see the light' and voluntarily convert to Islam after Muhammad decreed they should be wiped out? If they did convert voluntarily, why the attempts to justify the slaughter?
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide])
A Muslim will also argue that the fact that paganism was not eradicated in the middle east is evidence that Islam did not decree its eradication, in the same post as claiming that Muhammad did in fact decree it and that the outcome was 'successful' due to every pagan voluntarily converting to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] All other religions were also wiped out from the area.

== Antisemitism ==

Islam inculcates a particular hatred of Jews (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_anti-semitism] Racism and antisemitism). Yet Muslims will also argue that Islam saved Judaism itself. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338909288] Muslims will even argue over the definition of antisemitism to deflect from the mistreatment of Jews under Islam.

= Other examples =

== Editing News Articles ==

To start with, an example of a more direct and traditional form of deception from a Muslim on our forum: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339540208]

== Claiming to represent Australian values ==

One of the more absurd claims: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20] [[Islam and Australian values]]

== Marriage prior to puberty ==

Muhammad married one of his wives prior to her reaching puberty, and this is permitted under Islam provided that the husband does not have sex with her until she reaches puberty (but they may live together... [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia Pedophilia]). However Muslims will often claim the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/71#71]
or refuse to answer and offer every other deflection mentioned above.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Four witnesses for the death penalty ==

Muslims will often claim that people can only be stoned to death for sexual crimes if there are four male witnesses,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
however there are several other ways to satisfy evidentiary requirements.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/52#52]

== Islam stricter than the Geneva convention ==

A quote should do for this one: "Islam recognises this, and lays down strict rules of conduct during conflicts between states, it is most certainly not a violence-oriented doctrine as you've claimed. No more than the Geneva convention is a violent doctrine, because it lays down a code of conduct for nations at war. In fact the Qur'anic rules of conduct in conflict are probably the strictest in human history, to the point that even trees are not permitted to be damaged during war." Remember that Muhammad himself slaughtered prisoners of war, displaced entire tribes, permitted his followers to capture and rape women as part of war and took plenty of captured wives for himself, and completely eradicated every religion except Islam from the Arabian peninsula. (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War War]) Not killing trees is about as generous as not killing the women, and certainly not out of concern for either.

== How hard may I beat my wife? ==

There is genuine disagreement among Islamic scholars as to hard hard a man may beat his wife, and it runs the full gamut. When addressing people who are concerned about women's rights (ie non-Muslims) they invariably choose the most appropriate view (eg beating with a feather). Muhammad on the other hand pardoned a man who beat his wife until her skin was literally green with bruises (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Women.E2.80.99s_rights Women's_rights]).

== Distinguishing rape and consensual sex ==

In Islam, rape is permitted wherever consensual sex is permitted (marriage, sex slaves). Where sex is not permitted rape and consensual sex receive almost the same punishment. Muslims have attempted to portray Islam as taking rape seriously by focusing on some minor differences. For example, in the case of rape a court may order the perpetrator to pay a dowry to the victim. If the sex was consensual, no dowry is required. But the perpetrator gets whipped or stoned to death either way, depending on whether he is married. The marital status of the perpetrator has a bigger influence on the punishment for rape than anything else, to the extent that it dictates the punishment entirely. Whether or not there was actually a rape or merely consensual sex has no bearing on the punishment, except for the fine. Obviously rape vs consensual sex makes a big difference to whether the woman/victim gets stoned to death, but this barely rates a mention. In addition, if a weapon is used in the rape, then the punishment is that for banditry, which is death. Of course, bandits get this punishment for using a weapon in a crime, regardless of whether there is a rape involved
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape]).

== The concubine saga ==

The discussion of sex slaves is what originally drove me to write this article. After writing the first draft, I went back through that particular discussion and noted all the different deflection tactics used. I was actually quite surprised at how 'thick' the discussion was with various deceptions. Here are some of them. I include the URL for each link, as the number on the end of the URL indicates the post number in the thread.

Initially, the topic of sex slaves was asked by another member in the 'women in Islam' thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

The various deflection tactics were employed over the next 53 posts. A summary is given below:

semantics, Islam doesn't exist, deflection with an insult, accusation of loaded question

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to other religions, direct answer to related question that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to Judaism

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125

attempt to justify deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/128#128

refusal to answer and already answered - ironically in same post, semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134

Islam doesn't exist, respond to question 'is it allowed' with 'it is not a priority'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136

Islam is 'realistic', but won't say how

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/138#138

deflects to attacking democracy, Quran can only be read in Arabic

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/140#140

deflection to generic attack on 'the west'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/142#142

ad hominem (insult), refusal to answer, already answered,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/144#144

deflection to homophobia in Europe, other religions, semantics, deflection to history rather than Islamic law, deflection to Catholics, Islam doesn't exist, response on whether it is required rather than allowed, subjectivity of immorality

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145

ad hominem, already answered, lie (false claim that sex slavery does not exist in Islam), deflection to the west,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/146#146

deflection to other religions, ad hominem

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/149#149

Islam doesn't exist, deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/152#152

deflection to 'the west', Islam doesn't exist, refusal to answer

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155

semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/159#159

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/163#163

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/167#167

It was only after I started a new thread that I got a direct answer to the question of whether Islam permits sex slaves. However, no further details were given.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466

= Changing Strategies =

Muslims who publicly promote Islam appear to be becoming more savvy. The issues from [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Islam and Australian values] were raised during discussions with a few Muslims on the [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum forum]. The list was compiled in response to increasing complexity in the debate and a tendency by promoters of Islam to repeat the same debate and pretend that the above issues had never been raised and that there was no potential conflict between Islam and western values. However, after compiling the list with links to quotes from Muslims on the forum there was an abrupt change in strategy. In discussion with other Muslims, the people involved have been promoting a stronger focus on strategy and propaganda in public discussions with non-Muslims, but have not clarified what that strategy is [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276].

The new strategy seems to involve avoiding the contentious issues altogether. Muslims will respond to the more extreme anti-Islam rants or anything that can make Islam look good, or at least neutral in comparison. They will make equally 'ill considered' anti American or anti-western rants and point to the anti-Islam rants as justification.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/39#39]
In contrast, requests for more details on the more 'problematic' issues raised, or any additional issues not mentioned in the list, are either ignored
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295869559]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295959087]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241872871]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298984703/35#35]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298078457/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1296943972/0#0]
or met with some kind of deflection.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302388394]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]
These deflections typically involve personal attacks on the intelligence of the person making the request,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295520546/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/14#14]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302177029/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/74#74]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/97#97]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1265359994/9#9]
criticism of the motive of the person making the request (eg, you are only asking so you can add it to the wiki
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1267178556/1#1]
or so you can mislead people about the answer),
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/23#23]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302389291/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/38#38]
a change in topic (usually to current geopolitics) or insisting the question has already been answered.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/4#4]
Current geopolitics, usually along the lines of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/58#58]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/31#31]
and historical grievances seem to be favourite topic changers. These arguments can be easily made without direct reference to Islam or any of the conflicts outlined above. In fact it can help to steer the argument away from Islam. Questions about Islam that are based on current events are met with the common 'Islam doesn't exist' deflection
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/34#34]
and a denial of Islam's involvement (eg people being stoned to death in the middle east is unrelated to Islamic law that requires stoning people to death because Shariah law is not implemented properly). Issues involving Islam's rules regarding sex usually get the 'priests rape little boys' response.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/4#4]
The net result of these strategies is that promotion or defense of Islam to a savvy audience involves steering the argument away from Islam itself towards mostly political issues.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/1#1]
This strategy would probably be attractive to people who oppose their government's foreign policy and are unaware of the political nature of Islam and what it would replace that foreign policy with.

= What to do? =

All of these tricks ultimately take advantage of ignorance. The antidote to this is to make people aware of them. A lie becomes ineffective when enough people see it for what it is.

== Islam forbids asking questions ==

Part of the reason for the attempts by Muslims to deflect all 'difficult' questions about Islam, is that Islam itself forbids people from asking questions they may not like the answer to. That is, they are only allowed to try to inform themselves of those aspects of Islam which they personally approve of. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216/6#6] With this in mind, the deception of non-Muslims can be viewed as an extension of this mandatory self deception through omission.

In other words, in order to deceive others, one must first delude oneself.

Deception and the Just War Doctrine

2018-03-11T06:00:57Z

Freediver: /* When the Koran does impose self defence and proportionality */

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

[[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]

= Islam’s Just War Doctrine is a Lie =

Muslims often promote the view that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war. That is, war is only permissible in self-defence. This is a blatant lie. It is based on three broad misrepresentations. First, it relies on the implication or assumption that in military strategy, anything short of slaughtering everyone in your path is self-defence. Second, it relies on misrepresenting Muhammad’s actions as being consistent with a self-defence doctrine. Third, it relies on misrepresenting the content of the Quran, by claiming verses say things they do not say, by inserting extra words into verses, and taking absurd liberties with interpretation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/11#11]

= Misrepresenting Historical Military Strategy =

In even the most aggressive military campaign, there are appropriate times to make peace or negotiate some form of ceasefire. For example Genghis Khan, one of the most violent and aggressive people in the history of warfare, went to some effort to project a promise that any city who surrendered to him would be spared, while any city that fought him would be destroyed. There are two fundamental reasons for this. The first is that dead men pay no taxes. If you want to rapidly build a large, profitable empire, the only way to do so is to capture a large population, alive. Second, slaughtering everyone tends to unite and motivate your opponents. If everyone is convinced you will slaughter them regardless of what they do, they will abandon previous hostilities with each other and unite against a common threat, then fight to the death to stop you, even when it seems that death on the battlefield is inevitable. It is much better to give them the option of surviving if they surrender without a fight, and even join you in the ongoing plunder (something that Genghis, as well as most other historical empire builders did to great effect). This doctrine is a natural extension of the divide and conquer strategy.

Muhammad made a few, very limited suggestions to do the same. Unlike most other empires, he imposed religious as well as financial obligations on those who surrendered. That is, they must convert to Islam in a religious sense, submit to rule by Muslims under religious shariah law, as well as pay religious taxes (to the empire, of course). The tactic chosen by Muhammad depended largely on relative military strength. Where the opposition was weakest, Muhammad tended to prefer slaughter without any options for survival. Where the opposition was formidable and well defended, he naturally preferred a negotiated outcome.
Muslims falsely portray this as Muhammad encouraging or preferring peace in a generalised sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
Muslims will even claim that the self-defence doctrine was adopted by almost every empire on earth, and that this being the norm, a resurgent Islamic State would inevitably follow the same example.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]

== Definition of Just War ==

Muslims will claim that “just war” literally means only in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
However, self-defence is only part of the typical conception of just war, and by itself is a gross simplification (yet still too complex for Muhammad to communicate in the Quran). For example, it becomes meaningless without a doctrine of proportionality, otherwise even a trivial act of aggression on the part of an enemy can be used to claim self-defence – a practice often exploited by Muhammad whenever one of his own treaties became inconvenient for him. The early history of Islam is littered with other groups (Jews, mostly) violating treaties (whose textual content has conveniently been lost to history) and paying dearly for their treachery.

The suggestion that the Quran can communicate a doctrine of just war without even a cursory discussion of proportionality or what self-defence means, or even mentioning self-defence, is absurd.

Muslim scholars (eg, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi) who eschew an Islamic just war doctrine, often cite failure to accept Islam after it has been revealed as a just cause for war. The Quran reinforces this.

= Misrepresenting Muhammad’s Actions =

Muslims will argue that Muhammad’s actions were entirely consistent with a just war doctrine based only on self-defence. They will justify this claim by citing an example of Muhammad refraining from slaughtering a “severely weakened” opponent and agreeing to concessions with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/128#128] His opponent at the time, the city of Mecca, which Muhammad was trying to gain entry to, was at the time more powerful than Muhammad’s army.

== A brief History of Muhammad’s Militant Aggression ==

See also: [[Political_History_of_Islam|Political History of Islam]]

Muhammad started out preaching in Mecca. The Meccan verses in the Quran tend to be less violent, and Muhammad was largely unsuccessful in recruiting people to his religion. Muhammad’s own tribe managed the Kaaba, a prominent pagan shrine, which was very lucrative for them. Muhammad preached against them. He eventually fled Mecca in fear of his life.

=== Muhammad's career of Murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods ===

He ended up in Medina, where he formed a militia and started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering traders. This is often justified by Muslims with the following excuses:
* Only the original Muslims who fled Mecca and were thus wronged by the Meccans took part in murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods. Muslims will even back this up with a link to a wikipedia article clearly saying the opposite. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/160#160]
* Muhammad was merely taking revenge for the Meccan emigrants. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/132#132]
* Muhammad only ever killed people in self defence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad was leading a nation when he fled Mecca and a state of war thus existed from then until he started murdering Meccan traders. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/167#167]
* There must be a different definition for nation in 7th century Arabia. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was only concerned for the welfare of 'his people'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad only ever killed people to survive. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Mecca was the only commercial centre in the area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* The people of Medina were non-farmers in a farming area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* It was the only option Muslims had for survival. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Murder and bloodlust were not the 'primary' objective of the raids. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was under political pressure from his followers to take revenge. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* They were not allowed to trade in Mecca. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Muhammad first raided Meccan traders and stole their goods within a year of fleeing Medina. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150]

These are all either lies or cynical, self serving spin. They go a long way to explaining why any conflicts in the middle east or north Africa (the footprint of the original Caliphate) tend to spiral out of control. Islam creates a culture of hysterical over-reaction and constant victimhood mongering, which is seen in nearly all Muslims, including converts from a liberal, western background. Adopting this over-reaction and victimhood mongering is the only way for western converts to accept the many and various moral crimes committed by Muhammad.

The truth is that only 45 people fled Mecca with Muhammad, including men, women and children, in 622. This was the size of his flock after 12 years of preaching the more peaceful version of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/169#169]
They were successfully integrated into a very large community in Medina. It was not until 624 that they managed to steal anything or kill any people. Muhammad's first caravan raid had only 6 people and failed. By March 624, Muhammad was able to kill more Meccans in a single raid than the total number of 'oppressed' Muslims from Mecca on whose behalf he was supposedly exacting revenge. Both Meccan emigrants and Medina locals participated from the first murder and theft. From his first successful raid, Muhammad's wealth, power and prestige grew until he was able to march on Mecca with ten thousand warriors in 630. Muhammad died eight years after first spilling blood in the name of Islam and receiving spoils of war. He managed to carve out a large nation in that time, turning what was a multicultural, multireligious society without any centralised government into a violent and oppressive dictatorship imposing Islamic monoculture by slaughtering innocent people. All, according to Muslims, in an act of self defence.

Muslims will flip back and forth between the two most common excuses: justifying the murders and theft as an act of self defence, and as a just act of war in response to Meccan oppression (rather than criminal theft and murder). However, modern just war doctrines that are based on self-defence specifically exclude revenge or ‘stealing property back’ as a justification for war, as this would make it inevitable that even the smallest feuds escalate to armed conflict.

=== Muhammad's campaign to get rid of Medina's Jewish tribes ===

Muhammad became more popular as his militia became more successful and profitable. However, three large tribes of Jews remained in Medina and stood between Muhammad and absolute authority over the city. Muhammad tended to have little success converting Jews, despite initially seeing them as natural allies. In addition, the pagans of Medina were somewhat hostile towards Mecca, born of jealousy over the Kaaba and the central role that Mecca played in Arab paganism, while the Jewish tribes had significant trade links with Mecca. It was at this time that Muhammad instructed Muslims to pray towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem, making pagan Mecca rather than the traditional Abrahamic centres the focal point of his religion.

This public address by Muhammad is what counts as diplomacy for a Muslim:

''"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."''

The Quraysh were Muhammad’s own tribe from Mecca. Muhammad’s militia had recently had their first large scale victory against them. This address, made by Muhammad in a market place in 624, was one of the earliest expressions of Muhammad’s “convert or die” doctrine. Muhammad proceeded to get rid of the three large tribes, one by one.

The first tribe to fall victim to Muhammad were the Banu Qaynuqa, shortly after Muhammad's address to them in the marketplace. According to Islamic traditions, a Banu Qaynuqa goldsmith assaulted a Muslim woman, causing her to be stripped naked. He was killed by a Muslim, which sparked a series of revenge killings. Muhammad expelled the entire tribe from Medina as punishment – another clear rejection of the concept of proportionality.

There were now two large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad assassinated the chief of one of them (the Banu-Nadir), who had written erotic poetry about Muslim women, then expelled them about a year later and seized their property.
By this stage Muhammad was creating a large number of enemies, so he set about attacking smaller groups of Arabs outside of Medina to prevent his enemies uniting.

Eventually the Meccans came to attack Medina, but ended up retreating without a fight. They were allied with the last of the three Jewish tribes in Medina. Afterwards, Muhammad was instructed by an angel to lay siege to the tribe. They surrendered without a fight and were taken prisoner. Muhammad executed every adult male (those with pubic hair) in the tribe, totaling approximately 800 victims. A small number, perhaps two, who converted to Islam were spared. Again, doctrines of just war that are based on self-defence forbid the execution of POWs (Prisoners of War). In order to spread perceived blame and reduce the risk of rebellion over his harsh actions, Muhammad had some of the Jews’ previous allies pass the judgement and conduct many of the executions.

Muhammad then attacked the Jewish community of Kaybar where many of the Banu Nadir had sought refuge. Muhammad ordered the torture of the Banu Nadir treasurer to force him to reveal the location of their gold. Muhammad then decapitated him and later took his wife as a concubine. Muhammad took possession of all their land, but allowed them to continued farming it on condition that they pay 50% of their produce as a tax. After Muhammad’s death they were expelled by Caliph Umar as part of a broader campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Muhammad then negotiated a 10 year treaty with Mecca that allowed Muslims to make pilgrimage to the pagan Kaaba. Two years later, some Meccans apparently violated it. Although Muslim scholars often cite an official declaration of war as a requirement of Islamic just war, Muhammad marched on Mecca with as much secrecy as possible, not even telling his own companions what his plans were, and attempting to give the impression had had an alternative target. The Meccans were actively trying to renegotiate peace, but Muhammad ignored their efforts.

With the exception of a single minor skirmish, the Meccas surrendered without a fight. Muhammad destroyed all pagan idols except for the Kaaba itself and rapidly Islamised Mecca.

Having captured Mecca, the Muslims were now the dominant force on the Arabian peninsula. Muhammad adopted an even more aggressive military strategy, sending out many raids to destroy competing religious sites and slaughter non-Muslims, mostly pagans. He captured most of the peninsula in the short time between capturing Mecca and his death. Non-Muslims were banned from Mecca, which until that point had been a focal point of pagan worship and pilgrimage for the entire peninsula. All treaties were abrogated. Muslim sources acknowledge that Muhammad in effect declared total war against pagans.

Following his death, Muslim rulers expanded the empire rapidly. Muslim commanders were under general instructions to accept the surrender of cities on the condition that they accepted Islam, Muslim rule and paid religious taxes to the empire. Within a century they created the largest land empire that had ever existed.

To insist that this was all done in self-defence is an exercise in absurdity.

= Misrepresenting the Quran =

[[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Lying_about_the_Quran]]

The Quran promotes and justifies violence. This is not a few scattered verses, but is a dominant theme in the Quran. Whole chapters are devoted to it. For example, chapter 9 is devoted, from start to finish, to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Paying religious taxes to support the war effort is also a dominant theme, with a common refrain being to “fight with your life and your wealth”. Other chapters that heavily promote violence and aggressive warfare are chapter 2, 3, 4 and 8

== Quran never mentions self-defence ==

Muslims will make the absurd argument that the Quran does not use the term self-defence because it was written in Arabic, not English. That is, they will literally use the fact that self-defence is written in English to justify its absence from the Quran (you do not misunderstand, it really is that stupid). However no English translations use the term either. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will also claim that the Quran “clearly explains” the concept of self-defence without mentioning the term, without any textual justification for the claim
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/225#225]
or citing for example Quran 22.39-40:
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

''Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged... [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ."''

However, this is actually a direct contradiction of the self-defence doctrine. Waging war as revenge for past wrongs (because they were wronged…) is explicitly excluded from any legitimate just war doctrine that is based on self-defence. The verse in question was used by Muhammad when initially forming his first militia in Medina, which he used to rob Meccan caravans and murder Meccan traders, by justifying it as revenge for his mistreatment in Mecca.
Muslims will also argue that this verse is “clearly specifying who (and only who) fighting against is given permission to”. This is effectively inserting the word “only” into the Quran. The Quran offers many reasons for going to war. Not only are none of these reasons stated or implied to be the “only” reason, it simply does not make sense that a particular reason is the only permissible one when other reasons (eg mocking Islam) are also given.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]

Muslims will also argue that verses in the Koran permit war "only" against people that Muslims have peace treaties with that they are actively violating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/129#129] Not only does this contradict other examples of the "only" conditions in which war is permitted, it leaves out an explicit reference to self defence and is a clear contradiction of Muhammad's behaviour. Some of the 'violations' used by Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs to abandon treaties and slaughter the infidel were trivial at best, while other reasons had nothing at all to do with treaties.

The Quran commands Muslims to slaughter the infidel repeatedly, only occasionally placing genuine limitations on it – eg where there is a peace treaty, unless there is some kind of trivial violation of the treaty. These verses were always conveniently revealed when Muhammad needed to motivate his followers to mobilise for war yet again, and for the most part Muslims correctly interpret them as motivational rather than as some poorly explained rule or restriction. Where restrictions such as following peace treaties are genuinely intended, the Quran states them clearly and explicitly, not as a riddle or a blank slate for filling in the gaps with whatever new moral imperatives Muslims pick up from non-Muslim legal theorists.

Muslims will also cite Quran 8:61 as a “clear” explanation of what self-defence means: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/185#185]

''And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.''

However the only interpretation of this verse that is consistent with Muhammad’s actions is that Muslims are to spare those who surrender without a fight (and accept Muslim rule, shariah law, and religious taxes to the Islamic state). It is certainly not a clear explanation that war is only permitted in self-defence. At the very least, it does not limit warfare to self-defence, as the verse is entirely consistent with the historical military practice (among the more aggressive empire builders) of slaughtering anyone who fights back and sparing groups who surrender without a fight and agree to whatever terms are offered.

Other, even more vague verses are also used as “clear explanations”, however they all put the onus on the infidel to make peace. Not a single one puts the onus on Muslims to seek out peace, though countless verses urge them to violence, often without qualification. Not a single one stipulates self defence as the only justification for war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will attempt to argue that Quran 60:8 states that Muslims are only permitted to engage in war as an act of self-defence. However it merely states that Muslims are not explicitly forbidden from being nice to people who do not attack Muslims – they are merely forbidden from being ‘allies’ with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

''60:8 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
60:9 Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.''

== Context ==

Muslims will complain that quoting chapter 9 in its entirety is actually taking it out of context, because it does not quote the entire Quran at once, thus leaving out all the other verses that (apparently) state that war must only be fought in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/90#90]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/92#92]

Those same Muslims will then make the absurd claim that chapter 9 of the Quran reveals a self-defence doctrine. For example, claiming that 9:4 states that fighting is only permitted against those who violate oaths.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

In order to make this claim, verse 5 must be omitted, because it clearly states that Muslims are to slaughter the infidel wherever they find them (unless they convert to Islam and pay religious taxes to the Islamic State). Thus, it is deliberately taking the verse out of context. It is also a misrepresentation of verse 4. Verse 4 does not state that violating oaths is the only permitted justification for war. Rather, it says that Muslims should not violate an existing peace treaty (one of the rare occasions that the Quran actually places limitations on slaughtering the infidel). And of course, ‘violating oaths’ is a caveat on this – again no concept of proportionality is invoked. The smallest violation of a treaty can be used as justification for slaughtering the other party, if it suits the interests of the Islamic State. Thus, Muslims pretend that a caveat on a caveat to the general rule of slaughtering the infidel wherever you find them as actually presented as the only condition for slaughtering the infidel.

This is what verse 4 and 5 actually states:

''9:4. Except those of the Mushrikun [infidel] with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).''

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

Muslims will also claim that verse 13 of chapter 9 states that Muslims should only slaughter the infidel if the infidel attacks Muslims first. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71] Again, what the verse actually states is very different. Also, the preceding verse cites criticism of Islam as an example of an attack and a justification for slaughtering the infidel.

''9:12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).
9:13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
9:14. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people''

For clarity, Mushriken means infidel and Makkah is an alternative spelling of Mecca.

These verses were revealed after Muhammad captured Mecca, banned pagans, abrogated all treaties and set about capturing the rest of the Arabian peninsula. The “attack you first” bit appears to be a reference to the earlier Meccan attack on Medina, which was followed by a peace treaty and then by Muhammad marching on Mecca despite the Meccans suing for peace. It is a reference to a past event being used as a retaliation justification, and clearly not, as some Muslims will attempt to argue, an instruction that the infidel must attack first. Again, just war doctrines based on self-defence specifically exclude retaliation for past wrongs as justifications for war, as it destroys the meaning of the self-defence doctrine.

The Muslims at the time were afraid that Muhammad’s aggressive actions, especially seizing the Kaaba and bringing an end to a long standing pagan tradition of peaceful, inclusive pilgrimage, would unite their enemies against them, and also test the allegiance of recent converts who were now being instructed to kill their friends, families and old allies. (See: islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=11 and discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/05/the-sword-verse-surah-913-24/). It is about as far removed from a self-defence doctrine as it is possible to get, yet still cited by Muslims as a Quranic example of the self-defence doctrine.

Muslims will quote half of a verse from chapter 9 of the Koran to make it appear a general command to maintain peace with non-Muslims, but leave out the first half of the verse which makes it clear that it is a reference to people with whom Muslims have a peace treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/124#124]

== Oppression ==

Muslims will claim that Quran 2:193 specifies the only conditions under which war may be fought.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/274#274]

They make this claim, even while quoting the verse, which says to slaughter the infidel until they convert to Islam and until there is no more fitnah (rebellion, presumably against Muslim rule):

''2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Other translations use words like polytheist and disbeliever instead of oppressor and fitnah. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/127#127] These translations come across as far more internally consistent. It is misleading to imply that Muslims in the 7th century had the same concept of oppression that we do today.

The key misrepresentation here is taking extraordinary liberties with the words “cease”. Although it would logically be a reference to what comes before – paganism and rejecting shariah law, Muslims will attempt to construe this verse as only permitting war against oppression.

Muslims cannot offer any kind of explanation as to what the verse means by oppression.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/15#15]

Islam entirely rejects any concept of individual personal liberty. In this context, oppression does not have a clear meaning. The very same verse that apparently calls for Muslims to fight oppression begins by calling on Muslims to slaughter the infidel until worship is only for Allah – hinting for example at denial of basic religious freedom. Several other verses in the Quran as well as Hadith reinforce this concept: that only Allah has the right to be worshiped and that jihad is to continue towards this goal. Muhammad’s own actions also reinforce this rejection of religious freedom.

For example, prior to Islam, Mecca and the Kaaba were a centre for pagan religious pilgrimage, where the pagans would annually set aside their differences and come together in peace to practice their various faiths. As soon as Muhammad gained control of it, he destroyed all the pagan monuments, Islamised the Kaaba, banned all non-Muslims from Mecca, and used Mecca and Medina as bases from which to slaughter pagans and destroy competing religious monuments across the Arabian peninsula – about as clear an example of oppression as you can get. The actions of the Meccans immediately prior to Muhammad marching on Mecca – trying to negotiate for the peace treaty with Medina to remain in place, including provisions for religious freedom and for Muslims to be able to join the pagan pilgrimage to Mecca, are the opposite of oppression, and particularly generous given Muhammad’s previous lengthy career robbing Meccan caravans and murdering traders.

The Quran never explains what is meant by oppression, but the examples given suggest that anything short of submission is to be considered intolerable. Chapter 9, verse 12 cites criticism of Islam as a form of attack in the context of justifying bloodshed. Limited religious freedom was only extended to “people of the book”. That is, Christians and Jews – provided they accepted living as second class citizens.
Muslims will attempt to claim that examples from other chapters of the Quran of what modern, liberal minded people would identify as oppression is actually a clear explanation of what this particular verse means by oppression. However, the Quran never gives an explanation or even description of what oppression means.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]

Muslims will also feign an inability to comprehend the difference between describing, elsewhere in the Quran, a situation that a modern reader identifies as oppression and actually clarifying what this particular verse or any other verse means by oppression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/19#19] Even if the verse is intended to mean fight until there is no more oppression, the fact that Muhammad was the greatest oppressor of the time still destroys any potential for meaning.

Muslims will also employ a peculiar circular logic here by insisting that by always putting the onus on non-Muslims to seek out peace and always putting the onus on Muslims to wage Jihad, the Quran must be referring to a self-defence doctrine because it is always up the aggressor in conflict to cease aggression in order to achieve peace, therefor the Quran must mean that the non-Muslim is the aggressor. This is an extension of the typical victimhood mentality that always portrays Muslims as not being responsible for the violent conflict they find themselves in, even if they happen to build the largest land empire the world had ever seen in only 100 years.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/17#17]

== Proportionality ==

Muslims will argue that a verse that explicitly instructs Muslims to commit acts of evil in retribution is a doctrine of proportionality. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/49#49] Apparently, the following verse is the closest that the Quran comes to a doctrine of proportionality in war, despite devoting many chapters to promoting and justifying war:

42:40 ''And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah . Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.''

42:41 ''And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].''

The context of this verse is not war. It is an "eye for an eye" verse. Just war doctrines specifically exclude retribution as a justification for war.

== When the Quran does impose self defence and proportionality ==

The Quran does clearly impose a doctrine of both self defence and proportionality, albeit a little simplistically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/126#126][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/75#77] Despite the clear and unambiguous statement, this verse of the Quran is not used by Muslims seeking to build a case for Islam's just war doctrine, because it limits the restriction to Islam's holy months.

2:194 ''During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe God and know that God is with the righteous.''

This is the "exception that proves the rule". That is, the only reason the Quran needs to specify this exception during the holy months is because it explicitly encourages hostile and aggressive warfare at other times. It also demonstrates the absurdity of the elaborate "re-interpretations" that are necessary in order to read a just war doctrine into other verses of the Quran. The examples provided above were not cherry-picked for their hollowness. They were the best examples provided.

Muslims will attempt to argue that verse 2:194 is a reference to some kind of domestic fighting rather than warfare,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/316#136]
even after arguing that preceding verse (which calls on Muslims to convert people by the sword) is in fact a reference to a just war doctrine of self defence and proportionality.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/297#297]

2:193 ''Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Consider also this verse calling for the slaughter of non-Muslims outside of the hold months:

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

= Justifying Lies about the Quran =

Muslims often cite the potential benefit of ‘positive misinterpretations’ or white lies about the Quran as helping to make Muslims more peaceful. However, they cannot stop Muslims from picking up the Quran, reading it for themselves, and discovering what it actually says. In fact, Islam commands them to do exactly this, and explicitly forbids misrepresenting the Quran.

Thus these misinterpretations only serve to deceive non-Muslims. This is particularly true in the case of just war doctrine. Those who misrepresent the Quran’s key messages on war will never find themselves in charge of a Muslim army waging holy war. Thus it only serves to encourage naivete in non-Muslims seeking to understand religiously motivated violence. It create a blind spot, for example in anticipating the number of Muslims from western countries like to travel to or support ISIS, and encourages ineffective responses to the problems. For example, the opinion of a non-Muslim political leader on the Quran’s true message, no matter how sincere, progressive or well-communicated, will never hold any weight with a conservative Muslim considering holy war who is capable of reading the Quran for himself.

Deception and the Just War Doctrine

2018-03-11T05:41:24Z

Freediver: /* Misrepresenting the Quran */

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

[[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]

= Islam’s Just War Doctrine is a Lie =

Muslims often promote the view that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war. That is, war is only permissible in self-defence. This is a blatant lie. It is based on three broad misrepresentations. First, it relies on the implication or assumption that in military strategy, anything short of slaughtering everyone in your path is self-defence. Second, it relies on misrepresenting Muhammad’s actions as being consistent with a self-defence doctrine. Third, it relies on misrepresenting the content of the Quran, by claiming verses say things they do not say, by inserting extra words into verses, and taking absurd liberties with interpretation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/11#11]

= Misrepresenting Historical Military Strategy =

In even the most aggressive military campaign, there are appropriate times to make peace or negotiate some form of ceasefire. For example Genghis Khan, one of the most violent and aggressive people in the history of warfare, went to some effort to project a promise that any city who surrendered to him would be spared, while any city that fought him would be destroyed. There are two fundamental reasons for this. The first is that dead men pay no taxes. If you want to rapidly build a large, profitable empire, the only way to do so is to capture a large population, alive. Second, slaughtering everyone tends to unite and motivate your opponents. If everyone is convinced you will slaughter them regardless of what they do, they will abandon previous hostilities with each other and unite against a common threat, then fight to the death to stop you, even when it seems that death on the battlefield is inevitable. It is much better to give them the option of surviving if they surrender without a fight, and even join you in the ongoing plunder (something that Genghis, as well as most other historical empire builders did to great effect). This doctrine is a natural extension of the divide and conquer strategy.

Muhammad made a few, very limited suggestions to do the same. Unlike most other empires, he imposed religious as well as financial obligations on those who surrendered. That is, they must convert to Islam in a religious sense, submit to rule by Muslims under religious shariah law, as well as pay religious taxes (to the empire, of course). The tactic chosen by Muhammad depended largely on relative military strength. Where the opposition was weakest, Muhammad tended to prefer slaughter without any options for survival. Where the opposition was formidable and well defended, he naturally preferred a negotiated outcome.
Muslims falsely portray this as Muhammad encouraging or preferring peace in a generalised sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
Muslims will even claim that the self-defence doctrine was adopted by almost every empire on earth, and that this being the norm, a resurgent Islamic State would inevitably follow the same example.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]

== Definition of Just War ==

Muslims will claim that “just war” literally means only in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
However, self-defence is only part of the typical conception of just war, and by itself is a gross simplification (yet still too complex for Muhammad to communicate in the Quran). For example, it becomes meaningless without a doctrine of proportionality, otherwise even a trivial act of aggression on the part of an enemy can be used to claim self-defence – a practice often exploited by Muhammad whenever one of his own treaties became inconvenient for him. The early history of Islam is littered with other groups (Jews, mostly) violating treaties (whose textual content has conveniently been lost to history) and paying dearly for their treachery.

The suggestion that the Quran can communicate a doctrine of just war without even a cursory discussion of proportionality or what self-defence means, or even mentioning self-defence, is absurd.

Muslim scholars (eg, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi) who eschew an Islamic just war doctrine, often cite failure to accept Islam after it has been revealed as a just cause for war. The Quran reinforces this.

= Misrepresenting Muhammad’s Actions =

Muslims will argue that Muhammad’s actions were entirely consistent with a just war doctrine based only on self-defence. They will justify this claim by citing an example of Muhammad refraining from slaughtering a “severely weakened” opponent and agreeing to concessions with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/128#128] His opponent at the time, the city of Mecca, which Muhammad was trying to gain entry to, was at the time more powerful than Muhammad’s army.

== A brief History of Muhammad’s Militant Aggression ==

See also: [[Political_History_of_Islam|Political History of Islam]]

Muhammad started out preaching in Mecca. The Meccan verses in the Quran tend to be less violent, and Muhammad was largely unsuccessful in recruiting people to his religion. Muhammad’s own tribe managed the Kaaba, a prominent pagan shrine, which was very lucrative for them. Muhammad preached against them. He eventually fled Mecca in fear of his life.

=== Muhammad's career of Murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods ===

He ended up in Medina, where he formed a militia and started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering traders. This is often justified by Muslims with the following excuses:
* Only the original Muslims who fled Mecca and were thus wronged by the Meccans took part in murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods. Muslims will even back this up with a link to a wikipedia article clearly saying the opposite. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/160#160]
* Muhammad was merely taking revenge for the Meccan emigrants. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/132#132]
* Muhammad only ever killed people in self defence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad was leading a nation when he fled Mecca and a state of war thus existed from then until he started murdering Meccan traders. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/167#167]
* There must be a different definition for nation in 7th century Arabia. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was only concerned for the welfare of 'his people'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad only ever killed people to survive. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Mecca was the only commercial centre in the area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* The people of Medina were non-farmers in a farming area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* It was the only option Muslims had for survival. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Murder and bloodlust were not the 'primary' objective of the raids. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was under political pressure from his followers to take revenge. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* They were not allowed to trade in Mecca. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Muhammad first raided Meccan traders and stole their goods within a year of fleeing Medina. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150]

These are all either lies or cynical, self serving spin. They go a long way to explaining why any conflicts in the middle east or north Africa (the footprint of the original Caliphate) tend to spiral out of control. Islam creates a culture of hysterical over-reaction and constant victimhood mongering, which is seen in nearly all Muslims, including converts from a liberal, western background. Adopting this over-reaction and victimhood mongering is the only way for western converts to accept the many and various moral crimes committed by Muhammad.

The truth is that only 45 people fled Mecca with Muhammad, including men, women and children, in 622. This was the size of his flock after 12 years of preaching the more peaceful version of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/169#169]
They were successfully integrated into a very large community in Medina. It was not until 624 that they managed to steal anything or kill any people. Muhammad's first caravan raid had only 6 people and failed. By March 624, Muhammad was able to kill more Meccans in a single raid than the total number of 'oppressed' Muslims from Mecca on whose behalf he was supposedly exacting revenge. Both Meccan emigrants and Medina locals participated from the first murder and theft. From his first successful raid, Muhammad's wealth, power and prestige grew until he was able to march on Mecca with ten thousand warriors in 630. Muhammad died eight years after first spilling blood in the name of Islam and receiving spoils of war. He managed to carve out a large nation in that time, turning what was a multicultural, multireligious society without any centralised government into a violent and oppressive dictatorship imposing Islamic monoculture by slaughtering innocent people. All, according to Muslims, in an act of self defence.

Muslims will flip back and forth between the two most common excuses: justifying the murders and theft as an act of self defence, and as a just act of war in response to Meccan oppression (rather than criminal theft and murder). However, modern just war doctrines that are based on self-defence specifically exclude revenge or ‘stealing property back’ as a justification for war, as this would make it inevitable that even the smallest feuds escalate to armed conflict.

=== Muhammad's campaign to get rid of Medina's Jewish tribes ===

Muhammad became more popular as his militia became more successful and profitable. However, three large tribes of Jews remained in Medina and stood between Muhammad and absolute authority over the city. Muhammad tended to have little success converting Jews, despite initially seeing them as natural allies. In addition, the pagans of Medina were somewhat hostile towards Mecca, born of jealousy over the Kaaba and the central role that Mecca played in Arab paganism, while the Jewish tribes had significant trade links with Mecca. It was at this time that Muhammad instructed Muslims to pray towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem, making pagan Mecca rather than the traditional Abrahamic centres the focal point of his religion.

This public address by Muhammad is what counts as diplomacy for a Muslim:

''"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."''

The Quraysh were Muhammad’s own tribe from Mecca. Muhammad’s militia had recently had their first large scale victory against them. This address, made by Muhammad in a market place in 624, was one of the earliest expressions of Muhammad’s “convert or die” doctrine. Muhammad proceeded to get rid of the three large tribes, one by one.

The first tribe to fall victim to Muhammad were the Banu Qaynuqa, shortly after Muhammad's address to them in the marketplace. According to Islamic traditions, a Banu Qaynuqa goldsmith assaulted a Muslim woman, causing her to be stripped naked. He was killed by a Muslim, which sparked a series of revenge killings. Muhammad expelled the entire tribe from Medina as punishment – another clear rejection of the concept of proportionality.

There were now two large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad assassinated the chief of one of them (the Banu-Nadir), who had written erotic poetry about Muslim women, then expelled them about a year later and seized their property.
By this stage Muhammad was creating a large number of enemies, so he set about attacking smaller groups of Arabs outside of Medina to prevent his enemies uniting.

Eventually the Meccans came to attack Medina, but ended up retreating without a fight. They were allied with the last of the three Jewish tribes in Medina. Afterwards, Muhammad was instructed by an angel to lay siege to the tribe. They surrendered without a fight and were taken prisoner. Muhammad executed every adult male (those with pubic hair) in the tribe, totaling approximately 800 victims. A small number, perhaps two, who converted to Islam were spared. Again, doctrines of just war that are based on self-defence forbid the execution of POWs (Prisoners of War). In order to spread perceived blame and reduce the risk of rebellion over his harsh actions, Muhammad had some of the Jews’ previous allies pass the judgement and conduct many of the executions.

Muhammad then attacked the Jewish community of Kaybar where many of the Banu Nadir had sought refuge. Muhammad ordered the torture of the Banu Nadir treasurer to force him to reveal the location of their gold. Muhammad then decapitated him and later took his wife as a concubine. Muhammad took possession of all their land, but allowed them to continued farming it on condition that they pay 50% of their produce as a tax. After Muhammad’s death they were expelled by Caliph Umar as part of a broader campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Muhammad then negotiated a 10 year treaty with Mecca that allowed Muslims to make pilgrimage to the pagan Kaaba. Two years later, some Meccans apparently violated it. Although Muslim scholars often cite an official declaration of war as a requirement of Islamic just war, Muhammad marched on Mecca with as much secrecy as possible, not even telling his own companions what his plans were, and attempting to give the impression had had an alternative target. The Meccans were actively trying to renegotiate peace, but Muhammad ignored their efforts.

With the exception of a single minor skirmish, the Meccas surrendered without a fight. Muhammad destroyed all pagan idols except for the Kaaba itself and rapidly Islamised Mecca.

Having captured Mecca, the Muslims were now the dominant force on the Arabian peninsula. Muhammad adopted an even more aggressive military strategy, sending out many raids to destroy competing religious sites and slaughter non-Muslims, mostly pagans. He captured most of the peninsula in the short time between capturing Mecca and his death. Non-Muslims were banned from Mecca, which until that point had been a focal point of pagan worship and pilgrimage for the entire peninsula. All treaties were abrogated. Muslim sources acknowledge that Muhammad in effect declared total war against pagans.

Following his death, Muslim rulers expanded the empire rapidly. Muslim commanders were under general instructions to accept the surrender of cities on the condition that they accepted Islam, Muslim rule and paid religious taxes to the empire. Within a century they created the largest land empire that had ever existed.

To insist that this was all done in self-defence is an exercise in absurdity.

= Misrepresenting the Quran =

[[Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Lying_about_the_Quran]]

The Quran promotes and justifies violence. This is not a few scattered verses, but is a dominant theme in the Quran. Whole chapters are devoted to it. For example, chapter 9 is devoted, from start to finish, to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Paying religious taxes to support the war effort is also a dominant theme, with a common refrain being to “fight with your life and your wealth”. Other chapters that heavily promote violence and aggressive warfare are chapter 2, 3, 4 and 8

== Quran never mentions self-defence ==

Muslims will make the absurd argument that the Quran does not use the term self-defence because it was written in Arabic, not English. That is, they will literally use the fact that self-defence is written in English to justify its absence from the Quran (you do not misunderstand, it really is that stupid). However no English translations use the term either. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will also claim that the Quran “clearly explains” the concept of self-defence without mentioning the term, without any textual justification for the claim
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/225#225]
or citing for example Quran 22.39-40:
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

''Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged... [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ."''

However, this is actually a direct contradiction of the self-defence doctrine. Waging war as revenge for past wrongs (because they were wronged…) is explicitly excluded from any legitimate just war doctrine that is based on self-defence. The verse in question was used by Muhammad when initially forming his first militia in Medina, which he used to rob Meccan caravans and murder Meccan traders, by justifying it as revenge for his mistreatment in Mecca.
Muslims will also argue that this verse is “clearly specifying who (and only who) fighting against is given permission to”. This is effectively inserting the word “only” into the Quran. The Quran offers many reasons for going to war. Not only are none of these reasons stated or implied to be the “only” reason, it simply does not make sense that a particular reason is the only permissible one when other reasons (eg mocking Islam) are also given.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]

Muslims will also argue that verses in the Koran permit war "only" against people that Muslims have peace treaties with that they are actively violating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/129#129] Not only does this contradict other examples of the "only" conditions in which war is permitted, it leaves out an explicit reference to self defence and is a clear contradiction of Muhammad's behaviour. Some of the 'violations' used by Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs to abandon treaties and slaughter the infidel were trivial at best, while other reasons had nothing at all to do with treaties.

The Quran commands Muslims to slaughter the infidel repeatedly, only occasionally placing genuine limitations on it – eg where there is a peace treaty, unless there is some kind of trivial violation of the treaty. These verses were always conveniently revealed when Muhammad needed to motivate his followers to mobilise for war yet again, and for the most part Muslims correctly interpret them as motivational rather than as some poorly explained rule or restriction. Where restrictions such as following peace treaties are genuinely intended, the Quran states them clearly and explicitly, not as a riddle or a blank slate for filling in the gaps with whatever new moral imperatives Muslims pick up from non-Muslim legal theorists.

Muslims will also cite Quran 8:61 as a “clear” explanation of what self-defence means: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/185#185]

''And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.''

However the only interpretation of this verse that is consistent with Muhammad’s actions is that Muslims are to spare those who surrender without a fight (and accept Muslim rule, shariah law, and religious taxes to the Islamic state). It is certainly not a clear explanation that war is only permitted in self-defence. At the very least, it does not limit warfare to self-defence, as the verse is entirely consistent with the historical military practice (among the more aggressive empire builders) of slaughtering anyone who fights back and sparing groups who surrender without a fight and agree to whatever terms are offered.

Other, even more vague verses are also used as “clear explanations”, however they all put the onus on the infidel to make peace. Not a single one puts the onus on Muslims to seek out peace, though countless verses urge them to violence, often without qualification. Not a single one stipulates self defence as the only justification for war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will attempt to argue that Quran 60:8 states that Muslims are only permitted to engage in war as an act of self-defence. However it merely states that Muslims are not explicitly forbidden from being nice to people who do not attack Muslims – they are merely forbidden from being ‘allies’ with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

''60:8 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
60:9 Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.''

== Context ==

Muslims will complain that quoting chapter 9 in its entirety is actually taking it out of context, because it does not quote the entire Quran at once, thus leaving out all the other verses that (apparently) state that war must only be fought in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/90#90]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/92#92]

Those same Muslims will then make the absurd claim that chapter 9 of the Quran reveals a self-defence doctrine. For example, claiming that 9:4 states that fighting is only permitted against those who violate oaths.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

In order to make this claim, verse 5 must be omitted, because it clearly states that Muslims are to slaughter the infidel wherever they find them (unless they convert to Islam and pay religious taxes to the Islamic State). Thus, it is deliberately taking the verse out of context. It is also a misrepresentation of verse 4. Verse 4 does not state that violating oaths is the only permitted justification for war. Rather, it says that Muslims should not violate an existing peace treaty (one of the rare occasions that the Quran actually places limitations on slaughtering the infidel). And of course, ‘violating oaths’ is a caveat on this – again no concept of proportionality is invoked. The smallest violation of a treaty can be used as justification for slaughtering the other party, if it suits the interests of the Islamic State. Thus, Muslims pretend that a caveat on a caveat to the general rule of slaughtering the infidel wherever you find them as actually presented as the only condition for slaughtering the infidel.

This is what verse 4 and 5 actually states:

''9:4. Except those of the Mushrikun [infidel] with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).''

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

Muslims will also claim that verse 13 of chapter 9 states that Muslims should only slaughter the infidel if the infidel attacks Muslims first. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71] Again, what the verse actually states is very different. Also, the preceding verse cites criticism of Islam as an example of an attack and a justification for slaughtering the infidel.

''9:12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).
9:13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
9:14. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people''

For clarity, Mushriken means infidel and Makkah is an alternative spelling of Mecca.

These verses were revealed after Muhammad captured Mecca, banned pagans, abrogated all treaties and set about capturing the rest of the Arabian peninsula. The “attack you first” bit appears to be a reference to the earlier Meccan attack on Medina, which was followed by a peace treaty and then by Muhammad marching on Mecca despite the Meccans suing for peace. It is a reference to a past event being used as a retaliation justification, and clearly not, as some Muslims will attempt to argue, an instruction that the infidel must attack first. Again, just war doctrines based on self-defence specifically exclude retaliation for past wrongs as justifications for war, as it destroys the meaning of the self-defence doctrine.

The Muslims at the time were afraid that Muhammad’s aggressive actions, especially seizing the Kaaba and bringing an end to a long standing pagan tradition of peaceful, inclusive pilgrimage, would unite their enemies against them, and also test the allegiance of recent converts who were now being instructed to kill their friends, families and old allies. (See: islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=11 and discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/05/the-sword-verse-surah-913-24/). It is about as far removed from a self-defence doctrine as it is possible to get, yet still cited by Muslims as a Quranic example of the self-defence doctrine.

Muslims will quote half of a verse from chapter 9 of the Koran to make it appear a general command to maintain peace with non-Muslims, but leave out the first half of the verse which makes it clear that it is a reference to people with whom Muslims have a peace treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/124#124]

== Oppression ==

Muslims will claim that Quran 2:193 specifies the only conditions under which war may be fought.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/274#274]

They make this claim, even while quoting the verse, which says to slaughter the infidel until they convert to Islam and until there is no more fitnah (rebellion, presumably against Muslim rule):

''2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Other translations use words like polytheist and disbeliever instead of oppressor and fitnah. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/127#127] These translations come across as far more internally consistent. It is misleading to imply that Muslims in the 7th century had the same concept of oppression that we do today.

The key misrepresentation here is taking extraordinary liberties with the words “cease”. Although it would logically be a reference to what comes before – paganism and rejecting shariah law, Muslims will attempt to construe this verse as only permitting war against oppression.

Muslims cannot offer any kind of explanation as to what the verse means by oppression.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/15#15]

Islam entirely rejects any concept of individual personal liberty. In this context, oppression does not have a clear meaning. The very same verse that apparently calls for Muslims to fight oppression begins by calling on Muslims to slaughter the infidel until worship is only for Allah – hinting for example at denial of basic religious freedom. Several other verses in the Quran as well as Hadith reinforce this concept: that only Allah has the right to be worshiped and that jihad is to continue towards this goal. Muhammad’s own actions also reinforce this rejection of religious freedom.

For example, prior to Islam, Mecca and the Kaaba were a centre for pagan religious pilgrimage, where the pagans would annually set aside their differences and come together in peace to practice their various faiths. As soon as Muhammad gained control of it, he destroyed all the pagan monuments, Islamised the Kaaba, banned all non-Muslims from Mecca, and used Mecca and Medina as bases from which to slaughter pagans and destroy competing religious monuments across the Arabian peninsula – about as clear an example of oppression as you can get. The actions of the Meccans immediately prior to Muhammad marching on Mecca – trying to negotiate for the peace treaty with Medina to remain in place, including provisions for religious freedom and for Muslims to be able to join the pagan pilgrimage to Mecca, are the opposite of oppression, and particularly generous given Muhammad’s previous lengthy career robbing Meccan caravans and murdering traders.

The Quran never explains what is meant by oppression, but the examples given suggest that anything short of submission is to be considered intolerable. Chapter 9, verse 12 cites criticism of Islam as a form of attack in the context of justifying bloodshed. Limited religious freedom was only extended to “people of the book”. That is, Christians and Jews – provided they accepted living as second class citizens.
Muslims will attempt to claim that examples from other chapters of the Quran of what modern, liberal minded people would identify as oppression is actually a clear explanation of what this particular verse means by oppression. However, the Quran never gives an explanation or even description of what oppression means.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]

Muslims will also feign an inability to comprehend the difference between describing, elsewhere in the Quran, a situation that a modern reader identifies as oppression and actually clarifying what this particular verse or any other verse means by oppression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/19#19] Even if the verse is intended to mean fight until there is no more oppression, the fact that Muhammad was the greatest oppressor of the time still destroys any potential for meaning.

Muslims will also employ a peculiar circular logic here by insisting that by always putting the onus on non-Muslims to seek out peace and always putting the onus on Muslims to wage Jihad, the Quran must be referring to a self-defence doctrine because it is always up the aggressor in conflict to cease aggression in order to achieve peace, therefor the Quran must mean that the non-Muslim is the aggressor. This is an extension of the typical victimhood mentality that always portrays Muslims as not being responsible for the violent conflict they find themselves in, even if they happen to build the largest land empire the world had ever seen in only 100 years.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/17#17]

== Proportionality ==

Muslims will argue that a verse that explicitly instructs Muslims to commit acts of evil in retribution is a doctrine of proportionality. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/49#49] Apparently, the following verse is the closest that the Quran comes to a doctrine of proportionality in war, despite devoting many chapters to promoting and justifying war:

42:40 ''And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah . Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.''

42:41 ''And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].''

The context of this verse is not war. It is an "eye for an eye" verse. Just war doctrines specifically exclude retribution as a justification for war.

== When the Koran does impose self defence and proportionality ==

The Quran does clearly impose a doctrine of both self defence and proportionality, albeit a little simplistically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/126#126][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/75#77] Despite the clear and unambiguous statement, this verse of the Quran is not used by Muslims seeking to build a case for Islam's just war doctrine, because it limits the restriction to Islam's holy months.

2:194 ''During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe God and know that God is with the righteous.''

This is the "exception that proves the rule". That is, the only reason the Quran needs to specify this exception during the holy months is because it explicitly encourages hostile and aggressive warfare at other times. It also demonstrates the absurdity of the elaborate "re-interpretations" that are necessary in order to read a just war doctrine into other verses of the Quran. The examples provided above were not cherry-picked for their hollowness. They were the best examples provided.

Muslims will attempt to argue that verse 2:194 is a reference to some kind of domestic fighting rather than warfare,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/316#136]
even after arguing that preceding verse (which calls on Muslims to convert people by the sword) is in fact a reference to a just war doctrine of self defence and proportionality.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/297#297]

2:193 ''Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Consider also this verse calling for the slaughter of non-Muslims outside of the hold months:

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

= Justifying Lies about the Quran =

Muslims often cite the potential benefit of ‘positive misinterpretations’ or white lies about the Quran as helping to make Muslims more peaceful. However, they cannot stop Muslims from picking up the Quran, reading it for themselves, and discovering what it actually says. In fact, Islam commands them to do exactly this, and explicitly forbids misrepresenting the Quran.

Thus these misinterpretations only serve to deceive non-Muslims. This is particularly true in the case of just war doctrine. Those who misrepresent the Quran’s key messages on war will never find themselves in charge of a Muslim army waging holy war. Thus it only serves to encourage naivete in non-Muslims seeking to understand religiously motivated violence. It create a blind spot, for example in anticipating the number of Muslims from western countries like to travel to or support ISIS, and encourages ineffective responses to the problems. For example, the opinion of a non-Muslim political leader on the Quran’s true message, no matter how sincere, progressive or well-communicated, will never hold any weight with a conservative Muslim considering holy war who is capable of reading the Quran for himself.

Deception of Non-Muslims

2018-03-11T05:40:54Z

Freediver: /* Lying about the Quran */

[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam Islam]

Muslim spokesmen employ a peculiar style of deceptive propaganda that so far has caught western media off-guard. It takes advantage of a common assumption among those who have only been exposed to other religions – the assumption that the statements of religious leaders can be taken at face value because religious leaders want people to understand their religion. It takes advantage of western ignorance of Islam while at the same time seeking to maintain that ignorance. It takes advantage of people's tendency to see Islam as a religion in the traditional sense, rather than as a combination of a militant political ideology and a religion. Thus a Muslim religious leader should not be seen in the same way as most religious leaders. He should be viewed as a combination of politician and religious leader. When addressing a western, non-Muslim audience, he should not be viewed as a typical missionary, but as an astute politician addressing a hostile audience who won't like all of his policies - he will tell you what you want to hear. Viewing them as a politician can be a difficult task as they often combine this with a hypersensitivity to criticism or direct questioning that a politician could not get away with. 'How dare you accuse me of lying' is a powerful challenge coming from a cleric with his 'religious leader' hat on, but would be ridiculed if it came from a politician.

Muslims use a number of strategies to either conceal the more barbaric aspects of their religion or to deceive people about Islamic doctrine. The initial deception is semantic. Literally, they say one thing and mean another, the opposite of calling a spade a spade. This typically involves using a dual meaning that is generally only understood by Muslims, or using Arabic terms. The initial deception is followed up with a number of rhetorical techniques that create a barrier to effective communication. These are essentially a form of diversion. While some of these tricks are familiar to a western audience, some are largely unfamiliar and play on Islamic concepts with which the west is unfamiliar.

Muslims will discuss with each other deliberate attempts to strategically generate propaganda for the political aspects of Islam. This looks far more like the actions of a political party intent on winning at all costs rather than a religion trying to promote the truth. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276]

= Textual justifications for deception =

There are several textual sources of that justify deception by Muslims. Some are given below:

''Abu Hurairah narrates that the Prophet said: “One who keeps the faults of a Muslim secret in this world, Allah will keep his faults in the Hereafter and Allah remains in the help of the (Muslim) man until he is in the help of his brother.”'' (Musnad Ahmad: 274/2)

Muslims have built a strong tradition and culture around this hadith that places reputation above truth and calls on Muslims to, first and foremost, protect the reputation of other Muslims. Muslims who become aware of illegal or immoral behaviour by fellow Muslims are severely restricted, by Islam, in how they can respond. The inevitable result of this is an oppressive, corrupt society that is completely unwilling to have an open dialogue about it's own oppression and corruption.

Another interesting verse, this time directly from the Quran, forbids Muslims from asking questions about troubling aspects of Islam:

''O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.'' (Surah 5:101-102).

A similar verse:

''The clerk of Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba narrated, "Muawiya wrote to Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba: Write to me something which you have heard from the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ." So Al-Mughira wrote: I heard the Prophet saying, "Allah has hated for you three things: ... 3. And asking too many questions (in disputed religious matters)'' (Bukhari vol. 2, Hadith#. 555)

Although this is a call to self-delusion, it is a necessary psychological strategy for the deception of others - both Muslim and non-Muslim - regarding Islam. Feeling constantly pressured to knowingly deceive others might cause Muslims to lose faith. But if Muslims never inform themselves of the troublesome aspects of Islam in the first place, they will have at best only a vague awareness of them, and will more likely accept outright lies about the matter. The version of Islam they pass onto fellow Muslims and non-Muslims will be appropriately 'cleansed' according to whatever the society wants to hear, based on the values of the time. While this may appear to be a recipe for the destruction of Islam from within, it must be remembered that Islam requires its spread to be followed closely by the imposition of a militant Islamic state that is utterly hostile to any 'incorrect' versions of the religion being promoted. This includes the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy, where apostasy is taken to include adopting the 'wrong' version of Islam. Thus, Islam spreads through a combination of willful self-delusion, concealment and deception, followed by the ruthless imposition of the harsh realities of true Islam.

One last example from the Quran:

''And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.'' Qur'an (3:54)

Ironically, many Muslim websites translate this as "plan" rather than "scheme". Technically, the Arabic term can be translated as plan, but only in the context of planning to do someone harm through deceipt.

= Lying about the Quran =

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]]

Muslims will lie about the Quran, primarily to whitewash the promotion of violence.

For example, Chapter 9 of the Quran is entirely devoted to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Muslims will claim that the fist verse of the chapter states that the entire chapter is restricted in context to pagans who violate their treaties with Muslims. Not only does the first verse not actually say this, there are verses in the chapter that clearly go beyond this scope, as well as other broad contextual statements similar to verse one that have a broader scope.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/156#156]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/212#212]
Muslims will argue that a reference to a subgroup of pagans (those with a treaty) must imply that all references to pagans in the chapter must refer to those with a treaty (even when it does not make sense), because the it does specifically mention pagans without a treaty. It was never explained why this was necessary in order to refer to pagans in general.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/223#223]

Muhammad committed genocide by wiping out the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe - the last remaining of three large tribes of Jews in Medina. Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran states that members of the tribe were freed, in order to contradict other Muslim sources who state that all 'adult' (those who had pubic hair) men were killed and the rest taken prisoner. They will 'paraphrase' the Quran to insert the claim that some were freed. The Quran does not state that some were freed, but does confirm they were either executed or taken prisoner.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran forbids rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Sex_Slaves]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran is not anti-semitic (despite clearly anti-semitic content) on the grounds that Jews are technically considered to be Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Religious_Motivation]

Muslims will falsely claim that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Islam.E2.80.99s_Just_War_Doctrine_is_a_Lie]
that the Quran limits war to situations of self defence, without ever mentioning self defence,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Misrepresenting_the_Quran]
that quoting chapter 9 of the Quran in its entirety is actually taking it out of context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Context]
that a verse saying to convert people to Islam by the sword actually means war can only be fought against oppression,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Oppression]
that a verse promoting violent retribution is actually a statement of proportionality in war, despite not making even a subtle reference to proportionality
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Proportionality]
Note that the Quran does explicitly limit war to self defence and also offers a clear an unambiguous statement of proportionality in war, but limits these restrictions to the 'holy months'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#When_the_Koran_does_impose_self_defence_and_proportionality]

Muslims will attempt to justify lying about the Quran to non-Muslims by insisting it will make Muslims more peaceful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#Justifying_Lies_about_the_Quran]

Muslims have a broad variety of more subtle ways of distancing themselves from their religion
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Disowning_Islam]
or misleading people by changing the meaning of words.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Semantic_deceptions]

= Some common strategies =

== Exploiting positive assumptions ==

One of the most irony-laden discussions with Muslims revolved around the concept of taqiyya. This rule permits Muslims to deceive people, break the law or commit blasphemy under certain circumstances. When asked whether this gives Muslims free reign to lie to non-Muslims, several Muslims pointed out that it only applies in certain circumstances, such as war. This was an indirect response that relied heavily on the assumption that we are not at war. One of those Muslims later explained that he believed that the West had been at war with the Muslim world since the 1920’s and that the west had declared and carried out this war. This is a good example of a very subtle deception taking advantage of positive assumptions, in the context of discussing deception itself. This strategy works well when combined with hypersensitivity to discourage people from seeking a more direct response when only an indirect response was given. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1318025595]

== Islamic law follows belief ==

Islam requires the imposition of Shariah law on both Muslims and non-Muslims. Having the law imposed on you is considered necessary and an integral part of Islam. Islam also requires Muslims to follow Islamic law in foreign countries. The process for turning a foreign country into an Islamic one has always been through a process of empire building, often through outright violence, but always with the threat of violence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924] Muslims see no contradiction between this and the 'peaceful empire' fairytale. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581] Muslims will go so far as to insist they are not allowed to lobby for Islamic law and that it merely 'follows naturally' after everyone has converted to Islam, even though this never happened historically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

== Revising history: science and the 'peaceful' empire fairytale ==

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims have created an elaborate fantasy about Islam restricting war to self-defence. This relies on misleading people about trends in historical military strategy, misleading people about Muhammad's actions, and misleading people about the content of the Quran.

[[Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine]]

Revising history appears to be a favourite pastime of Muslims. This usually involves going to absurd lengths to overstate the contributions made by Muslims (especially to science) and undervalue the contribution of non-Muslims, or to pass blame for every historical evil by Muhammad and his successors to the non-Muslim victims. This can in part be attributed to the obligation of Muslims to look more favourably on fellow Muslims than non-Muslims
(see for example
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2 Justice] and
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty Honesty]).
Apparently Muslims made vast contributions to science. For example, the bloke who jumped off a tower with feathers glued to his arms, making a nasty stain on the pavement below, made a valuable contribution to our understanding of flight.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1362655638][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218803024]
One of the most outrageous claims is that the Caliphate (Islamic empire) was peaceful and spread only through self defense, even when it crossed the Mediterranean to invade modern day Spain and France. Muslims actually expect people to take this absurd version of history seriously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493]
A favourite justification for this claim is that Christians welcomed Muslims into Spain with open arms, in order to get lower taxes. What really happened is that the Muslim hordes allied themselves with one Spanish kingdom so they could cross a massive natural protective barrier (the Mediterranean) and slaughter another Spanish kingdom. Then they turned their swords on their allies and slaughtered them too. Then they slaughtered their way across the whole peninsula. Then they started sending raids into modern day France. Eventually the French and Italians booted them out of Europe.
Muslims frequently claim that various towns and Kingdom's welcomed the Empire with open arms. They will describe an offer to submit to the caliphate as entirely peaceful, even when there was a naked threat of violence if the town did not submit. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]

Muslims will deny that Muhammad committed genocide when he exterminated an entire tribe of Jews by killing 800 innocent people (almost all of the post pubescent men) in a single day, and taking the women and children as slaves. They will falsely claim that the Jews were bound by the treaty of Medina and deserved to die for violating it. However, the tribes concerned were not even a part of the treaty, and in any case the treaty stipulated that members would maintain freedom of religion, which Muhammad had long since abandoned when he started threatening Jews with violence if they did not convert to Islam. A few members of the tribe were allowed to live if they converted to Islam. Rather than acknowledging this as an example of forced conversion, Muslims will try to spin it as Muhammad generously pardoning them for their 'crime' if they disowned their treachery. The Jews surrendered unconditionally when Muhammad laid siege to their fortress and were taken prisoner. Muslims will argue that there was no war and they were thus not prisoners of war and not to be granted any protection as such, on the grounds that they did not notify Muhammad that they were reneging on their treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/145#145] Muslims will falsely claim that only 'warriors' were executed, despite the victims including old men and young boys. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1488589434/18#18]

Muslims will make particularly ludicrous and misleading claims about history, then later justify this by claiming that they made more accurate statements elsewhere and blaming their critics for not quoting the statements that 'matter'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1508378680/261#261]

== Statistics ==

Muslims often attempt to misrepresent the threat posed by Islamic terrorism with statistics that equate attacks such as 9/11, the London bombings, Madrid and Bali with vandalism attacks by other extremist political groups. They do this by measuring the 'rate' of terrorism by the number of individual events, rather than a more appropriate measure of risk, such as death toll.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340791727]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294223444]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1349425752]

Muslims will also often misrepresent crime statistics, for example by attributing differences in reported rates of crime with actual rates of crime, when there is an obvious difference in reporting patterns. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/225#225] This is most pronounced with crimes such as rape, which are obviously less likely to be reported in middle eastern countries, where the rape victim often ends up being punished. Muslims will often claim that certain crimes were almost non-existent in the historical Caliphate (common examples are [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Homosexuality homosexuality], murder, rape, apostasy etc). They will use their inability to find evidence of successful convictions as evidence that the convictions and punishments were rare, particularly when insisting that the punishment of death by stoning would only be implemented rarely (the classic logical fallacy of equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence). They will then turn this reasoning on it's head and demand that people who disagree with them produce crime statistics from 1000 years ago. On another tangent, apparently a Muslim country will not 'run out of women' until all men have four wives. If not all men can afford four wives, it will not be a problem. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/24#24] (see also [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape].)

Muslims will claim that a survey shows a majority of Australians supporting them in their efforts to make it illegal to mock religion or depict historical religious figures
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that the survey shows them supporting that right. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]

Muslims will offer endless explanations for global surveys revealing the opinions of Muslims - anything other than the survey reflecting what Muslims actually think.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#Malaysia]

= Deflections =

== Simple diversion ==

The first trick usually employed on forums is a simple diversion. If you ask 'do Muslims think it is OK to do this?', they will respond by listing examples of where something similar (no matter how remote the similarity) has been done to Muslims. This shifts the debate away from Islamic doctrine and how it seems immoral to most westerners, to a blame game over who is responsible for past atrocities. Thus Islamic doctrine is not exposed and the debate switches to from moral standards to politics or history.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390612677/11#11]

The most obvious example of this is terrorism. Most Muslims will say that terrorism is wrong, but they then go on to list all the grievances of the middle east. They may also deny that Muslims bear any responsibility for reigning in Islamic terrorists. Many claim that the reigning in of terrorists should not be a first step in the peace process, but rather a last step. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224827866] That is, we must first satisfy all the grievances of the terrorists and give Muslim extremists whatever they want (mostly more political power and geopolitical restructuring of the middle east), and only after that can they be expected to stop slaughtering people. However that is where the explanation stops. Muslims will not explain why they think this. Instead they will bring up some media report of an accidental civilian death attributable to a western army. I suspect that Muslims think this way because they see all non-Muslim lands as being a place of war. One hint of this is that they will refuse to distinguish the deliberate mass murder of civilians by terrorist organisations for which no person or nation can be held accountable, and the accidental death of civilians in an armed conflict with a guerrilla army that hides among civilians. Thus, destroying the twin towers is an act of war in a place of war and is no different to the death of civilians in a 'real' war zone. However, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get a Muslim to either admit to this or to offer some other explanation for why terrorist organisations should be given free reign until their various (largely unspecified) demands have been met.

== Et tu ==

'Et tu' is a reference to a logical fallacy. It refers to the debating strategy of accusing your opponent of something that you yourself have been accused of (or something worse). It is a logical error in the sense that it is used to justify your own actions. In the case of Islam, this tactic is used in an astonishingly predictable manner every time historical injustices committed by Muslims are brought up. The response is to ignore the injustice and how it may relate to Islam (or not) and instead give examples where non-Muslims have done similar things. There does not have to be any causative relationship. For example Muslims have attempted to justify mass murder by Muhammad himself by citing an example of non-Muslims doing something worse in the same town 600 years later (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). This of course helps to completely avoid the issue of whether such behaviour should be incorporated into timeless religious law, or whether it is even endorsed by Islam.

Muslims will falsely claim that Jesus stipulated the inferior status of women in order to insist that Muhammad's Quranic command to beat women, and the account of Muhammad himself beating his favourite child bride for leaving the house without his permission, place no more of a barrier on Muslims stamping out domestic violence than Jesus' teachings place on Christians. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/107#107] They will insist that Muhammad beating his wife is nothing like modern domestic violence because he was not a drunk bogan, and that beating his wife was merely a way of asking her what she was thinking. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487482782/36#36][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/309#309]

== Moral equivalence ==

Arguing moral equivalence is similar to 'et tu'. It is most commonly used in discussing the incident in which Muhammad executed approximately 700 Prisoners of War (POWs). The deception comes in the misleading or missing details required to make the comparison stick. Muslims will argue for example that only combatants were killed, or that only those found guilty of treason were executed (and thus the incident is morally equivalent to the death penalty for treason in some western countries). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/6#6] Muhammad apparently punished them for either assisting his enemies in an earlier attack, not coming to his aid to the extent required by an agreement with them, conspiring with the enemy, or because the angel Gabriel told him to. The excuses offered omit or misrepresent key facts, such as:
* Many of the tribe members actually assisted Muhammad in defending against the earlier attack.
* Muslims will accuse the tribe members of attacking Muhammad when his army was under siege from a different group, however these attacks never actually happened.
* Muhammad attacked the tribe in question.
* The tribe surrendered unconditionally.
* After the they surrendered and were taken away, all able bodied male prisoners of war (and one female) were executed.
* The rest of the women ended up us sex slaves, though some were purchased by another Jewish tribe who felt guilty over their involvement in Muhammad's slaughter.
* Even the children ended up as slaves.
* Muhammad took all the land and possessions also.
Muslims will also attempt to argue that this incident is similar to various atrocities committed during recent wars, completely ignoring the point that we do not worship the soldiers involved as God's messenger and do not condone the execution of POWs, sexual slavery, the enslavement of children, or collective punishment in general. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/37#37]

Some other examples:
* Wife beating is morally equivalent to smacking a child to prevent the child from running onto the road, putting his life at risk. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/227#227]
* Muhammad spent approximately 6 years robbing caravans on their way to Mecca. Muslims will argue that this was just compensation for earlier persecution by Meccans, or that it was a legitimate act in an ongoing war that had been declared but not actually begun. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374276604/4#4]
* Forbidding all non-Muslims from Mecca is no different to being unable to purchase land privately in Vatican city, or to the creation of Israel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374893194/8#8]

== Victimhood ==

One of the most common responses from Muslims to accusations is to cry victimhood. Muhammad lead the way in this. Shortly after moving into Medina and making peace agreements with the other three Jewish tribes there, Muhammad managed to get rid of all of them by preaching anti-semitism, executing their leaders, expelling the first two, then attacking the last and executing 700 prisoners of war and enslaving the women and children. Muslims (and Islamic doctrine) claim they were victims of Jewish treachery at every step along the way. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374026475] Muhammad "predicted" even more widespread ethnic cleansing and slaughter of Jews and non-Muslims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Prediction_vs_order] Muhammad spent his last decade on earth robbing caravans then conquering the entire Arabian peninsula, again because they were victims. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Theft] Although Muhammad tortured a Jewish man to get his gold, Muslims will use a fabricated story of torture and mistreatment of early Muslims to justify Muhammad's career of caravan robbing. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Torture] Muslims will even attempt to argue that the rapid expansion of the militant Islamic empire over most of the known world was entirely in self defense, even while acknowledging aggressive military tactics and invasion of lands with which they had barely came into contact with previously. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War] This attitude is reflected in the handling of conflicts and disagreements by the modern Muslim community. It is reinforced by Islamic doctrine encouraging Muslims to look favourably upon and only see the best in other Muslims, and to conceal their faults. The principle is also reflected in Islamic concepts of justice. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice_2][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Already answered ==

The next trick is usually to claim that the question has already been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224424523/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224359891/80#80][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/58#58][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/54#54][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224247054/34#34][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224071707/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711/3#3][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216217395/104#104][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/69#69][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222521579/6#6] This is usually combined with the implication that you are stupid for having to ask for clarification. This trick is basically a throwback to the deceptive use of dual meanings and unfamiliar terminology, except that it avoids the need to explain it again and risk giving away too much information. This trick is usually first used when you start asking more specific questions that are getting closer to exposing the particular deception.

== Hypersensitivity ==

The next trick is usually employed if you try to justify a request for clarification after Muslims insist that questions have already been answered or that you have no reason to be interested anyway. The Muslim will become hypersensitive at the suggestion that you do not trust them to give you a straight answer. Alternatively, they will accuse you of asking 'loaded' questions, as if there is something wrong with discovering the truth about Islam. Curiously, the more specific and direct the question is, the greater the tendency to claim it is loaded, even if it carries no assumptions at all, or only assumes what has just been verified. That is, a question is loaded if it is a simple, direct question about Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/94#94][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223943323/14#14][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225108066/9#9][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/7#7][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219721323/4#4][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226113417/37#37]

'Impure' motives are behind the question. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503891772/39#39]

=== Criticising Islam is racist ===

Muslims will argue that criticising Islam is racist. When it is pointed out that Islam is a religion, not a race, they will make the absurd argument that traditional concepts of race (black, white, asian etc) do not exist, and for this reason the meaning of racism must be changed to include religion. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504875360][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504234775/71#71] They will also argue that if Jews and Sikhs can get away with self-identifying on racial grounds, Muslims should be able to also, even if they are recent white converts.

== Dummy spit ==

If all else fails, spit the dummy. Make more accusations of ulterior motives, stirring up trouble, asking loaded questions etc. Then, simply refuse to answer. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155] After one such dummy spit I started a new topic specifically about concubines and after more criticism of my questioning style, I got a limited affirmative response, but no more questions about concubines and their treatment have been answered. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224649993] Yet I have been told in great detail how badly the west treats women.

== Accusations of Insincerity ==

Muslims will use an accusation of insincerity as a justification for refusal to answer simple questions about Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224850702/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]

== Answering a question with a question ==

For example, demanding to know how elections are run before saying whether Islam supports democracy [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/11#11], demanding to know what the law is before saying whether Islam supports justice, demanding to know what the truth is before giving an honest answer.

== Me no speaka da english ==

Muslims will occasionally find it extremely difficult to comprehend simple questions.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1504877081]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/301#301]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1454967711/170#170]
They will even ask questions that they later decide make no sense if asked of them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1503024544/155#155]

== Silence ==

Silence as a tactic is reserved for the more disturbing aspects of Islam. While it was employed to a limited extent on the issue of sex slaves, it was employed far more diligently for the issue of the treatment of Hindus, atheists, pagans etc. Muslims will go to great lengths to put a positive spin on Dhimmitude – the institutionalised humiliation of Christians and Jews. However if you ask them about the treatment of those who are not ‘people of the book’ they will likely pretend you don’t exist. The issue of sex slaves was generally avoided, partly by accident. However, numerous questions were asked over a long period of time about the treat of non-Dhimmi non-Muslims. Even when I started a new thread asking specifically about the treatment of these people, it was ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000] I started raising the issue in a few other related threads and posting links. It was still ignored. Only after I posted evidence that Islam promotes wholesale slaughter of these people, and others began complaining that they can’t get a straight answer either, was a response posted by resident Muslims. Of course, these responses did not answer the question about Islamic doctrine regarding the treatment of these people. For the most part, the actual question was ignored, as best it could be. When it was approached, the reverse “Islam does not exist” argument was the most common tactic (after the obvious deflections to the ‘evil west’). Where Muslims will usually respond that the various unfortunate situations across the middle east have nothing to do with Islam, in this case the argument was that the situation in the middle east is the only valid indicator of what Islamic doctrine is. Thus the mere presence of these other religions in the middle east is now ‘proof’ of the positive approach to them in Islamic doctrine.

== Outcomes vs ideology ==

Muslims will argue that an outcome strongly linked to Islam (eg Afghans stoning people to death without the appropriate paperwork) has nothing to do with Islam because it did not occur under official Shariah law. They will also argue the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/20#20]
- that for example the failure of Muslims to wipe out Hindus in India (despite conceding that they tried) is evidence that Islam does not support this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/11#11] This is a strategy of 'shifting the goal posts'. If you ask a Muslim about Islamic doctrine, they will tell you about an outcome that makes Islam appear more benign to you (usually a long way from the Arabian peninsula where Islam only reached in later centuries). If you ask them about the actions of Muslims that are apparently identical to the actions decreed by Muhammad, they will complain about how it differs from doctrine - for modern examples the most convenient is the 'Islam does not exist' argument. Another example of shifting the goal to 'outcomes' is this claim that Islamic lands have more religious diversity. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/3#3] This is from the same Muslim that conceded that Islam was successful in wiping out every single non-Muslim in the Arabian peninsula (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide]). The relative diversity further from the heart of Islam can be attributed to two fairly obvious reasons: the relative youth of the religion, and the aggressive empire building that was characteristic of it's spread - Islam would first conquer a land in a military sense, then set about making the people convert to Islam using whatever means worked best. This of course worked to avoid the actual question, which was specifically about doctrine, not outcomes. In the same thread, this argument claims that remaining a Muslim is evidence that Islam is not brutal [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/7#7] rather than the more obvious reason that apostasy attracts the death penalty.

== Changing the question ==

If you ask a Muslim a question about Islam, he may go to some lengths to 're-interpret' the question so it is no longer about Islam in order to avoid discussing Islam. This example is from an eight page thread about the penalty for blasphemy where several Muslims attempt to change the topic to anything except the punishment for blasphemy: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1347783816/10#10]. This strategy is also often used in response to questions about whether Muslims want Shariah law implemented in the west and how they ought to go about achieving this. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]

== Prove the existence of a question ==

Muslims will often demand proof of something before answering a simple question. This can be taken to absurd lengths, for example effectively demanding proof that a question exists. The demands are often for evidence of historical events, where the evidence is highly unlikely to exist. This is often in the context of Muslims claiming for example that the lack of surviving documentation of people being stoned to death for homosexuality is evidence that this did not occur, and even that homosexuality did not exist and that Shariah law is a 'cure' for it. It is similar to the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, except that it is often in the form of a demand for evidence as a way of avoiding directly addressing a topic or question.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

== Lobbying ==

A typical response to what societal changes Muslims should lobby for is that it is pointless to lobby for an activity to be punished if it is still encouraged by society (never mind that making an activity illegal, and lobbying for this discourages it), and to equate the question with an accusation of being a fanatic. Another common angle is that Islam is an 'all or nothing' system, which means Muslims cannot lobby for any specific change as it is invalid in isolation (you will not get a straight answer on how to implement everything all at once either). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]

= Semantic deceptions =

Many deceptions rely on manipulating the meaning of words. Some examples:

== Dual meaning ==

A common tactic is to attach a dual meaning to common English words such as war, peace, slave, innocent, rape, domestic violence etc. This tactic is so successful because it is so different from the typical 'western propaganda' approach of inventing new jargon. For example, where a deceptive western leader may talk about 'collateral damage' to make civilian deaths in war sound more benign, a deceptive Muslim leader may say 'no one was murdered', on the grounds that the killing was legal. In this case, the deception is obvious because most English speaking people understand the subtle difference between murder and kill. However, by carefully controlling how Islamic doctrine is translated into English, Muslim scholars have created a situation where many common words have an entirely different meaning when used in the context of Muslims or Islamic law. This is combined with an insistence that to 'truly understand' the Quran one must study it in Arabic [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/146#146], thus putting the context or meaning of the words used beyond the reach of most non-Muslims. Thus, Muslims will understand what their leaders are saying, even if most westerners do not. This can be quite blatant manipulation, such as when some UK clerics stated in public that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then said to their followers in private that only Muslims can be considered innocent. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224813886/0#0][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224158764/30#30][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/141#141][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/119#119][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116]

Being so simple, this tactic is most often employed in press releases. As an example, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens appeared to support the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie during question time after giving a lecture at a western university. The next day he released a statement to the press reassuring the public that he does not support vigilantism. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/2#2] Of course, he was not available to give any further details. Most assumed he did not want Rushdie dead. However, closer inspection appears to show that Cat Stevens did not actually oppose the death penalty for Salman Rushdie. He did think it would be wrong to shoot Salman in the back of the head in some dark alley. Rather, Salman should have been hauled before the relevant cleric, who had already found him guilty, so that he could be stoned to death in an orderly, 'civilised' manner.

Another common example is the claim that Islam is peace, or is peaceful. The ultimate objective of Islam is indeed a peaceful existence, however this peace is achieved by Islam conquering the world. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] Until that time, all non-Muslim areas are considered to be at war. Those areas that are ruled by Islam are by definition at peace, even if Shiites and Sunnis are blowing up each others' Mosques. Thus, 'Islam is peace' is a technically correct statement about the 'final solution' of Islam and about those lands that are ruled by Islam, but is totally deceptive to those who do not already know what it means.

Muslim leaders will claim in public that Australia shares a lot of values in common with Islam, or that Australia is a Muslim nation, or that Australians already practice Muslim values. In private, they will call for the destruction of western decadence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/106#106][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] They will express outrage at new citizens being expected to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition as the basis of Australia's values system. They will claim that Muslims strive to obey local laws, but will also call on other Muslims to reject anything other than Sharia law as heresy. They will claim friendship with non-Muslims, but privately preach that friendship with non-Muslims is wrong and should lead to ostracism. They will claim that Islam is peace, but privately preach that there can be no peace until the entire world has been subjugated to Islamic law. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/115#115] They will make friends with Christians, then preach in private that Christianity is vile. There are even passages in the Quran that promote the use of terror. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225178712/116#116] By redefining equality, Muslims will claim that Islam creates equality between the sexes, even though it gives men authority over women and allows them to be beaten until they are 'green'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/102#102] [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1285753174/106#106]

Rather than making a plain English translation available to the general public along with explanations, the Quran is made impenetrable by mixing up the verses so that they are out of order and the context is lacking.

An article was presented on our forum claiming, among other things, that the Islamic ban on mutilating bodies makes suicide bombing illegal under Islamic law. Any rational interpretation of the law confines it to the mutilation of corpses, as Muhammad himself did a lot of mutilating of bodies in the process of killing people. Although unwilling to directly support the argument, the Muslims present took rather elaborate measures to indirectly support it or create the impression that they support it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1407127340]

== Arabic terms ==

Rather than inventing new jargon, Muslims insert Arabic terms into English. These terms have a complex meaning that is relatively well understood to most Muslims, but is totally unknown to the target audience. A Muslim spokesperson can thus make a statement that appears to be a universal principle, but which Muslims understand only applies to certain situations.

Taqiyya, ironically enough, refers to deception. A Muslim may say for example that taqiyya forbids lying, which is technically true, depending of course on the context. However it does not appear to forbid deception. Furthermore lying is only allowed in certain situations, such as war. But remember the dual meaning – any non-Muslim land is a place of war. Using the word Taqiyya in public carries all of these complex and contradictory connotations, which are known to Muslims. Thus Muslims are not lied to even when non-Muslims get the wrong idea.

