Nasim Ben Iman, Apostate from Islam in Germany warns the West

22685-Heute-liebt-er-die-die-ihn-hassenGates of Vienna:

The following video from Germany, originally posted at Politically Incorrect, contains excerpts from an interview with an apostate from Islam.

Nassim Ben Iman warns his audience that Westerners are being dangerously naïve about Islam and blind to the Islamization of Europe, which has been planned for a long time and is now well underway. As PI notes:

Nassim Ben Iman is one of the best-known apostates of Islam in Germany.

He has written a book of his own experiences entitled: “Der wahre Feind… warum ich kein Terrorist geworden bin” / “The true enemy…why I did not become a terrorist”. In view of the present Islamic terror threat in Germany, his statements about the danger of Islam are more topical than ever.

This ex-Muslim of Arab origin has a lot to tell, and offers us a deep insight into the most peaceful of all religions. As one of only a very small number, he managed to extract himself from the strict Islamic indoctrination. He tells brutal truths such as “Every Muslim is a potential terrorist”. We have distilled the most important points of an extensive interview with this courageous man which we conducted in May of this year into a ten-minute video, because of the acute terrorism danger.

Warning: this video is not recommended for “do-gooders” whose carefully constructed worldview could, when they watch this film, disintegrate.

Many thanks to Oz-Rita for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


Go to Gates of Vienna for the Transcript

Jacksonville City Council Could “Kill the Human Rights Controversy”

City_council_meeting_pic-630x286by Randy McDaniels:

Mayor Alvin Brown’s nomination of Parvez Ahmed, former National Chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) for a second term on the Human Rights Commission has the City Council and its citizens divided on the issue.

Parvez Ahmed

Parvez Ahmed

The 2010 Jacksonville City Council had an opportunity to “Kill the Controversy” surrounding Parvez Ahmed dead in its tracks.  That Council received Information from Former Muslims United, which if properly acted upon would have answered any question about the suitability of Parvez Ahmed to sit on a Human Rights body and done so in a manner which would have reasonably appealed to the sensibilities of those on both sides of this nomination.

In 2009, Former Muslims United (FMU) sent a “Pledge for Religious Freedom” to approximately (46) Florida Mosques, Islamic Centers, and other recognized Islamic leaders to include Parvez Ahmed.  The letter cites authoritative Islamic Law or SHARIA from (8) renowned sources to include (3) Islamic legal bodies within North America, and all call for capital punishment for those who commit apostasy or treason by leaving the nation of Islam.

Note:  Since Sharia governs all aspects of the nation of Islam, it is not really a religious legal code, but in fact a political system.  Political Islam or Sharia, governs not only religion, but all aspects of Islamic life to include social, economic, political, military, and legal matters…many of which address those outside the faith of Islam irrespective of their personal rights or beliefs.

The full “Pledge for Religious Freedom” which can be viewed at the bottom of this article, finishes with a request for leaders in the Islamic community to sign a pledge in affirmation of basic Human Rights:

To support the civil rights of former Muslims, also known as apostates from Islam, I sign “The Muslim Pledge for Religious Freedom and Safety from Harm for Former Muslims”:

I renounce, repudiate and oppose any physical intimidation, or worldly and corporal punishment, of apostates from Islam, in whatever way that punishment may be determined or carried out by myself or any other Muslim including the family of the apostate, community, Mosque leaders, Shariah court or judge, and Muslim government or regime.


Signed By

 The authoritative Islamic laws (Sharia) cited, not only violate the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cherished by all Americans who recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, but they also violate the right to Freedom of Religion guaranteed under 1st  Amendment.

More problematic than his refusal to sign the “Pledge of Religious Freedom” is the fact CAIR members whom Parvez Ahmed worked with for years, held and currently hold leadership positions on leading Islamic legal bodies in North America, such as the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which have placed their seal of approval on the “Reliance of the Traveller”, the only official English/Arabic Translation of SHARIA, which sanctions the killing of apostates and is sourced in the Pledge.

Additionally, CAIR’s Co-founder Nihad Awad, and CAIR National Board Members Muzzamil Siddiqi and Jamal Badawi sit on the Shura Council of North America, which is tasked with overseeing the implementation of Sharia law and guiding the work of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the United States.  CAIR boldly honored the founder of (IIIT) Jamal Barzinji with a lifetime achievement award in September of 2012, which suggest CAIR continues to support Sharia and Muslim Brotherhood.

The Shura concept of democracy is quite different than western concepts of democracy in that a literal translation of “rule of the people” cannot occur within Islam, because all sovereignty belongs to ALLAH, meaning Sharia not the U.S. Constitution shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.

This view is also supported by leading 20th century Muslim thinkers like Sayyid Qutb (Shepard 1996:110, Hoffmann 2007:297) and Abu al-Ala al-Mawdudi (1969:215). They base their argument on Quranic verses 6:57, 12:40, and 12:67, all of which contain the phrase “in al-hukm illā li-llāh” meaning that the decision or power is God’s alone (Fatwa no. 98134 (n.d.) at

An example, which goes to the heart of why it is paramount to determine the mindset of Parvez Ahmed is (Fatwa no. 22239 (n.d.) at, which states that legislative systems which rule on matters already decided by divine intervention – such as abolishing polygamy or outlawing capital punishment – “go against the laws of the Creator” and this “constitutes disbelief (kufr)”.  Those who issue Fatwa’s, look to authoritative Islamic legal text such as the “Reliance of the Traveller” in order to support their legal opinions.

By signing a document which directly renounces Sharia or “Goes against the laws of the Creator” a Sharia Adherent Muslim would render himself an enemy of the Islamic State (Apostate) unless he was under threat of death or extreme duress, at such times it is permissible deceive and/or lie even about such grave matters as religous belief, which is normally forbidden.

Holy Deception (Taqiyya) and Permissible lying are basic tenants of the Islamic legal and religious code, which make lying and deception obligatory on all Muslims if the action is obligatory.  The Hijrah (migration) to settle enemy lands for eventual Islamic conquest and Jihad – Islamic warfare against non-Muslim to establish the religion are obligatory actions.  Jihad can take many forms to include information warfare (propaganda, dawah/outreach, as well as financial warfare (Sharia Compliant Finance (SCF)), however Jihad Qital or violent Jihad is the most revered.

Note:  CAIR advertises they are Zakat eligible on their website.  Meaning, CAIR can collect money for the (8) categories of Islamic giving which includes JIHAD.  However, CAIR boast all of their giving goes for Zakat Fi-Sabilillah or entirely for the purpose of Jihad and has since Parvez Ahmed held the position of National Chairman.

The specific language crafted in the “Pledge for Religious Freedom” strips the ability a political Islamist to wordsmith in order to give a misleading impression of tolerance and moderation where such moderation may not truly exist.

For example:  Under Islamic Legal definitions, non-Muslims are sub-human and guilty of sin (not Innocent) since they are not Muslim.  Terrorism is understood as the UNJUST killing of a Muslim only (The killing of an apostate, homosexual, and Kufr are all justified).

In light of these Islamic Understandings, consider the following statement:

“In my religion we are forbidden from killing any innocent human being and I unequivocally denounce terrorism in any form it may take.”

If this statement was made by a Sharia adherent Muslim, did it violate any tenants of Islamic law?  Understanding Sharia, does this statement in anyway condemn the killing of non-Muslims, homosexuals, or apostates which are contrary to western notions of basic Human Rights?  The answer to both of these questions is no and this statment is in no way moderate.

The vast majority of Jacksonville residents have never heard an honest discussion regarding the numerous concerns surrounding this appointment.  Unfortunately, what they have seen is members of the Council, the Florida Times Union, NAACP, ACLU and even the local Democrat Party jump on the race bait bandwagon with accusations of fear mongering, Islamophobia and outright Racism.

Those opposed to this appointment have cited the fact CAIR was labeled a Co-conspirator in the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism finance trial in U.S. history (US vs. HLF, 2008), as well as evidence which clearly demonstrates the organization which Parvez Ahmed held a leadership position in for over (10) years was created to support HAMAS with funds, media and manpower.

