The San Francisco Chronicle has discovered a case of “Islamophobia,” and their intrepid reporters are on the job: “An Alameda County prosecutor,” we’re told, “recently held up an unusual piece of evidence while arguing that a man charged with a weapons violation should remain jailed without bail: a Quran.”
It seems that “the religious text, paired with a book on the psychology of terrorism, as well as a sawed-off rifle — all allegedly found in Dajon Ford’s car at the time of his arrest — was cause for concern, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Golde told Superior Court Judge Yolanda Northridge at an Oct. 19 bail hearing.”
Golde, says the Chronicle, asked rhetorically: “What are his plans?” According to the paper, “the Quran was cited among several arguments Golde made suggesting Ford was a threat to the community, in addition to noting his previous criminal history.” But the predictable response has come: “the move has drawn heat from at least one local civil rights attorney, and stunned defense attorney Claire White, who called Golde’s line of questioning ‘racist’ and ‘Islamaphobic [sic].’”
White complained that Golde’s mention of the Qur’an “allows the discussion on public safety to turn not on what actual facts are, and more on fears and prejudices.” And in a blandly reported conflict of interest that appears to have made no difference in the treatment of this case, the Chronicle reports that “White said Ford’s books came from the library of her and her late husband, Dr. Prince White, who was the program and police campaign coordinator for the Urban Peace Movement, a civil rights organization that had worked with Ford in the past.”
Why did Golde mention that Ford had a Qur’an? He rightly explained: “I brought out everything that was there and the judge made the decision, and the judge made the decision based on public safety.”
Indeed. And back in the real world, that is, outside San Francisco, the UK’s Mail On Sunday reported in October that Michael Adebolajo, the Muslim who brutally murdered British soldier Lee Rigby on a London street in 2013, “broke down in tears as he claimed Choudary’s flawed interpretations of the so-called ‘Qital [killing] verses’ of the Koran inspired him to plot the attack on Rigby.” Adebolajo said: “It was Choudary’s reading of the verses, which talk of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, which justified attacking a British soldier in Britain.”
The Mail devoutly hopes, without explanation, that Choudary’s interpretation of the Qur’an is “flawed,” but unfortunately, numerous jihadis think otherwise. Consider, for example, the case of a young woman named Mary Hare, who is suing the University of British Columbia for failing to protect her against a Muslim named Thamer Almedtadi, who entered her dorm room and slashed her throat in October 2016. “A court,” the Canadian Press reported last July, found Almestadi “not criminally responsible because he was suffering from a psychotic episode in which he believed the Qur’an had sent him a message to kill Hare.”
Did Almestadi really need a “psychotic episode” to get the idea that the Qur’an wanted him to slit the throat of a non-Muslim? The Qur’an says this plainly: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (Qur’an 47:4).
Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd wrote several years ago: “If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.”
Was Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd having a psychotic episode? Was Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud, when he wrote much the same thing? Said Mehsud: “Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.”
There is a controversy in San Francisco over Matthew Golde’s mention of the Dajon Ford’s Qur’an because we are supposed to pretend at all times that the Qur’an and Islam have nothing whatsoever to do with violence and terrorism, and every Allahu-akbaring Muslim who goes on a stabbing spree or drives his car into a crowd of Infidels is mentally ill. Golde, by contrast, is being realistic, and is catching heat for it. Reality is more out of fashion than ever.
Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer