Islamogist Abdullah al Andalusi

Abdullah al Andalusi. It was more by chance that I bumped into this bigot and hypocrite. He uses this artificially constructed name and considers the driving back the aggressors who had conquered the country of Spain an act of aggression and violence. He remembers the final Arab Emirate, that of Al-Andalus, in his stage-name. He probably considers the UN mandate driving back Iraq when it had invaded Kuwait an act of terrorism.

I laughed him off as just another crackpot, until I saw remarks in different places, all referring to this program. Then it was a Twitter message here, a blog there and all this got me interested. This guy, Abdullah al Andalusi, appeared on the BBC Show Big Questions and delivered a pitiful performance, one of the worst I have seen by any Muslim apologist, people I call Islamogists. 

So I went and took another look at the program and then read al Andalusi's apologetic blog entry on this and I decided to provide my 2 cents in the form of a video. I will complete the bullet points and make complete sentences out of them and then post the transcript here.

Before I do, though, I just want to point out what an idiotic person this primitive and 2 dimensional fool is. Maybe he is just playing a role and pretends to be stupid and only repeats platitudes and nonsense, but maybe what he says and writes is intended to be taken seriously. In that case, this person is outright dangerous.

I say this because of several things I have heard him say or what I have now read by him, which seems to put the blame of all Muslim acts of violence, whether bombings, killings, enslavements, executions, suicide bombings, kidnapping, beheadings, hangings, rapings, lashings, etc etc on the very people who are being terrorised. He seems to say that if the entire planet were to simply submit to the violent Muslims, no more violence would be necessary. We could simply give up Capitalism and Democracy and accept sharia, the Islamic version of peace.

In an interview on UK's Channel 4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8gALvUDzm0) he stated that various "Western", whatever that may mean, governments were to blame for the violence, regimes like the USA, the UK and France. These countries have invaded, attacked and bombed Muslim countries, supporting Israel, a country which does the same and that this has caused some grievance amongst Muslims in the West and thinks that these grievances now justify widespread terrorism. He compares the criticism rational people have regarding violent Muslims with the persecution of the Jews by the Third Reich almost 100 years ago.

It's a bit difficult to extract the pertinent words and what exactly he's trying to say with his stammering, stuttering and nervous repetition of syllables, which, as the seasoned speaker he presents himself, is not what one would expect.

He states that Muslims in the "West", whatever that may mean, are denied practising their religion because women in France are forbidden to wear the "hijab". This is absurd for 2 reasons. 

1. In France women are prohibited from wearing garb concealing the face, in legal speak: "not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face". 

(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900)

So not the hijab is banned, but anything which obscures the face while in public or in public servant functions, just like any other French citizen.

2.  The "hijab" is not mentioned in the Islamic Koran in connection with clothing, not once. The Koran does not stipulate that women should cover their bodies excepting face and hands or anything close to it. The various forms, colours and shapes we see are not a religious requirement, but a cultural tradition.

Woman in Europe can freely worship any god they want and can dress how they want in private and in mosques or any place of worship, just not in public, something which is imposed in more and more countries in the EU. So just as I, an enthusiastic nudist, can't go naked on a beach in Oman, the Omani female can't conceal her face in Europe. It's a matter of mutual respect.

Al Andalusi is also well versed in double speak or side-stepping issues. Interview partners are not used to the lies and deception employed by Islamogists and fall prey to their tactics. This interview is no exception, where the lady asks al Andalusi whether he was offended by the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo and he replies that, yes, he was offended, but does not condone the violence as Islam prohibits - and this is where the deception lies - taking the law into your own hands. Now, the beginning makes it sound as though he was going to say Islam prohibits killing others, which it does not. Islam, the Koran in this case, expressly allows this in 5:32 for example it forbids to "slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land", saying that anyone who spreads "mischief" can rightfully be killed by a Muslim. So it would not be taking the law into your own hands but following the text of the Koran. You need to know the Koran, Islam and Islamogist tactics before you can spot these tricks. In his Blog, Andalusi calls this - and I quote letter for letter: "I discusses Charlie Hebdo, the Muslim community, and Western Hypocrisy" [sic]

He frequently attempts to hide behind bizarre concepts such as race or the useless word "Islamophobia". A person can't choose or change their race, but can change their beliefs and favourite gods. Islam and phobia are defined terms - just the combination is bar any useful information. I could also make up a word like "Kuffarophobia" and hide behind it and whine about all the injustice and violence I have suffered at the hands of Muslims, but I don't because it would be dishonest and an emotional cry for help, like a child screaming for mummy.

If I wanted to, I could go on and on, tearing up his blog, which is so childish and primitive, but I will leave it at that and add my video transcript.

On 15. March 2015, the BBC Big Questions topic on Apostasy in Islam was broadcast.

As usual, they had a collection of vivacious and active guests, making it a mix they need to retain viewers. We were not disappointed as at some stage everyone was shouting over the others and caused a bit of a stir. In this episode it was not Hamza Tzortzis or Adnan Rashid who did not answer a straight question, but another Islamogist, Abdullah al Andalusi.

This “slave of allah” considers himself to be quite a debater as well as a thinker. Wow! What does he think? Well, for example that Spain was invaded and conquered by the Spanish, killing the innocent Arabs and Moors and driving them back into Africa. How unjust and brutal.

He also thinks proofs is the plural of proof, which he claims to possess for the existence of all the gods, including the one atheists don’t believe in.

These are proofs, in case he’s wondering. What else he thinks is the usual Muslim apologetics mambo-jumbo we all know and laugh about. He is the constant victim and everyone else is to blame for Muslim atrocities today - except Muslims.

So this is the guy who will be playing a leading role in this 20 minute segment on whether apostates should be killed in Islam.

The moderator, Nicky Campbell, started off by asking an ex-Muslim, Amal, to tell her story of her life after leaving Islam

Amal Farah - apostate

She is well aware of and accepts human nature and even though she seemed nervous, managed quite well to point out that this is the modus operandi condoned and recommended in the doctrine of Islam, not some random violent humans. She talks about the individual interpretation of Islam, the level of brainwashing, which stifles any dissent within the community, the ummah and what she herself experienced. What is disturbing is that this reaction to apostasy, ie the change of mind regarding the adherence to a belief system, can result in violence, and, ultimately, murder. She makes an excellent point, highlighting that the attention is focused on the hot-heads, leaving out and totally ignoring those who quietly support this pernicious mindset. It once again shows that there is no single Islam and no real Muslim.

After her 2.5 minute introduction, the moderator turns to a Muslim apologist, the Islamogist Abdullah al Andalusi, trying to establish a basis for the ensuing discussion. He asks a very straightforward question.

When all sharia conditions apply, in a perfect sharia state, should apostasy be a criminal offence? Yes/No

Oops, he was not ready for that at all and looked as though he’d just been hit by a bus.

To buy himself some time he provided a rehearsed sound-bite, useless and petty. A platitude.

But anyone expecting an honest answer now will be deeply disappointed.

When the moderator insists, Andalusi starts stammering, stuttering,and again the moderator urges Andalusi to answer his question - but he’s unable to do so. He can’t decide whether or not he should do what every sane, decent human being would say: no, it should not be a criminal offence to change your belief and something which can get a person killed.

The question is repeated again and again, he side-steps, making it look cringe worthy and embarrassing.

So, does the Islamic ideology demand that anyone who deserts the community must be killed?

Let’s start with the Koran:

In 4:89 it says: "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

9:12 confirms " And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."   

There are a few further sentences, but not as clear. In the hadith, it gets much more violent and direct.

Bukhari 52:260 "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him" 

Bukhari 83:37 "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations:

(1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,)

(2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and

(3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari 84:57 " Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him"

Bukhari 84:58 "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.'  Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed "

Bukhari 84:64 "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection"

So in my eyes, it seems there is an indication that killing someone who leaves Islam is the norm.

Nicky Campbell, the moderator, is no fool and knows the games Muslims play at never making a clear statement and staying vague and ambiguous so they can later re-interpret what was said. He again insists and then asks Andalusi whether he even understands what apostasy means.

After finishing his awkward stumbling and stuttering, Andalusi replies, acknowledging that Islam is a political ideology by stating it is sedition, encouraging disobedience of your country’s government or treason, “the crime of trying to overthrow your country's government or of helping your country's enemies during war”.