These two tactics are usually sufficient to dupe most disinterested audiences. They work well in press releases where further explanation is not available, as the media has no choice but to pass them on as-is, leaving the public unaware that the true meaning is totally different from the face value. However several more interesting techniques are used in online forums where dialogue is inevitable. Even though this medium encourages direct questions and the resolution of ambiguities, it can still be remarkably difficult to get the real story from a Muslim. Muslims achieve this by creating as many barriers to effective communication as possible. Again, this relies on the underlying assumption that a Muslim would want you to know what Islam is really about. However, in reality a Muslim is more than happy to wait until some time in the future when your country has been conquered by Muslims before you find out how nasty it can be. All of these strategies have been observed on the OzPolitic forum.

== Semantics ==

If both of these tricks fail, the next option is another diversion. This time instead of diverting to politics or history, the Muslim diverts to semantic issues. This takes advantage of the control that Muslim scholars have over translation of the Quran. It works in a similar manner to criticising someone's spelling in the middle of a heated debate – except of course that it is part of a broader strategy. First, they simply point out that you used an incorrect term. The correct term is not suggested and the actual question is ignored. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134] If you ask for the correct term they may suggest you ask someone else. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/1#1] They cannot possibly 'just answer it anyway' and explain what the issue is. One example is a Muslim starting a discussion about collective punishment to argue that it did not happen under Muhammad, then attempting to turn the discussion into a disagreement about the meaning of the term collective punishment when it became obvious that Muhammad did indeed engage in it, by vaguely alluding to possible alternative meanings. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/63#63][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/61#61][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/56#56][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1372771765/31#31]

Muslims steering a topic to a discussion of the meaning of:
spineless [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/185#185],
retarded [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376013300/170#170],
child (in the context of Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl) [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379233325/219#219],
moral standard [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/128#128].

== War ==

Muslims will use war as an excuse or justification for abandoning every moral principle they espouse. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1397466069] For example, Muslims may only lie in the context of war. In a completely unrelated matter, the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century. Muhammad's early career robbing caravans traveling to and from Mecca is justified by some Muslims either on the grounds that the Meccans had declared war on the Muslims, or the Muslims were waging war on the Meccans. No evidence for either of these claims is available. The evidence makes it clear that it was a clear case of robbery and murder. Later, when the real wars began, Muslims use the opposite argument to justify slaughtering POWs - on the grounds that it was not war (and the prisoners captured were thus not POWs), even though it was a clear case of genuine warfare. In one event, Muhammad slaughtered 800 such prisoners of war in one day.

== Clerics don't exist ==

One favourite term for this diversion tactic is cleric, which is used in the media to refer to Muslim religious leaders. If you ask why a cleric said something, or why a person is still a cleric after doing or saying something objectionable, they will simply respond that there is no such thing as a cleric.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/0]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225010762]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/41#41]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224928362/36#36]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222556298/31#31]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218544109/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/355#355]
Technically this can be true, but only if you assume that cleric means clergy, rather than the currently accepted additional meaning of Muslim religious leader (as is used by the media). The absence of an 'official' clergy has another advantage for Muslim propagandists, in that it allows total diffusion of responsibility. There is no leader or institution to be held accountable, therefor Islam is not to blame. More specifically, a Muslim leader who does or promotes evil acts can be simply dismissed on the grounds that they are not a 'genuine' Islamic leader, while at the same time denying any responsibility among the broader Muslim community for actually preventing it or disowning the leader. Despite direct requests, I have still not been able to get a straight answer on how a non-Muslim should go about verifying what is a 'genuine' Islamic law (other than not asking direct questions in the first place. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225588455]). Muslims will even claim that there is no such thing as a Muslim leader in the absence of a perfect Islamic state.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1367751235]

== Prediction vs order ==

Muhammad "predicted" that his followers would do a lot of evil things. Even in a situation where Muhammad tells a man in person that he will do something (eg ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the Arabian peninsula [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1373801724]) and the man does it, or attempts to, Muslims will accept no moral responsibility on Muhammad's part. They will insist that the obvious chain of causation simply does not exist. In this way, Muslims can abandon any moral responsibility for the more ominous predictions made by Muhammad, for example that Muslims will slaughter every last Jew [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374022294/91#91], or that the "last times" will not come until (variously) Muslims slaughter Muslims in pursuit of gold in a large scale massacre in which 99% of people die, Muslims slaughter non-Muslims and Muslims slaughter every Jew. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354839800]

== Sex slavery ==

On another issue, I had been asking a group of Muslims for some months about two issues – slavery [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224988796] and sex (eg [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214390480 Polygamy], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027 women in Islam], [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650340 Sufism, sodomy and Satan]). I had been lead to believe that sex outside of marriage is punishable by death, and that Muslims are only allowed four wives. This had covered just about every conceivable 'crime', including prostitution, extramarital affairs [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753], homosexuality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223540962], bestiality [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223301511], pedophilia, masturbation [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223516711] etc. Naturally it eventually came up in one of the slavery topics, as a simple question about sex slaves, which had been mentioned in a media article. The usual tricks were employed – diversion to examples of sex slavery in non-Muslim countries, insisting all my questions had already been answered, accusations of ulterior motives and 'loaded questions'. When I still kept asking, I was told that sex slave is the wrong term, so there are no sex slaves. Eventually I figured out what the correct term is – concubines. By this stage it was fairly obvious that Islam does permit concubines, but I had no idea under what circumstances.

== Rape ==

Muslims will change the definition of [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape rape] to match Islamic law and to create the impression that Islam is strict when it comes to rape. Islam permits rape wherever sex is permitted. Where sex is forbidden, rape and consensual sex receive the same punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335585972]
According to Islam, men have authority over their wives' (and slaves') bodies and do not need their consent to have sex with them. However this is not considered rape and Muslims will deny that Islam permits rape.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/48#48]
Islam permits the capture of sex slaves in battle. Muslims will argue that Islam forbids 'battlefield rape' or any rape at all in this context, on the grounds that the women must first be removed from the battlefield to become sex slaves. Muslims will attempt to portray the serial rape and enslavement of captured women as 'liberating'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335479654] Muslim men are specifically permitted to have sex with 'whatever their right hand possesses', and this rule alone is regarded as sufficient consent.

Muslims go to some length to characterise rape as a western problem, effectively blaming rape and domestic violence on rights and freedoms that the west permits but Islam forbids, and will use absurd demands for evidence to back up claims that rape is rare under Islam.

Muslims will also misrepresent a command by Muhammad forbidding Muslims from forcing their sex slaves into prostitution as a blanket ban on the rape of sex slaves by their owners. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330815631/63#63]

== Domestic Violence ==

As with rape, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Domestic_violence domestic violence] to match Islamic law and focus on portraying it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Consider this classic quote from a Muslim on our forum: "Domestic violence is a disease which must be stamped out of all societies. But it has nothing to do with giving your wife a 'smack' when she's gotten out of control" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1232575425/47#47] Muhammad pardoned a man who had beaten his wife until her skin was green with bruises.

== Pedophilia ==

Again, Muslims simply redefine [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia pedophilia] to match Islamic law, then attempt to portray it as a western problem, attributable to western freedoms, that does not occur under Islam. Islamic law effectively institutionalises pedophilia within marriage. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Apostasy vs Treason ==

Under Islam the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning. Muslims often attempt to disguise this unpalatable fact by confusing it with treason and equating it to the death penalty for treason in some western countries. This takes several forms. The Muslim may insist that the punishment only applies to treason - ie that the apostasy is irrelevant and the punishment only applies when there is also an act that is commonly regarded as treason. The Muslim may attempt to justify the punishment by pointing out that some western countries have the death penalty for treason, while ignoring the difference between apostasy and treason. The Muslim may simply attempt to confuse the two 'crimes'. Yet these Muslims believe that the penalty should apply for apostasy alone, including crimes that take you outside of Islam (eg acting gay), and may concede that they believe apostasy itself to be a form of treason - another example of self delusion reinforcing the deception of others.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Apostasy Apostasy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/251#251]

== Freedom ==

Muslims will often attempt to portray the oppression of non-Muslims under Shariah law as being merely a different 'interpretation' of freedom.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom Freedom]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304757653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182/4#4]

Muslims will misrepresent the opinions and values of the non-Muslim and the Muslim community in order to cover up significant differences on issues such as freedom of speech. They will claim that the Australian public supports them in their efforts to make mockery or even criticism of religion illegal
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414494822]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/306#306]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1416042880/50#50]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/153#153]
even after acknowledging that Australians support people's right to say things they find distasteful.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/262#262]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/297#297]
Muslims will claim that mainstream Australians think it is foolish to say we have the right to draw cartoons.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
Muslims will present an example of a Muslim leader failing to mention freedom of speech as an example of a Muslim leader expressing support for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/48#48]
Muslims will claim to support freedom of speech, but qualify this heavily, then refuse to explain their qualifications. For example, they will insist they support the right to depict and mock Muhammad (even more so than mainstream Australians) but add the qualification that no Muslims feel vilified by such a depiction.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/161#161]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/169#169]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/178#178]
In attempting to justify lack of direct support for freedom of speech from the Muslim community, Muslims will equate support for freedom of speech with 'jumping up and down demanding people insult them'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/157#157]
Muslims will justify opposition to freedom of speech by saying that victims of physical assault by neo-nazis are not suffering discrimination, prejudice or intimidation, but that Muslims are or will be if people are free to mock religion or depict religious figures.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/182#182]
Muslims will insist that restrictions on journalists publishing details of ASIO's intelligence operations (as well as several other laws that are even more irrelevant to freedom of speech) are "are some of the most egregious and effective attacks on our freedom of speech we have ever seen," while downplaying the significance of Muslims successfully making people fear for their life if they are involved in making a video, cartoon or book that criticises or mocks Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/211#211]
Muslims will insist that George Brandis and his "merry band of fringe ideologues" (ie, the government) were the only people who wanted to water down Australia's section 18c legislation on the grounds that it restricted freedom of speech, that the heated debate over the implications for freedom of speech are not evidence that mainstream Australians value freedom of speech, and also that the civil libertarians who entered the debate in support of watering down the legislation did not have genuine concerns for freedom of speech.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/226#226]
Muslims will claim that merely living within the law is sufficient to protect freedom of speech and deny that others have even suggested otherwise [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/280#280], at the same time as insulting others for not doing enough to protect freedom of speech. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/283#283]

== Democracy ==

Muslims will often attempt to claim that Islam is democratic, a different 'interpretation' of democracy, or attempt to argue that western countries are not in fact democratic either.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Democracy_vs_Theocracy Democracy vs Theocracy]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226492001]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226714182]

== Secularism ==

Muslims will claim to personally support secularism, insist that Islam is compatible with secularism and claim that the Muslim community supports secularism. But they will also claim that Muhammad himself was a secular leader and that his Islamic state was in fact a secular one. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412997678]

== Citizenship ==

Muslims will attempt to portray Dhimmitude as 'full' citizenship, despite the denial of justice, fundamental human rights, democracy, freedom etc and living under a different set of rules to Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Discrimination]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231460493/53#53]

== Compulsion ==

Muslims will often claim that Islam supports the concept of 'no compulsion in religion'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170642873/281#281] The stretches the definition of compulsion to absurd lengths, given the inevitable 'problems' of trying to live as a non-Muslim under Shariah law (see for example [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Freedom_and_Human_Rights Freedom and Human Rights] and [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Justice Justice]). Muhammad himself would often put people in a position of convert or die, as a last resort when other methods failed.

== Vigilantism ==

Muslims often interpret a question about the death penalty (see Cat Stevens example above) as a question about vigilantism. That is, they will avoid giving an answer about whether a crime attracts the death penalty in Islam by insisting that you are instead asking whether Islam permits them to conduct extra-judicial executions. More subtly, questions about introducing Shariah law are replaced with hypersensitivity to accusations of vigilantism. This can even be taken to the extent of equating any political lobbying with vigilantism. How Muslims ought to achieve the change they want is one of the hardest topics to get a straight answer from and this is one of the most common ways of avoiding it.

== Extremism ==

In an effort to portray non-Muslims as extremists (and in order to argue that 'mainstream' Muslims are 'holding hands' with the non-Muslim community on issues such as freedom), Muslims will attempt to redefine extremism as any view that is not shared by 50% or more of the population, essentially building a rather convoluted 'et tu' fallacy. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1414661030]

== Peace treaties ==

Islam forbids Muslims to be at peace with infidels (non-Muslims) for more than 10 years (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War war]). Muslims attempt to justify this by redefining the concept of a peace treaty as only a temporary agreement. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337653279/145#145] Islam even redefines the concepts of war and peace, by dividing the world into two regions - the house of peace and the house of war (where all the tactics of war are permitted). By this definition, the entire world is currently at war. Modern Muslims will argue that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century (ie since the final collapse of the Caliphate). [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Honesty]

== Muslims ==

Muslims will even use the definition of what is a Muslim to deceive people, for example a Sunni Muslim may insist that Muslims are not killing Muslims in North Africa, and that the Muslims are blameless victims, because he blames the conflict on Shiite Muslims.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/13#13]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/25#25]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/37#37]

= Disowning Islam =

Misrepresenting the Quran: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide#Denialism]]

Justifying and misrepresenting Muhammad's genocide of Jews: [[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

Muslims disown Islam in many subtle (and not so subtle) ways when it assists in creating a false impression about Islam, see for example 'Muslims' above. Some other examples:

== Islam doesn't exist ==

This is a more interesting form of diversion. If you ask why something happens in a specific Muslim country, you will be told that that country is run by a western imposed dictatorship, monarchy, democracy or whatever. Even though the particular barbaric practice strongly resembles Islamic law, it is the west's fault for preventing Muslims from setting up a 'prefect' Islamic state. For example, it is the west's fault that Saudi women must cover up from head to foot because they are responsible for the Saudi royal family, which prevent the 'correct' Sharia law that allows women to expose their face and hands, provided other standards of dress are met. It has nothing to do with 1400 years of Islamic law that instilled a belief that women are responsible for their own rape if they act like a 'piece of flesh'.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225800482/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/149#149]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225196910/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/62#62]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663/75#75]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223522110/65#65]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/100#100]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220782413/113#113]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/138#138]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1221650747/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1220167584/12#12]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225865544/42#42]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315482532]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/4#4]

In an amazing feat of mental gymnastics, Muslims will also do the opposite, sometimes even in the same discussion. If you ask them about an aspect of Islamic law they wish to hide, they will claim that it is irrelevant because there are no true Islamic states. That is, if no country in existence today is ruled totally by Sharia law, you have no reason to be interested in what Sharia law is. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233662424/31#31]

== Islam won't exist ==

A slightly different approach is taken when Muslims insist that their only goal is the short term goal of converting a few people, while pretending that the long term goals of Islam do not exist. They will conveniently deny that they seek to overthrow the Australian government and destroy personal freedom and other Australian values, and justify this by claiming that they aren't in the process of plotting the actual takeover. Yet it would be an inevitable outcome if they were sufficiently successful with their short term goals. They expect to openly promote an ideology of dictatorship and servitude, but not get criticised for it because they don't yet have the numbers to follow through with it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233236170/21#21] It is as if the Nazi party started recruiting in your neighbourhood, but insisting they don't want to kill Jews because they're only goal at the moment is to recruit more members.

== Denying personal responsibility for the consequences of Islam ==

An even stranger tactic is attempting to play down the significance of support for the unpalatable aspects of Islam (particularly stoning people to death) by denying direct responsibility for the consequences, for example by arguing that support for the death penalty is irrelevant unless you have a job as an executioner. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344641579][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/242#242]
Islam does not actually have a role of state executioner. Stoning people to death is done publicly [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/107#107], with as many members of the public as possible encouraged to join in. The size of the stones is limited to prevent a quick death.

== Equating impotence with benign intent ==

Muslims will often answer a question about what they want to achieve or what they want their society to look like with an explanation of what they are able to achieve or a complaint about being unable to achieve what they want. This is a strategy to avoid admitting to wanting something that their audience is likely to find unpalatable. This is often used in the context of reinforcing positive misconceptions about Islam, for example if a person claims that a Muslim does not actually want Shariah law, the Muslim will avoid correcting the misconception and do everything to reinforce it, short of outright lies that they can be held accountable for. The Muslim attempts to equate their inability to achieve Islamic law with lack of desire for Islamic law.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344636735]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/214#214]
This can be taken to the extreme, in arguing that it is somehow only valid to discuss what is achievable in the short term,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/4#4]
even from a Muslim who considers it inevitable that Islam will come to dominate the world and who also considers it his religious duty to help bring this about.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217762876/1#1]
This is often accompanied by an attempt to rephrase a simple question, for example by equating a question about what sort of Australia a Muslim would like to see with a question about whether that Muslim is about to take over the country in a military sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
The Muslim may switch between admitting to wanting Islamic law and refusing to discuss it, depending on context,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/99#99] and may also claim Islamic law to be inevitable
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/16#16],
then change tack and play down it's likelihood.
A slightly different approach is to claim to not intend to impose shariah law on people as a way of implying they do not want to impose it on people, or would not do so if the opportunity arose. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/243#243]

== Denying personal responsibility for Islamic politics ==

Muslims will often refuse to answer direct questions about Islam and deny any personal responsibility for the consequences of Shariah law or the process of re-establishing a Caliphate (a 'proper' Islamic state) and expanding the Caliphate as a militant empire. They offer the excuse that the law is the responsibility of the state, not the individual. This is particularly common when it comes to stoning people to death as a punishment.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Death_Penalty Death Penalty]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/101#101]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/266#266]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/70#70]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/106#106]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/63#63]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339842765/257#257]
Muslims will use this reasoning to argue that Shariah law is 'irrelevant', but in the same sentence argue that Islamic economic policy or historical scientific achievements are relevant.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]

== Encouraging useful idiots ==

A common tactic is to encourage non-Muslims who make false claims about Islam that suit the Islamic agenda, creating the impression that the Muslim agrees with the claims, and not correcting obvious errors. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying following the Quran ==

A Muslim will even find a way to claim that they do not follow the Quran, if there is someone around who is willing to believe it. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344119653/241#241]

== Denying significance of Muhammad's example ==

Muslims will describe Muhammad's slaughter of 800 POWs as an "excellent example to follow", at the same time as distancing themselves from his actions by describing them as "merely the earthly actions of a statesman protecting his people" [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226].
Muslims will claim that Muhammad specifically instructed his followers to do what he says, but not what he does. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412650210]

== Reinterpreting Muhammad's commands ==

Muslims will claim that Muhammad's order to execute gay people was not in fact an order to execute gay people.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1392293226/14#14]

= Lying about other religions =

Muslims will lie about other religions. This applies particularly to Christianity and Judaism. A central tenet of Islam is that these religions are essentially corrupted versions of Islam. Muhammad himself was not afraid to tell Christians and Jews what they believe and what their religion is, though he was largely ignorant of them. This earned him mockery at first, then hostility when he attempted to force Jews to accept his version of their religion. See [[Political_History_of_Islam#Hostility_towards_Jews]] for more info.

Today, Muslims will lie about Christianity in an attempt to make it appear as misogynistic as Islam, for example by misquoting a Bible verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head as actually saying that they must cover it or have their hair cut off.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491114010/10#10]

= Contradictory spin =

Obviously with so much spin it is inevitable that different Muslims will contradict each other with different stories or excuses, or individual Muslims will contradict themselves. Some examples:

== Slaughtering pagans ==

Were the pagans on the Arabian peninsula slaughtered for reasons of geopolitical strategy, because they were hostile to Islam, or did they in fact all suddenly 'see the light' and voluntarily convert to Islam after Muhammad decreed they should be wiped out? If they did convert voluntarily, why the attempts to justify the slaughter?
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Collective_Punishment_and_Genocide Collective Punishment and Genocide])
A Muslim will also argue that the fact that paganism was not eradicated in the middle east is evidence that Islam did not decree its eradication, in the same post as claiming that Muhammad did in fact decree it and that the outcome was 'successful' due to every pagan voluntarily converting to Islam. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226292000/10#10] All other religions were also wiped out from the area.

== Antisemitism ==

Islam inculcates a particular hatred of Jews (see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Racism_and_anti-semitism] Racism and antisemitism). Yet Muslims will also argue that Islam saved Judaism itself. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338909288] Muslims will even argue over the definition of antisemitism to deflect from the mistreatment of Jews under Islam.

= Other examples =

== Editing News Articles ==

To start with, an example of a more direct and traditional form of deception from a Muslim on our forum: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339540208]

== Claiming to represent Australian values ==

One of the more absurd claims: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20] [[Islam and Australian values]]

== Marriage prior to puberty ==

Muhammad married one of his wives prior to her reaching puberty, and this is permitted under Islam provided that the husband does not have sex with her until she reaches puberty (but they may live together... [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Pedophilia Pedophilia]). However Muslims will often claim the opposite
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216696405/71#71]
or refuse to answer and offer every other deflection mentioned above.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1334984853]

== Four witnesses for the death penalty ==

Muslims will often claim that people can only be stoned to death for sexual crimes if there are four male witnesses,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/20#20]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/18#18]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/17#17]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466/52#52]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237683500/16#16]
however there are several other ways to satisfy evidentiary requirements.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/48#48]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/52#52]

== Islam stricter than the Geneva convention ==

A quote should do for this one: "Islam recognises this, and lays down strict rules of conduct during conflicts between states, it is most certainly not a violence-oriented doctrine as you've claimed. No more than the Geneva convention is a violent doctrine, because it lays down a code of conduct for nations at war. In fact the Qur'anic rules of conduct in conflict are probably the strictest in human history, to the point that even trees are not permitted to be damaged during war." Remember that Muhammad himself slaughtered prisoners of war, displaced entire tribes, permitted his followers to capture and rape women as part of war and took plenty of captured wives for himself, and completely eradicated every religion except Islam from the Arabian peninsula. (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#War War]) Not killing trees is about as generous as not killing the women, and certainly not out of concern for either.

== How hard may I beat my wife? ==

There is genuine disagreement among Islamic scholars as to hard hard a man may beat his wife, and it runs the full gamut. When addressing people who are concerned about women's rights (ie non-Muslims) they invariably choose the most appropriate view (eg beating with a feather). Muhammad on the other hand pardoned a man who beat his wife until her skin was literally green with bruises (See [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Women.E2.80.99s_rights Women's_rights]).

== Distinguishing rape and consensual sex ==

In Islam, rape is permitted wherever consensual sex is permitted (marriage, sex slaves). Where sex is not permitted rape and consensual sex receive almost the same punishment. Muslims have attempted to portray Islam as taking rape seriously by focusing on some minor differences. For example, in the case of rape a court may order the perpetrator to pay a dowry to the victim. If the sex was consensual, no dowry is required. But the perpetrator gets whipped or stoned to death either way, depending on whether he is married. The marital status of the perpetrator has a bigger influence on the punishment for rape than anything else, to the extent that it dictates the punishment entirely. Whether or not there was actually a rape or merely consensual sex has no bearing on the punishment, except for the fine. Obviously rape vs consensual sex makes a big difference to whether the woman/victim gets stoned to death, but this barely rates a mention. In addition, if a weapon is used in the rape, then the punishment is that for banditry, which is death. Of course, bandits get this punishment for using a weapon in a crime, regardless of whether there is a rape involved
(see [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1331088474][http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Rape Rape]).

== The concubine saga ==

The discussion of sex slaves is what originally drove me to write this article. After writing the first draft, I went back through that particular discussion and noted all the different deflection tactics used. I was actually quite surprised at how 'thick' the discussion was with various deceptions. Here are some of them. I include the URL for each link, as the number on the end of the URL indicates the post number in the thread.

Initially, the topic of sex slaves was asked by another member in the 'women in Islam' thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

The various deflection tactics were employed over the next 53 posts. A summary is given below:

semantics, Islam doesn't exist, deflection with an insult, accusation of loaded question

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to other religions, direct answer to related question that doesn't paint Islam in a bad light

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/112#112

deflection to Judaism

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/125#125

attempt to justify deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/128#128

refusal to answer and already answered - ironically in same post, semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/134#134

Islam doesn't exist, respond to question 'is it allowed' with 'it is not a priority'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/136#136

Islam is 'realistic', but won't say how

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/138#138

deflects to attacking democracy, Quran can only be read in Arabic

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/140#140

deflection to generic attack on 'the west'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/142#142

ad hominem (insult), refusal to answer, already answered,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/144#144

deflection to homophobia in Europe, other religions, semantics, deflection to history rather than Islamic law, deflection to Catholics, Islam doesn't exist, response on whether it is required rather than allowed, subjectivity of immorality

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/145#145

ad hominem, already answered, lie (false claim that sex slavery does not exist in Islam), deflection to the west,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/146#146

deflection to other religions, ad hominem

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/149#149

Islam doesn't exist, deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/152#152

deflection to 'the west', Islam doesn't exist, refusal to answer

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/155#155

semantics

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/159#159

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/163#163

deflection to other religions

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/167#167

It was only after I started a new thread that I got a direct answer to the question of whether Islam permits sex slaves. However, no further details were given.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559466

= Changing Strategies =

Muslims who publicly promote Islam appear to be becoming more savvy. The issues from [http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values Islam and Australian values] were raised during discussions with a few Muslims on the [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum forum]. The list was compiled in response to increasing complexity in the debate and a tendency by promoters of Islam to repeat the same debate and pretend that the above issues had never been raised and that there was no potential conflict between Islam and western values. However, after compiling the list with links to quotes from Muslims on the forum there was an abrupt change in strategy. In discussion with other Muslims, the people involved have been promoting a stronger focus on strategy and propaganda in public discussions with non-Muslims, but have not clarified what that strategy is [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276].

The new strategy seems to involve avoiding the contentious issues altogether. Muslims will respond to the more extreme anti-Islam rants or anything that can make Islam look good, or at least neutral in comparison. They will make equally 'ill considered' anti American or anti-western rants and point to the anti-Islam rants as justification.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/39#39]
In contrast, requests for more details on the more 'problematic' issues raised, or any additional issues not mentioned in the list, are either ignored
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295869559]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295959087]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264288348/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241872871]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/16#16]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298984703/35#35]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298078457/6#6]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1296943972/0#0]
or met with some kind of deflection.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302388394]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295737924]
These deflections typically involve personal attacks on the intelligence of the person making the request,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1290829294/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295520546/3#3]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/15]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/14#14]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302177029/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/26#26]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/30]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/74#74]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/97#97]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289014566/2#2]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1264678986/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1265359994/9#9]
criticism of the motive of the person making the request (eg, you are only asking so you can add it to the wiki
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1267178556/1#1]
or so you can mislead people about the answer),
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/23#23]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302389291/4#4]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/38#38]
a change in topic (usually to current geopolitics) or insisting the question has already been answered.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/4#4]
Current geopolitics, usually along the lines of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter,"
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/44#44]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/47#47]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297976706/58#58]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/31#31]
and historical grievances seem to be favourite topic changers. These arguments can be easily made without direct reference to Islam or any of the conflicts outlined above. In fact it can help to steer the argument away from Islam. Questions about Islam that are based on current events are met with the common 'Islam doesn't exist' deflection
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301799276/19#19]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295689604/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/21#21]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/34#34]
and a denial of Islam's involvement (eg people being stoned to death in the middle east is unrelated to Islamic law that requires stoning people to death because Shariah law is not implemented properly). Issues involving Islam's rules regarding sex usually get the 'priests rape little boys' response.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301906555/4#4]
The net result of these strategies is that promotion or defense of Islam to a savvy audience involves steering the argument away from Islam itself towards mostly political issues.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287305391/9#9]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219295195/1#1]
This strategy would probably be attractive to people who oppose their government's foreign policy and are unaware of the political nature of Islam and what it would replace that foreign policy with.

= What to do? =

All of these tricks ultimately take advantage of ignorance. The antidote to this is to make people aware of them. A lie becomes ineffective when enough people see it for what it is.

