Islam’s Collective Punishment of Christians

Islam’s Collective Punishment of Christians

By Raymond Ibrahim
Special to Investigative Project on Terrorism News
April 18, 2013

Overlooked and virtually completely ignored is the great frequency with which Muslims collectively punish the religious minorities living under their authority, often in atrocious ways.

Consider Egypt alone. The most recent attacks on Egypt’s Copts, culminating in the unprecedented besiegement of the St. Mark Cathedral, the holiest site of Coptic Orthodoxy, is the latest large-scale “collective punishment” of the nation’s indigenous Christian minority. Indeed, almost all of the major attacks on Copts are carried out in the context of collective punishment, based on the idea that, if just one Christian upsets Muslims, all Christians—and their churches and their women and children—become fair game.

Collectively punishing “upstart” religious minorities who refuse to know their place in the Islamic order actually has doctrinal backing. According to Mark Durie, author of The Third Choice: “Even a breach by a single individual dhimmi [non-Muslim living under Muslim authority] could result in jihad being enacted against the whole community. Muslim jurists have made this principle explicit, for example, the Yemeni jurist al-Murtada wrote that ‘The agreement will be canceled if all or some of them break it’ and the Moroccan al-Maghili taught ‘The fact that one individual (or one group) among them has broken the statute is enough to invalidate it for all of them.'”

The latest collective punishment visited upon the Copts began in Khosous, near Cairo, on April 5, when a longstanding feud between a Christian family and a Muslim family—based on male Muslims sexually harassing Christian girls—culminated in the violent deaths of six Christians, including one set on fire, and one Muslim. In retribution, Muslims went on yet another “Friday-rampage”—Friday being the day Muslims meet and pray and hate and call for jihads on Christians—resulting in the injury of at least 20 other Copts, an attack on a Coptic church, and an Evangelical church set on fire.

Then, two days later, after Copts mourned their dead in their cathedral, Muslim mobs awaiting them outside launched yet another attack, one that was actually aided by state security, firing into the cathedral compound. Eyewitnesses said as many as 40-50 tear gas canisters targeted the mourners, many of whom were women and children. Other officers stood by as the Muslim mob tried to ravage the cathedral. Two more Copts were killed and many dozens wounded. Since then, more reports have emerged of Copts being targeted and some even killed.

The fact is, collectively punishing Christian Copts for the purported crimes of individual Copts is a regular occurrence in Egypt, and perhaps the chief mode of their persecution. Other recent examples include:

July, 2012: When a Christian launderer accidentally burned the shirt of a Muslim customer, a brawl ensured between the two Egyptians. The next day “the Muslim, with approximately 20 of his followers, went to the Christian’s home to attack him. Expecting this, the Christian was prepared and climbed to the highest point of his roof, hurling Molotov cocktails at the Muslims.” One Muslim man was injured and later died in a hospital.

Before he died, between 2,000-3,000 Muslims attacked the Christians of the village, leading to an exodus of approximately 120 Coptic families. In the words of one report: “The sectarian crisis in the village of Dahshur escalated on August 1 after the burial of the Muslim man who died yesterday in hospital. Hundreds of Muslims torched and looted Coptic businesses and homes despite hundreds of security forces being deployed in the village. Eyewitnesses reported that security forces did not protect most Coptic property. As 120 families had already fled the village the day before after being terrorized, the businesses and homes were an easy game for the mob to make a complete clean-up of everything that could be looted. The security forces were at the scene of the crime while it was taking place and did nothing at all. After the violence, the family of the deceased Muslim said that destroying Coptic property is not enough and that Copts have to “pay for their son’s death” with their lives.

January, 2012: A mob of over 3,000 Muslims attacked Christians in an Alexandrian village because a Muslim accused a Christian of having “intimate photos” of a Muslim woman on his phone. Terrified, the Christian, who denied having such photos, turned himself in to the police. Regardless, Coptic homes and shops were looted and set ablaze. Three Christians were injured, while “terrorized” Christian women and children, rendered homeless, stood in the streets with no place to go. As usual, it took the army an hour to drive 2 kilometers to the village: “This happens every time. They [security] wait outside the village until the Muslims have had enough violence, then they appear.” None of the perpetrators were arrested. Later, in an effort to empty the village of its 62 Christian families, Muslims attacked them again, burning more Coptic property. According to police, the Muslim woman concerned has denied the whole story, and no photos were found.

April, 2011: When a Christian was falsely blamed for the deaths of two Muslims, an ensuing rampage left one Christian dead, 10 hospitalized; an old woman reportedly was thrown out of her second floor balcony. Christian homes and properties were plundered and torched.

