Straight From the Horse's Mouth.

While reading at Jihad Watch I came to a posting that caught my immediate interest. It was from an Islamic Site that basically said that freedom was a western fallacy and there was no need or room for it in Islam.

The page that they linked to is here. I strongly recommend that you read the entire thing (and it is not very long.) The article is entitled There Is No Room For Freedom In Islam. And if anyone should doubt that this is an Islamic site, here is the homepage (and it has some real beauties amongst its articles.)

The article itself says some astonishing things:

We do not want the slavery to our desires, money, women, man-made laws, Tony Blair etc like that offered by a free and democratic society, rather the Muslims believe in Islam, which is the total submission to Almighty Allah exclusively by worshipping Him (swt), obeying and following his commands and declaring complete intolerance, hatred, disassociation from Shirk (associating partners with Allah) and all of its people (i.e. all Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists etc).

Please note the words "declaring complete intolerance, hatred, disassociation for Shirk ... and all of its people."

I am also astonished to read this:

Another favourite of the west is the personal freedom to dress provocatively, to walk naked in the streets harming everybody in their way, freedom to look at pornography ‘as long as it is not children’, freedom to drink themselves into a frenzy until they are drunk and begin to steal, rape, kill and beat their wives and children.

Are they trying to say that Muslims never rape?!?

Perhaps they should tell it to this young Swedish lady who was gang-raped by Muslims because she was an infidel.

The article which released this picture includes some very telling words from young Islamic men who were prosecuted for rape.

NOTE: I was quite tired when I wrote this and made a major mistake, which I admit and apologize for. I have deleted what I read as a quote and was in fact an interpolation from another commenter suggesting that western women are the rightful booty of Islamic men.

However, the following is a proper quote that says essentially the same thing:

“It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid [link is in Swedish]. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.” It was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped in Rissne – this becomes obvious from the discussion with Ali, Hamid, Abdallah and Richard. All four have disparaging views on Swedish girls, and think this attitude is common among young men with immigrant background. “It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fucked to pieces.”

Or perhaps they can explain this event as well. Or perhaps this is more civilized than anything done in Europe.

Free to beat their wives and children? Take a look at this including this quote:

This verse is not are not a thing of the past. In 2000 a retired Turkish Muslim cleric, Kemal Guran, sparked a controversy in that secularized Muslim nation with a passage in his booklet, The Muslim’s Handbook. According to the BBC, “the booklet, published by the Pious Foundation, which is part of the government’s Religious Affairs Directorate, says men can beat their wives as long as they do not strike the face and only beat them moderately.” Even a relatively moderate Muslim, Dr. Jamal Badawi, acknowledges that husbands have the right to beat their wives. Quoting Sura 4:34, Dr. Badawi doesn’t deny the prerogative, but he’s clearly embarrassed by it, and tries to explain it away: “Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but NEVER ON THE FACE, making it more of a symbolic measure then a punitive one.” (Emphasis in the original.)

As a stopped clock is right twice a day, they are right about the problems of immorality and they do need to be solved, but their solution, Sharia, is a cure far worse than the disease. Yes they share some moral ideas with the so-called Religious Right, but the Religious Right does not encourage men to rape women or beat their wives. We do not threaten to kill people who quit believing in Christianity. The differences are far greater than any superficial similarities that may exist and those who want a make a moral equivalence between the two are only spouting political rhetoric and are not even worth listening to.