In addition, Parvez Ahmed has gone on record, making direct statements in support of convicted terrorist, terrorist groups HAMAS and Hezbollah, as well as writing numerous articles which appear to support the stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in furtherance of their “Civilization Jihad” inside America to include a recent article which suggested criminalizing free speech if it offends Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, or Muslims in accordance with Sharia Slander Law which are being pushed by the OIC at the U.N. via resolution 16/18.

In a rational world, these facts would be more than enough to disqualify this nomination and those courageous councilmen and women who changed their position based on the facts should not have been crucified in the media but commended.

With “Honor Killings” on the rise and a segment of the American population living in fear of persecution and threat death for nothing more than trying to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, the City Council would be derelict in their duty if they did not utilize ever tool available to ensure the Constitutional freedoms of every citizen are protected.

The “Pledge for Religious Freedom” provides an excellent tool to “KILL the Controversy” surrounding Parvez Ahmed’s suitability to hold a seat on a Human Rights Commission and ensue the rights of former Muslims are protected. 

The real question is will City Council take advantage of this Freedom Document?

Read more at The Watchdog Wire


Interview with Pulp Ark, Apostate of Islam and author of Tulisan Murtad

195892_100903499995768_2281168_aWhen and why did you get involved in the anti-Islamic movement?

When I decided to leave Islam 2.5 years back, I felt that I needed a sanctuary, a place that I can share my feelings about Islam. I started with an Indonenian forum run by Ali Sina. It’s a resourceful place in finding the truth about Islam. Suddenly, I was immersed into the forum, confronting Muslims. I made many friends with fellow apostates and infidels that fights along with me.

Six months later, having understood the threat is global, I suggested to my friends to create special FB accounts to reach much wider audience. We continue our fights there, making notes, postings vile Islamic activities and events. A few of our English speaking friends, including me, have began to reach the West.

I started to change my strategy, while it was worthy to confront Muslims, making allies with the West is as important, as Islam has a major problem with Judeo-Christianity it’s trying to corrupt. Earlier, I was tempted to befriended with some reformers, much like my old self. Gradually, I became assured that Islam cannot be reformed from within. It can only be destroyed from without.

I must name the few that shaped me into this today, Christopher Logan and Vin Ienco. There are other big names that I keep on losing due to my recycling FB account, such as Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Bridget Gabriel. In any case, I am proud to be among the growing nameless others that work around the clock dedicating themselves in exposing Islam.

I learn further that Islamic goal in world domination is actually recorded as the End of Time prophecy in the Bible; and the Mark is actually very Islamic. All the events in the Middle East and America now are as if they are staging for the Last Trumpet in Jerusalem. This fuel me further to my work, to be the instrument of God, to glorify Him in the name of Christ. I now have a deep love struck with Israel, the vessel of Blessings that Islam try to destroy.

Islamophobia is an irrational fear or prejudice towards Islam and Muslims. Are you an irrational Islamophobe?

I based my work on the Islamic teachings. They clearly condone lies and violence in attaining their goals. To be irrational, is to still think that Islam can be reformed, that those cuddly nice Muslims are the true representative of Islam. It is either they are point blank lying, or sincerely gullible to still think they can reform Islam, or just simply ignorant about the real teaching of Islam.

Muslims are equip with a fair amount of irrational hate towards Infidels alike, especially towards Jews and Christians. All whatever ‘goodness’ are just for among themselves. And they are being indoctrinated since young about the ‘beauty’ of Islam. So, a skin deep Muslim with what left of humanity in his or her heart, when happen to learn more about Islam, will either becoming a terrorist, or an apostate like me.

Much like the age of reformation when Bible becoming available to the known languages, it brought revolutionary changes that helped to enlighten the world. But as for Quran, in this age of the Internet, we are witnessing the rise of Islam around the world with ever increasing body counts and countless mistreatment to women.

Did you receive any threats from Muslims or others because of your involvement in the anti-Islamic movement?

I live among them. My friends, and my greater families are still Muslims. I can be consider lucky, as a few of the open minded ones may have known what I do now, and still have not done anything, just yet. And since I am active only in the cyberspace, any threats are somewhat isolated for now.

What aspects of Islam do you find most problematic and disturbing?

Their ability to lie. Good Muslims will never cherry pick the verses. Both versions works as intended. The violent ones for the obvious, and the sweeter ones to lace them.