== Islam forbids asking questions ==

Part of the reason for the attempts by Muslims to deflect all 'difficult' questions about Islam, is that Islam itself forbids people from asking questions they may not like the answer to. That is, they are only allowed to try to inform themselves of those aspects of Islam which they personally approve of. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1222863216/6#6] With this in mind, the deception of non-Muslims can be viewed as an extension of this mandatory self deception through omission.

In other words, in order to deceive others, one must first delude oneself.

Deception and the Just War Doctrine

2018-03-11T00:55:05Z

Freediver: /* Quran never mentions self-defence */

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

[[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]

= Islam’s Just War Doctrine is a Lie =

Muslims often promote the view that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war. That is, war is only permissible in self-defence. This is a blatant lie. It is based on three broad misrepresentations. First, it relies on the implication or assumption that in military strategy, anything short of slaughtering everyone in your path is self-defence. Second, it relies on misrepresenting Muhammad’s actions as being consistent with a self-defence doctrine. Third, it relies on misrepresenting the content of the Quran, by claiming verses say things they do not say, by inserting extra words into verses, and taking absurd liberties with interpretation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/11#11]

= Misrepresenting Historical Military Strategy =

In even the most aggressive military campaign, there are appropriate times to make peace or negotiate some form of ceasefire. For example Genghis Khan, one of the most violent and aggressive people in the history of warfare, went to some effort to project a promise that any city who surrendered to him would be spared, while any city that fought him would be destroyed. There are two fundamental reasons for this. The first is that dead men pay no taxes. If you want to rapidly build a large, profitable empire, the only way to do so is to capture a large population, alive. Second, slaughtering everyone tends to unite and motivate your opponents. If everyone is convinced you will slaughter them regardless of what they do, they will abandon previous hostilities with each other and unite against a common threat, then fight to the death to stop you, even when it seems that death on the battlefield is inevitable. It is much better to give them the option of surviving if they surrender without a fight, and even join you in the ongoing plunder (something that Genghis, as well as most other historical empire builders did to great effect). This doctrine is a natural extension of the divide and conquer strategy.

Muhammad made a few, very limited suggestions to do the same. Unlike most other empires, he imposed religious as well as financial obligations on those who surrendered. That is, they must convert to Islam in a religious sense, submit to rule by Muslims under religious shariah law, as well as pay religious taxes (to the empire, of course). The tactic chosen by Muhammad depended largely on relative military strength. Where the opposition was weakest, Muhammad tended to prefer slaughter without any options for survival. Where the opposition was formidable and well defended, he naturally preferred a negotiated outcome.
Muslims falsely portray this as Muhammad encouraging or preferring peace in a generalised sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
Muslims will even claim that the self-defence doctrine was adopted by almost every empire on earth, and that this being the norm, a resurgent Islamic State would inevitably follow the same example.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]

== Definition of Just War ==

Muslims will claim that “just war” literally means only in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
However, self-defence is only part of the typical conception of just war, and by itself is a gross simplification (yet still too complex for Muhammad to communicate in the Quran). For example, it becomes meaningless without a doctrine of proportionality, otherwise even a trivial act of aggression on the part of an enemy can be used to claim self-defence – a practice often exploited by Muhammad whenever one of his own treaties became inconvenient for him. The early history of Islam is littered with other groups (Jews, mostly) violating treaties (whose textual content has conveniently been lost to history) and paying dearly for their treachery.

The suggestion that the Quran can communicate a doctrine of just war without even a cursory discussion of proportionality or what self-defence means, or even mentioning self-defence, is absurd.

Muslim scholars (eg, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi) who eschew an Islamic just war doctrine, often cite failure to accept Islam after it has been revealed as a just cause for war. The Quran reinforces this.

= Misrepresenting Muhammad’s Actions =

Muslims will argue that Muhammad’s actions were entirely consistent with a just war doctrine based only on self-defence. They will justify this claim by citing an example of Muhammad refraining from slaughtering a “severely weakened” opponent and agreeing to concessions with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/128#128] His opponent at the time, the city of Mecca, which Muhammad was trying to gain entry to, was at the time more powerful than Muhammad’s army.

== A brief History of Muhammad’s Militant Aggression ==

See also: [[Political_History_of_Islam|Political History of Islam]]

Muhammad started out preaching in Mecca. The Meccan verses in the Quran tend to be less violent, and Muhammad was largely unsuccessful in recruiting people to his religion. Muhammad’s own tribe managed the Kaaba, a prominent pagan shrine, which was very lucrative for them. Muhammad preached against them. He eventually fled Mecca in fear of his life.

=== Muhammad's career of Murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods ===

He ended up in Medina, where he formed a militia and started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering traders. This is often justified by Muslims with the following excuses:
* Only the original Muslims who fled Mecca and were thus wronged by the Meccans took part in murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods. Muslims will even back this up with a link to a wikipedia article clearly saying the opposite. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/160#160]
* Muhammad was merely taking revenge for the Meccan emigrants. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/132#132]
* Muhammad only ever killed people in self defence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad was leading a nation when he fled Mecca and a state of war thus existed from then until he started murdering Meccan traders. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/167#167]
* There must be a different definition for nation in 7th century Arabia. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was only concerned for the welfare of 'his people'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad only ever killed people to survive. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Mecca was the only commercial centre in the area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* The people of Medina were non-farmers in a farming area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* It was the only option Muslims had for survival. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Murder and bloodlust were not the 'primary' objective of the raids. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was under political pressure from his followers to take revenge. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* They were not allowed to trade in Mecca. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Muhammad first raided Meccan traders and stole their goods within a year of fleeing Medina. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150]

These are all either lies or cynical, self serving spin. They go a long way to explaining why any conflicts in the middle east or north Africa (the footprint of the original Caliphate) tend to spiral out of control. Islam creates a culture of hysterical over-reaction and constant victimhood mongering, which is seen in nearly all Muslims, including converts from a liberal, western background. Adopting this over-reaction and victimhood mongering is the only way for western converts to accept the many and various moral crimes committed by Muhammad.

The truth is that only 45 people fled Mecca with Muhammad, including men, women and children, in 622. This was the size of his flock after 12 years of preaching the more peaceful version of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/169#169]
They were successfully integrated into a very large community in Medina. It was not until 624 that they managed to steal anything or kill any people. Muhammad's first caravan raid had only 6 people and failed. By March 624, Muhammad was able to kill more Meccans in a single raid than the total number of 'oppressed' Muslims from Mecca on whose behalf he was supposedly exacting revenge. Both Meccan emigrants and Medina locals participated from the first murder and theft. From his first successful raid, Muhammad's wealth, power and prestige grew until he was able to march on Mecca with ten thousand warriors in 630. Muhammad died eight years after first spilling blood in the name of Islam and receiving spoils of war. He managed to carve out a large nation in that time, turning what was a multicultural, multireligious society without any centralised government into a violent and oppressive dictatorship imposing Islamic monoculture by slaughtering innocent people. All, according to Muslims, in an act of self defence.

Muslims will flip back and forth between the two most common excuses: justifying the murders and theft as an act of self defence, and as a just act of war in response to Meccan oppression (rather than criminal theft and murder). However, modern just war doctrines that are based on self-defence specifically exclude revenge or ‘stealing property back’ as a justification for war, as this would make it inevitable that even the smallest feuds escalate to armed conflict.

=== Muhammad's campaign to get rid of Medina's Jewish tribes ===

Muhammad became more popular as his militia became more successful and profitable. However, three large tribes of Jews remained in Medina and stood between Muhammad and absolute authority over the city. Muhammad tended to have little success converting Jews, despite initially seeing them as natural allies. In addition, the pagans of Medina were somewhat hostile towards Mecca, born of jealousy over the Kaaba and the central role that Mecca played in Arab paganism, while the Jewish tribes had significant trade links with Mecca. It was at this time that Muhammad instructed Muslims to pray towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem, making pagan Mecca rather than the traditional Abrahamic centres the focal point of his religion.

This public address by Muhammad is what counts as diplomacy for a Muslim:

''"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."''

The Quraysh were Muhammad’s own tribe from Mecca. Muhammad’s militia had recently had their first large scale victory against them. This address, made by Muhammad in a market place in 624, was one of the earliest expressions of Muhammad’s “convert or die” doctrine. Muhammad proceeded to get rid of the three large tribes, one by one.

The first tribe to fall victim to Muhammad were the Banu Qaynuqa, shortly after Muhammad's address to them in the marketplace. According to Islamic traditions, a Banu Qaynuqa goldsmith assaulted a Muslim woman, causing her to be stripped naked. He was killed by a Muslim, which sparked a series of revenge killings. Muhammad expelled the entire tribe from Medina as punishment – another clear rejection of the concept of proportionality.

There were now two large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad assassinated the chief of one of them (the Banu-Nadir), who had written erotic poetry about Muslim women, then expelled them about a year later and seized their property.
By this stage Muhammad was creating a large number of enemies, so he set about attacking smaller groups of Arabs outside of Medina to prevent his enemies uniting.

Eventually the Meccans came to attack Medina, but ended up retreating without a fight. They were allied with the last of the three Jewish tribes in Medina. Afterwards, Muhammad was instructed by an angel to lay siege to the tribe. They surrendered without a fight and were taken prisoner. Muhammad executed every adult male (those with pubic hair) in the tribe, totaling approximately 800 victims. A small number, perhaps two, who converted to Islam were spared. Again, doctrines of just war that are based on self-defence forbid the execution of POWs (Prisoners of War). In order to spread perceived blame and reduce the risk of rebellion over his harsh actions, Muhammad had some of the Jews’ previous allies pass the judgement and conduct many of the executions.

Muhammad then attacked the Jewish community of Kaybar where many of the Banu Nadir had sought refuge. Muhammad ordered the torture of the Banu Nadir treasurer to force him to reveal the location of their gold. Muhammad then decapitated him and later took his wife as a concubine. Muhammad took possession of all their land, but allowed them to continued farming it on condition that they pay 50% of their produce as a tax. After Muhammad’s death they were expelled by Caliph Umar as part of a broader campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Muhammad then negotiated a 10 year treaty with Mecca that allowed Muslims to make pilgrimage to the pagan Kaaba. Two years later, some Meccans apparently violated it. Although Muslim scholars often cite an official declaration of war as a requirement of Islamic just war, Muhammad marched on Mecca with as much secrecy as possible, not even telling his own companions what his plans were, and attempting to give the impression had had an alternative target. The Meccans were actively trying to renegotiate peace, but Muhammad ignored their efforts.

With the exception of a single minor skirmish, the Meccas surrendered without a fight. Muhammad destroyed all pagan idols except for the Kaaba itself and rapidly Islamised Mecca.

Having captured Mecca, the Muslims were now the dominant force on the Arabian peninsula. Muhammad adopted an even more aggressive military strategy, sending out many raids to destroy competing religious sites and slaughter non-Muslims, mostly pagans. He captured most of the peninsula in the short time between capturing Mecca and his death. Non-Muslims were banned from Mecca, which until that point had been a focal point of pagan worship and pilgrimage for the entire peninsula. All treaties were abrogated. Muslim sources acknowledge that Muhammad in effect declared total war against pagans.

Following his death, Muslim rulers expanded the empire rapidly. Muslim commanders were under general instructions to accept the surrender of cities on the condition that they accepted Islam, Muslim rule and paid religious taxes to the empire. Within a century they created the largest land empire that had ever existed.

To insist that this was all done in self-defence is an exercise in absurdity.

= Misrepresenting the Quran =

The Quran promotes and justifies violence. This is not a few scattered verses, but is a dominant theme in the Quran. Whole chapters are devoted to it. For example, chapter 9 is devoted, from start to finish, to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Paying religious taxes to support the war effort is also a dominant theme, with a common refrain being to “fight with your life and your wealth”. Other chapters that heavily promote violence and aggressive warfare are chapter 2, 3, 4 and 8

== Quran never mentions self-defence ==

Muslims will make the absurd argument that the Quran does not use the term self-defence because it was written in Arabic, not English. That is, they will literally use the fact that self-defence is written in English to justify its absence from the Quran (you do not misunderstand, it really is that stupid). However no English translations use the term either. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will also claim that the Quran “clearly explains” the concept of self-defence without mentioning the term, without any textual justification for the claim
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/225#225]
or citing for example Quran 22.39-40:
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

''Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged... [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ."''

However, this is actually a direct contradiction of the self-defence doctrine. Waging war as revenge for past wrongs (because they were wronged…) is explicitly excluded from any legitimate just war doctrine that is based on self-defence. The verse in question was used by Muhammad when initially forming his first militia in Medina, which he used to rob Meccan caravans and murder Meccan traders, by justifying it as revenge for his mistreatment in Mecca.
Muslims will also argue that this verse is “clearly specifying who (and only who) fighting against is given permission to”. This is effectively inserting the word “only” into the Quran. The Quran offers many reasons for going to war. Not only are none of these reasons stated or implied to be the “only” reason, it simply does not make sense that a particular reason is the only permissible one when other reasons (eg mocking Islam) are also given.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]

Muslims will also argue that verses in the Koran permit war "only" against people that Muslims have peace treaties with that they are actively violating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/129#129] Not only does this contradict other examples of the "only" conditions in which war is permitted, it leaves out an explicit reference to self defence and is a clear contradiction of Muhammad's behaviour. Some of the 'violations' used by Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs to abandon treaties and slaughter the infidel were trivial at best, while other reasons had nothing at all to do with treaties.

The Quran commands Muslims to slaughter the infidel repeatedly, only occasionally placing genuine limitations on it – eg where there is a peace treaty, unless there is some kind of trivial violation of the treaty. These verses were always conveniently revealed when Muhammad needed to motivate his followers to mobilise for war yet again, and for the most part Muslims correctly interpret them as motivational rather than as some poorly explained rule or restriction. Where restrictions such as following peace treaties are genuinely intended, the Quran states them clearly and explicitly, not as a riddle or a blank slate for filling in the gaps with whatever new moral imperatives Muslims pick up from non-Muslim legal theorists.

Muslims will also cite Quran 8:61 as a “clear” explanation of what self-defence means: [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/185#185]

''And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.''

However the only interpretation of this verse that is consistent with Muhammad’s actions is that Muslims are to spare those who surrender without a fight (and accept Muslim rule, shariah law, and religious taxes to the Islamic state). It is certainly not a clear explanation that war is only permitted in self-defence. At the very least, it does not limit warfare to self-defence, as the verse is entirely consistent with the historical military practice (among the more aggressive empire builders) of slaughtering anyone who fights back and sparing groups who surrender without a fight and agree to whatever terms are offered.

Other, even more vague verses are also used as “clear explanations”, however they all put the onus on the infidel to make peace. Not a single one puts the onus on Muslims to seek out peace, though countless verses urge them to violence, often without qualification. Not a single one stipulates self defence as the only justification for war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will attempt to argue that Quran 60:8 states that Muslims are only permitted to engage in war as an act of self-defence. However it merely states that Muslims are not explicitly forbidden from being nice to people who do not attack Muslims – they are merely forbidden from being ‘allies’ with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

''60:8 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
60:9 Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.''

== Context ==

Muslims will complain that quoting chapter 9 in its entirety is actually taking it out of context, because it does not quote the entire Quran at once, thus leaving out all the other verses that (apparently) state that war must only be fought in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/90#90]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/92#92]

Those same Muslims will then make the absurd claim that chapter 9 of the Quran reveals a self-defence doctrine. For example, claiming that 9:4 states that fighting is only permitted against those who violate oaths.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

In order to make this claim, verse 5 must be omitted, because it clearly states that Muslims are to slaughter the infidel wherever they find them (unless they convert to Islam and pay religious taxes to the Islamic State). Thus, it is deliberately taking the verse out of context. It is also a misrepresentation of verse 4. Verse 4 does not state that violating oaths is the only permitted justification for war. Rather, it says that Muslims should not violate an existing peace treaty (one of the rare occasions that the Quran actually places limitations on slaughtering the infidel). And of course, ‘violating oaths’ is a caveat on this – again no concept of proportionality is invoked. The smallest violation of a treaty can be used as justification for slaughtering the other party, if it suits the interests of the Islamic State. Thus, Muslims pretend that a caveat on a caveat to the general rule of slaughtering the infidel wherever you find them as actually presented as the only condition for slaughtering the infidel.

This is what verse 4 and 5 actually states:

''9:4. Except those of the Mushrikun [infidel] with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).''

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

Muslims will also claim that verse 13 of chapter 9 states that Muslims should only slaughter the infidel if the infidel attacks Muslims first. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71] Again, what the verse actually states is very different. Also, the preceding verse cites criticism of Islam as an example of an attack and a justification for slaughtering the infidel.

''9:12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).
9:13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
9:14. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people''

For clarity, Mushriken means infidel and Makkah is an alternative spelling of Mecca.

These verses were revealed after Muhammad captured Mecca, banned pagans, abrogated all treaties and set about capturing the rest of the Arabian peninsula. The “attack you first” bit appears to be a reference to the earlier Meccan attack on Medina, which was followed by a peace treaty and then by Muhammad marching on Mecca despite the Meccans suing for peace. It is a reference to a past event being used as a retaliation justification, and clearly not, as some Muslims will attempt to argue, an instruction that the infidel must attack first. Again, just war doctrines based on self-defence specifically exclude retaliation for past wrongs as justifications for war, as it destroys the meaning of the self-defence doctrine.

The Muslims at the time were afraid that Muhammad’s aggressive actions, especially seizing the Kaaba and bringing an end to a long standing pagan tradition of peaceful, inclusive pilgrimage, would unite their enemies against them, and also test the allegiance of recent converts who were now being instructed to kill their friends, families and old allies. (See: islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=11 and discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/05/the-sword-verse-surah-913-24/). It is about as far removed from a self-defence doctrine as it is possible to get, yet still cited by Muslims as a Quranic example of the self-defence doctrine.

Muslims will quote half of a verse from chapter 9 of the Koran to make it appear a general command to maintain peace with non-Muslims, but leave out the first half of the verse which makes it clear that it is a reference to people with whom Muslims have a peace treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/124#124]

== Oppression ==

Muslims will claim that Quran 2:193 specifies the only conditions under which war may be fought.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/274#274]

They make this claim, even while quoting the verse, which says to slaughter the infidel until they convert to Islam and until there is no more fitnah (rebellion, presumably against Muslim rule):

''2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Other translations use words like polytheist and disbeliever instead of oppressor and fitnah. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/127#127] These translations come across as far more internally consistent. It is misleading to imply that Muslims in the 7th century had the same concept of oppression that we do today.

The key misrepresentation here is taking extraordinary liberties with the words “cease”. Although it would logically be a reference to what comes before – paganism and rejecting shariah law, Muslims will attempt to construe this verse as only permitting war against oppression.

Muslims cannot offer any kind of explanation as to what the verse means by oppression.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/15#15]

Islam entirely rejects any concept of individual personal liberty. In this context, oppression does not have a clear meaning. The very same verse that apparently calls for Muslims to fight oppression begins by calling on Muslims to slaughter the infidel until worship is only for Allah – hinting for example at denial of basic religious freedom. Several other verses in the Quran as well as Hadith reinforce this concept: that only Allah has the right to be worshiped and that jihad is to continue towards this goal. Muhammad’s own actions also reinforce this rejection of religious freedom.

For example, prior to Islam, Mecca and the Kaaba were a centre for pagan religious pilgrimage, where the pagans would annually set aside their differences and come together in peace to practice their various faiths. As soon as Muhammad gained control of it, he destroyed all the pagan monuments, Islamised the Kaaba, banned all non-Muslims from Mecca, and used Mecca and Medina as bases from which to slaughter pagans and destroy competing religious monuments across the Arabian peninsula – about as clear an example of oppression as you can get. The actions of the Meccans immediately prior to Muhammad marching on Mecca – trying to negotiate for the peace treaty with Medina to remain in place, including provisions for religious freedom and for Muslims to be able to join the pagan pilgrimage to Mecca, are the opposite of oppression, and particularly generous given Muhammad’s previous lengthy career robbing Meccan caravans and murdering traders.

The Quran never explains what is meant by oppression, but the examples given suggest that anything short of submission is to be considered intolerable. Chapter 9, verse 12 cites criticism of Islam as a form of attack in the context of justifying bloodshed. Limited religious freedom was only extended to “people of the book”. That is, Christians and Jews – provided they accepted living as second class citizens.
Muslims will attempt to claim that examples from other chapters of the Quran of what modern, liberal minded people would identify as oppression is actually a clear explanation of what this particular verse means by oppression. However, the Quran never gives an explanation or even description of what oppression means.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]

Muslims will also feign an inability to comprehend the difference between describing, elsewhere in the Quran, a situation that a modern reader identifies as oppression and actually clarifying what this particular verse or any other verse means by oppression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/19#19] Even if the verse is intended to mean fight until there is no more oppression, the fact that Muhammad was the greatest oppressor of the time still destroys any potential for meaning.

Muslims will also employ a peculiar circular logic here by insisting that by always putting the onus on non-Muslims to seek out peace and always putting the onus on Muslims to wage Jihad, the Quran must be referring to a self-defence doctrine because it is always up the aggressor in conflict to cease aggression in order to achieve peace, therefor the Quran must mean that the non-Muslim is the aggressor. This is an extension of the typical victimhood mentality that always portrays Muslims as not being responsible for the violent conflict they find themselves in, even if they happen to build the largest land empire the world had ever seen in only 100 years.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/17#17]

== Proportionality ==

Muslims will argue that a verse that explicitly instructs Muslims to commit acts of evil in retribution is a doctrine of proportionality. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/49#49] Apparently, the following verse is the closest that the Quran comes to a doctrine of proportionality in war, despite devoting many chapters to promoting and justifying war:

42:40 ''And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah . Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.''

42:41 ''And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].''

The context of this verse is not war. It is an "eye for an eye" verse. Just war doctrines specifically exclude retribution as a justification for war.

== When the Koran does impose self defence and proportionality ==

The Quran does clearly impose a doctrine of both self defence and proportionality, albeit a little simplistically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/126#126][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/75#77] Despite the clear and unambiguous statement, this verse of the Quran is not used by Muslims seeking to build a case for Islam's just war doctrine, because it limits the restriction to Islam's holy months.

2:194 ''During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe God and know that God is with the righteous.''

This is the "exception that proves the rule". That is, the only reason the Quran needs to specify this exception during the holy months is because it explicitly encourages hostile and aggressive warfare at other times. It also demonstrates the absurdity of the elaborate "re-interpretations" that are necessary in order to read a just war doctrine into other verses of the Quran. The examples provided above were not cherry-picked for their hollowness. They were the best examples provided.

Muslims will attempt to argue that verse 2:194 is a reference to some kind of domestic fighting rather than warfare,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/316#136]
even after arguing that preceding verse (which calls on Muslims to convert people by the sword) is in fact a reference to a just war doctrine of self defence and proportionality.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/297#297]

2:193 ''Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Consider also this verse calling for the slaughter of non-Muslims outside of the hold months:

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

= Justifying Lies about the Quran =

Muslims often cite the potential benefit of ‘positive misinterpretations’ or white lies about the Quran as helping to make Muslims more peaceful. However, they cannot stop Muslims from picking up the Quran, reading it for themselves, and discovering what it actually says. In fact, Islam commands them to do exactly this, and explicitly forbids misrepresenting the Quran.

Thus these misinterpretations only serve to deceive non-Muslims. This is particularly true in the case of just war doctrine. Those who misrepresent the Quran’s key messages on war will never find themselves in charge of a Muslim army waging holy war. Thus it only serves to encourage naivete in non-Muslims seeking to understand religiously motivated violence. It create a blind spot, for example in anticipating the number of Muslims from western countries like to travel to or support ISIS, and encourages ineffective responses to the problems. For example, the opinion of a non-Muslim political leader on the Quran’s true message, no matter how sincere, progressive or well-communicated, will never hold any weight with a conservative Muslim considering holy war who is capable of reading the Quran for himself.

Deception and the Just War Doctrine

2018-03-11T00:21:06Z

Freediver: /* A brief History of Muhammad’s Militant Aggression */

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

[[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]

= Islam’s Just War Doctrine is a Lie =

Muslims often promote the view that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war. That is, war is only permissible in self-defence. This is a blatant lie. It is based on three broad misrepresentations. First, it relies on the implication or assumption that in military strategy, anything short of slaughtering everyone in your path is self-defence. Second, it relies on misrepresenting Muhammad’s actions as being consistent with a self-defence doctrine. Third, it relies on misrepresenting the content of the Quran, by claiming verses say things they do not say, by inserting extra words into verses, and taking absurd liberties with interpretation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/11#11]

= Misrepresenting Historical Military Strategy =

In even the most aggressive military campaign, there are appropriate times to make peace or negotiate some form of ceasefire. For example Genghis Khan, one of the most violent and aggressive people in the history of warfare, went to some effort to project a promise that any city who surrendered to him would be spared, while any city that fought him would be destroyed. There are two fundamental reasons for this. The first is that dead men pay no taxes. If you want to rapidly build a large, profitable empire, the only way to do so is to capture a large population, alive. Second, slaughtering everyone tends to unite and motivate your opponents. If everyone is convinced you will slaughter them regardless of what they do, they will abandon previous hostilities with each other and unite against a common threat, then fight to the death to stop you, even when it seems that death on the battlefield is inevitable. It is much better to give them the option of surviving if they surrender without a fight, and even join you in the ongoing plunder (something that Genghis, as well as most other historical empire builders did to great effect). This doctrine is a natural extension of the divide and conquer strategy.

Muhammad made a few, very limited suggestions to do the same. Unlike most other empires, he imposed religious as well as financial obligations on those who surrendered. That is, they must convert to Islam in a religious sense, submit to rule by Muslims under religious shariah law, as well as pay religious taxes (to the empire, of course). The tactic chosen by Muhammad depended largely on relative military strength. Where the opposition was weakest, Muhammad tended to prefer slaughter without any options for survival. Where the opposition was formidable and well defended, he naturally preferred a negotiated outcome.
Muslims falsely portray this as Muhammad encouraging or preferring peace in a generalised sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
Muslims will even claim that the self-defence doctrine was adopted by almost every empire on earth, and that this being the norm, a resurgent Islamic State would inevitably follow the same example.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]

== Definition of Just War ==

Muslims will claim that “just war” literally means only in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
However, self-defence is only part of the typical conception of just war, and by itself is a gross simplification (yet still too complex for Muhammad to communicate in the Quran). For example, it becomes meaningless without a doctrine of proportionality, otherwise even a trivial act of aggression on the part of an enemy can be used to claim self-defence – a practice often exploited by Muhammad whenever one of his own treaties became inconvenient for him. The early history of Islam is littered with other groups (Jews, mostly) violating treaties (whose textual content has conveniently been lost to history) and paying dearly for their treachery.

The suggestion that the Quran can communicate a doctrine of just war without even a cursory discussion of proportionality or what self-defence means, or even mentioning self-defence, is absurd.

Muslim scholars (eg, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi) who eschew an Islamic just war doctrine, often cite failure to accept Islam after it has been revealed as a just cause for war. The Quran reinforces this.

= Misrepresenting Muhammad’s Actions =

Muslims will argue that Muhammad’s actions were entirely consistent with a just war doctrine based only on self-defence. They will justify this claim by citing an example of Muhammad refraining from slaughtering a “severely weakened” opponent and agreeing to concessions with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/128#128] His opponent at the time, the city of Mecca, which Muhammad was trying to gain entry to, was at the time more powerful than Muhammad’s army.

== A brief History of Muhammad’s Militant Aggression ==

See also: [[Political_History_of_Islam|Political History of Islam]]

Muhammad started out preaching in Mecca. The Meccan verses in the Quran tend to be less violent, and Muhammad was largely unsuccessful in recruiting people to his religion. Muhammad’s own tribe managed the Kaaba, a prominent pagan shrine, which was very lucrative for them. Muhammad preached against them. He eventually fled Mecca in fear of his life.

