One of the most disgraceful trials in British history took place on Tuesday and I’m referring to the Vogelenzang trial.
One site summarized it this way:
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang of Aintree in Liverpool are being prosecuted for a “religiously aggravated” public order offence. The trial, which is scheduled to last for two days, is being heard at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court.
Police arrested the couple, who run the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, after a female Muslim hotel guest complained that she was offended by comments made on 20 March.
According to newspaper reports, the debate involved discussion of whether Jesus was the Son of God or just a minor prophet of Islam.
Actually, it was a bit more than that. The key points which supposedly caused “offence” were that:
1. Mohammed was a warlord;
2. The burqa is an instrument of bondage.
These were the remarks cited by the plaintiff and on which the prosecution case rests. Did the Vogelenzangs say these things and if so, so what? Are the things said factually accurate or not? This latter is dealt with further on in the post.
“Disgraceful” was the word used above for two reasons:
1. That the system of justice and the mania for enforced equality is so far skewed that the police would even bother prosecuting for a stance taken in an argument. This is so critical in our fight for the right to free speech, [a principle the noble libertarian bloggers even concede for the BNP] that the story is shouted from the blogtops, no?
The blogosphere largely ignored it. Why?
2. The problem is that these are Christians being prosecuted and we don’t take up the cause of Christians, do we? In the valiant libertarian world, we fight for everyone’s right to free speech and freedom from oppression … all except for Christians of course.
The substance of the allegations
Mohammed was a warlord
What possible evidence is there that the Peace Be Upon Him was a warlord? Let me think now:
Ishaq:288 “Allah divided the booty stolen from the first caravan after he made spoils permissible. He gave four-fifths to those He had allowed to take it and one-fifth to His Apostle.”
Ishaq:289 “Muhammad summoned the Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out and attack it. Perhaps Allah will give it to us as prey.”
Tabari VII:29 “Abu Sufyan and the horsemen of the Quraysh were returning from Syria following the coastal road. When Allah’s Apostle heard about them he called his companions together and told them of the wealth they had with them and the fewness of their numbers. The Muslims set out with no other object than Sufyan and the men with him. They did not think that this raid would be anything other than easy booty.”
Bukhari:V5B59N702 “Allah did not admonish anyone who had not participated in the Ghazwa [raid] of Badr, for in fact, Allah’s Apostle had only gone out in search of the Quraysh caravan so that he could rob it. But Allah arranged for the Muslims and their enemy to meet by surprise. I was at the Aqabah pledge with Allah’s Apostle when we gave our lives in submission, but the Badr battle is more popular amongst the people. I was never stronger or wealthier than I was when I followed the Prophet on a Ghazwa.'”
Qur’an 8:7 “Behold! Allah promised you that one of the two parties would be yours. You wished for the unarmed one, but Allah willed to justify His truth according to His words and to cut off the roots [kill] of the unbelievers.”
Ishaq:300/Tabari VII:55 “Allah’s Messenger went out to his men and incited them to fight. He promised, ‘Every man may keep all the booty he takes.’ Then Muhammad said, ‘By Allah, if any man fights today and is killed fighting aggressively, going forward and not retreating, Allah will cause him to enter Paradise.'”
Ishaq:301/Tabari VII:56 “As the Muslims were laying their hands on as many prisoners as they could catch, the Prophet, I have been told, saw disapproval in the face of Sa’d. He said, ‘Why are you upset by the taking of captives.’ Sa’d replied, ‘This was the first defeat inflicted by Allah on the infidels. Slaughtering the prisoners would have been more pleasing to me than sparing them.'”
That looks pretty warlordish to me. Now, as for the character of Mohammed. One forum commentator cites the following:
1. Mohd married with Ayesha when she was six year old and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9 years old(Ai-Bukhari,vol3p11
2. Mohd used to make love with all his 9 wives in one go.(Al-bukhari ,vol3p11
3. Mohamed possessed sexual strength of 30 men,(Al-bukhari,vol 1p181)
4. Mohd said,if any person eats seven(ejjewah)big dates of Medina daily then he will be affected by black magic and poision.(Bukhari vol 3p196)Allah had revealed this(whhi khiffee) to mohd yet surprisingly on the other hand he used a jewish woman to give posion to mohd when she served him goats meat to kill him.he could not survive and died with the effect of that poison,(History of Islam written by Mullana mohd Ashique Merthi p37
5. Aysha said, mohd possess by magic and was effected and that he was thinking he had completed a specific task,when in actual fact he had not completed it.(Bukhari vol 2p2o3)
If you mention thes hadiths to a ordinary muslim he will be very ashamed but if you ask a mullah why did mohd sleep with nine(9) year old child Aysha while he was in the age of (53) the answer will be,there is (Hekmiha)wisdom behind it and that wisdom nobody know except mohd.