To the uninitiated, there is a doctrine of Abrogation in Islam, that for any contradictions, the latest ones has the weight. While Quran has no context whatsoever, especially chronological, Hadis (Muhammad’s sayings) and Sira (Muhammad’s biography) can help to sort this out.

Quran is just Muhammad’s tool to satiate his lust of power, sex, and money. Began with bad child upbringging, he suffered an incurable narcissistic personality disorder. He fantasized Allah as his slave to his biddings.

Do you think Israel is a good ally in the struggle against Islamization?

Of course, and Jerusalem is the key. Just because Muhammad had a dream departing from Jerusalem, riding a female headed winged donkey to meet his moon god, just to ask him how many times shall his followers moon him, Muslims had made the city sacred to them.

I am at a dismay that America is at its lowest now, at the time of this Islamic rising. Israel should have its full support from America at this critical time. My saying, please stop dealing with Islamic oil for indirectly financing their Jihad against us, use Israeli instead, and protect Israel at all cost.

God has promised that never again will Jerusalem be controlled by the Gentilles. So, any attempt of it, will simply means a full scale War.

Who is a moderate Muslim?

They are just a facade of the real Islam. As Anjem Choudary would say, there is no moderate vegetarian. So, those nice Muslims neighbors we know, they are just sleeper cells. Try to ask their opinion about the Jews. If they are OK, then they really misunderstand Islam.

Read more at Stop Islamization of the World

Visit Pulp’s site!

Visit Pulp’s Facebook Page!

Interview with Amil Imani


Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. His numerous articles about Islam have been published in many newspapers and magazines around the world as well as in thousands of Internet magazines, websites and blogs. Imani’s writings can be found on his website Amil He has become a formidable voice in the United States against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America.

He maintains a website at Imani is the author of the riveting book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and the upcoming thriller Operation Persian Gulf.

As an apostate his mission is to raise the clarion call about the imminent and present danger of expansionistic theocratic Islam. Having witnessed first-hand the horrors and indignity that Islamofascism visits on people it subjugates, he has taken it upon himself to do his part in defeating this ideology of oppression, hate and violence.

When and why did you get involved in the anti-Islamic movement?

My confrontation with Islam actually began early in life when I encountered so many Islamic beliefs and practices. Born in a Muslim family and enveloped by an Islamic society, I needed to find my own identity and path in life. A great many things about Islam clashed with beliefs that I cherished. Namely, those of the longstanding, life loving, and egalitarianism of my ancient pre-Islamic people.

Islamophobia is an irrational fear or prejudice towards Islam and Muslims. Are you an irrational Islamophobe?

All phobias are, by definition, irrational fears. I’m not an Islamophobe, because my “fear” of Islam is completely rational. Avoiding a poisonous snake is a rational fear. Not a phobia. The emotion of fear, when utilized rationally, is of immense value. The key point is that the person, as well as the society, must base their assessment on facts. My assessment of Islam, conclusively supported by indisputable facts, is that it is a dangerous destructive and death-bearing belief system of a long ago savage people that has inflicted and continues to inflict misery and death to people.

Did you receive any threats from Muslims or others because of your involvement in the anti-Islamic movement or because of your apostasy?

Yes. But I ignore them. I will speak the truth about Islam. In no way am I falsely defaming Islam. Islam is own best defamer. Speaking the truth usually entails risks. I’m well aware of that.

Sharia law stipulates that any Muslim who turns his back on Islam should be given a chance to revert to the religion. For an un-repenting male apostate, death is the punishment and life imprisonment for a female apostate.

“Kill whoever changes his religion.” __Sahih al-Bukhari 9:84:57

What aspects of Islam do you find most problematic and disturbing?

To answer this question properly, volumes can be written. Just a few keywords should cue you for now. Intolerance, fatalism, institutionalized slavery, injustice, jihadism, oppression of women and non-Muslims, celebration of death, lack of respect for individualism, rejection of freedom and democracy, belief in the theocracy of Allah as ministered by the self-serving clergy who are not accountable to the people, stifling of questioning and inquiry, disallowing all legitimate forms of freedom, and on and on.

Do you think Israel is a good ally in the struggle against Islamization?

