Posts

‘Infidel’: At Last, a Film That Deals Realistically with Islamic Terrorism

It is a staple of the Muslim victimhood industry to complain that Hollywood frequently features Muslim terrorist villains, and seldom depicts Muslims as anything other than terrorists. Reality is just the opposite: can you think of even one major motion picture that featured Islamic terrorists as the villains? In a typical instance, Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears, jihadis were the villains, but when the book was made into a movie, the villains were changed to neo-Nazis. Moviemakers routinely shy away from depicting the grim reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women and others. But not Cyrus Nowrasteh.

Nowrasteh, who gave us the eye-opening and heart-rending 2009 film The Stoning of Soraya M., which focused on an honor killing, has written, directed, and produced the new movie Infidel, starring Jim Caviezel, Claudia Karvan, and Hal Ozsan. Infidel is as startling, on many levels, as it is gripping. Caviezel plays a Christian blogger who is kidnapped by a Hizballah cell (headed up by a cheerfully villainous and thoroughly engaging Ozsan) and taken to Iran.

That this is the storyline is in itself remarkable. Were Infidel the production of virtually any director besides Nowrasteh, Caviezel’s Christian character Doug Rawlins would turn out to be stupid, evil, or both, while Ozsan’s Ramzi, even while being a Hizballah kidnapper, would be depicted as wise, noble, or even heroic. Muslims are victims of Islamophobic, racist, redneck American yahoos — that’s the general Hollywood narrative, played out in innumerable films.

Infidel instead opts to be more realistic, recalling actual events that seldom gain Hollywood’s notice, such as the 1987 kidnapping of journalist Charles Glass by Hizballah in Lebanon. Infidel unflinchingly portrays the gleeful brutality and inhumanity of Rawlins’ captors, as well as his own struggles to maintain his Christian faith amid torture and isolation. Amid all this, the film’s realism is thoroughgoing: once the movie’s perspective was established, it was refreshing to see Caviezel portray Rawlins as alternately angry, afraid, and confused, rather than as a plaster saint, above the fray and singing hymns even as he is being beaten and verbally abused.

Nor is that all. Besides being one of the few feature films to portray the reality of jihad terror in a realistic manner, Infidel is also one of the first, if not the first, major motion pictures to depict the pervasive but seldom-noticed reality of secret Christians in majority-Muslim countries, as well as the Sharia death penalty for leaving Islam, honor killings, and even the “Islamophobia” scam. Early in the movie, before Rawlins has left the U.S. and been kidnapped, investigators are searching the home of Javid, a Muslim friend of Rawlins. They find that Javid’s basement is filled with unmistakable evidence that he is a jihad terrorist, or at very least a terrorist sympathizer.  All the while, however, a lawyer does her best to impede the search, proclaiming that it is “Islamophobia” to think that anything is amiss with Javid at all.

That is a recurring reality of life in America today: for years now it has been routine that any honest examination of jihad terror and Sharia oppression, and any effort to impede it, is “Islamophobic” and hence to be eschewed by all decent people. Up to now, the closest movies got to this phenomenon was their producers’ own fear of being tarred with the “Islamophobic” label if they got too close to depicting jihad violence in an accurate manner, or at very least without some kind of assurance to the audience that Islam is really not like that, but gentle, peaceful, and altogether benign. For a film to show how the “Islamophobia” weapon is actually wielded in order to stymie counterterror efforts is nothing short of astonishing.

But Infidel is much more than the sum of the topics that are usually ignored or obfuscated, and that it dares to depict. Infidel is, above all, a terrific story, well-acted and superbly presented – a story of love, of passion, of hatred, of commitment, of self-sacrifice, and much more. I would have written that they don’t make them like this anymore, but clearly, as long as Cyrus Nowrasteh is writing, directing, and producing movies, they still do.