November, 2010: When a teenage Christian youth was accused of dating a teenage Muslim girl, 22 Christian homes were set ablaze to Islam’s war cry of “Allahu Akbar.” During the attack the Muslim mob threw fireballs, gasoline, and stones at Coptic homes and detonated butane gas cylinders.

One can find similar examples in other Muslim countries where religious minorities, especially Christians, live. In short, while other societies, particularly in the context of war, may collectively punish their enemies, Islam is the only “religion” that actually mandates it—that unjustly punishes large numbers of innocent people for the purported crimes of the individual, as the aforementioned clerics from one end of the Arab world to the other maintain. This alone should raise questions about the very nature of Islam.

Raymond Ibrahim is author of the soon-to-be-released book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians. He is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.

The Impending Trial of Major Nidal Malik Hasan

The Impending Trial of Major Nidal Malik Hasan

(This article, from Tribune Syndicated Newspapers, is an abomination in political correctness. Below the article are excerpts and a link to a report written November 9, 2009, describing Major Hasan’s act at that time, in unfiltered detail. Are we about to repeat the politically correct charade with the reporting of this latest awful terrorist Boston Marathon massacre?)

Redacted from an article by Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Tribune Newspapers

Sun Sentinel, March 24, 2013

FT. HOOD, Texas — Capital murder trials are rare in the military’s criminal justice system, but they are familiar territory for the judge who will handle the trial of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people and wounding 32 in a shooting rampage at this base in central Texas.

The judge is Col. Tara Abbey Osborn, and she once served at Ft. Hood, the sprawling facility known as “the Great Place.” Osborn has presided over “numerous serious felony trials, one capital trial and other non-capital homicide trials,” a base spokesman said. (How about her Islamic Terrorism experience?)

Hasan, 42, who could face the death penalty, is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

Osborn is uniquely equipped to handle the Hasan case, former colleagues say, describing her as a strict but fair judge. “She has an outstanding reputation. She’s been a judge for a while and she has death penalty experience, which is probably why she was selected,” said Lisa Marie Windsor, a former Army lawyer who served at Ft. Hood and knows Osborn. Windsor, who now works for a private law firm in Washington, said Osborn “has a lot of experience in criminal law, probably more than most because it’s an area she wanted to stay in.” (But, this is not just “criminal law”)

Osborn is chief judge for the Army’s 2nd Judicial Circuit, which includes Ft. Bragg, N.C., and bases in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. A graduate of the University of South Carolina law school, Osborn was admitted to the bar in 1987, joined the Army the next year and has served in Asia and Germany, as well as posts on the East Coast. In 1996, she was assigned to Ft. Hood for three years.

The Hasan case, in which jury selection is scheduled to start May 29, was set to go to trial last summer but stalled when Hasan, who is Muslim, grew a beard and refused to shave it even after ordered to do so by the judge at the time, Col. Gregory Gross.

In December, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the military’s highest appeals court, found that Gross had displayed an “appearance of bias” by ordering Hasan to shave, repeatedly fining Hasan and removing him from court for refusing to shave. The appeals court ruled that commanders, not judges, were responsible for enforcing military grooming standards.

Some experts said they expected Osborn to take a less combative approach than Gross. If the trial moves forward as planned in May, the military jury of at least 12 members — it could be as large as 16 — will be selected from among Army officers of Hasan’s rank or higher.

Once the jury is seated, testimony will begin, including detailed accounts from soldiers wounded in the shooting. Several testified at pretrial hearings that they heard Hasan shout. “Allahu akbar” — Arabic for “God is great” — before opening fire.

(This is the only reference in this long Tribune syndicated article that mentions what the trial is really all about. Virtually every thing else is simply commentary about the judge and incidental information that has no real bearing on the case) jsk

II What really happened in excerpts from an article written at the time – November 9, 2009.

Hasan awoke in the hospital bed as it was revealed that he apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two September 11 hijackers in 2001, a time when a radical imam preached there.

Army psychiatrist Major Hasan had killed 13 and left 31 injured after he jumped on to a desk screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ – God in Great – and fired on defenseless colleagues. But the carnage would have been even greater were it not for the actions of a very brave female, Police Sergeant Kim Munley, who minutes earlier had been directing traffic.

In the months leading to Thursday’s shooting spree, Hasan raised eyebrows with comments that the war on terror was “a war on Islam” and wrestled with what to tell fellow Muslim solders who had their doubts about fighting in Islamic countries.

“The system is not doing what it’s supposed to do,” said Dr. Val Finnell, who complained to administrators at a military university about what he considered Hasan’s “anti-American” rants. “He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out.”

Hasan persistently complained about perceived anti-Muslim sentiment in the military and injected his politics into courses where they had no place. It was assumed the military’s chain of command knew about Hasan’s doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates at the Maryland graduate military medical program.