Yes, absolutely. Now, Israel is a sovereign state but hardly safe. She is surrounded by nations and peoples who are bent on her destruction. It is tragic that her neighbors and she has not been able to find an equitable way of living side-by-side with mutual respect and in peace. I earnestly hope that ways can be found for a peaceful resolution to this destructive impasse.

Who is a moderate Muslim?

It is wishful thinking on the part of the non-Muslims to believe that one can be a Muslim moderate, given that Islam is radical to its very core. To be a moderate Muslim demands that the person explicitly renounce much of the violent, exclusionary, and radical teachings of the Quran. A moderate Muslim is someone who is Muslim in name only.

A moderate Muslim is not a true Muslim. If in any way and to any extent a person supports Islam or carries out its stone-age precepts, then he/she is Muslim. There is no such as thing as moderate Muslims. There are, however, some moderate people who consider themselves Muslims. These people are not sure who they are. They are in a limbo and suffer from an identity crisis.

Read more at Stop Islamization of the World

Amil on Facebook

Outlawry in Egypt: the disturbing case of Sayyid Al-Qemany, friend of freedom


Mark Durie

By Mark Durie:

Things are not going well for lovers of freedom in Egypt.

Egypt is under a moral and spiritual siege. Freedom of speech is deteriorating rapidly, because of rather than in spite of the ‘Arab Spring’.  A recent incident illustrates the critical state of affairs for free-thinking Egyptians.

Sayyid Al-Qemany is a well-known 64 year old prize-winning intellectual and writer on religious and political topics who  has emphasised the importance of critical thinking, and opposed Islamic radicalism.  He has argued for the separation of religion and state and demanded the repeal of article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution, which stipulates that the Islamic sharia is the main source of the nation’s legislation. 

Al-Qemany identifies as a Muslim, but believes the Islamic faith should apply to the domain of personal belief and sacred ritual, not politics.  He has also pointed out that not all the verses of the Qur’an are applicable today – such as laws permitting slavery and concubinage –  and some are not even followed in any Islamic jurisdiction in the modern world.

In many ways Al-Qemany is representative of the kind of Islam which Western political leaders hope will characterize the faith of their growing Muslim minorities in their states.

For Western people, Al-Qemany’s views would be regarded as ‘normal’ and rational.  However in Egypt he is bitterly opposed by conservative Islamic leaders, thousands of whom have declared him to be a blasphemer.

Even the Dar Al-Ifta, the office of the Egyptian Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, issued a fatwa implying that Al-Qemany was a heretic and apostate from Islam.  This was after he had been awarded a prize by the Egyptian state for achievement in the social sciences (the selection was made by a free ballot of Egyptian intellectuals).  The Dar Al-Ifta fatwa states:

The statements [from Al-Qimni’s writings] quoted by the [individual] who requested the fatwa are heretical, regardless of who wrote them; they remove their author from the fold of Islam… and [also] constitute a crime according to Article 98 of [Egypt’s] penal code. If these depraved, loathsome, and invalid statements were indeed made by a specific individual, then this individual should be convicted rather than awarded a prize, and punished to the full extent of the law.

This fatwa was subtly written to allow Al-Qemany a way out by disavowing his writings, hence the wording: ‘if … these statements were indeed made by a specific individual’.  The purpose of this fatwa is to intimidate Al-Qemany into retracting his views, for the charges made against him attract the death penalty under Islamic law.  One of the principles of dealing with apostates in Islam is that they should be given a chance to repent.

It is not hard to understand why Islamic leaders oppose Al-Qemany, for he has been fearless in challenging them on many counts.

For example he exposed examples of Muslim leaders who have lied to Western media about Islam.   Among other examples, Al-Qemany reported that:

  • When questioned by broadcaster Barbara Waters, the Saudi Foreign Minister expressed surprise and even denied the existence of a well-known tradition of Muhammad about trees which will cry out in the last days saying, “There is a Jew hiding behind me, kill him.”
  • The Revd Jerry Falwell referred to Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha when she was 9 and he was 52.  Although this is a well-known fact of Islamic history, Hussein Ibish, spokesperson for the Armerican-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee ‘vehemently denied’ Falwell’s statements and claimed he had slandered Islam.  Al-Qemany pointed out that Falwell’s report was accurate, that marrying girls as young as 9 is accepted in Sunni Islam as a result, and even Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi is reported to have taken a new wife more than 60 years younger than himself, younger even than his youngest granddaughter.
  • The high-profile American Muslim Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) and signatory of the Common Word letter, boasted that he had successfully lobbied a publisher to remove from a school textbook a(n accurate) reference to Muhammad’s “marriage” to the Jew Safiyya after killing her male relatives including her husband, on the grounds that the reference was Islamophobic.  Al-Qemany commented that this historical erasure made a ‘mockery’ of America’s democracy:  “The Americans, out of respect for Muslims and their religion … ordered that the story be expunged from the [school] book, and even accused its authors of ethnic extremism.”

Al-Qemany pointed out that such mendacious strategies, far from defending the honour of Muhammad and Islam, in fact manifest contempt for Islam and embarrassment about Muhammad because they attempt to deny and conceal matters which are well-known and not disputed in the religion.  Such ‘protection’ through lies implies a fundamental lack of confidence in Islam.

The question today is how much longer thinkers like Al-Qemany will be able to exist in Egypt, given the rise of expectations that strict sharia must regulate public discourse.  Al-Qemany is a key voice for the anti-sharia opposition: he has spoken out against a culture in which ‘one group is in possession of the absolute truth, and is obligated to correct the others, or, if it can’t correct them, to destroy them…’.

On January 2, 2012 a debate was filmed between Al-Qemany and popular Al-Azhar sheikh and celebrity television presenter Kaled al-Gindy (see here).  Al-Qemany had agreed to the debate on the grounds that it was to be a dialogue with Al-Gindy to discuss their differences in a respectful manner.  However the interview, in which the ‘moderator’ was Fadel Soliman, turned into a kind of trial, in which videos of Al-Qemany’s past statements were repeatedly aired, and it was demanded that he respond to them.  This was in essence a trial designed to prove that Al-Qemany is a murtad or apostate from Islam.  Al-Gindy kept using very derogatory, contemptuous language towards Al-Qemany, which would be very inappropriate to use towards a respected fellow Muslim.

Al-Qemany felt ambushed by this approach.  It was not what he had agreed to.  Initially, for the sake of the viewers, he did respond, but eventually, in protest, he broke off the interview. 

Al-Qemany later reported that as he was leaving the studio, the moderator, Fadel Soliman, struck him from behind on the back and the back of his head with a mug full of water,  and threatened his life.  Al-Qemany is reported to be undergoing treatment for head and back injuries in a Cairo hospital.  (An interview with Al-Qemany – in Arabic – is posted here, in which he speaks of his shock at what is happening in Egypt.)

What should make this incident especially attention-grabbing for Western readers is that Fadel Soliman, the alleged assailant, has been a well known interfaith speaker in the West who claims to promotes harmony through peaceful dialogue.  A member of Al-Qaradhwi’s International Union of Muslim Scholars, Soliman heads up Bridges Foundation, which claims to bridge the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims: “Bridges Foundation aims to bridge peoples from different religious and ethnic backgrounds through educational interfaith activities, like power point presentations, gatherings, discussions etc…”  Its website reports that Soliman offers workshops on how to present Islam to non-Muslims and ‘refute misconceptions‘ about Islam. Soliman has given presentations on Islam to more than 65,000 people in the USA, including in churches, universities, and to government departments, such (see here; and also here for testimonials, including from a US lieutenant colonel, a member of congress and a Christian pastor).

One of the ‘misconceptions’ Soliman addresses in his workshops is that Islam is a violent religion (see here). He ‘strongly believes that educating each other about our differences is the best way to bridge peoples and facilitate the peacemaking process, because people do not fight when they communicate with each other‘ (see here).

The idea that violence can always be prevented by communication may appeal to some.  Of course talking can sometimes help prevent violence, but it is no silver bullet against it. And many people do not regard using violence and communicating to be mutually exclusive activities!

To appreciate the implications of the verbal attacks on Al-Qemany, it is essential to grasp the religious context.  There are precedents in Islamic law when Muhammad exonerated people who took the law into their own hands to kill his critics, including one incident in which a man killed his own wife for disparaging Muhammad.  (A discussion of whether such vigilantism is lawful in Islam, which cites the text of this and some other relevant traditions, can be found here).

