“Allah Made Me Do It”

IslamWriting in Islamist Watch for April 17, 2013, David Rusin draws our attention to a recent case in an Australian court which would beggar belief if we had not grown inured to such outrages through repetition and cultural submission. As Rusin writes, “Esmatullah Sharifi, an Afghan refugee who came to Australia in 2001 and launched a career as a sexual predator, has been granted leave to appeal his sentence for raping an intoxicated young woman in 2008. Robert Redlich, an appellate judge, explained that the sentencing judge had focused primarily on ‘the protection of the community’ and improperly ‘rejected any suggestion [Sharifi] didn’t have a clear concept of consent in sexual relations’ due to cultural differences.” Rusin suggests that a double standard is in effect, “whereby a Muslim upbringing can excuse horrible behavior that would never be tolerated from non-Muslims.”

There have been a growing number of cases throughout the West, in which Muslim felons, charged with various crimes that would normally entail vigorous sentencing, have seen their cases dismissed or subject to appeal on the grounds of differing cultural norms, customs and assumptions. While convictions can sometimes be made to stick, even then the authorities are prone to react with reluctance and only after charges cannot be reasonably deferred. As Soeren Kern reports at The Gatestone Institute, in a case involving a gang of Muslim “groomers” in Manchester, the Crown Prosecution Service was provided with DNA evidence of rape but “twice decided not to prosecute” while government lawyers also refused to proceed.

Even a brief internet search will yield innumerable such episodes. The distinction seems to apply only to Islamic offenders; immigrants from non-Islamic countries can generally expect the full weight of the law to be levied against them. But Muslim cases are far more often regarded as special cases and Muslim perps granted unique prerogatives in the eyes of the law.

Thus a Muslim who attacks an American citizen for insulting the Prophet has the assault case thrown out of court by a sympathetic judge. The judge, Mark Martin, claimed that the accused, a certain Talaag Elbayoni, was justified and even obligated by his religion to respond to perceived provocation with violence. Apparently, in the opinion of this Pennsylvania judge, Sharia law trumps the First Amendment. Similarly, a Muslim who rapes a 13-year-old girl receives a suspended sentence because, in the words of the presiding judge, “it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.” Indeed, Muslim rape of young girls has become a veritable epidemic in Scandinavia, the U.K. and elsewhere, and Muslim assaults of one sort or another—workplace harassment, physical beatings, intimidation, unpatriotic and even treasonable acts and utterances—are legion. Yet in far too many of these instances our judicial system may be plausibly described as double-jointed, two-tiered, and appallingly lenient—in a word, Islamophiliac.

Such conduct on the part of our judiciary leads to an inevitable question and a logical conundrum, namely, where does it end? If rape, physical assault, and other crimes are dismissed as instances of different cultural values that need to be acknowledged and that generate privileges and exemptions pertaining to no other group or cohort, why stop there? Islam requires its adherents to behave in certain specific ways, the Koran and the ancillary literature prescribe right and permissible forms of conduct and proscribe others, the religion excuses and vindicates particular acts that many of us find intolerable and reprehensible. Nevertheless, the paradigms and ideals inherent in the faith are considered by an increasing number of judges and lawmakers to be sacrosanct.

If that is the case, why should an Islamic terrorist be held to account by Western jurisprudence for flying a plane into a skyscraper or detonating bombs among a civilian population? Does not the Koran, in innumerable pssages, enjoin the believer to slay the infidel? (See, for example, suras 2:191, 193; 8:39; 9:5; 9:29; 9:73; 47:4; 66:9; etc. etc.) Is not violence and slaughter an intrinsic part of a canonical imperative when it comes to Islam and its holy scriptures? Unlike in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, the commands to maim and kill in the Koran are truly extraordinary. The major passages dealing with violence in the two Testaments are chiefly narrative and descriptive, whereas in the Koran they are largely hortatory and prescriptive. The disparity is critical. “Islam,” writes former Muslim Nonie Darwish, “is the only religion that requires its followers to kill those who do not believe in Allah.”

The question remains. If a man is acting according to his faith, that is, his Muslim faith—raping women and assaulting passersby and demonstrators—for which he is frequently reprieved by the courts for reasons of cultural and religious practice and doctrine, why should he be punished for wreaking havoc among unbelievers and skeptics and targeting those by whom he feels offended or whom he has been taught to regard as fair game? After all, he is not individually responsible for his ostensible depravity or malfeasance; educated under different auspices, he is innocent of malice aforethought. He is the product of a society, religion or civilization which we must perforce respect within the multicultural context we have embraced.

Where, in short, does one draw the line between the perpetrating of a presumably “minor” offense—raping, beating, burning cars—and the infliction of a major cataclysm—blowing people up—if the exonerating factor is cultural usage or religious dogma, or both? What principle is in place that would allow us to escape the aneurysm of cognitive dissonance and evade the charge of palpable hypocrisy? For if “principle” is interpreted as the embodiment and expression of a policy of consistent extenuation, then there is no moral or legitimate principle at work whatsoever. Principle has been waived in the interests of expediency and collusion. With respect to Islam, such is the scandal of Western jurisprudence, which tends to act as the domestic arm of Western diplomacy, foreign adventurism and political appeasement of a clever and remorseless adversary.

If God is dead, said Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, all is permitted. Whether or not one agrees with this dictum, there can be no doubt that when pride in one’s civilization and gratitude to the precursors who built and defended it weaken and erode, the spirit of the culture is broken and all is permitted to the enemy who would destroy us. He can violate the common law and receive only a mild reprimand or be acquitted wholesale. He can preach subversion and jihad in the mosque and be allowed to pass under the radar. He can kill the innocent in their thousands and be defended by a decadent but influential elite as a holy warrior extracting justice from a colonial oppressor. He is the beneficiary of a selectively applied multicultural ethos that allows him, quite literally, to get away with murder.

Such is the cultural pathology that heralds the decline and fall of a civilization. Given our indifference, our passion for conciliation, our frivolous disregard of both reality and conscience, and the attendant corruption of our judiciary, the Muslim ghazzua on our way of life seems likely to succeed.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Drakken

    You asked the question, where does this all end? It is really quite simple, when the law and the state fail to protect it's own people in favor of polical expediency and appeasement, it will take the people to say enough is enough and start dealing with the savages in their midst in their own way. For example, if someones daughter is raped or murdered by these islamic savages and the state fails to deal with the problem, the daughters family or friends will deal with it in a manner which the muslims will fear us. That day is approaching faster than anyone thinks, and once it starts, there will be nothing the state will be able to do to stop it. The state will have the choice at that point to either side with it's own people or side with the muslims.

    • Michael Copeland


    • aspacia

      We do have a history of vigilantism.

  • Michael Copeland

    In Leicester UK recently police were informed that a muslim gang, operating from a restaurant and the rooms above it, were exploiting a teenage girl (in the now all too familiar pattern). The police failed to act (ditto). The girl is not white English, though: she is from the Sikh community. Suddenly one day about forty Sikhs descended on the restaurant, beating up the muslims in it and trashing the place.
    Bare Naked Islam website has the report.

    This is how things are now. How our politicians have failed us.

    • SSmith

      Yes there are so many horror stories from the UK .A father searching for his daughter, The police found many girls drugged up used as sex slaves girls together with his daughter, he had been screaming outside the house for the Muslims to release his daughter so the police arrested him and his daughter !!
      No, I did not believe it either.It is too sordid and plain satanic evil !!
      This was in the daily mail, in an article about the Muslim grooming gangs the British media always refer to as "Asians".
      Why do the English public not rise up in protest ?
      I am myself a born and bred English woman, but have not lived there for years I hate what my country has come to.
      Why are the Brits so spineless??? What has happened to them ? No-one can do anything.The EDL do, organise protests but they are often arrested , plotted against even by the British Government! They certainly have failed everyone, and they are in on it, there can be no other explanation.

      Are we all almost , or actually under Sharia secretly ,against our knowledge ????
      Time to pray as never before.