=== Muhammad's career of Murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods ===

He ended up in Medina, where he formed a militia and started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering traders. This is often justified by Muslims with the following excuses:
* Only the original Muslims who fled Mecca and were thus wronged by the Meccans took part in murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods. Muslims will even back this up with a link to a wikipedia article clearly saying the opposite. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/160#160]
* Muhammad was merely taking revenge for the Meccan emigrants. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/132#132]
* Muhammad only ever killed people in self defence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad was leading a nation when he fled Mecca and a state of war thus existed from then until he started murdering Meccan traders. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/167#167]
* There must be a different definition for nation in 7th century Arabia. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was only concerned for the welfare of 'his people'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad only ever killed people to survive. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Mecca was the only commercial centre in the area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* The people of Medina were non-farmers in a farming area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* It was the only option Muslims had for survival. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Murder and bloodlust were not the 'primary' objective of the raids. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was under political pressure from his followers to take revenge. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* They were not allowed to trade in Mecca. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Muhammad first raided Meccan traders and stole their goods within a year of fleeing Medina. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150]

These are all either lies or cynical, self serving spin. They go a long way to explaining why any conflicts in the middle east or north Africa (the footprint of the original Caliphate) tend to spiral out of control. Islam creates a culture of hysterical over-reaction and constant victimhood mongering, which is seen in nearly all Muslims, including converts from a liberal, western background. Adopting this over-reaction and victimhood mongering is the only way for western converts to accept the many and various moral crimes committed by Muhammad.

The truth is that only 45 people fled Mecca with Muhammad, including men, women and children, in 622. This was the size of his flock after 12 years of preaching the more peaceful version of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/169#169]
They were successfully integrated into a very large community in Medina. It was not until 624 that they managed to steal anything or kill any people. Muhammad's first caravan raid had only 6 people and failed. By March 624, Muhammad was able to kill more Meccans in a single raid than the total number of 'oppressed' Muslims from Mecca on whose behalf he was supposedly exacting revenge. Both Meccan emigrants and Medina locals participated from the first murder and theft. From his first successful raid, Muhammad's wealth, power and prestige grew until he was able to march on Mecca with ten thousand warriors in 630. Muhammad died eight years after first spilling blood in the name of Islam and receiving spoils of war. He managed to carve out a large nation in that time, turning what was a multicultural, multireligious society without any centralised government into a violent and oppressive dictatorship imposing Islamic monoculture by slaughtering innocent people. All, according to Muslims, in an act of self defence.

Muslims will flip back and forth between the two most common excuses: justifying the murders and theft as an act of self defence, and as a just act of war in response to Meccan oppression (rather than criminal theft and murder). However, modern just war doctrines that are based on self-defence specifically exclude revenge or ‘stealing property back’ as a justification for war, as this would make it inevitable that even the smallest feuds escalate to armed conflict.

=== Muhammad's campaign to get rid of Medina's Jewish tribes ===

Muhammad became more popular as his militia became more successful and profitable. However, three large tribes of Jews remained in Medina and stood between Muhammad and absolute authority over the city. Muhammad tended to have little success converting Jews, despite initially seeing them as natural allies. In addition, the pagans of Medina were somewhat hostile towards Mecca, born of jealousy over the Kaaba and the central role that Mecca played in Arab paganism, while the Jewish tribes had significant trade links with Mecca. It was at this time that Muhammad instructed Muslims to pray towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem, making pagan Mecca rather than the traditional Abrahamic centres the focal point of his religion.

This public address by Muhammad is what counts as diplomacy for a Muslim:

''"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."''

The Quraysh were Muhammad’s own tribe from Mecca. Muhammad’s militia had recently had their first large scale victory against them. This address, made by Muhammad in a market place in 624, was one of the earliest expressions of Muhammad’s “convert or die” doctrine. Muhammad proceeded to get rid of the three large tribes, one by one.

The first tribe to fall victim to Muhammad were the Banu Qaynuqa, shortly after Muhammad's address to them in the marketplace. According to Islamic traditions, a Banu Qaynuqa goldsmith assaulted a Muslim woman, causing her to be stripped naked. He was killed by a Muslim, which sparked a series of revenge killings. Muhammad expelled the entire tribe from Medina as punishment – another clear rejection of the concept of proportionality.

There were now two large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad assassinated the chief of one of them (the Banu-Nadir), who had written erotic poetry about Muslim women, then expelled them about a year later and seized their property.
By this stage Muhammad was creating a large number of enemies, so he set about attacking smaller groups of Arabs outside of Medina to prevent his enemies uniting.

Eventually the Meccans came to attack Medina, but ended up retreating without a fight. They were allied with the last of the three Jewish tribes in Medina. Afterwards, Muhammad was instructed by an angel to lay siege to the tribe. They surrendered without a fight and were taken prisoner. Muhammad executed every adult male (those with pubic hair) in the tribe, totaling approximately 800 victims. A small number, perhaps two, who converted to Islam were spared. Again, doctrines of just war that are based on self-defence forbid the execution of POWs (Prisoners of War). In order to spread perceived blame and reduce the risk of rebellion over his harsh actions, Muhammad had some of the Jews’ previous allies pass the judgement and conduct many of the executions.

Muhammad then attacked the Jewish community of Kaybar where many of the Banu Nadir had sought refuge. Muhammad ordered the torture of the Banu Nadir treasurer to force him to reveal the location of their gold. Muhammad then decapitated him and later took his wife as a concubine. Muhammad took possession of all their land, but allowed them to continued farming it on condition that they pay 50% of their produce as a tax. After Muhammad’s death they were expelled by Caliph Umar as part of a broader campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Muhammad then negotiated a 10 year treaty with Mecca that allowed Muslims to make pilgrimage to the pagan Kaaba. Two years later, some Meccans apparently violated it. Although Muslim scholars often cite an official declaration of war as a requirement of Islamic just war, Muhammad marched on Mecca with as much secrecy as possible, not even telling his own companions what his plans were, and attempting to give the impression had had an alternative target. The Meccans were actively trying to renegotiate peace, but Muhammad ignored their efforts.

With the exception of a single minor skirmish, the Meccas surrendered without a fight. Muhammad destroyed all pagan idols except for the Kaaba itself and rapidly Islamised Mecca.

Having captured Mecca, the Muslims were now the dominant force on the Arabian peninsula. Muhammad adopted an even more aggressive military strategy, sending out many raids to destroy competing religious sites and slaughter non-Muslims, mostly pagans. He captured most of the peninsula in the short time between capturing Mecca and his death. Non-Muslims were banned from Mecca, which until that point had been a focal point of pagan worship and pilgrimage for the entire peninsula. All treaties were abrogated. Muslim sources acknowledge that Muhammad in effect declared total war against pagans.

Following his death, Muslim rulers expanded the empire rapidly. Muslim commanders were under general instructions to accept the surrender of cities on the condition that they accepted Islam, Muslim rule and paid religious taxes to the empire. Within a century they created the largest land empire that had ever existed.

To insist that this was all done in self-defence is an exercise in absurdity.

= Misrepresenting the Quran =

The Quran promotes and justifies violence. This is not a few scattered verses, but is a dominant theme in the Quran. Whole chapters are devoted to it. For example, chapter 9 is devoted, from start to finish, to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Paying religious taxes to support the war effort is also a dominant theme, with a common refrain being to “fight with your life and your wealth”. Other chapters that heavily promote violence and aggressive warfare are chapter 2, 3, 4 and 8

== Quran never mentions self-defence ==

Muslims will make the absurd argument that the Quran does not use the term self-defence because it was written in Arabic, not English. That is, they will literally use the fact that self-defence is written in English to justify its absence from the Quran (you do not misunderstand, it really is that stupid). However no English translations use the term either. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will also claim that the Quran “clearly explains” the concept of self-defence without mentioning the term, without any textual justification for the claim
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/225#225]
or citing for example Quran 22.39-40:
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

''Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged... [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ."''

However, this is actually a direct contradiction of the self-defence doctrine. Waging war as revenge for past wrongs (because they were wronged…) is explicitly excluded from any legitimate just war doctrine that is based on self-defence. The verse in question was used by Muhammad when initially forming his first militia in Medina, which he used to rob Meccan caravans and murder Meccan traders, by justifying it as revenge for his mistreatment in Mecca.
Muslims will also argue that this verse is “clearly specifying who (and only who) fighting against is given permission to”. This is effectively inserting the word “only” into the Quran. The Quran offers many reasons for going to war. Not only are none of these reasons stated or implied to be the “only” reason, it simply does not make sense that a particular reason is the only permissible one when other reasons (eg mocking Islam) are also given.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]

Muslims will also argue that verses in the Koran permit war "only" against people that Muslims have peace treaties with that they are actively violating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/129#129] Not only does this contradict other examples of the "only" conditions in which war is permitted, it leaves out an explicit reference to self defence and is a clear contradiction of Muhammad's behaviour. Some of the 'violations' used by Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs to abandon treaties and slaughter the infidel were trivial at best, while other reasons had nothing at all to do with treaties.

The Quran commands Muslims to slaughter the infidel repeatedly, only occasionally placing genuine limitations on it – eg where there is a peace treaty, unless there is some kind of trivial violation of the treaty. These verses were always conveniently revealed when Muhammad needed to motivate his followers to mobilise for war yet again, and for the most part Muslims correctly interpret them as motivational rather than as some poorly explained rule or restriction. Where restrictions such as following peace treaties are genuinely intended, the Quran states them clearly and explicitly, not as a riddle or a blank slate for filling in the gaps with whatever new moral imperatives Muslims pick up from non-Muslim legal theorists.

Muslims will also cite Quran 8:61 as a “clear” explanation of what self-defence means:

''And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.''

However the only interpretation of this verse that is consistent with Muhammad’s actions is that Muslims are to spare those who surrender without a fight (and accept Muslim rule, shariah law, and religious taxes to the Islamic state). It is certainly not a clear explanation that war is only permitted in self-defence. At the very least, it does not limit warfare to self-defence, as the verse is entirely consistent with the historical military practice (among the more aggressive empire builders) of slaughtering anyone who fights back and sparing groups who surrender without a fight and agree to whatever terms are offered.

Other, even more vague verses are also used as “clear explanations”, however they all put the onus on the infidel to make peace. Not a single one puts the onus on Muslims to seek out peace, though countless verses urge them to violence, often without qualification. Not a single one stipulates self defence as the only justification for war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will attempt to argue that Quran 60:8 states that Muslims are only permitted to engage in war as an act of self-defence. However it merely states that Muslims are not explicitly forbidden from being nice to people who do not attack Muslims – they are merely forbidden from being ‘allies’ with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

''60:8 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
60:9 Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.''

== Context ==

Muslims will complain that quoting chapter 9 in its entirety is actually taking it out of context, because it does not quote the entire Quran at once, thus leaving out all the other verses that (apparently) state that war must only be fought in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/90#90]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/92#92]

Those same Muslims will then make the absurd claim that chapter 9 of the Quran reveals a self-defence doctrine. For example, claiming that 9:4 states that fighting is only permitted against those who violate oaths.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

In order to make this claim, verse 5 must be omitted, because it clearly states that Muslims are to slaughter the infidel wherever they find them (unless they convert to Islam and pay religious taxes to the Islamic State). Thus, it is deliberately taking the verse out of context. It is also a misrepresentation of verse 4. Verse 4 does not state that violating oaths is the only permitted justification for war. Rather, it says that Muslims should not violate an existing peace treaty (one of the rare occasions that the Quran actually places limitations on slaughtering the infidel). And of course, ‘violating oaths’ is a caveat on this – again no concept of proportionality is invoked. The smallest violation of a treaty can be used as justification for slaughtering the other party, if it suits the interests of the Islamic State. Thus, Muslims pretend that a caveat on a caveat to the general rule of slaughtering the infidel wherever you find them as actually presented as the only condition for slaughtering the infidel.

This is what verse 4 and 5 actually states:

''9:4. Except those of the Mushrikun [infidel] with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).''

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

Muslims will also claim that verse 13 of chapter 9 states that Muslims should only slaughter the infidel if the infidel attacks Muslims first. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71] Again, what the verse actually states is very different. Also, the preceding verse cites criticism of Islam as an example of an attack and a justification for slaughtering the infidel.

''9:12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).
9:13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
9:14. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people''

For clarity, Mushriken means infidel and Makkah is an alternative spelling of Mecca.

These verses were revealed after Muhammad captured Mecca, banned pagans, abrogated all treaties and set about capturing the rest of the Arabian peninsula. The “attack you first” bit appears to be a reference to the earlier Meccan attack on Medina, which was followed by a peace treaty and then by Muhammad marching on Mecca despite the Meccans suing for peace. It is a reference to a past event being used as a retaliation justification, and clearly not, as some Muslims will attempt to argue, an instruction that the infidel must attack first. Again, just war doctrines based on self-defence specifically exclude retaliation for past wrongs as justifications for war, as it destroys the meaning of the self-defence doctrine.

The Muslims at the time were afraid that Muhammad’s aggressive actions, especially seizing the Kaaba and bringing an end to a long standing pagan tradition of peaceful, inclusive pilgrimage, would unite their enemies against them, and also test the allegiance of recent converts who were now being instructed to kill their friends, families and old allies. (See: islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=11 and discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/05/the-sword-verse-surah-913-24/). It is about as far removed from a self-defence doctrine as it is possible to get, yet still cited by Muslims as a Quranic example of the self-defence doctrine.

Muslims will quote half of a verse from chapter 9 of the Koran to make it appear a general command to maintain peace with non-Muslims, but leave out the first half of the verse which makes it clear that it is a reference to people with whom Muslims have a peace treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/124#124]

== Oppression ==

Muslims will claim that Quran 2:193 specifies the only conditions under which war may be fought.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/274#274]

They make this claim, even while quoting the verse, which says to slaughter the infidel until they convert to Islam and until there is no more fitnah (rebellion, presumably against Muslim rule):

''2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Other translations use words like polytheist and disbeliever instead of oppressor and fitnah. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/127#127] These translations come across as far more internally consistent. It is misleading to imply that Muslims in the 7th century had the same concept of oppression that we do today.

The key misrepresentation here is taking extraordinary liberties with the words “cease”. Although it would logically be a reference to what comes before – paganism and rejecting shariah law, Muslims will attempt to construe this verse as only permitting war against oppression.

Muslims cannot offer any kind of explanation as to what the verse means by oppression.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/15#15]

Islam entirely rejects any concept of individual personal liberty. In this context, oppression does not have a clear meaning. The very same verse that apparently calls for Muslims to fight oppression begins by calling on Muslims to slaughter the infidel until worship is only for Allah – hinting for example at denial of basic religious freedom. Several other verses in the Quran as well as Hadith reinforce this concept: that only Allah has the right to be worshiped and that jihad is to continue towards this goal. Muhammad’s own actions also reinforce this rejection of religious freedom.

For example, prior to Islam, Mecca and the Kaaba were a centre for pagan religious pilgrimage, where the pagans would annually set aside their differences and come together in peace to practice their various faiths. As soon as Muhammad gained control of it, he destroyed all the pagan monuments, Islamised the Kaaba, banned all non-Muslims from Mecca, and used Mecca and Medina as bases from which to slaughter pagans and destroy competing religious monuments across the Arabian peninsula – about as clear an example of oppression as you can get. The actions of the Meccans immediately prior to Muhammad marching on Mecca – trying to negotiate for the peace treaty with Medina to remain in place, including provisions for religious freedom and for Muslims to be able to join the pagan pilgrimage to Mecca, are the opposite of oppression, and particularly generous given Muhammad’s previous lengthy career robbing Meccan caravans and murdering traders.

The Quran never explains what is meant by oppression, but the examples given suggest that anything short of submission is to be considered intolerable. Chapter 9, verse 12 cites criticism of Islam as a form of attack in the context of justifying bloodshed. Limited religious freedom was only extended to “people of the book”. That is, Christians and Jews – provided they accepted living as second class citizens.
Muslims will attempt to claim that examples from other chapters of the Quran of what modern, liberal minded people would identify as oppression is actually a clear explanation of what this particular verse means by oppression. However, the Quran never gives an explanation or even description of what oppression means.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]

Muslims will also feign an inability to comprehend the difference between describing, elsewhere in the Quran, a situation that a modern reader identifies as oppression and actually clarifying what this particular verse or any other verse means by oppression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/19#19] Even if the verse is intended to mean fight until there is no more oppression, the fact that Muhammad was the greatest oppressor of the time still destroys any potential for meaning.

Muslims will also employ a peculiar circular logic here by insisting that by always putting the onus on non-Muslims to seek out peace and always putting the onus on Muslims to wage Jihad, the Quran must be referring to a self-defence doctrine because it is always up the aggressor in conflict to cease aggression in order to achieve peace, therefor the Quran must mean that the non-Muslim is the aggressor. This is an extension of the typical victimhood mentality that always portrays Muslims as not being responsible for the violent conflict they find themselves in, even if they happen to build the largest land empire the world had ever seen in only 100 years.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/17#17]

== Proportionality ==

Muslims will argue that a verse that explicitly instructs Muslims to commit acts of evil in retribution is a doctrine of proportionality. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/49#49] Apparently, the following verse is the closest that the Quran comes to a doctrine of proportionality in war, despite devoting many chapters to promoting and justifying war:

42:40 ''And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah . Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.''

42:41 ''And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].''

The context of this verse is not war. It is an "eye for an eye" verse. Just war doctrines specifically exclude retribution as a justification for war.

== When the Koran does impose self defence and proportionality ==

The Quran does clearly impose a doctrine of both self defence and proportionality, albeit a little simplistically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/126#126][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/75#77] Despite the clear and unambiguous statement, this verse of the Quran is not used by Muslims seeking to build a case for Islam's just war doctrine, because it limits the restriction to Islam's holy months.

2:194 ''During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe God and know that God is with the righteous.''

This is the "exception that proves the rule". That is, the only reason the Quran needs to specify this exception during the holy months is because it explicitly encourages hostile and aggressive warfare at other times. It also demonstrates the absurdity of the elaborate "re-interpretations" that are necessary in order to read a just war doctrine into other verses of the Quran. The examples provided above were not cherry-picked for their hollowness. They were the best examples provided.

Muslims will attempt to argue that verse 2:194 is a reference to some kind of domestic fighting rather than warfare,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/316#136]
even after arguing that preceding verse (which calls on Muslims to convert people by the sword) is in fact a reference to a just war doctrine of self defence and proportionality.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/297#297]

2:193 ''Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Consider also this verse calling for the slaughter of non-Muslims outside of the hold months:

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

= Justifying Lies about the Quran =

Muslims often cite the potential benefit of ‘positive misinterpretations’ or white lies about the Quran as helping to make Muslims more peaceful. However, they cannot stop Muslims from picking up the Quran, reading it for themselves, and discovering what it actually says. In fact, Islam commands them to do exactly this, and explicitly forbids misrepresenting the Quran.

Thus these misinterpretations only serve to deceive non-Muslims. This is particularly true in the case of just war doctrine. Those who misrepresent the Quran’s key messages on war will never find themselves in charge of a Muslim army waging holy war. Thus it only serves to encourage naivete in non-Muslims seeking to understand religiously motivated violence. It create a blind spot, for example in anticipating the number of Muslims from western countries like to travel to or support ISIS, and encourages ineffective responses to the problems. For example, the opinion of a non-Muslim political leader on the Quran’s true message, no matter how sincere, progressive or well-communicated, will never hold any weight with a conservative Muslim considering holy war who is capable of reading the Quran for himself.

Deception and the Just War Doctrine

2018-03-11T00:19:02Z

Freediver: /* A brief History of Muhammad’s Militant Aggression */

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

[[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]

= Islam’s Just War Doctrine is a Lie =

Muslims often promote the view that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war. That is, war is only permissible in self-defence. This is a blatant lie. It is based on three broad misrepresentations. First, it relies on the implication or assumption that in military strategy, anything short of slaughtering everyone in your path is self-defence. Second, it relies on misrepresenting Muhammad’s actions as being consistent with a self-defence doctrine. Third, it relies on misrepresenting the content of the Quran, by claiming verses say things they do not say, by inserting extra words into verses, and taking absurd liberties with interpretation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/11#11]

= Misrepresenting Historical Military Strategy =

In even the most aggressive military campaign, there are appropriate times to make peace or negotiate some form of ceasefire. For example Genghis Khan, one of the most violent and aggressive people in the history of warfare, went to some effort to project a promise that any city who surrendered to him would be spared, while any city that fought him would be destroyed. There are two fundamental reasons for this. The first is that dead men pay no taxes. If you want to rapidly build a large, profitable empire, the only way to do so is to capture a large population, alive. Second, slaughtering everyone tends to unite and motivate your opponents. If everyone is convinced you will slaughter them regardless of what they do, they will abandon previous hostilities with each other and unite against a common threat, then fight to the death to stop you, even when it seems that death on the battlefield is inevitable. It is much better to give them the option of surviving if they surrender without a fight, and even join you in the ongoing plunder (something that Genghis, as well as most other historical empire builders did to great effect). This doctrine is a natural extension of the divide and conquer strategy.

Muhammad made a few, very limited suggestions to do the same. Unlike most other empires, he imposed religious as well as financial obligations on those who surrendered. That is, they must convert to Islam in a religious sense, submit to rule by Muslims under religious shariah law, as well as pay religious taxes (to the empire, of course). The tactic chosen by Muhammad depended largely on relative military strength. Where the opposition was weakest, Muhammad tended to prefer slaughter without any options for survival. Where the opposition was formidable and well defended, he naturally preferred a negotiated outcome.
Muslims falsely portray this as Muhammad encouraging or preferring peace in a generalised sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
Muslims will even claim that the self-defence doctrine was adopted by almost every empire on earth, and that this being the norm, a resurgent Islamic State would inevitably follow the same example.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]

== Definition of Just War ==

Muslims will claim that “just war” literally means only in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
However, self-defence is only part of the typical conception of just war, and by itself is a gross simplification (yet still too complex for Muhammad to communicate in the Quran). For example, it becomes meaningless without a doctrine of proportionality, otherwise even a trivial act of aggression on the part of an enemy can be used to claim self-defence – a practice often exploited by Muhammad whenever one of his own treaties became inconvenient for him. The early history of Islam is littered with other groups (Jews, mostly) violating treaties (whose textual content has conveniently been lost to history) and paying dearly for their treachery.

The suggestion that the Quran can communicate a doctrine of just war without even a cursory discussion of proportionality or what self-defence means, or even mentioning self-defence, is absurd.

Muslim scholars (eg, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi) who eschew an Islamic just war doctrine, often cite failure to accept Islam after it has been revealed as a just cause for war. The Quran reinforces this.

= Misrepresenting Muhammad’s Actions =

Muslims will argue that Muhammad’s actions were entirely consistent with a just war doctrine based only on self-defence. They will justify this claim by citing an example of Muhammad refraining from slaughtering a “severely weakened” opponent and agreeing to concessions with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/128#128] His opponent at the time, the city of Mecca, which Muhammad was trying to gain entry to, was at the time more powerful than Muhammad’s army.

== A brief History of Muhammad’s Militant Aggression ==

See also: [[Political_History_of_Islam|Political History of Islam]]

Muhammad started out preaching in Mecca. The Meccan verses in the Quran tend to be less violent, and Muhammad was largely unsuccessful in recruiting people to his religion. Muhammad’s own tribe managed the Kaaba, a prominent pagan shrine, which was very lucrative for them. Muhammad preached against them. He eventually fled Mecca in fear of his life. He ended up in Medina, where he formed a militia and started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering traders. This is often justified by Muslims with the following excuses:
* Only the original Muslims who fled Mecca and were thus wronged by the Meccans took part in murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods. Muslims will even back this up with a link to a wikipedia article clearly saying the opposite. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/160#160]
* Muhammad was merely taking revenge for the Meccan emigrants. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/132#132]
* Muhammad only ever killed people in self defence. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad was leading a nation when he fled Mecca and a state of war thus existed from then until he started murdering Meccan traders. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/167#167]
* There must be a different definition for nation in 7th century Arabia. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was only concerned for the welfare of 'his people'. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* Muhammad only ever killed people to survive. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Mecca was the only commercial centre in the area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99]
* The people of Medina were non-farmers in a farming area. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/99#99][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* It was the only option Muslims had for survival. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Murder and bloodlust were not the 'primary' objective of the raids. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/131#131]
* Muhammad was under political pressure from his followers to take revenge. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* They were not allowed to trade in Mecca. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/138#138]
* Muhammad first raided Meccan traders and stole their goods within a year of fleeing Medina. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/150#150]

These are all either lies or cynical, self serving spin. They go a long way to explaining why any conflicts in the middle east or north Africa (the footprint of the original Caliphate) tend to spiral out of control. Islam creates a culture of hysterical over-reaction and constant victimhood mongering, which is seen in nearly all Muslims, including converts from a liberal, western background. Adopting this over-reaction and victimhood mongering is the only way for western converts to accept the many and various moral crimes committed by Muhammad.

The truth is that only 45 people fled Mecca with Muhammad, including men, women and children, in 622. This was the size of his flock after 12 years of preaching the more peaceful version of Islam.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320/169#169]
They were successfully integrated into a very large community in Medina. It was not until 624 that they managed to steal anything or kill any people. Muhammad's first caravan raid had only 6 people and failed. By March 624, Muhammad was able to kill more Meccans in a single raid than the total number of 'oppressed' Muslims from Mecca on whose behalf he was supposedly exacting revenge. Both Meccan emigrants and Medina locals participated from the first murder and theft. From his first successful raid, Muhammad's wealth, power and prestige grew until he was able to march on Mecca with ten thousand warriors in 630. Muhammad died eight years after first spilling blood in the name of Islam and receiving spoils of war. He managed to carve out a large nation in that time, turning what was a multicultural, multireligious society without any centralised government into a violent and oppressive dictatorship imposing Islamic monoculture by slaughtering innocent people. All, according to Muslims, in an act of self defence.

Muslims will flip back and forth between the two most common excuses: justifying the murders and theft as an act of self defence, and as a just act of war in response to Meccan oppression (rather than criminal theft and murder). However, modern just war doctrines that are based on self-defence specifically exclude revenge or ‘stealing property back’ as a justification for war, as this would make it inevitable that even the smallest feuds escalate to armed conflict.

Muhammad became more popular as his militia became more successful and profitable. However, three large tribes of Jews remained in Medina and stood between Muhammad and absolute authority over the city. Muhammad tended to have little success converting Jews, despite initially seeing them as natural allies. In addition, the pagans of Medina were somewhat hostile towards Mecca, born of jealousy over the Kaaba and the central role that Mecca played in Arab paganism, while the Jewish tribes had significant trade links with Mecca. It was at this time that Muhammad instructed Muslims to pray towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem, making pagan Mecca rather than the traditional Abrahamic centres the focal point of his religion.

This public address by Muhammad is what counts as diplomacy for a Muslim:

''"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."''

The Quraysh were Muhammad’s own tribe from Mecca. Muhammad’s militia had recently had their first large scale victory against them. This address, made by Muhammad in a market place in 624, was one of the earliest expressions of Muhammad’s “convert or die” doctrine. Muhammad proceeded to get rid of the three large tribes, one by one.

The first tribe to fall victim to Muhammad were the Banu Qaynuqa, shortly after Muhammad's address to them in the marketplace. According to Islamic traditions, a Banu Qaynuqa goldsmith assaulted a Muslim woman, causing her to be stripped naked. He was killed by a Muslim, which sparked a series of revenge killings. Muhammad expelled the entire tribe from Medina as punishment – another clear rejection of the concept of proportionality.

There were now two large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad assassinated the chief of one of them (the Banu-Nadir), who had written erotic poetry about Muslim women, then expelled them about a year later and seized their property.
By this stage Muhammad was creating a large number of enemies, so he set about attacking smaller groups of Arabs outside of Medina to prevent his enemies uniting.

Eventually the Meccans came to attack Medina, but ended up retreating without a fight. They were allied with the last of the three Jewish tribes in Medina. Afterwards, Muhammad was instructed by an angel to lay siege to the tribe. They surrendered without a fight and were taken prisoner. Muhammad executed every adult male (those with pubic hair) in the tribe, totaling approximately 800 victims. A small number, perhaps two, who converted to Islam were spared. Again, doctrines of just war that are based on self-defence forbid the execution of POWs (Prisoners of War). In order to spread perceived blame and reduce the risk of rebellion over his harsh actions, Muhammad had some of the Jews’ previous allies pass the judgement and conduct many of the executions.