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Muslim migrant on trial for plotting jihad massacre at Sunday Mass in Paris church

Turkey: Religious Affairs top dog says ‘the goal’ is for Hagia Sophia to become a center of knowledge about Islam

Pope’s new encyclical praises imam who supports wife-beating and death penalty for apostates

Congo: Muslims murder at least 58 people, kidnap 17 in jihad attacks on predominantly Christian villages

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Notre Dame Professor Gabriel Said Reynolds falsely claims that Qur’an teaches only Allah should take revenge

The fact that Gabriel Said Reynolds, who demonstrates here that he is either abjectly ignorant or willfully dishonest about Islam, is a professor of theology at Notre Dame shows how much our nation’s universities (and the Catholic Church) are dominated by fantasy and wishful thinking rather than being willing to deal with unpleasant realities. Reynolds is an academic laden with honors, employed at Notre Dame and published in the New York Daily News, not because he speaks the truth, with which he is either unacquainted or unwilling to disclose, but because he tells people what they want to hear: that Islam, if only it were properly understood, is actually a religion of peace. How it came to be that so many Muslims misunderstand the religion they follow so devoutly, he does not bother to explain.

Meanwhile, would the New York Daily News ever publish a comparably lengthy theological defense of Christianity? Not on your life.

Anyway, to make his case that in Islam, vengeance belongs to Allah alone, Reynolds quotes a number of Qur’an verses, but he doesn’t even mention or attempt to explain away others that disprove his case. There is actually a great support, passed over in silence by Reynolds here, in the Qur’an and Sunnah for the death penalty for blasphemy. It can arguably be found in this verse: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.” (5:33)

But if you don’t think that verse justifies killing those who insult Islam, there is this: “Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment” (33:57)

Yes, he has cursed them both in this world and the hereafter. What does a curse in this world look like? Muslims are told to fight such people: “If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism – you are no longer bound by your covenant with them – that they may refrain” (9:12).

Not only that, but the Qur’an explicitly says that Allah will punish people by the hands of the believers: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people, and remove the fury in the believers’ hearts.” (9:14-15)

There is more in the hadith. In one, Muhammad asked: “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama, answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka’b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Bukhari 5.59.369)

“A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.” (Sunan Abu-Dawud 38.4349)

Why doesn’t Gabriel Said Reynolds mention any of those passages?

“What radical Muslims get wrong about the Koran: Vengeance is reserved for God alone,” by Gabriel Said Reynolds, New York Daily News, March 1, 2020:

In the name of Allah, militant Muslims continue taking up arms against people they consider threats to their faith and way of life. But does it make theological sense for humans to pick up swords and guns to exact retribution in this life?

The Koran, the book those same Muslims purport to revere, says no….

The irony of blasphemy laws, and the tragedy of these attacks carried out in supposed defense of Islam, is that the Koran time and again insists that it is God’s right, and God’s right alone, to exact vengeance.

Allah does not need Muslims to step in and punish those who insult Him. In fact, Allah does not want Muslims to do so. The God of the Koran is clear: He is the only avenger of Islam.

The case of blasphemy laws in Islam is particularly peculiar in light of the example of Muhammad himself. The Koran describes how the unbelievers in his native city of Mecca disputed his claims of prophethood and insulted him.

Koran 68:51 describes how they accused him of insanity: “Indeed, the faithless almost devour you with their eyes when they hear this Reminder, and they say, ‘He is indeed crazy.’”

The Koran does not respond by demanding that the blasphemers be killed for their insolence. It simply affirms the claims of Muhammad.

Elsewhere in the Koran, the voice of God counsels Muhammad to be patient when faced with opposition. Koran 16:126 alludes to some persecution or affliction which Muhammad has suffered from the unbelievers.

The next verse, in response, suggests that Muhammad could strike back in moderation, but should simply endure the persecution patiently: “If you retaliate, retaliate with the like of what you have been made to suffer, but if you are patient, that is surely better for the steadfast.”

This does not mean that the idea of vengeance is foreign to the Koran. The question the Koran poses is not whether offenses against Islam and Muslims should be avenged, but who should do the avenging.

And the answer is consistent: “God.”

Remarkably, and if only Boko Haram and other Salafi-Jihadis would listen, the Koran even teaches this lesson specifically about Christians. In Sura 5, God asks some questions of Jesus about those who followed him, but Jesus does not demand that the wrongdoers be punished.

He leaves their fate in God’s hands: “If Thou chastisest them, they are Thy servants; if Thou forgivest them, Thou art the All-mighty, the All-wise.”

The same lesson is taught about Muslims who are unfaithful to the laws of Islam. In chapter 5, verse 95, the Koran describes the laws of the pilgrimage to Mecca (known as the Hajj). But as for he who breaks the rules, the Koran gives no worldly punishment: “God will take vengeance on him, God is all-mighty, Vengeful.”

So what does divine vengeance look like in the Koran? Allah punishes those who offend Him in hell. The Koran not only describes paradise in vivid colors (as a place with food, drink, and women), it also describes hell in gruesome detail.

Angels of punishment will strike the damned from the front and the back. The damned will be condemned to drink boiling water and eat from a tree named Zaqqum whose fruit is like the heads of demons.

The Koran clearly considers this punishment enough for an unbeliever. Whereas the standard schools of Islam teach that someone who leaves the religion, an apostate, is to be killed, the only punishment for apostasy spoken of in the Koran is hell: “’Did you disbelieve after you had believed? Then taste the chastisement for that you disbelieved!’” (Quran 3:106).

The Koran also teaches that God need not wait for the afterlife to punish unbelievers. He is the lord of the universe and can intervene when He chooses.

A number of chapters in the Koran tell a series of tales, dubbed “punishment stories” by scholars, in which unbelieving peoples are punished for rejecting the prophet who is sent to them. Among these prophets are Biblical figures including Noah, Lot, and Moses, and others who seem to come from Arabian lore with names like Hud, Salih, and Shuʿayb.

In each story it is not the Prophet but God who intervenes….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Defense Dept linguist accused of passing classified info about DoD computer systems and US intel assets to Hizballah

Canada: High school teacher reprimanded for insulting Islam on Facebook

Erdogan: “The number of refugees heading toward Europe will soon be in the millions”

Anti-Zionism and “providing cover” for Palestinian Authority the only unifying factor for World Council of Churches

University of Maryland: Muslim student arrested for repeatedly sending antisemitic messages to female Jewish student

Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Christian tortured to death for bathing in Muslims’ well

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Islamic Belief that Muslim Lives are Worth More than Infidel Lives

The UK’s Mailonline reported recently that “a hero police officer suffered multiple skull fractures when an uninsured white van man tried to murder him in a savage machete attack.” After the perpetrator, a Muslim named Muhammad Rodwan, was arrested, Rodwan explained: “My life is worth more than his life.” Meanwhile, in northern Italy, according to the German-language site UnserTirol 24 “The higher regional court confirmed on Tuesday the first-instance verdict against Rabih Badr for the brutal murder of his partner Marianne Obrist (UT24 reported). Badr’s father was also present at the trial. The latter defended his son and accused Obrist of infidelity.” Badr’s father complained: “There was a problem between him and Marianne, namely the problem of infidelity. She was not loyal to him, he dedicated his whole life to her, but Marianne was not worthy of him.”

“My life is worth more than his life.” “Marianne was not worthy of him.” Is this just more Islamic “extremism,” or do Rodwan and Badr have a point?

Unfortunately, they do have a point – an Islamic point.

Reliance of the Traveller, a classic manual of Islamic sacred law, explains matter-of-factly that “the indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim.” (o4.9)

Sultanhussein Tabandeh, author of A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agrees, stating:

“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution. … Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash. … Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed. … Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.”

These ideas have lethal consequences. In Badr’s case, “according to judge Peter Michaeler,” Badr “‘beat her like a stray dog’ first with a stick, then with a baseball bat. Badr is said to have stabbed the 39-year-old with a knife….As was evident from Judge Michaeler’s reasoning at the time, the act was culturally motivated. Badr, who comes from Morocco, killed Obrist ‘without mercy’ and ‘bestially’ and exemplifies radical attitudes that are incompatible with the way of life of a Western woman….In Badr’s mind, the woman is subordinate to the man, the judge continued. As a result, Badr unjustly accused his partner of infidelity, and restricted and suppressed her. According to Michaeler, the motive was not jealousy, but the complete control Badr wanted to exercise over Obrist.”