      • tagalog

        All Western nations are spineless before Islamists. We crumble in the face of people who really believe in their religions. Our twisted conception of "toleration" makes us unable to resist people who really insist.

      • Drakken

        First, why yell at the muslims when you can call your family and friends and be armed and assault the house and take your own from these savages, second, the police obviously are more concerned with not upseting the muslims so you and yours are going to have to do it yourselves. Third, depending on the state to protect you and take care of you is a fools errand.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Why do the English public not rise up in protest ? I am myself a born and bred English woman, but have not lived there for years I hate what my country has come to. Why are the Brits so spineless??? What has happened to them ?"

        The communists made the same efforts in the UK as they did in the USA. The narratives were even more effective because of some collective sense of guilt over "colonialism" and "empire" being bad and after all, the UK does have history that is harder to defend than the supposed American colonialism narratives. Not that it's impossible because it has little to apologize for but few British seem to agree. It's "colonial guilt" similar to "white guilt" here in the USA. Colonial guilt has broader applications and is a lot more useful to lying jihadis than white guilt.

        Clue guide: Muslims are always the victims. There's more history in the UK to lie about. You're the ones that sent crusaders down to harm peaceful Muslim enjoyment of their Islamic holy lands. All we did is send "crusaders" to Tripoli and bomb a few innocent nations. It's just easier to explain our American motives today than it is explaining the crusades and colonial empire actions to communist leftist indoctrinated people.

        • aspacia

          The Crusades were a reaction to the Islamic rapacious conquests of Christian holy lands and basically all lands.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The Crusades were a reaction to the Islamic rapacious conquests of Christian holy lands and basically all lands."

            Yes indeed. Back to the topic, 99% or more of the actions of the British empire were justified even by today's (Western liberal democratic) standards. The world is full of liars, ingrates and dupes.

      • aspacia

        Yes, there is no England anymore.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Yes, there is no England anymore."

          Charles sure seems like a globalist dupe.

    • Parenthetical Phrase

      Yes, I completely agree. It is the behavior of the police and courts which will transform our law-based society into either "each man for himself" or "each tribe for itself," just like it is in Arab societies. In the world of the red/green alliance, the reds think that they are promoting strong government control when in fact in all Muslim societies, the central government either has little control (Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Tunisia) or it has control ONLY through complete tyranny and OVERWHELMING force (which it cannot hold onto forever).

  • Michael Copeland

    Remember that when a slave of Allah has killed infidels it was not he that did the killing:
    “You killed them not, but Allah killed them” (Koran 8:17).

    • Parenthetical Phrase

      Thus absolving the killers of all wrongdoing and immorality. In other words, the Muslim clerics say, "Steal and kill for us and not only will we not punish you, we will hail you as good soldiers of Allah." The chances for resistance against that kind of encouragement are very, very slight.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Indeed, Allah made him to do it, at least if one claims to be a devout Muslim. As such, a comprehensive understanding of Islam's inextricable ties to blood is a basis for the west's educational process. The rest is smoke and mirrors – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/13/islam-blood-a

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • kafir4life

    I wonder when President Stinky (BO) Benghazi and his lover Eric Holder will use civil rights laws start to prosecute those that prevent muslims from practicing their faith as prescribed by the terror guide the koran? Let's say a muslim kills a Jew, and is arrested. Isn't it a violation of the muslims 1st amendment rights to practice his faith? All he needs to do is show that it's required of muslims to kill Jews. I'll bet the terrorist supporters at the terrorist supporting cair would be all for it.

  • AnOrdinaryMan

    How did Thomas Jefferson handle the Muslims? He declared war on the Barbary pirates; then sent the Navy and Marines after them. No deferring to them in any law court; no allowances for their different culture. He simply applied a direct and forceful solution, and it worked. John Boehner, pay attention.

    • kafir4life

      Jefferson learned about the barbarity and disgusting nature of the gutter-cult of islam from personal experience and the terror guide that the terrorist supporting islamist congressfu*k Keith Ellison used to be sworn in. I've heard it's the same terror guide that President Stinky (BO) Benghazi used for his "private" swearing in ceremony at the White House.