Muhammad then attacked the Jewish community of Kaybar where many of the Banu Nadir had sought refuge. Muhammad ordered the torture of the Banu Nadir treasurer to force him to reveal the location of their gold. Muhammad then decapitated him and later took his wife as a concubine. Muhammad took possession of all their land, but allowed them to continued farming it on condition that they pay 50% of their produce as a tax. After Muhammad’s death they were expelled by Caliph Umar as part of a broader campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Muhammad then negotiated a 10 year treaty with Mecca that allowed Muslims to make pilgrimage to the pagan Kaaba. Two years later, some Meccans apparently violated it. Although Muslim scholars often cite an official declaration of war as a requirement of Islamic just war, Muhammad marched on Mecca with as much secrecy as possible, not even telling his own companions what his plans were, and attempting to give the impression had had an alternative target. The Meccans were actively trying to renegotiate peace, but Muhammad ignored their efforts.

With the exception of a single minor skirmish, the Meccas surrendered without a fight. Muhammad destroyed all pagan idols except for the Kaaba itself and rapidly Islamised Mecca.

Having captured Mecca, the Muslims were now the dominant force on the Arabian peninsula. Muhammad adopted an even more aggressive military strategy, sending out many raids to destroy competing religious sites and slaughter non-Muslims, mostly pagans. He captured most of the peninsula in the short time between capturing Mecca and his death. Non-Muslims were banned from Mecca, which until that point had been a focal point of pagan worship and pilgrimage for the entire peninsula. All treaties were abrogated. Muslim sources acknowledge that Muhammad in effect declared total war against pagans.

Following his death, Muslim rulers expanded the empire rapidly. Muslim commanders were under general instructions to accept the surrender of cities on the condition that they accepted Islam, Muslim rule and paid religious taxes to the empire. Within a century they created the largest land empire that had ever existed.

To insist that this was all done in self-defence is an exercise in absurdity.

= Misrepresenting the Quran =

The Quran promotes and justifies violence. This is not a few scattered verses, but is a dominant theme in the Quran. Whole chapters are devoted to it. For example, chapter 9 is devoted, from start to finish, to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Paying religious taxes to support the war effort is also a dominant theme, with a common refrain being to “fight with your life and your wealth”. Other chapters that heavily promote violence and aggressive warfare are chapter 2, 3, 4 and 8

== Quran never mentions self-defence ==

Muslims will make the absurd argument that the Quran does not use the term self-defence because it was written in Arabic, not English. That is, they will literally use the fact that self-defence is written in English to justify its absence from the Quran (you do not misunderstand, it really is that stupid). However no English translations use the term either. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will also claim that the Quran “clearly explains” the concept of self-defence without mentioning the term, without any textual justification for the claim
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/225#225]
or citing for example Quran 22.39-40:
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

''Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged... [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ."''

However, this is actually a direct contradiction of the self-defence doctrine. Waging war as revenge for past wrongs (because they were wronged…) is explicitly excluded from any legitimate just war doctrine that is based on self-defence. The verse in question was used by Muhammad when initially forming his first militia in Medina, which he used to rob Meccan caravans and murder Meccan traders, by justifying it as revenge for his mistreatment in Mecca.
Muslims will also argue that this verse is “clearly specifying who (and only who) fighting against is given permission to”. This is effectively inserting the word “only” into the Quran. The Quran offers many reasons for going to war. Not only are none of these reasons stated or implied to be the “only” reason, it simply does not make sense that a particular reason is the only permissible one when other reasons (eg mocking Islam) are also given.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]

Muslims will also argue that verses in the Koran permit war "only" against people that Muslims have peace treaties with that they are actively violating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/129#129] Not only does this contradict other examples of the "only" conditions in which war is permitted, it leaves out an explicit reference to self defence and is a clear contradiction of Muhammad's behaviour. Some of the 'violations' used by Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs to abandon treaties and slaughter the infidel were trivial at best, while other reasons had nothing at all to do with treaties.

The Quran commands Muslims to slaughter the infidel repeatedly, only occasionally placing genuine limitations on it – eg where there is a peace treaty, unless there is some kind of trivial violation of the treaty. These verses were always conveniently revealed when Muhammad needed to motivate his followers to mobilise for war yet again, and for the most part Muslims correctly interpret them as motivational rather than as some poorly explained rule or restriction. Where restrictions such as following peace treaties are genuinely intended, the Quran states them clearly and explicitly, not as a riddle or a blank slate for filling in the gaps with whatever new moral imperatives Muslims pick up from non-Muslim legal theorists.

Muslims will also cite Quran 8:61 as a “clear” explanation of what self-defence means:

''And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.''

However the only interpretation of this verse that is consistent with Muhammad’s actions is that Muslims are to spare those who surrender without a fight (and accept Muslim rule, shariah law, and religious taxes to the Islamic state). It is certainly not a clear explanation that war is only permitted in self-defence. At the very least, it does not limit warfare to self-defence, as the verse is entirely consistent with the historical military practice (among the more aggressive empire builders) of slaughtering anyone who fights back and sparing groups who surrender without a fight and agree to whatever terms are offered.

Other, even more vague verses are also used as “clear explanations”, however they all put the onus on the infidel to make peace. Not a single one puts the onus on Muslims to seek out peace, though countless verses urge them to violence, often without qualification. Not a single one stipulates self defence as the only justification for war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will attempt to argue that Quran 60:8 states that Muslims are only permitted to engage in war as an act of self-defence. However it merely states that Muslims are not explicitly forbidden from being nice to people who do not attack Muslims – they are merely forbidden from being ‘allies’ with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

''60:8 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
60:9 Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.''

== Context ==

Muslims will complain that quoting chapter 9 in its entirety is actually taking it out of context, because it does not quote the entire Quran at once, thus leaving out all the other verses that (apparently) state that war must only be fought in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/90#90]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/92#92]

Those same Muslims will then make the absurd claim that chapter 9 of the Quran reveals a self-defence doctrine. For example, claiming that 9:4 states that fighting is only permitted against those who violate oaths.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

In order to make this claim, verse 5 must be omitted, because it clearly states that Muslims are to slaughter the infidel wherever they find them (unless they convert to Islam and pay religious taxes to the Islamic State). Thus, it is deliberately taking the verse out of context. It is also a misrepresentation of verse 4. Verse 4 does not state that violating oaths is the only permitted justification for war. Rather, it says that Muslims should not violate an existing peace treaty (one of the rare occasions that the Quran actually places limitations on slaughtering the infidel). And of course, ‘violating oaths’ is a caveat on this – again no concept of proportionality is invoked. The smallest violation of a treaty can be used as justification for slaughtering the other party, if it suits the interests of the Islamic State. Thus, Muslims pretend that a caveat on a caveat to the general rule of slaughtering the infidel wherever you find them as actually presented as the only condition for slaughtering the infidel.

This is what verse 4 and 5 actually states:

''9:4. Except those of the Mushrikun [infidel] with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).''

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

Muslims will also claim that verse 13 of chapter 9 states that Muslims should only slaughter the infidel if the infidel attacks Muslims first. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71] Again, what the verse actually states is very different. Also, the preceding verse cites criticism of Islam as an example of an attack and a justification for slaughtering the infidel.

''9:12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).
9:13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
9:14. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people''

For clarity, Mushriken means infidel and Makkah is an alternative spelling of Mecca.

These verses were revealed after Muhammad captured Mecca, banned pagans, abrogated all treaties and set about capturing the rest of the Arabian peninsula. The “attack you first” bit appears to be a reference to the earlier Meccan attack on Medina, which was followed by a peace treaty and then by Muhammad marching on Mecca despite the Meccans suing for peace. It is a reference to a past event being used as a retaliation justification, and clearly not, as some Muslims will attempt to argue, an instruction that the infidel must attack first. Again, just war doctrines based on self-defence specifically exclude retaliation for past wrongs as justifications for war, as it destroys the meaning of the self-defence doctrine.

The Muslims at the time were afraid that Muhammad’s aggressive actions, especially seizing the Kaaba and bringing an end to a long standing pagan tradition of peaceful, inclusive pilgrimage, would unite their enemies against them, and also test the allegiance of recent converts who were now being instructed to kill their friends, families and old allies. (See: islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=11 and discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/05/the-sword-verse-surah-913-24/). It is about as far removed from a self-defence doctrine as it is possible to get, yet still cited by Muslims as a Quranic example of the self-defence doctrine.

Muslims will quote half of a verse from chapter 9 of the Koran to make it appear a general command to maintain peace with non-Muslims, but leave out the first half of the verse which makes it clear that it is a reference to people with whom Muslims have a peace treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/124#124]

== Oppression ==

Muslims will claim that Quran 2:193 specifies the only conditions under which war may be fought.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/274#274]

They make this claim, even while quoting the verse, which says to slaughter the infidel until they convert to Islam and until there is no more fitnah (rebellion, presumably against Muslim rule):

''2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Other translations use words like polytheist and disbeliever instead of oppressor and fitnah. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/127#127] These translations come across as far more internally consistent. It is misleading to imply that Muslims in the 7th century had the same concept of oppression that we do today.

The key misrepresentation here is taking extraordinary liberties with the words “cease”. Although it would logically be a reference to what comes before – paganism and rejecting shariah law, Muslims will attempt to construe this verse as only permitting war against oppression.

Muslims cannot offer any kind of explanation as to what the verse means by oppression.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/15#15]

Islam entirely rejects any concept of individual personal liberty. In this context, oppression does not have a clear meaning. The very same verse that apparently calls for Muslims to fight oppression begins by calling on Muslims to slaughter the infidel until worship is only for Allah – hinting for example at denial of basic religious freedom. Several other verses in the Quran as well as Hadith reinforce this concept: that only Allah has the right to be worshiped and that jihad is to continue towards this goal. Muhammad’s own actions also reinforce this rejection of religious freedom.

For example, prior to Islam, Mecca and the Kaaba were a centre for pagan religious pilgrimage, where the pagans would annually set aside their differences and come together in peace to practice their various faiths. As soon as Muhammad gained control of it, he destroyed all the pagan monuments, Islamised the Kaaba, banned all non-Muslims from Mecca, and used Mecca and Medina as bases from which to slaughter pagans and destroy competing religious monuments across the Arabian peninsula – about as clear an example of oppression as you can get. The actions of the Meccans immediately prior to Muhammad marching on Mecca – trying to negotiate for the peace treaty with Medina to remain in place, including provisions for religious freedom and for Muslims to be able to join the pagan pilgrimage to Mecca, are the opposite of oppression, and particularly generous given Muhammad’s previous lengthy career robbing Meccan caravans and murdering traders.

The Quran never explains what is meant by oppression, but the examples given suggest that anything short of submission is to be considered intolerable. Chapter 9, verse 12 cites criticism of Islam as a form of attack in the context of justifying bloodshed. Limited religious freedom was only extended to “people of the book”. That is, Christians and Jews – provided they accepted living as second class citizens.
Muslims will attempt to claim that examples from other chapters of the Quran of what modern, liberal minded people would identify as oppression is actually a clear explanation of what this particular verse means by oppression. However, the Quran never gives an explanation or even description of what oppression means.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]

Muslims will also feign an inability to comprehend the difference between describing, elsewhere in the Quran, a situation that a modern reader identifies as oppression and actually clarifying what this particular verse or any other verse means by oppression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/19#19] Even if the verse is intended to mean fight until there is no more oppression, the fact that Muhammad was the greatest oppressor of the time still destroys any potential for meaning.

Muslims will also employ a peculiar circular logic here by insisting that by always putting the onus on non-Muslims to seek out peace and always putting the onus on Muslims to wage Jihad, the Quran must be referring to a self-defence doctrine because it is always up the aggressor in conflict to cease aggression in order to achieve peace, therefor the Quran must mean that the non-Muslim is the aggressor. This is an extension of the typical victimhood mentality that always portrays Muslims as not being responsible for the violent conflict they find themselves in, even if they happen to build the largest land empire the world had ever seen in only 100 years.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/17#17]

== Proportionality ==

Muslims will argue that a verse that explicitly instructs Muslims to commit acts of evil in retribution is a doctrine of proportionality. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/49#49] Apparently, the following verse is the closest that the Quran comes to a doctrine of proportionality in war, despite devoting many chapters to promoting and justifying war:

42:40 ''And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah . Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.''

42:41 ''And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].''

The context of this verse is not war. It is an "eye for an eye" verse. Just war doctrines specifically exclude retribution as a justification for war.

== When the Koran does impose self defence and proportionality ==

The Quran does clearly impose a doctrine of both self defence and proportionality, albeit a little simplistically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/126#126][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/75#77] Despite the clear and unambiguous statement, this verse of the Quran is not used by Muslims seeking to build a case for Islam's just war doctrine, because it limits the restriction to Islam's holy months.

2:194 ''During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe God and know that God is with the righteous.''

This is the "exception that proves the rule". That is, the only reason the Quran needs to specify this exception during the holy months is because it explicitly encourages hostile and aggressive warfare at other times. It also demonstrates the absurdity of the elaborate "re-interpretations" that are necessary in order to read a just war doctrine into other verses of the Quran. The examples provided above were not cherry-picked for their hollowness. They were the best examples provided.

Muslims will attempt to argue that verse 2:194 is a reference to some kind of domestic fighting rather than warfare,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/316#136]
even after arguing that preceding verse (which calls on Muslims to convert people by the sword) is in fact a reference to a just war doctrine of self defence and proportionality.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/297#297]

2:193 ''Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Consider also this verse calling for the slaughter of non-Muslims outside of the hold months:

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

= Justifying Lies about the Quran =

Muslims often cite the potential benefit of ‘positive misinterpretations’ or white lies about the Quran as helping to make Muslims more peaceful. However, they cannot stop Muslims from picking up the Quran, reading it for themselves, and discovering what it actually says. In fact, Islam commands them to do exactly this, and explicitly forbids misrepresenting the Quran.

Thus these misinterpretations only serve to deceive non-Muslims. This is particularly true in the case of just war doctrine. Those who misrepresent the Quran’s key messages on war will never find themselves in charge of a Muslim army waging holy war. Thus it only serves to encourage naivete in non-Muslims seeking to understand religiously motivated violence. It create a blind spot, for example in anticipating the number of Muslims from western countries like to travel to or support ISIS, and encourages ineffective responses to the problems. For example, the opinion of a non-Muslim political leader on the Quran’s true message, no matter how sincere, progressive or well-communicated, will never hold any weight with a conservative Muslim considering holy war who is capable of reading the Quran for himself.

Deception and the Just War Doctrine

2018-01-22T12:16:17Z

Freediver: /* Oppression */

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

[[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]

= Islam’s Just War Doctrine is a Lie =

Muslims often promote the view that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war. That is, war is only permissible in self-defence. This is a blatant lie. It is based on three broad misrepresentations. First, it relies on the implication or assumption that in military strategy, anything short of slaughtering everyone in your path is self-defence. Second, it relies on misrepresenting Muhammad’s actions as being consistent with a self-defence doctrine. Third, it relies on misrepresenting the content of the Quran, by claiming verses say things they do not say, by inserting extra words into verses, and taking absurd liberties with interpretation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/11#11]

= Misrepresenting Historical Military Strategy =

In even the most aggressive military campaign, there are appropriate times to make peace or negotiate some form of ceasefire. For example Genghis Khan, one of the most violent and aggressive people in the history of warfare, went to some effort to project a promise that any city who surrendered to him would be spared, while any city that fought him would be destroyed. There are two fundamental reasons for this. The first is that dead men pay no taxes. If you want to rapidly build a large, profitable empire, the only way to do so is to capture a large population, alive. Second, slaughtering everyone tends to unite and motivate your opponents. If everyone is convinced you will slaughter them regardless of what they do, they will abandon previous hostilities with each other and unite against a common threat, then fight to the death to stop you, even when it seems that death on the battlefield is inevitable. It is much better to give them the option of surviving if they surrender without a fight, and even join you in the ongoing plunder (something that Genghis, as well as most other historical empire builders did to great effect). This doctrine is a natural extension of the divide and conquer strategy.

Muhammad made a few, very limited suggestions to do the same. Unlike most other empires, he imposed religious as well as financial obligations on those who surrendered. That is, they must convert to Islam in a religious sense, submit to rule by Muslims under religious shariah law, as well as pay religious taxes (to the empire, of course). The tactic chosen by Muhammad depended largely on relative military strength. Where the opposition was weakest, Muhammad tended to prefer slaughter without any options for survival. Where the opposition was formidable and well defended, he naturally preferred a negotiated outcome.
Muslims falsely portray this as Muhammad encouraging or preferring peace in a generalised sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
Muslims will even claim that the self-defence doctrine was adopted by almost every empire on earth, and that this being the norm, a resurgent Islamic State would inevitably follow the same example.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]

== Definition of Just War ==

Muslims will claim that “just war” literally means only in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
However, self-defence is only part of the typical conception of just war, and by itself is a gross simplification (yet still too complex for Muhammad to communicate in the Quran). For example, it becomes meaningless without a doctrine of proportionality, otherwise even a trivial act of aggression on the part of an enemy can be used to claim self-defence – a practice often exploited by Muhammad whenever one of his own treaties became inconvenient for him. The early history of Islam is littered with other groups (Jews, mostly) violating treaties (whose textual content has conveniently been lost to history) and paying dearly for their treachery.

The suggestion that the Quran can communicate a doctrine of just war without even a cursory discussion of proportionality or what self-defence means, or even mentioning self-defence, is absurd.

Muslim scholars (eg, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi) who eschew an Islamic just war doctrine, often cite failure to accept Islam after it has been revealed as a just cause for war. The Quran reinforces this.

= Misrepresenting Muhammad’s Actions =

Muslims will argue that Muhammad’s actions were entirely consistent with a just war doctrine based only on self-defence. They will justify this claim by citing an example of Muhammad refraining from slaughtering a “severely weakened” opponent and agreeing to concessions with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/128#128] His opponent at the time, the city of Mecca, which Muhammad was trying to gain entry to, was at the time more powerful than Muhammad’s army.

== A brief History of Muhammad’s Militant Aggression ==

See also: [[Political_History_of_Islam|Political History of Islam]]

Muhammad started out preaching in Mecca. The Meccan verses in the Quran tend to be less violent, and Muhammad was largely unsuccessful in recruiting people to his religion. Muhammad’s own tribe managed the Kaaba, a prominent pagan shrine, which was very lucrative for them. Muhammad preached against them. He eventually fled Mecca in fear of his life. He ended up in Medina, where he formed a militia and started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering traders. This is often justified by Muslims as an act of war in response to Meccan oppression (rather than criminal theft and murder). However, modern just war doctrines that are based on self-defence specifically exclude revenge or ‘stealing property back’ as a justification for war, as this would make it inevitable that even the smallest feuds escalate to armed conflict.

Muhammad became more popular as his militia became more successful and profitable. However, three large tribes of Jews remained in Medina and stood between Muhammad and absolute authority over the city. Muhammad tended to have little success converting Jews, despite initially seeing them as natural allies. In addition, the pagans of Medina were somewhat hostile towards Mecca, born of jealousy over the Kaaba and the central role that Mecca played in Arab paganism, while the Jewish tribes had significant trade links with Mecca. It was at this time that Muhammad instructed Muslims to pray towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem, making pagan Mecca rather than the traditional Abrahamic centres the focal point of his religion.

This public address by Muhammad is what counts as diplomacy for a Muslim:

''"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."''

The Quraysh were Muhammad’s own tribe from Mecca. Muhammad’s militia had recently had their first large scale victory against them. This address, made by Muhammad in a market place, was one of the earliest expressions of Muhammad’s “convert or die” doctrine. Muhammad proceeded to get rid of the three large tribes, one by one.

The first tribe to fall victim to Muhammad were the Banu Qaynuqa. According to Islamic traditions, a Banu Qaynuqa goldsmith assaulted a Muslim woman, causing her to be stripped naked. He was killed by a Muslim, which sparked a series of revenge killings. Muhammad expelled the entire tribe from Medina as punishment – another clear rejection of the concept of proportionality.

There were now two large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad assassinated the chief of one of them (the Banu-Nadir), who had written erotic poetry about Muslim women, then expelled them about a year later and seized their property.
By this stage Muhammad was creating a large number of enemies, so he set about attacking smaller groups of Arabs outside of Medina to prevent his enemies uniting.

Eventually the Meccans came to attack Medina, but ended up retreating without a fight. They were allied with the last of the three Jewish tribes in Medina. Afterwards, Muhammad was instructed by an angel to lay siege to the tribe. They surrendered without a fight and were taken prisoner. Muhammad executed every adult male (those with pubic hair) in the tribe, totaling approximately 800 victims. A small number, perhaps two, who converted to Islam were spared. Again, doctrines of just war that are based on self-defence forbid the execution of POWs (Prisoners of War). In order to spread perceived blame and reduce the risk of rebellion over his harsh actions, Muhammad had some of the Jews’ previous allies pass the judgement and conduct many of the executions.

Muhammad then attacked the Jewish community of Kaybar where many of the Banu Nadir had sought refuge. Muhammad ordered the torture of the Banu Nadir treasurer to force him to reveal the location of their gold. Muhammad then decapitated him and later took his wife as a concubine. Muhammad took possession of all their land, but allowed them to continued farming it on condition that they pay 50% of their produce as a tax. After Muhammad’s death they were expelled by Caliph Umar as part of a broader campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Muhammad then negotiated a 10 year treaty with Mecca that allowed Muslims to make pilgrimage to the pagan Kaaba. Two years later, some Meccans apparently violated it. Although Muslim scholars often cite an official declaration of war as a requirement of Islamic just war, Muhammad marched on Mecca with as much secrecy as possible, not even telling his own companions what his plans were, and attempting to give the impression had had an alternative target. The Meccans were actively trying to renegotiate peace, but Muhammad ignored their efforts.

With the exception of a single minor skirmish, the Meccas surrendered without a fight. Muhammad destroyed all pagan idols except for the Kaaba itself and rapidly Islamised Mecca.

Having captured Mecca, the Muslims were now the dominant force on the Arabian peninsula. Muhammad adopted an even more aggressive military strategy, sending out many raids to destroy competing religious sites and slaughter non-Muslims, mostly pagans. He captured most of the peninsula in the short time between capturing Mecca and his death. Non-Muslims were banned from Mecca, which until that point had been a focal point of pagan worship and pilgrimage for the entire peninsula. All treaties were abrogated. Muslim sources acknowledge that Muhammad in effect declared total war against pagans.

Following his death, Muslim rulers expanded the empire rapidly. Muslim commanders were under general instructions to accept the surrender of cities on the condition that they accepted Islam, Muslim rule and paid religious taxes to the empire. Within a century they created the largest land empire that had ever existed.

To insist that this was all done in self-defence is an exercise in absurdity.

= Misrepresenting the Quran =

The Quran promotes and justifies violence. This is not a few scattered verses, but is a dominant theme in the Quran. Whole chapters are devoted to it. For example, chapter 9 is devoted, from start to finish, to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Paying religious taxes to support the war effort is also a dominant theme, with a common refrain being to “fight with your life and your wealth”. Other chapters that heavily promote violence and aggressive warfare are chapter 2, 3, 4 and 8

== Quran never mentions self-defence ==

Muslims will make the absurd argument that the Quran does not use the term self-defence because it was written in Arabic, not English. That is, they will literally use the fact that self-defence is written in English to justify its absence from the Quran (you do not misunderstand, it really is that stupid). However no English translations use the term either. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will also claim that the Quran “clearly explains” the concept of self-defence without mentioning the term, without any textual justification for the claim
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/225#225]
or citing for example Quran 22.39-40:
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

''Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged... [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ."''

However, this is actually a direct contradiction of the self-defence doctrine. Waging war as revenge for past wrongs (because they were wronged…) is explicitly excluded from any legitimate just war doctrine that is based on self-defence. The verse in question was used by Muhammad when initially forming his first militia in Medina, which he used to rob Meccan caravans and murder Meccan traders, by justifying it as revenge for his mistreatment in Mecca.
Muslims will also argue that this verse is “clearly specifying who (and only who) fighting against is given permission to”. This is effectively inserting the word “only” into the Quran. The Quran offers many reasons for going to war. Not only are none of these reasons stated or implied to be the “only” reason, it simply does not make sense that a particular reason is the only permissible one when other reasons (eg mocking Islam) are also given.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]

Muslims will also argue that verses in the Koran permit war "only" against people that Muslims have peace treaties with that they are actively violating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/129#129] Not only does this contradict other examples of the "only" conditions in which war is permitted, it leaves out an explicit reference to self defence and is a clear contradiction of Muhammad's behaviour. Some of the 'violations' used by Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs to abandon treaties and slaughter the infidel were trivial at best, while other reasons had nothing at all to do with treaties.

The Quran commands Muslims to slaughter the infidel repeatedly, only occasionally placing genuine limitations on it – eg where there is a peace treaty, unless there is some kind of trivial violation of the treaty. These verses were always conveniently revealed when Muhammad needed to motivate his followers to mobilise for war yet again, and for the most part Muslims correctly interpret them as motivational rather than as some poorly explained rule or restriction. Where restrictions such as following peace treaties are genuinely intended, the Quran states them clearly and explicitly, not as a riddle or a blank slate for filling in the gaps with whatever new moral imperatives Muslims pick up from non-Muslim legal theorists.

Muslims will also cite Quran 8:61 as a “clear” explanation of what self-defence means:

''And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.''

However the only interpretation of this verse that is consistent with Muhammad’s actions is that Muslims are to spare those who surrender without a fight (and accept Muslim rule, shariah law, and religious taxes to the Islamic state). It is certainly not a clear explanation that war is only permitted in self-defence. At the very least, it does not limit warfare to self-defence, as the verse is entirely consistent with the historical military practice (among the more aggressive empire builders) of slaughtering anyone who fights back and sparing groups who surrender without a fight and agree to whatever terms are offered.

Other, even more vague verses are also used as “clear explanations”, however they all put the onus on the infidel to make peace. Not a single one puts the onus on Muslims to seek out peace, though countless verses urge them to violence, often without qualification. Not a single one stipulates self defence as the only justification for war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will attempt to argue that Quran 60:8 states that Muslims are only permitted to engage in war as an act of self-defence. However it merely states that Muslims are not explicitly forbidden from being nice to people who do not attack Muslims – they are merely forbidden from being ‘allies’ with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

''60:8 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
60:9 Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.''

== Context ==

Muslims will complain that quoting chapter 9 in its entirety is actually taking it out of context, because it does not quote the entire Quran at once, thus leaving out all the other verses that (apparently) state that war must only be fought in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/90#90]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/92#92]

Those same Muslims will then make the absurd claim that chapter 9 of the Quran reveals a self-defence doctrine. For example, claiming that 9:4 states that fighting is only permitted against those who violate oaths.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

In order to make this claim, verse 5 must be omitted, because it clearly states that Muslims are to slaughter the infidel wherever they find them (unless they convert to Islam and pay religious taxes to the Islamic State). Thus, it is deliberately taking the verse out of context. It is also a misrepresentation of verse 4. Verse 4 does not state that violating oaths is the only permitted justification for war. Rather, it says that Muslims should not violate an existing peace treaty (one of the rare occasions that the Quran actually places limitations on slaughtering the infidel). And of course, ‘violating oaths’ is a caveat on this – again no concept of proportionality is invoked. The smallest violation of a treaty can be used as justification for slaughtering the other party, if it suits the interests of the Islamic State. Thus, Muslims pretend that a caveat on a caveat to the general rule of slaughtering the infidel wherever you find them as actually presented as the only condition for slaughtering the infidel.

This is what verse 4 and 5 actually states:

''9:4. Except those of the Mushrikun [infidel] with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).''

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

Muslims will also claim that verse 13 of chapter 9 states that Muslims should only slaughter the infidel if the infidel attacks Muslims first. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71] Again, what the verse actually states is very different. Also, the preceding verse cites criticism of Islam as an example of an attack and a justification for slaughtering the infidel.

''9:12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).
9:13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
9:14. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people''

For clarity, Mushriken means infidel and Makkah is an alternative spelling of Mecca.