Unperturbed at not receiving an answer to his question, the moderator now asks Andalusi whether he renounces what a recent co-speaker of his mentioned, obligatory FGM, wife beating, killing of gays and apostates, whose blood is halal, permissible.

Andalusi does the same thing once again, waffling, rambling on and on, beating around the bush without actually saying anything. He will NOT condemn these views.

His neighbour, comedian Kate Smurthwaite, couldn’t hold back and chastised Andalusi who looked pretty sheepish by now,

The moderator gives up on Andalusi and turns to another Muslim, the former Imam Usamah Hassan, who very calmly explains the history of treason in the form of apostasy and encourages Andalusi to provide a simple and honest answer.

Even when asked by a Muslim, Andalusi can’t provide a straight answer, stumbles and side-steps, thinking he can trick everyone into forgetting the factual questions.

Amal, the initial opener, once again describes her plight and explains the problem to Andalusi, who valiantly ignores the question.

Around 9 minutes into this discussion, another Islamogist comes in, a Mohammed Shafiq, who has been trying to interject and has reacted by head-shaking and gestures and now delivers the weakest story of the show, namely that non-Muslims are joining Islam and there is no real problem of people leaving the ideology. How ignorant can a person be in the 21^st century? You now have atheists in Saudi, Pakistan, Iran and everywhere. And he maintains Islam is growing. But he asserts that ex-Muslims attack Islam.

Nicky Campbell now pulls the killer shot out of the box, badly exposing this hypocrite by citing a message he sent vie Twitter that his fellow Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, was a “defamer of the prophet, which, in light of the planned trip to Pakistan, could have gotten Maajid killed, due to the crazy blasphemy laws there.

I giggled hysterically when I watched this for the first time as I could see his jaw move and the brain say: oh, fuck!

Then he comes up with totally idiotic jibber-jabber, saying he did stupid things but upheld the honour of his prophet - by getting Maajid Nawaz killed? It shows how some Muslim apologists say one thing in public and then propagate something completely different when they think nobody’s watching.

Usamah Hassan now makes, what I consider to be the best point of the day, stating they should address the reason why Muslims leave, namely the harsh, intolerant, mindless, brainless version of Islam presented by so many groups. His suggestion is to actually embody mercy and compassion and not behave like daesh who he accuses of defaming Muhammad.

The moderator now gives Andalusi another chance - and he duffs it, again talking about something completely different, just playing the professional victim and blaming everybody else who is criticising the poor, innocent Muslims.

In his emotional weak apologetic rant he lies, claiming that not a single apostate has been killed in the UK. Since there is no statistic on this, we need to go to a report in the media. The Rationaliser - in a response to the blog Andalusi wrote after the program to deliver some apologetics for his failed apologetics - points out a case of apostasy and the subsequent killing of someone in the UK.

Andalusi is then asked again: When all sharia conditions apply, in a perfect sharia state, should apostasy be a criminal offence? Yes/No

And even in this last and final attempt to get an answer from this hypocrite, none is given.

Next a member of the audience is given time to ask a question and does the usual whitewashing, weak and stupid. Kate Smurthwaite kills it instantly by simply stating that no matter when a specific sentence in the Koran was created or when someone assigned a line to Muhammad in a hadith it was NEVER ok to kill another human being because they changed their beliefs, calling it horrific. End of story.

Next, Amal points out the history narrated according to the sunnah, where daesh follows what Muhammad, Abu Bakr and all caliphs up to Ali practiced. Daesh did not invent this.

What is quite funny is how the most idiotic guy, the one who demanded respect for himself and that everyone keeps quiet when he speaks, constantly heckles and makes funny groaning sounds in the background, interrupting others.

Usamah Hassan makes the closing statement pointing out the political nature of apostasy and how today’s orthodoxy wants to re-instate the apostasy laws which some countries have abolished in the last decades and centuries.

Because Andalusi and Shafiq constantly complained that Muslims were given less airtime, the BBC sat down and measured the time Muslims and non-Muslims talked and found that Muslims won, speaking longer than the others, so that was sorted out too....

All in all, a waste of time which demonstrates very clearly there is more than one line of division. One between the beliefs of Muslims and non-Muslims, and the other between practising Muslims and proselytising Muslims. The latter being the ones who are resorting to their dishonest tactics employed to blur the lines and never admit to facts to which they can be held accountable.