    • aspacia

      He flattened Tripoli–You see Jefferson read the Qu'ran and knew what he had to do.

  • john spielman

    I wonder how long before an uncivil war breaks out in Europe between the barbarian followers of the Religion of Piece(s) and the civilized society.

    • Drakken

      Sooner than you could ever possibly imagine, it will be sudden and it will take the govts completely by surprise, there will be nothing the govts will be able to do to stop it when the ball gets rolling, think Balkans on steroids. We are but one incident away from bloody retribution.

  • tagalog

    So if one's religious beliefs can be used to attack the idea that the person had the requisite mental intention to commit the crime in question, then I guess it's OK for other religionists to bring their own religious beliefs into the courtroom. For example: "I refused to allow those two homosexuals to rent my apartment because my religious views don't let me do that." Or, "I didn't hire that Jewish guy because my religion says Jews are apostates and damned to Hell and I can't allow my other employees to be exposed to that."

    That raises interesting questions concerning the tension between the fact that courts are an arm of government and the concept of separation of church and state.

    Shouldn't the courts refuse to consider most if not all issues concerning religious states of mind? Wasn't the Australian trial court judge using the proper considerations for the crime in question?

  • cxt

    I always enjoy reading Mr. Solways work.

    Often makes me sad at his accuracy of the human condition.

    • john spielman

      I agree it is a most excellent article!

  • RiverFred

    If our courts follow Muhammad's teaching all criminals would not be convicted and instead praised.

  • Raymond Silipino

    I find it ironic that this individual is being declared as a non-combatant which is totally wrong! At the present time we are in a state of military conflict with several regions of the Arab States. This individual needs to be tried by a Military Tribunal that has absolute control over all legal processes with out intervention from any outside sources including the White House. Regardless of his age, he is educated, and he was capable of selecting the course of action that he wanted to persue. True, he was not in any type of uniform; nor, was he armed with any visible weapons, but a non-combatant hardly fits his catagory. (1 of 2 parts ,continued)

  • Raymond Silipino

    In view of the state of readiness and conflict that this country is in, this individual should be classified as a Saboteur! It is without question that he committed an open act of sabotage that was thought out and executed at a time that caused the most destruction to property and life and limb. Claiming that 'ALLAH" made him do it , is not an adequate defense; because, he was the perpetrator of this destruction, and in doing so is a self admitted accomplice. As the age old comment goes: "When in Rome do as the Romans do," Well, this individual, being of reasonable intelligence, was in the United States and as such, should have abided in the laws of this land. (part 2 of 2 parts)

  • Mickey

    Re Kafir4life’s concern above, there is the case of the Saudi imprisoned in Arizona for keeping captive in the house and using at will, that is, raping, a sex slave. This is perfectly normal in Saudi Arabia and authorized by Sharia law, the “perfect” and “divine” law that overrides all other laws. This is what he said in court:

    “Your honor, I am not here to apologize, for I cannot apologize for things I did not do and for crimes I did not commit. The state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution.” http://www.shoebat.com 17 Apr 2013

    Heavy pressure is being exerted – through video appeals from his fellow nationals – to allow him to go to Saudi Arabia “to serve out the rest of his sentence” (Oh yeah?).

    Watch that space. Will Obama’s Islam-friendly regime accede to their request?

  • Jim

    Say, doesn't that contradict what the liberals say made him do it?
    They usually proclaim that the white man made him do it.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    So what this all boils down to is there is no need for a trial, arrest and proceedings may
    be set aside and the perp can be disposed of without civility, I could be down with that.
    If anyone disagrees well, I just do not understand…………………….William

  • Right Angle

    Under Sharia law, the Kuffar may not raise a complaint at law against a Muslim, no matter how serious the alleged crime. Our judiciary has become sharia compliant, nullifying proven Muslim guilt when the victim is an Infidel.

    Remember the young woman attacked by four brawny Somali women who yelled that she was a "white slag"? They walked free as, being Muslims, they were not used to the consequences of drunkenness.

  • Michael Copeland

    Thus do our governments betray us.