RaymondIbrahim.com

Demonstrating Continuity

NEW: See Raymond Ibrahim debate the Islamic concept of zakat (Muslim "charity") on Al Jazeera English HERE.

See Raymond Ibrahim debate the "Clash of Civilizations" with Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi HERE

See Raymond Ibrahim talk about his book The Al Qaeda Reader with Lawerence Wright (author of The Looming Towers) on CSPAN Book TV HERE

Latest Articles

March 1, 2010

How the Islamist Mindset Rationalizes -- and Promotes -- 'Sex Sins'

Pajamas Media

Is it inconsistent for Muslim “holy warriors” to engage in voyeuristic acts of lasciviousness? Because would-be jihadists and martyrs have been known to frequent strip bars — such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan, whose “late-night jiggle-joint carousing stands at odds with the picture of a devout Muslim” — many Americans have concluded that such men cannot be “true” Muslims, leading to the ubiquitous conviction that they are “hijacking Islam.”

In fact, Islamists rely on several rationalizations — doctrines, even — that make “jiggle-joint carousing” consistent with Muslim piety. Considering that Islamic law permits sex slaves (Koran 4:3), who can be kept topless by their masters, and makes sex one of the highest paradisiacal rewards, this should come as no great surprise. However, to elaborate:

February 3, 2010

The Lure of Jihadism, or 'Boys Will Be Boys'

Pajamas Media

According to a recent ABC report, "As many as three dozen criminals who converted to Islam in American prisons have moved to Yemen where they could pose a 'significant threat' to attack the U.S., according to a report on al-Qaeda from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. … Also of concern to U.S. officials, the Senate staff found, is a group of 'nearly 10 non-Yemeni Americans who traveled to Yemen, converted to Islam, became fundamentalists, and married Yemeni women so they could remain in the country.' … An American official described them as 'blond-haired, blue-eyed types' who fit the profile of Americans who al-Qaeda has sought to recruit for terror missions."

These, of course, are not the first Americans — "blond-haired, blue-eyed types" or otherwise — to convert to Islam and join the jihad: John Walker Lindh wound up fighting fellow Americans alongside Taliban forces in Afghanistan; Adam Gadahn became a major character in al-Qaeda's propaganda machine; Gregory Patterson, Levar Washington, and Kevin James plotted terror strikes against the U.S.; Christopher Paul and Jose Padilla conspired to use weapons of mass destruction.

Then there are the countless European converts, such as the British "shoe-bomber," Richard Reid, who attempted to achieve "martyrdom" by detonating explosives in his shoes while aboard a passenger aircraft; the late Germaine Lindsay, who did achieve "martyrdom" by killing himself and 56 of his fellow citizens and injuring over 700, in the London bombings of 2005; and Abu Abdullah, the native Briton-turned-fiery-Islamist-preacher who makes no secret of his vitriolic hatred of the West (all, of course, while enjoying that unique Western liberty, freedom of speech).

What causes such men, born and raised in the West, often from Christian backgrounds, to abandon their heritage, embrace Islam, and become radicalized to the point that they conspire to kill their fellow countrymen?

January 5, 2010

How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War

Middle East Quarterly

Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam's dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur'an is against believers deceiving other believers—for "surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar"[1]—deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur'anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one's religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi'i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya—not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam's code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?

December 24, 2009

Shameless Islamist Doublespeak Rages On

Pajamas Media

“Al-Qaeda’s Zawahiri Accuses Obama of Trying to ‘Enslave’ Arab World.” So reads the headline of a recent Fox News report, which goes on to quote Zawahiri saying things such as “Obama’s policy is nothing but another cycle in the Crusader and Zionist campaign to enslave and humiliate us, and to occupy our land and steal our wealth.”

Two years earlier, Zawahiri was even more dramatic. Then he implored “blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world, to know that when we wage jihad in Allah’s path, we aren’t waging jihad to lift oppression from Muslims only; we are waging jihad … to lift oppression from all mankind. … This is why I want every oppressed one on the face of the earth to know that our victory over America and the Crusading West — with Allah’s permission — is a victory for them, because they shall be freed from the most powerful tyrannical force in the history of mankind.”

November 18, 2009

Nidal Hasan and Fort Hood: A Study in Muslim Doctrine

Pajamas Media

One of the difficulties in discussing Islam's more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims — such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?

Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and "observant Muslim who prayed daily," who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons — he was "picked on," he was "mentally unbalanced" — the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

November 9, 2009

Islamist Perfidy and Western Naivety: Which Is More Lethal?