As far as Badr was concerned, Obrist should have been under his total control, for she was not only a woman, but an infidel. She had no rights he was bound to respect. But of course, saying such things in the West today brings one charges of “Islamophobia.” Meanwhile, more women like Marianne Obrist will continue to be victimized and brutalized.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Israel: Muslim who recently converted from Christianity fires at Israeli policemen at entrance to Temple Mount

Italy: Muslim migrants attack police with bricks in migrant center

Israel: Muslim runs down and injures twelve Israeli soldiers in vehicular jihad attack in Jerusalem

UK: London jihad stabber spent days before the attack praying

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Some Muslims rejoice the death of ‘kafir’ Robin Williams [VIDEO]

Pamela Geller from Atlas Shrugged found some very interesting social media comments from Muslims on the death of comedian Robin Williams. Robin Williams in 2009 did a skit on jihad.

Screen-Shot-2014-08-12-at-9.54.03-AM Geller reports the jihadists are rejoicing (always a death dance):

Veteran actor and comedian Robin Williams, 63, was found dead in his California home by the Marin County Police, shortly after they responded to an emergency call around noon, local time, CNN reported.

He is said to have taken his own life and according to his media representative Mara Buxbaum, is said to have “been battling severe depression of late”.

David Itzkoff of the New York Times released a statement from Williams’ wife Susan Schneider on Tuesday morning.

Robin Williams died this morning, his publicist confirms. Statement from his wife Susan Schneider: pic.twitter.com/YS0WbTd3oO — Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) August 11, 2014

While the world mourned his loss by sharing and retweeting his best performances, there were a few who actively celebrated the untimely death.

“#RobinWilliams hanged himself? SubhanAllah what blessing Islam is. Verily, Allah guards us from depression. Hell, what an evil destination.” Posted Abdullah, aka Mujahid4life.

In reply to Adbullah’s next tweet wishing Williams would burn in hell, Yusuf Nidal Rahman posted, “@mujahid4life how can any kafir rest it peace, hope this one burns in the hottest lake of fire.”

“@Alansarialjanab he committed suicide, cross dressed for a living and defames our religion may Allah give him what he deserves in the akhira” posted Abu Hamzah AlNabilsi.

Since his death, a video of Williams performing the routine has garnered much attention, with fans and haters retweeting and sharing it much fervour. This incessant circulation of the video has led more and more Jihadis to write vindictive comments against Williams.

“And now your dead with all the fame and riches… Suicide. Let see what you find with your lord.
In islam the person who commits suicide will have that scenario looped until the day of judgement and he is for hell,” Mohammed Al Farsi commented on the video.

“Rot in your useless regret when the angel of death snatched your soul and when you saw that the promise of Allah is true. Have happy time meeting munkar and nakeer. Who is laughing now?” posted Midrashim Madeeq

This hate comes in retalliation to the jokes Williams’ made on Jihad during “Live on Broadway”, his fourth HBO stand-up special in 2002. A few excerpts from the routine goes:

“One of the fundamental things is in a Jihad…. And if you are in a Jihad and you kill an infidel which, I’m sad to say, is all of us and you yourself die… you go to heaven and you are greeted by dark-haired virgins. Now everyone who’s ever been with one virgin is going… “I don’t know…””

“Recently, there was a article in the New York Times, a Koran scholar said: “The actual translation is not dark-haired virgins, but crystal clear raisins.” Slight difference in interpretation, really. It’s like instead of “Thy shall not kill” is “Thy shall not wear a kilt”.”

“Imagine some guy blows himself up, goes to the gates of Heaven: – Where are my bitches? – Here are your raisins. Or Virgils going: “You got a pretty face!””

“Osama Bin Laden goes to the gates of Heaven, there’s George Washington going: “How dare you defy that what we created” and gets violent on his ass. other members of the Congress start kicking the shit outta him. Ossama: “Where are the virgins?” ” Virginians, you asshole!””

Video thanks to Robert Spencer.

See more at Atlas Shrugged.

Kafir: The Worst Word in Any Language

The name Kafir is the worst word in any language.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/buGToaZ1Tls[/youtube]