These verses were revealed after Muhammad captured Mecca, banned pagans, abrogated all treaties and set about capturing the rest of the Arabian peninsula. The “attack you first” bit appears to be a reference to the earlier Meccan attack on Medina, which was followed by a peace treaty and then by Muhammad marching on Mecca despite the Meccans suing for peace. It is a reference to a past event being used as a retaliation justification, and clearly not, as some Muslims will attempt to argue, an instruction that the infidel must attack first. Again, just war doctrines based on self-defence specifically exclude retaliation for past wrongs as justifications for war, as it destroys the meaning of the self-defence doctrine.

The Muslims at the time were afraid that Muhammad’s aggressive actions, especially seizing the Kaaba and bringing an end to a long standing pagan tradition of peaceful, inclusive pilgrimage, would unite their enemies against them, and also test the allegiance of recent converts who were now being instructed to kill their friends, families and old allies. (See: islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=11 and discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/05/the-sword-verse-surah-913-24/). It is about as far removed from a self-defence doctrine as it is possible to get, yet still cited by Muslims as a Quranic example of the self-defence doctrine.

Muslims will quote half of a verse from chapter 9 of the Koran to make it appear a general command to maintain peace with non-Muslims, but leave out the first half of the verse which makes it clear that it is a reference to people with whom Muslims have a peace treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/124#124]

== Oppression ==

Muslims will claim that Quran 2:193 specifies the only conditions under which war may be fought.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/274#274]

They make this claim, even while quoting the verse, which says to slaughter the infidel until they convert to Islam and until there is no more fitnah (rebellion, presumably against Muslim rule):

''2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Other translations use words like polytheist and disbeliever instead of oppressor and fitnah. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/127#127] These translations come across as far more internally consistent. It is misleading to imply that Muslims in the 7th century had the same concept of oppression that we do today.

The key misrepresentation here is taking extraordinary liberties with the words “cease”. Although it would logically be a reference to what comes before – paganism and rejecting shariah law, Muslims will attempt to construe this verse as only permitting war against oppression.

Muslims cannot offer any kind of explanation as to what the verse means by oppression.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/15#15]

Islam entirely rejects any concept of individual personal liberty. In this context, oppression does not have a clear meaning. The very same verse that apparently calls for Muslims to fight oppression begins by calling on Muslims to slaughter the infidel until worship is only for Allah – hinting for example at denial of basic religious freedom. Several other verses in the Quran as well as Hadith reinforce this concept: that only Allah has the right to be worshiped and that jihad is to continue towards this goal. Muhammad’s own actions also reinforce this rejection of religious freedom.

For example, prior to Islam, Mecca and the Kaaba were a centre for pagan religious pilgrimage, where the pagans would annually set aside their differences and come together in peace to practice their various faiths. As soon as Muhammad gained control of it, he destroyed all the pagan monuments, Islamised the Kaaba, banned all non-Muslims from Mecca, and used Mecca and Medina as bases from which to slaughter pagans and destroy competing religious monuments across the Arabian peninsula – about as clear an example of oppression as you can get. The actions of the Meccans immediately prior to Muhammad marching on Mecca – trying to negotiate for the peace treaty with Medina to remain in place, including provisions for religious freedom and for Muslims to be able to join the pagan pilgrimage to Mecca, are the opposite of oppression, and particularly generous given Muhammad’s previous lengthy career robbing Meccan caravans and murdering traders.

The Quran never explains what is meant by oppression, but the examples given suggest that anything short of submission is to be considered intolerable. Chapter 9, verse 12 cites criticism of Islam as a form of attack in the context of justifying bloodshed. Limited religious freedom was only extended to “people of the book”. That is, Christians and Jews – provided they accepted living as second class citizens.
Muslims will attempt to claim that examples from other chapters of the Quran of what modern, liberal minded people would identify as oppression is actually a clear explanation of what this particular verse means by oppression. However, the Quran never gives an explanation or even description of what oppression means.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]

Muslims will also feign an inability to comprehend the difference between describing, elsewhere in the Quran, a situation that a modern reader identifies as oppression and actually clarifying what this particular verse or any other verse means by oppression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/19#19] Even if the verse is intended to mean fight until there is no more oppression, the fact that Muhammad was the greatest oppressor of the time still destroys any potential for meaning.

Muslims will also employ a peculiar circular logic here by insisting that by always putting the onus on non-Muslims to seek out peace and always putting the onus on Muslims to wage Jihad, the Quran must be referring to a self-defence doctrine because it is always up the aggressor in conflict to cease aggression in order to achieve peace, therefor the Quran must mean that the non-Muslim is the aggressor. This is an extension of the typical victimhood mentality that always portrays Muslims as not being responsible for the violent conflict they find themselves in, even if they happen to build the largest land empire the world had ever seen in only 100 years.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/17#17]

== Proportionality ==

Muslims will argue that a verse that explicitly instructs Muslims to commit acts of evil in retribution is a doctrine of proportionality. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/49#49] Apparently, the following verse is the closest that the Quran comes to a doctrine of proportionality in war, despite devoting many chapters to promoting and justifying war:

42:40 ''And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah . Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.''

42:41 ''And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].''

The context of this verse is not war. It is an "eye for an eye" verse. Just war doctrines specifically exclude retribution as a justification for war.

== When the Koran does impose self defence and proportionality ==

The Quran does clearly impose a doctrine of both self defence and proportionality, albeit a little simplistically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/126#126][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/75#77] Despite the clear and unambiguous statement, this verse of the Quran is not used by Muslims seeking to build a case for Islam's just war doctrine, because it limits the restriction to Islam's holy months.

2:194 ''During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe God and know that God is with the righteous.''

This is the "exception that proves the rule". That is, the only reason the Quran needs to specify this exception during the holy months is because it explicitly encourages hostile and aggressive warfare at other times. It also demonstrates the absurdity of the elaborate "re-interpretations" that are necessary in order to read a just war doctrine into other verses of the Quran. The examples provided above were not cherry-picked for their hollowness. They were the best examples provided.

Muslims will attempt to argue that verse 2:194 is a reference to some kind of domestic fighting rather than warfare,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/316#136]
even after arguing that preceding verse (which calls on Muslims to convert people by the sword) is in fact a reference to a just war doctrine of self defence and proportionality.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/297#297]

2:193 ''Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Consider also this verse calling for the slaughter of non-Muslims outside of the hold months:

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

= Justifying Lies about the Quran =

Muslims often cite the potential benefit of ‘positive misinterpretations’ or white lies about the Quran as helping to make Muslims more peaceful. However, they cannot stop Muslims from picking up the Quran, reading it for themselves, and discovering what it actually says. In fact, Islam commands them to do exactly this, and explicitly forbids misrepresenting the Quran.

Thus these misinterpretations only serve to deceive non-Muslims. This is particularly true in the case of just war doctrine. Those who misrepresent the Quran’s key messages on war will never find themselves in charge of a Muslim army waging holy war. Thus it only serves to encourage naivete in non-Muslims seeking to understand religiously motivated violence. It create a blind spot, for example in anticipating the number of Muslims from western countries like to travel to or support ISIS, and encourages ineffective responses to the problems. For example, the opinion of a non-Muslim political leader on the Quran’s true message, no matter how sincere, progressive or well-communicated, will never hold any weight with a conservative Muslim considering holy war who is capable of reading the Quran for himself.

Deception and the Just War Doctrine

2018-01-22T11:59:18Z

Freediver: /* When the Koran does impose self defence and proportionality */

[[Muslims_Promote_Genocide]]

[[Deception_of_Non-Muslims]]

= Islam’s Just War Doctrine is a Lie =

Muslims often promote the view that the Quran develops a doctrine of just war. That is, war is only permissible in self-defence. This is a blatant lie. It is based on three broad misrepresentations. First, it relies on the implication or assumption that in military strategy, anything short of slaughtering everyone in your path is self-defence. Second, it relies on misrepresenting Muhammad’s actions as being consistent with a self-defence doctrine. Third, it relies on misrepresenting the content of the Quran, by claiming verses say things they do not say, by inserting extra words into verses, and taking absurd liberties with interpretation.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224559154/11#11]

= Misrepresenting Historical Military Strategy =

In even the most aggressive military campaign, there are appropriate times to make peace or negotiate some form of ceasefire. For example Genghis Khan, one of the most violent and aggressive people in the history of warfare, went to some effort to project a promise that any city who surrendered to him would be spared, while any city that fought him would be destroyed. There are two fundamental reasons for this. The first is that dead men pay no taxes. If you want to rapidly build a large, profitable empire, the only way to do so is to capture a large population, alive. Second, slaughtering everyone tends to unite and motivate your opponents. If everyone is convinced you will slaughter them regardless of what they do, they will abandon previous hostilities with each other and unite against a common threat, then fight to the death to stop you, even when it seems that death on the battlefield is inevitable. It is much better to give them the option of surviving if they surrender without a fight, and even join you in the ongoing plunder (something that Genghis, as well as most other historical empire builders did to great effect). This doctrine is a natural extension of the divide and conquer strategy.

Muhammad made a few, very limited suggestions to do the same. Unlike most other empires, he imposed religious as well as financial obligations on those who surrendered. That is, they must convert to Islam in a religious sense, submit to rule by Muslims under religious shariah law, as well as pay religious taxes (to the empire, of course). The tactic chosen by Muhammad depended largely on relative military strength. Where the opposition was weakest, Muhammad tended to prefer slaughter without any options for survival. Where the opposition was formidable and well defended, he naturally preferred a negotiated outcome.
Muslims falsely portray this as Muhammad encouraging or preferring peace in a generalised sense.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017]
Muslims will even claim that the self-defence doctrine was adopted by almost every empire on earth, and that this being the norm, a resurgent Islamic State would inevitably follow the same example.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226377581/1#1]

== Definition of Just War ==

Muslims will claim that “just war” literally means only in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
However, self-defence is only part of the typical conception of just war, and by itself is a gross simplification (yet still too complex for Muhammad to communicate in the Quran). For example, it becomes meaningless without a doctrine of proportionality, otherwise even a trivial act of aggression on the part of an enemy can be used to claim self-defence – a practice often exploited by Muhammad whenever one of his own treaties became inconvenient for him. The early history of Islam is littered with other groups (Jews, mostly) violating treaties (whose textual content has conveniently been lost to history) and paying dearly for their treachery.

The suggestion that the Quran can communicate a doctrine of just war without even a cursory discussion of proportionality or what self-defence means, or even mentioning self-defence, is absurd.

Muslim scholars (eg, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi) who eschew an Islamic just war doctrine, often cite failure to accept Islam after it has been revealed as a just cause for war. The Quran reinforces this.

= Misrepresenting Muhammad’s Actions =

Muslims will argue that Muhammad’s actions were entirely consistent with a just war doctrine based only on self-defence. They will justify this claim by citing an example of Muhammad refraining from slaughtering a “severely weakened” opponent and agreeing to concessions with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/128#128] His opponent at the time, the city of Mecca, which Muhammad was trying to gain entry to, was at the time more powerful than Muhammad’s army.

== A brief History of Muhammad’s Militant Aggression ==

See also: [[Political_History_of_Islam|Political History of Islam]]

Muhammad started out preaching in Mecca. The Meccan verses in the Quran tend to be less violent, and Muhammad was largely unsuccessful in recruiting people to his religion. Muhammad’s own tribe managed the Kaaba, a prominent pagan shrine, which was very lucrative for them. Muhammad preached against them. He eventually fled Mecca in fear of his life. He ended up in Medina, where he formed a militia and started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering traders. This is often justified by Muslims as an act of war in response to Meccan oppression (rather than criminal theft and murder). However, modern just war doctrines that are based on self-defence specifically exclude revenge or ‘stealing property back’ as a justification for war, as this would make it inevitable that even the smallest feuds escalate to armed conflict.

Muhammad became more popular as his militia became more successful and profitable. However, three large tribes of Jews remained in Medina and stood between Muhammad and absolute authority over the city. Muhammad tended to have little success converting Jews, despite initially seeing them as natural allies. In addition, the pagans of Medina were somewhat hostile towards Mecca, born of jealousy over the Kaaba and the central role that Mecca played in Arab paganism, while the Jewish tribes had significant trade links with Mecca. It was at this time that Muhammad instructed Muslims to pray towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem, making pagan Mecca rather than the traditional Abrahamic centres the focal point of his religion.

This public address by Muhammad is what counts as diplomacy for a Muslim:

''"O Jews, beware lest God bring on you the like of the retribution which he brought on Quraysh. Accept Islam, for you know that I am a prophet sent by God. You will find this in your scriptures and in God's covenant with you."''

The Quraysh were Muhammad’s own tribe from Mecca. Muhammad’s militia had recently had their first large scale victory against them. This address, made by Muhammad in a market place, was one of the earliest expressions of Muhammad’s “convert or die” doctrine. Muhammad proceeded to get rid of the three large tribes, one by one.

The first tribe to fall victim to Muhammad were the Banu Qaynuqa. According to Islamic traditions, a Banu Qaynuqa goldsmith assaulted a Muslim woman, causing her to be stripped naked. He was killed by a Muslim, which sparked a series of revenge killings. Muhammad expelled the entire tribe from Medina as punishment – another clear rejection of the concept of proportionality.

There were now two large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad assassinated the chief of one of them (the Banu-Nadir), who had written erotic poetry about Muslim women, then expelled them about a year later and seized their property.
By this stage Muhammad was creating a large number of enemies, so he set about attacking smaller groups of Arabs outside of Medina to prevent his enemies uniting.

Eventually the Meccans came to attack Medina, but ended up retreating without a fight. They were allied with the last of the three Jewish tribes in Medina. Afterwards, Muhammad was instructed by an angel to lay siege to the tribe. They surrendered without a fight and were taken prisoner. Muhammad executed every adult male (those with pubic hair) in the tribe, totaling approximately 800 victims. A small number, perhaps two, who converted to Islam were spared. Again, doctrines of just war that are based on self-defence forbid the execution of POWs (Prisoners of War). In order to spread perceived blame and reduce the risk of rebellion over his harsh actions, Muhammad had some of the Jews’ previous allies pass the judgement and conduct many of the executions.

Muhammad then attacked the Jewish community of Kaybar where many of the Banu Nadir had sought refuge. Muhammad ordered the torture of the Banu Nadir treasurer to force him to reveal the location of their gold. Muhammad then decapitated him and later took his wife as a concubine. Muhammad took possession of all their land, but allowed them to continued farming it on condition that they pay 50% of their produce as a tax. After Muhammad’s death they were expelled by Caliph Umar as part of a broader campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Muhammad then negotiated a 10 year treaty with Mecca that allowed Muslims to make pilgrimage to the pagan Kaaba. Two years later, some Meccans apparently violated it. Although Muslim scholars often cite an official declaration of war as a requirement of Islamic just war, Muhammad marched on Mecca with as much secrecy as possible, not even telling his own companions what his plans were, and attempting to give the impression had had an alternative target. The Meccans were actively trying to renegotiate peace, but Muhammad ignored their efforts.

With the exception of a single minor skirmish, the Meccas surrendered without a fight. Muhammad destroyed all pagan idols except for the Kaaba itself and rapidly Islamised Mecca.

Having captured Mecca, the Muslims were now the dominant force on the Arabian peninsula. Muhammad adopted an even more aggressive military strategy, sending out many raids to destroy competing religious sites and slaughter non-Muslims, mostly pagans. He captured most of the peninsula in the short time between capturing Mecca and his death. Non-Muslims were banned from Mecca, which until that point had been a focal point of pagan worship and pilgrimage for the entire peninsula. All treaties were abrogated. Muslim sources acknowledge that Muhammad in effect declared total war against pagans.

Following his death, Muslim rulers expanded the empire rapidly. Muslim commanders were under general instructions to accept the surrender of cities on the condition that they accepted Islam, Muslim rule and paid religious taxes to the empire. Within a century they created the largest land empire that had ever existed.

To insist that this was all done in self-defence is an exercise in absurdity.

= Misrepresenting the Quran =

The Quran promotes and justifies violence. This is not a few scattered verses, but is a dominant theme in the Quran. Whole chapters are devoted to it. For example, chapter 9 is devoted, from start to finish, to encouraging Muslims to slaughter the infidel. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313]
Paying religious taxes to support the war effort is also a dominant theme, with a common refrain being to “fight with your life and your wealth”. Other chapters that heavily promote violence and aggressive warfare are chapter 2, 3, 4 and 8

== Quran never mentions self-defence ==

Muslims will make the absurd argument that the Quran does not use the term self-defence because it was written in Arabic, not English. That is, they will literally use the fact that self-defence is written in English to justify its absence from the Quran (you do not misunderstand, it really is that stupid). However no English translations use the term either. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will also claim that the Quran “clearly explains” the concept of self-defence without mentioning the term, without any textual justification for the claim
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/225#225]
or citing for example Quran 22.39-40:
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

''Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged... [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ."''

However, this is actually a direct contradiction of the self-defence doctrine. Waging war as revenge for past wrongs (because they were wronged…) is explicitly excluded from any legitimate just war doctrine that is based on self-defence. The verse in question was used by Muhammad when initially forming his first militia in Medina, which he used to rob Meccan caravans and murder Meccan traders, by justifying it as revenge for his mistreatment in Mecca.
Muslims will also argue that this verse is “clearly specifying who (and only who) fighting against is given permission to”. This is effectively inserting the word “only” into the Quran. The Quran offers many reasons for going to war. Not only are none of these reasons stated or implied to be the “only” reason, it simply does not make sense that a particular reason is the only permissible one when other reasons (eg mocking Islam) are also given.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]

Muslims will also argue that verses in the Koran permit war "only" against people that Muslims have peace treaties with that they are actively violating. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/129#129] Not only does this contradict other examples of the "only" conditions in which war is permitted, it leaves out an explicit reference to self defence and is a clear contradiction of Muhammad's behaviour. Some of the 'violations' used by Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs to abandon treaties and slaughter the infidel were trivial at best, while other reasons had nothing at all to do with treaties.

The Quran commands Muslims to slaughter the infidel repeatedly, only occasionally placing genuine limitations on it – eg where there is a peace treaty, unless there is some kind of trivial violation of the treaty. These verses were always conveniently revealed when Muhammad needed to motivate his followers to mobilise for war yet again, and for the most part Muslims correctly interpret them as motivational rather than as some poorly explained rule or restriction. Where restrictions such as following peace treaties are genuinely intended, the Quran states them clearly and explicitly, not as a riddle or a blank slate for filling in the gaps with whatever new moral imperatives Muslims pick up from non-Muslim legal theorists.

Muslims will also cite Quran 8:61 as a “clear” explanation of what self-defence means:

''And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.''

However the only interpretation of this verse that is consistent with Muhammad’s actions is that Muslims are to spare those who surrender without a fight (and accept Muslim rule, shariah law, and religious taxes to the Islamic state). It is certainly not a clear explanation that war is only permitted in self-defence. At the very least, it does not limit warfare to self-defence, as the verse is entirely consistent with the historical military practice (among the more aggressive empire builders) of slaughtering anyone who fights back and sparing groups who surrender without a fight and agree to whatever terms are offered.

Other, even more vague verses are also used as “clear explanations”, however they all put the onus on the infidel to make peace. Not a single one puts the onus on Muslims to seek out peace, though countless verses urge them to violence, often without qualification. Not a single one stipulates self defence as the only justification for war.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/22#22]

Muslims will attempt to argue that Quran 60:8 states that Muslims are only permitted to engage in war as an act of self-defence. However it merely states that Muslims are not explicitly forbidden from being nice to people who do not attack Muslims – they are merely forbidden from being ‘allies’ with them. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

''60:8 Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
60:9 Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.''

== Context ==

Muslims will complain that quoting chapter 9 in its entirety is actually taking it out of context, because it does not quote the entire Quran at once, thus leaving out all the other verses that (apparently) state that war must only be fought in self-defence.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/90#90]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/92#92]

Those same Muslims will then make the absurd claim that chapter 9 of the Quran reveals a self-defence doctrine. For example, claiming that 9:4 states that fighting is only permitted against those who violate oaths.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71]

In order to make this claim, verse 5 must be omitted, because it clearly states that Muslims are to slaughter the infidel wherever they find them (unless they convert to Islam and pay religious taxes to the Islamic State). Thus, it is deliberately taking the verse out of context. It is also a misrepresentation of verse 4. Verse 4 does not state that violating oaths is the only permitted justification for war. Rather, it says that Muslims should not violate an existing peace treaty (one of the rare occasions that the Quran actually places limitations on slaughtering the infidel). And of course, ‘violating oaths’ is a caveat on this – again no concept of proportionality is invoked. The smallest violation of a treaty can be used as justification for slaughtering the other party, if it suits the interests of the Islamic State. Thus, Muslims pretend that a caveat on a caveat to the general rule of slaughtering the infidel wherever you find them as actually presented as the only condition for slaughtering the infidel.

This is what verse 4 and 5 actually states:

''9:4. Except those of the Mushrikun [infidel] with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).''

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

Muslims will also claim that verse 13 of chapter 9 states that Muslims should only slaughter the infidel if the infidel attacks Muslims first. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/71#71] Again, what the verse actually states is very different. Also, the preceding verse cites criticism of Islam as an example of an attack and a justification for slaughtering the infidel.

''9:12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).
9:13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
9:14. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people''

For clarity, Mushriken means infidel and Makkah is an alternative spelling of Mecca.

These verses were revealed after Muhammad captured Mecca, banned pagans, abrogated all treaties and set about capturing the rest of the Arabian peninsula. The “attack you first” bit appears to be a reference to the earlier Meccan attack on Medina, which was followed by a peace treaty and then by Muhammad marching on Mecca despite the Meccans suing for peace. It is a reference to a past event being used as a retaliation justification, and clearly not, as some Muslims will attempt to argue, an instruction that the infidel must attack first. Again, just war doctrines based on self-defence specifically exclude retaliation for past wrongs as justifications for war, as it destroys the meaning of the self-defence doctrine.

The Muslims at the time were afraid that Muhammad’s aggressive actions, especially seizing the Kaaba and bringing an end to a long standing pagan tradition of peaceful, inclusive pilgrimage, would unite their enemies against them, and also test the allegiance of recent converts who were now being instructed to kill their friends, families and old allies. (See: islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=11 and discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/05/the-sword-verse-surah-913-24/). It is about as far removed from a self-defence doctrine as it is possible to get, yet still cited by Muslims as a Quranic example of the self-defence doctrine.

Muslims will quote half of a verse from chapter 9 of the Koran to make it appear a general command to maintain peace with non-Muslims, but leave out the first half of the verse which makes it clear that it is a reference to people with whom Muslims have a peace treaty. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498965682/124#124]

== Oppression ==

Muslims will claim that Quran 2:193 specifies the only conditions under which war may be fought.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/111#111]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1469837313/126#126]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/8#8]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/269#269]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/274#274]

They make this claim, even while quoting the verse, which says to slaughter the infidel until they convert to Islam and until there is no more fitnah (rebellion, presumably against Muslim rule):

''2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

The key misrepresentation here is taking extraordinary liberties with the words “cease”. Although it would logically be a reference to what comes before – paganism and rejecting shariah law, Muslims will attempt to construe this verse as only permitting war against oppression.

Muslims cannot offer any kind of explanation as to what the verse means by oppression.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/15#15]

Islam entirely rejects any concept of individual personal liberty. In this context, oppression does not have a clear meaning. The very same verse that apparently calls for Muslims to fight oppression begins by calling on Muslims to slaughter the infidel until worship is only for Allah – hinting for example at denial of basic religious freedom. Several other verses in the Quran as well as Hadith reinforce this concept: that only Allah has the right to be worshiped and that jihad is to continue towards this goal. Muhammad’s own actions also reinforce this rejection of religious freedom.

For example, prior to Islam, Mecca and the Kaaba were a centre for pagan religious pilgrimage, where the pagans would annually set aside their differences and come together in peace to practice their various faiths. As soon as Muhammad gained control of it, he destroyed all the pagan monuments, Islamised the Kaaba, banned all non-Muslims from Mecca, and used Mecca and Medina as bases from which to slaughter pagans and destroy competing religious monuments across the Arabian peninsula – about as clear an example of oppression as you can get. The actions of the Meccans immediately prior to Muhammad marching on Mecca – trying to negotiate for the peace treaty with Medina to remain in place, including provisions for religious freedom and for Muslims to be able to join the pagan pilgrimage to Mecca, are the opposite of oppression, and particularly generous given Muhammad’s previous lengthy career robbing Meccan caravans and murdering traders.

The Quran never explains what is meant by oppression, but the examples given suggest that anything short of submission is to be considered intolerable. Chapter 9, verse 12 cites criticism of Islam as a form of attack in the context of justifying bloodshed. Limited religious freedom was only extended to “people of the book”. That is, Christians and Jews – provided they accepted living as second class citizens.
Muslims will attempt to claim that examples from other chapters of the Quran of what modern, liberal minded people would identify as oppression is actually a clear explanation of what this particular verse means by oppression. However, the Quran never gives an explanation or even description of what oppression means.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/10#10]

Muslims will also feign an inability to comprehend the difference between describing, elsewhere in the Quran, a situation that a modern reader identifies as oppression and actually clarifying what this particular verse or any other verse means by oppression. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/19#19] Even if the verse is intended to mean fight until there is no more oppression, the fact that Muhammad was the greatest oppressor of the time still destroys any potential for meaning.

Muslims will also employ a peculiar circular logic here by insisting that by always putting the onus on non-Muslims to seek out peace and always putting the onus on Muslims to wage Jihad, the Quran must be referring to a self-defence doctrine because it is always up the aggressor in conflict to cease aggression in order to achieve peace, therefor the Quran must mean that the non-Muslim is the aggressor. This is an extension of the typical victimhood mentality that always portrays Muslims as not being responsible for the violent conflict they find themselves in, even if they happen to build the largest land empire the world had ever seen in only 100 years.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/17#17]

== Proportionality ==

Muslims will argue that a verse that explicitly instructs Muslims to commit acts of evil in retribution is a doctrine of proportionality. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/49#49] Apparently, the following verse is the closest that the Quran comes to a doctrine of proportionality in war, despite devoting many chapters to promoting and justifying war:

42:40 ''And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah . Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.''

42:41 ''And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].''

The context of this verse is not war. It is an "eye for an eye" verse. Just war doctrines specifically exclude retribution as a justification for war.

== When the Koran does impose self defence and proportionality ==

The Quran does clearly impose a doctrine of both self defence and proportionality, albeit a little simplistically. [http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/126#126][http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1498873017/75#77] Despite the clear and unambiguous statement, this verse of the Quran is not used by Muslims seeking to build a case for Islam's just war doctrine, because it limits the restriction to Islam's holy months.

2:194 ''During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe God and know that God is with the righteous.''

This is the "exception that proves the rule". That is, the only reason the Quran needs to specify this exception during the holy months is because it explicitly encourages hostile and aggressive warfare at other times. It also demonstrates the absurdity of the elaborate "re-interpretations" that are necessary in order to read a just war doctrine into other verses of the Quran. The examples provided above were not cherry-picked for their hollowness. They were the best examples provided.

Muslims will attempt to argue that verse 2:194 is a reference to some kind of domestic fighting rather than warfare,
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/316#136]
even after arguing that preceding verse (which calls on Muslims to convert people by the sword) is in fact a reference to a just war doctrine of self defence and proportionality.
[http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1513048082/297#297]

2:193 ''Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.''

Consider also this verse calling for the slaughter of non-Muslims outside of the hold months:

''9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.''

= Justifying Lies about the Quran =

Muslims often cite the potential benefit of ‘positive misinterpretations’ or white lies about the Quran as helping to make Muslims more peaceful. However, they cannot stop Muslims from picking up the Quran, reading it for themselves, and discovering what it actually says. In fact, Islam commands them to do exactly this, and explicitly forbids misrepresenting the Quran.

Thus these misinterpretations only serve to deceive non-Muslims. This is particularly true in the case of just war doctrine. Those who misrepresent the Quran’s key messages on war will never find themselves in charge of a Muslim army waging holy war. Thus it only serves to encourage naivete in non-Muslims seeking to understand religiously motivated violence. It create a blind spot, for example in anticipating the number of Muslims from western countries like to travel to or support ISIS, and encourages ineffective responses to the problems. For example, the opinion of a non-Muslim political leader on the Quran’s true message, no matter how sincere, progressive or well-communicated, will never hold any weight with a conservative Muslim considering holy war who is capable of reading the Quran for himself.