Pajamas Media

In a blog entry for Islamist Watch, David J. Rusin shows how the word “jihad” continues to be euphemized in the West. Despite Islamic law’s unequivocal portrayal of it as a military endeavor to empower Islam, jihad is still being peddled as “nothing more than a student laboring to pass algebra, a mom driving her kids to soccer practice, or, in the words of the Cambridge study, a civic-minded person engaged in ‘lobbying, activism, and writing’ — a community organizer of sorts.” Rusin concludes by observing: “Why Islamists peddle such specious definitions should be clear. More baffling and disturbing is why they gain traction among so many Westerners.”

Indeed, therein lies the irony: Islamist perfidy is only to be expected; Western naivety, on the other hand, which, if anything, should have begun to dissipate in our post-9/11 world, has burgeoned to the point of nearly making the former unnecessary. For while there is no doubt that Islamists (and their misguided Western cronies) distort the meaning of jihad, increasingly, even when the true meaning is in plain sight, America’s leaders and media still fail to discern it. In other words, apathy — or willful blindness — regarding jihad has become so deep-seated in the West that Islamists need no longer actively dissemble.

October 7, 2009

An Open Question to Osama bin Laden -- or Any Other Islamist

Pajamas Media

Ever since 9/11, when Osama bin Laden was thrust into the spotlight, he has made it a point to occasionally submit questions to Americans — questions which he apparently thinks are unanswerable.

In his last message “commemorating” 9/11, for instance, after rehashing the storyline that the jihad on America wholly revolves around U.S. support for Israel — former grievances cited throughout the years include America’s “exploitation” of women and failure to sign the environmental Kyoto Protocol — bin Laden concluded with the following musing: “You should ask yourselves whether your security, your blood, your sons, your money, your jobs, your homes, your economy, and your reputation are more dear to you than the security and economy of the Israelis.”

August 25, 2009

When Will Westerners Stop Westernizing Islamic Concepts?

Middle East Forum Online

Recently, Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today wrote an article about Muslim zakat, wherein I was referenced as a "critic of Islam." She then followed up with another article titled "Critic questions the aims and ends of Islamic charity," dedicated to examining my views on zakat.

While I appreciate Ms. Grossman's initiative, what especially interests me is that her response exemplifies the problems originally highlighted in my article, "The Dark Side of Zakat: Islamic Charity in Context," which Ms. Grossman takes to task.

August 15, 2009

The Dark Side of Zakat: Muslim Charity in Context

Pajamas Media

From what American schoolchildren are being taught by their teachers to what Americans are being told by their presidents, concepts unique to Islam are nowadays almost always “Westernized.” Whether the product of naivety, arrogance, or downright disingenuousness, this phenomenon has resulted in epistemic (and thus endemic) failures, crippling Americans from objectively understanding some of Islam’s more troublesome doctrines.

July 17, 2009

Obama’s Puzzling Approach to the Muslim World

Pajamas Media

President Barack Obama and I have one thing in common shared by few Americans: we were brought up by at least one parent — biological or step is irrelevant — who was born and raised in an Islamic milieu. Intimately aware of the inevitable effects of this, I must question Obama’s sincerity in his approach to the Islamic world.

June 30, 2009

St. Francis of Assisi, Fr. Zakaria Botros, and Islam: Continuity

Jihad Watch

While not formally connected, two books I recently finished reading -- St. Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of Muslims and Defying Death: Zakaria Botross, Apostle to Islam -- complement each other very well, specifically by establishing continuity between medieval and modern Islam, and, in so doing, demonstrating that Islamic intolerance has a long pedigree.

June 8, 2009

Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Middle East Quarterly

"There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam."[1] So announces former nun and self-professed "freelance monotheist," Karen Armstrong. This quote sums up the single most influential argument currently serving to deflect the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant: All monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and not just Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam's sacred scriptures—the Qur'an first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad (the Hadith)—are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion's innate bellicosity, the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures, specifically those of Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled with violent passages.

June 4, 2009

Respecting the Faithful vs. Respecting the Faith

Pajamas Media

During the pope’s recent Mideast visit, the media reported that he has “deep respect for Islam.” That exact phrase appeared in the Associated Press, AFP, BBC, Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, and Al-Jazeera.

Yet he said no such thing; instead, he mentioned his “deep respect for the Muslim community.” There’s a world of difference between respecting a religious group and respecting their religion, and the pontiff knows this.

As a Christian — indeed, as pope — by evoking his “deep respect” for Muslims, Benedict probably meant that Muslims, who believe in one God, pray, fast, and follow a strict set of moral principles, are, from a religious perspective, worthy of “deep respect,” certainly in comparison to the many godless of the secular West.