Read complete 2009 article from link below. (Copy and paste to your search engine if it will not open here)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225627/Fort-Hood-shootings-Army-major-Nidal-Malik-Hasan-kills-12-injures-31-shootout-troops-army-base.html

Jerome S. Kaufman

More from Islam – Religion of peace and tolerance

Collective Punishment Under Islam

By Raymond Ibrahim

From: Middle East Forum

Hudson New York
December 8, 2011

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=2332

During a recent altercation in Egypt, a Christian inadvertently killed a Muslim. This incident, according to an AINA report, “turned into collective punishment of all Copts in the majority Christian village.” Two Christians “not party to the altercation” were killed; others were stabbed and critically wounded. As usual, “after killing the Copts, Muslims went on a rampage, looting and burning Christian owned homes and businesses.” Despite all this, “Muslims insist they have not yet avenged” the death of their slain co-religionist; there are fears of “a wholesale massacre of Copts.” Many Christians have fled their homes or are in hiding.

Collectively punishing dhimmis—non-Muslims who refused to convert after their lands were seized by Muslims, and who are treated as “second-class” infidels—for the crimes of the individual is standard under Islam. In this instance, dhimmis are forbidden from striking—let alone killing—Muslims, even if the latter perpetrate the conflict. Prior to the fight that killed him, the Muslim in question had, through the help of radical Salafis, burned down the Christian’s home and was threatening him over a property dispute. Still, non-Muslims are forbidden to raise their hands to Muslims, even in self defense.

Collectively punishing Egypt’s Christians is common. Earlier this year, when a Christian was accused of dating a Muslim woman, 22 Christian homes were set ablaze to cries of “Allahu Akbar”; when Muslims made false accusations against another Christian, one was killed, ten hospitalized, an old woman thrown out of her second floor balcony, and homes and properties were plundered and torched, as documented in a report aptly titled “Collective Punishment of Egyptian Christians.”

Nor are such examples limited to Egypt: when Muhammad cartoons deemed blasphemous by Muslims were published in Europe, Christians in faraway Muslim countries like Nigeria were killed; when Pope Benedict quoted history deemed unflattering by Muslims,anti-Christian riots around the Muslim world ensued, churches were burned, and a nun was murdered in Somalia. Months ago, when an American pastor from a fringe group burned a Koran, dozens of U.N. aid workers were killed by Muslims in Afghanistan; some were beheaded.

This practice of attacking one set of Christians as retribution for the acts of another set has roots in Islamic law. The Pact of Omar, a foundational text for Islam’s treatment of dhimmis, makes clear the consequences of breaking any of the debilitating and humiliating conditions non-Muslims are made to accept to be granted a degree of surety by the Muslim state: “If we in any way violate these undertakings … we forfeit our covenant, and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition”—penalties that include enslavement, rape, and death.

As Mark Durie points out in The Third Choice, a book on dhimmitude,

Even a breach by a single individual dhimmi could result in jihad being enacted against the whole community. Muslim jurists have made this principle explicit, for example, the Yemeni jurist al-Murtada wrote that “The agreement will be canceled if all or some of them break it” and the Moroccan al-Maghili taught “The fact that one individual (or one group) among them has broken the statute is enough to invalidate it for all of them.”

It should be noted that this approach applies to all non-Muslim groups —Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.—living amidst Muslim majorities. Yet, because Christians are the most visible infidel minority in the Islamic world, most examples relate to them. The Copts, for instance, are especially targeted because they comprise the largest Christian bloc in the Middle East. (Centuries before the Muslim conquests, Egypt was a major center of Christianity, and Alexandria arguably equal to Rome in theological authority. The result is, after centuries of persecution, there is still a viable Christian presence in Egypt.)

Today, however, as the world shrinks—and as Muslims conflate the West with “Christianity”—the reasons to persecute Islam’s Christians grow: ethnicity and geography no longer matter; shared religion, even if nominal, makes all “Christians” liable for one another.

Consider Iraq: its persecuted Christians are being targeted in part “over their religious tieswith the West.” Last year’s Baghdad church attack, when over fifty Christians were butchered, was initiated in “retaliation” to absurd accusations against the Egyptian Coptic Church. Yet, nearly a millennium ago, it was the Copts who were massacred when their western coreligionists—the Crusaders—made inroads into Islam’s domains. Again, the logic was clear: we will punish these Christians (Copts), because we can, in response to those Christians (Crusaders).

It is in this context that one can understand the rationale of the jihadists behind the Baghdad church attack, when they went so far as to threaten all Christians around the world as “legitimate targets for the mujahedeen [holy warriors], wherever they can reach them.”Bold as that seems, “wherever they can reach them” simply means that it is the Islamic world’s accessible, vulnerable non-Muslims—Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus—not their Western counterparts, who will continue to be targeted, even as the West looks the other way

 

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.