Although some authorities insist that only the caliph has the authority to execute apostates, the point is that for an ordinary Muslim to do so is not considered murder.  Thus, according to the Shafi’i sharia manual, The Reliance of the Traveller, killing an apostate without lawful authority at worst attracts a minor disciplinary action, for ‘arrogating the caliph’s perogative and encroaching upon his rights’ (p.596 of the Keller translation).  More than this, some scholars judge killing an apostate to be a righteous act, especially when the state is unwilling to apply the sharia’s rulings.  Consider for example the remarkable outpourings of support for convicted assassin of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer, including a scene in which hundreds of Pakistani lawyers showered the killer with rose petals.

Al-Qemany understands all this.  He himself has remarked that the allegation of his defection from Islam ‘means, in our country, that I could be slain; any citizen is allowed to kill me and be awarded by God in Paradise’.

Of course the concept of outlawry — of declaring an open season on a human person — is rejected by modern legal thinking, for reasons which do not need to be explained here.  It may have been good enough in the era of the Vikings and Robin Hood, but it won’t wash in Europe today (although the Third Reich did made heavy use of the concept).  The thing is that conservative Islam has not made this adjustment.  (To which statement an optimist might add the word ‘yet’.)

The Islamic version of outlawry means that an accusation of heresy made by a respected Muslim authority leaders can be tantamount to a threat against a person’s life by proxy.  For example, the fatwa issued by the Egyptian Dar Al-Ifta against Al-Qemany gives a justification for anyone who takes Al-Qemany’s life to claim immunity from prosecution before an Islamic court.   These are lethal words.

In a Western country, if someone says about another in a debate ‘you should be taken out and shot,’ it would be considered rhetorical or at best a joke.  But if an Islamic leader declares in a debate that his opponents’ views are heretical or he is a blasphemer, this is in effect signing a warrant for the person’s execution, as well as issuing a get-out-of-jail-free card for whoever performs the deed.

It is very difficult for those who are outside a sharia-oriented Islamic context to understand the intensity of the fear generated by such tactics. Let no-one be so unrealistic as to imagine that the Egyptian state would prosecute those who incite the killing of others through allegations of apostasy.   Dr Ali Gomaa, the official Chief Mufti of Egypt could never be charged for the deadly fatwa issued from his office against Al-Qemany.  And how could the state prosecute anyone else for saying the same thing as the Chief Mufti?  There is no likelihood that Al-Qemany’s assailant will be prosecuted, for Al-Qemany already bears the mark of the outlaw, inscribed upon his life by his zealous Muslim fellow citizens.

Of course the fact that the sharia encourages and licenses incitement to murder under certain circumstances, extolling it as righteousness, makes an absolute mockery of the international campaign to prohibit ‘Islamophobia’, and fools of Western leaders who would partner with Muslims in this misguided project. 

When will the West heed the wise counsel of Al-Qemany, and many others, to develop a healthy skepticism towards those who claim to speak for Islam, but conceal and deny its clearly established principles?  When will they comprehend how ridiculous – and tragic – their gullibility is?

When will Western political leaders – some of whom pride themselves in being ‘progressive’ thinkers –  stand up for the freedom and right to life of clear-thinking Muslim progressives in our increasingly sharia-compliant world?

Today some Western leaders profess high hopes that Islam can reform itself.  The White House has even promoted the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical and thoroughly Islamic institution, will become more moderate as it enters the political mainstream.  But how can reform take place if the West does nothing to support progressive Muslim thinkers?

See here for Al-Qemany’s 2009 ‘Appeal to the Conscience of the Word’, in which he calls out to “the conscience of all humanity in the free world to come to my and my children’s rescue by providing moral support and the condemnation and denunciation” of incitement against him and his family.  He writes “This is a distress call to all bodies and individuals; a call to the consciences of every free individual in the world.”

Are our consciences so seared by false ideas and failed, politically correct notions that we cannot heed this call?  Shall we be silent while brave voices like Al-Qemany’s are snuffed out one by one?

If this is so, what right do we have to claim our own freedom, or the freedom of our children’s children?

Dr Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist and pastor of an Anglican church. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.