More Respecting the Faith

June 4, 2009

Criticism and Conciliation

National Review

Though he early indicated that this would be an honest, heart-to-heart talk — "we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors" and "let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together" — Obama did not follow through.

A heart-to-heart talk revealing what is "said only behind closed doors" would have included any number of issues pitting the Islamic world on a collision course with the West—from that business of jihad and enmity for infidels, to sharia law and dhimmi status of non-Muslim minorities, etc. — issues that have led to a majority of Americans having a negative view of the Muslim world.

Instead, for every mild admonishment directed at the Islamic world, Obama immediately followed by several admissions of American mistakes, including reactions to 9/11, which "in some cases, led us to act contrary to our ideals." That's to say nothing of the constant adulation he offered the Muslim world.

More Criticism and Conciliation

May 4, 2009

Words Matter in the War on Terror

Pajamas Media

Knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The less accurate words are, the less accurate the knowledge they impart; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the war on terror, to acquire accurate knowledge — which is pivotal to victory — we need to begin with accurate language.

Would the free world have understood the Nazi threat if, instead of calling them what they called themselves, “Nazis,” it had opted to simply call them “extremists” — a word wholly overlooking the racist, expansionary, and supremacist elements that are part and parcel of the word “Nazi”?

More Words Matter

April 17, 2009

What Piracy? This Is the Same Old Jihad

Pajamas Media

During the recent Somali pirate standoff with U.S. forces, when American sea captain Richard Phillips was being held hostage, Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer confidently concluded that “the good news is that these [pirates] are not jihadists. If it’s a jihadist holding a hostage, there is going to be a lot of death. These guys are interested not in martyrdom but in money.”

In fact, the only good news is that Richard Phillips has been rescued. The bad news is that what appears to have been a bunch of lawless, plunder-seeking Somalis “yo-hoing” on the high seas is, in fact, a manifestation of the jihad — as attested to by both Islamic history and doctrine.

More What Piracy? This is the same Jihad

April 12, 2009

The History Channel's Distortions of the Crusades

Jihad Watch

I recently taped and am watching a documentary, "The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross," on the History Channel. While it is more or less historically accurate—names, dates, figures—it suffers from two weaknesses, weaknesses that often take center stage whenever Islam is discussed in the West: 1) biases and apologetics on behalf of Islam, coupled with outright distortions concerning Christians and Christianity; and 2) anachronisms, by projecting the motives and worldview of modern man onto the motives and worldview of pre-modern man, both Muslims and Christians.

Take the first 10 minute segment, dealing with Pope Urban II’s call to the Crusades, including the famous Council of Clermont (1095) where Urban made his case. Urban is repeatedly portrayed as a sly politician wholly indifferent to Christianity and faith, simply interested in aggrandizing his power and authority.

More Distortions of the Crusades

April 11, 2009

Obama’s Abominable Obeisance: Cultural Perspectives

Pajamas Media

Is Obama’s deep bow (with slightly bent knee) to the Saudi king as bad as it seems? The White House, apparently forgetful that we live in the Internet age, where everything is swiftly documented and disseminated — or else thinking it leads a nation of the blind — insists the president did not bow. He supposedly always bends in half when shaking hands with shorter people, though he certainly seemed quite erect when saluting the British queen, who is much shorter than the Saudi king.

Obama bowed; this much is certainly not open to debate. All that is left now is to place his odious obeisance in context. As such, history has much to say about the seemingly innocuous bow.

More Obama's Abominable Obeisance

April 5, 2009

Textbook Lies about Islam

Pajamas Media

In recent House hearings dedicated to examining Islamic extremism, I stressed that the fundamental stumbling block to effective policy-making is educational and epistemological. What people are taught about Islam needs a serious overhaul before we can expect to formulate strategies that make sense.

Worth heeding is former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop’s 2006 lament that “the senior service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered.”

Three years later, the situation appears worse. After the War College published something of an apologia for the terrorist organization Hamas, defense analyst Mark Perry concluded, “It’s worse than you think. They have curtailed the curriculum so that their students are not exposed to radical Islam. Akin to denying students access to Marx during the Cold War.”

More Textbook Lies about Islam

March 15, 2009

Conflating History with Theology: Judeo-Christian Violence vs. Islamic Violence

Jihad Watch

Especially after the terrorist strikes of 9/11, Islam has often been accused of being intrinsically violent. Many point to the Koran and other Islamic scriptures and texts as proof that violence and intolerance vis-à-vis non-Muslims is inherent to Islam. In response, a number of apologetics have been offered. The fundamental premise of almost all of these is that Islam’s purported violence—as found in Islamic scriptures and history—is no different than the violence committed by other religious groups throughout history and as recorded in their scriptures, such as Jews and Christians. The argument, in short, is that it is not Islam per se but rather human nature that is prone to violence.