Nice man, eh?
The burqa as an instrument of bondage
In her very first line, this rabid feminist [photo visible] is on her high horse and away:
As usual, the only people debating the wearing or not wearing of the obscene “burqa” are men.
It must be terrible to hate men so much. However, let’s put that to one side for now and get to the nitty-gritty about the burqa:
The burqa is not a hijab. A hijab is a respectful head covering that is related to religious belief and customs. Although it is most often associated with Muslim women, it is also worn by Christian Arab women and by Catholic women in Europe, too. We call it a head scarf.
But when we discuss the term “veil” we are talking about forcing women not to cover their heads, but to cover their faces, which is the ultimate way to bind one’s mind. A veil is a burqa, which is the most sinister invention that man has ever imposed on women.
Any woman who is forced to “veil” is being abused. They may not want to admit it, but they are victims of oppression. Remember, victimization involves acquiescence to subjugation. Victims often defend their victimizers because it’s easier than fighting back.
Hmmmm. There’s some sense in that. Is there corroborating evidence anywhere?
The Deccan Chronicle says:
Coming to the Hijab/Burqa, it is not a symbol of subservience as the West describes it. Rather the Hijab is a symbol of chastity and decency. Islam treats women with outmost dignity and respect.
And it is because of this that The Qur’an asks women to “dress properly and cover their heads when going out so that people can recognise them and respect them”.
What do others say [peace be upon them]?
Having lived in Karachi for over a decade now, I am actually wondering whether O’Brien had a point. The number of burqas one spots on the street has been possibly the only ‘fashion’ trend that’s been on the steady increase in the metropolis.
There are parts of this monster of a metropolis, on the wrong, but overwhelming side of The Bridge, where you’d be hard pressed to find a woman out and about. And there are parts where you could easily drive for several miles and see women only in abayas or burqas if you are lucky enough to see them venturing out at all. Entire localities, which would never register on the fashion set’s radar, are burqa-clad, which they weren’t a decade or so ago.
Hang on, though, wearing a burqa is a choice, right? But is it always? In the case of Karachi, a lot of women from the lower-middle class have been using the garb only during commutes.
There has been a steady increase in working women who use public transport to get to their workplaces in offices and homes, who upon reaching their workplaces whip off their burqas, roll up their sleeves, and work around men they are not related to.
So for many, the burqa is increasingly used to convey an overt signal of respectability and a way to avoid harassment in mohallas where everyone else is doing the same. Particularly useful if you don’t own a car, or have relatives in high places, and feel vulnerable much like 90 per cent of Pakistan.
And then there is the burqa donned to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Walk into any fast-food outlet at lunchtime and spot the number of girl in burqas playing footsie and handsie with not-their-brothers.
The deceptive burqa-clads include those of a dangerous bent, as I discovered while walking around – sans burqa, the 3.7 will be glad to note – at Gulf Mall. While bargaining at a shop, I heard a small cry go up around me as a shopkeeper bounded my way and pulled a burqa-clad hand out of my handbag. A women covered till she had only slits left for her eyes to peep out had been fishing around for my wallet and cell phone!
Not just for modesty, eh? Given that it is only in the Anglo-Saxon west where people are so hellbent on termiting their own culture. What about in proper countries which still respect their own traditions and heritage? What, say, is the Asian view?
If an Arab woman insists on wearing it in France, she should not seek its citizenship. What would happen when circumstances arise for her to remove her burqa in an accident or in hospital? Would her irate husband attack the policemen or doctors? No, she and her family should move back to Morocco and live there, not in France.
Burqas repel, rather than invite acceptance. Accommodation is limited to the woman’s family. We’ve seen women wear them in the diplomatic community, in official status, but not as de jure members of our society because burqas set them apart. They are not suitable for a free, open society.
Right, so let’s score that one as debatable and the one about Mohammed being a paedophilic, murderous warlord [by western standards] pretty well a given.
Where does that leave the Vogelenzangs? Not guilty on the warlord count but up in the air on the burqa count. Case dismissed and both the police and the plaintiff to go out and get a life.
It appears that the judge thought the same thing. I wonder if this will save the Vogelenxangs from financial ruin?