So whenever the argument is made that the Koran as well as the historical words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and his companions evince violence and intolerance, the counter-argument is immediately made: What about the historical atrocities committed by the Hebrews in years gone by and as recorded in their scriptures (AKA, the Old Testament)? What about the brutal cycle of violence Christians have committed in the name of their faith against both fellow Christians and non-Christians?

More Conflating History and Theology

March 14, 2009

Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Torments of the Grave

Pajamas Media

Why do some Muslims become suicide bombers or “martyrs”? In fact, these two near antithetic words — on the one hand, broken, desperate suicides, on the other, heroic martyrs — intrinsically demonstrate the radically different epistemologies the average Westerner and Muslim will articulate their answer through. In other words, that Westerners consider them suicides while Muslims consider them martyrs in and of itself speaks volumes on motivation.

To the secular Western mind, such Muslims are simply frustrated: oppressed and depressed, and with nothing to lose, these Muslims (so the logic goes) end their suffering in the name of some “noble” cause — be it the “liberation of al-Aqsa” or the razing of U.S. skyscrapers. All their talk about Islam, “obligations,” or 72 dark-eyed virgins is but a cover for their true motivation: “revenge” on the one hand, escape from an oppressive existence on the other. Most recently, “shame” has been cited as another culprit: al-Qaeda has been raping and thereby shaming women — and men — into becoming “martyrs.”

More Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Torments of the Grave

February 26, 2009

Taqiyya Revisited: A Response to the Critics (Part I and II)

Jihad Watch

Having written at length on various aspects of Islam, it is always my writings concerning doctrinal deceit that elicit (sometimes irate) responses. As such, the purpose of this article is to revisit the issue of deceit and taqiyya in Islam, and address the many ostensibly plausible rebuttals made by both Muslims and non-Muslims.

The earliest rebuttal I received appeared last year, days after I wrote an essay called "Islam's doctrines of deception" for the subscription-based Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst. Due to the controversy it initiated among the intelligence community and abroad, the editors were quick to publish an apologetic counter-article by one Michael Ryan called "Interpreting Taqiyya."

More Taqiyya Revisited

February 12, 2009

War and Peace — and Deceit — in Islam(Part I and II)

Pajamas Media

Today, in a time of wars and rumors of wars emanating from the Islamic world — from the current conflict in Gaza, to the saber-rattling of nuclear-armed Pakistan and soon-to-be Iran — the need for non-Muslims to better understand Islam’s doctrines and objectives concerning war and peace, and everything in between (treaties, diplomacy), has become pressing. For instance, what does one make of the fact that, after openly and vociferously making it clear time and time again that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel annihilated, Hamas also pursues “peace treaties,” including various forms of concessions from Israel — and more puzzling, receives them?

Before being in a position to answer such questions, one must first appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of mainstream (Sunni) Islam. Amazingly, for all the talk that Islam is constantly being “misunderstood” or “misinterpreted” by “radicals,” the fact is, as opposed to most other religions, Islam is a clearly defined faith admitting of no ambiguity: indeed, according to Sharia (i.e., “Islam’s way of life,” more commonly translated as “Islamic law”) every conceivable human act is categorized as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory. “Common sense” or “universal opinion” has little to do with Islam’s notions of right and wrong. All that matters is what Allah (via the Koran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the hadith) have to say about any given subject, and how Islam’s greatest theologians and jurists — collectively known as the ulema, literally, the “ones who know” — have articulated it.

More War and Peace -- and Deceit in Islam

February 12, 2009

Raymond Ibrahim testifies before the U.S. House of Representatives

About jihad, sharia, deception, and perpetual war -- also known as "radical Islam." On February 12, 2009, I gave a witness statement to the House Armed Service Committee entitled Strategies For Countering Radical Islamist Ideologies: Overcoming Conceptual Difficulties. The PDF can be found here. To listen to the actual hearing, click here.

January 26, 2009

Consider the Source: Jihad has Islamic, and non-Islamic, roots. A Review of The Mind of Jihad by Laurent Murawiec

The Weekly Standard

For some time now there has been a raging debate regarding what fuels Islamic terrorism--whether grievances against the West have caused frustrated Muslims to articulate their rage through an Islamist paradigm, or whether (all grievances aside) Islam itself leads to aggression toward non-Muslims, or "infidels."

Laurent Murawiec's The Mind of Jihad offers a different perspective. Discounting both the grievance and Islam-as-innately-violent models, Murawiec explores certain untapped areas of research in order to show correlations between radical Islam and any number of uniquely Western concepts and patterns, both philosophical and historical.

While this approach is admirable, it also proves to be overly ambitious, and thus problematic, specifically in its insistence that radical Islam is merely the latest manifestation of phenomena rooted in the Western experience. Murawiec is no apologist; neither, however, is he interested in examining Islam's own peculiar Weltanschauung--as outlined by the Koran and hadith, articulated by the ulema (theologian-scholars), and codified in sharia law--in order to better understand the jihad.

More Considering The Source

January 4, 2009

The ongoing exploits of Fr. Zakaria Botros: "God does not pray!"

Jihad Watch

Recently Father Zakaria Botros—also named World Magazine’s “Daniel of the Year”—briefly examined the oft-repeated phrase uttered by Muslims every single time Muhammad’s name is evoked, and which is often relayed in English as “blessings and peace upon him” (also seen as the acronym PBUH—“peace be upon him”).

The original Arabic phrase uttered after Muhammad’s name is Sala Allah ‘aliyhi we sallam, which literally translates into “Allah pray on him and peace.” This is founded on Koran 33:56, where it says that "Allah and his angels pray (yi-sal-un) on the prophet..."

At one point or another, every Arabic speaker who reflects on this phrase asks, “Why—and how—does Allah go about praying on Muhammad?”

The standard response from the ulema has been that, in this context, Sala does not mean “pray” but rather “bless.” This is why the phrase states “on him” (‘aliyhi) not “to him” (iliyhi): only the latter would clearly mean that Allah prays to Muhammad—which, of course, would be absurd.

More God Does Not Pray

December 2008

AN ANALYSIS OF AL-QA'IDA'S WORLDVIEW: RECIPROCAL TREATMENT OR RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION?

MERIA

By analyzing what al-Qa’ida preaches to Muslims regarding Islam’s relationship to the non-Muslim world at large, and what it states to the West are its reasons for battling it, this essay seeks to highlight the many disparities behind al-Qa’ida’s words. Juxtaposed in themes, the following excerpts are all derived from Usama bin Ladin’s and Ayman al-Zawahiri’s writings and speeches as found in The Al Qa’ida Reader.

More An Analysis of al-Qa'ida's Worldview

December 27 2008

Examining an Orientalist Excerpt: Carl Brockelmann: "Islamophobe" or Scholar?

Jihad Watch

Recently reading through Professor Carl Brockelmann’s History of the Islamic Peoples (1948), I was struck by a particular passage that, inasmuch as it is objective and thoroughly grounded in Islamic law and Muslim practice, if asserted now by any scholar of whatever caliber would surely only earn the label “Islamophobe.” Brockelmann, of course, was one of the most premiere scholars of Islam in his day (1868-1956) and a prolific writer; so too was he one of those explicitly named and denounced by Edward Said for being an Orientalist—or, according to Said, for being a “tool” of colonialism and imperialism, not a “true” scholar.

More Examining an Orientalist Excerpt

December 14, 2008

Are slave-girls in Islam equivalent to animals?

Jihad Watch

Many are now aware that the Koran—that is, Allah’s word—permits, not just polygamy, but forced concubinage (sex with captive women), according to Koran 4:3: “Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then only one, or what your right hands possess [captive women taken in war].” There is, however, an interesting, and very telling, linguistic aspect to this verse that is often overlooked—or intentionally obscured. The Arabic states: “Ankahu [marry]…ma [what] malakat [possess] aymankum [your right hands].”

Oddly enough, the Arabic relative pronoun used to indicate these captive women is "ma": ma malakat aymankum, literally, “what your right hands possess” (see Shakir’s acclaimed English translation which most literally translates this). In Arabic, when one refers to a rational being (i.e., a human), the word used is min, which means “who(ever)”; ma, on the other hand, refers only to things or animals—trees, rocks, dogs and cats—very much similar to the English “it.” Thus, in proper Arabic the phrase might have been min malakat aymankum: “who(ever) your rights hands possess.”

More Are slave-girls in Islam equivalent to animals?

December 14, 2008

On Vikings and Victims: White Guilt in Context

American Thinker

All-permeating "white-guilt" did not appear out of thin air. It has taken a sustained propaganda effort, a wide-ranging mobilization of education and culture, to inculcate and sustain self-loathing among American Caucasians. Like the Coca-Cola ^TM brand, white-guilt needs endless repetition to remain struck in the thought and behavioral processes of the masses.