Think tank proposes making HK more ‘walkable”


A local think tank on Wednesday proposed making Hong Kong a more “walkable” city through better planning and adopting pedestrian-friendly facilities.

Civic Exchange says that if more people take to walking, their quality of life could be improved and pollution in the city could be alleviated.

“In some of the districts, walkability is very good and there are good connections for people to walk. But in some new towns, people are being channelled into shopping malls, and that may not be the best thing as the streets are very quiet and there is nothing there”, said Simon Ng, Civic Exchange’s Chief Research Officer.

The think tank will be holding an international forum in October to gauge experts’ opinion on how to improve walkability in Hong Kong and other Asian cities.

Pro Tip: Don’t Be a ‘Feminist Man’


Nora Samaran (@NoraSamaran on Twitter) runs a blog called “Dating Tips for the Feminist Man,” the idea of which is absurd, an oxymoron.

Feminists are women who do not like men, and the “Feminist Man” is either (a) a man who is too stupid to understand that feminists hate him, (b) a man who hates himself, or perhaps (c) both (a) and (b). My advice to young men is to avoid feminists altogether. Feminism is an ideology that appeals to, and expresses the interests of, women who are mentally ill, emotionally damaged and sexually deviant. There are still plenty of sane, happy, normal women in the world, so why would any man waste time dating angry lunatics? A feminist never wants to hear anything a man has to say and a wise man would say nothing to her, except “good-bye.”

To whom, then, does Ms. Samaran direct her advice?

You’re a straight monogamous cismale who identifies as a leftie. Maybe you’re a Marxist or a socialist; maybe you’re an anarchist. You respect women. You would never act like a player.You fall in love with strong, smart, feminist women. You believe that our movements are stronger if they include everyone. . . .
[I]t’s time to consider the connection between your politics and your personal life. Social justice is intersectional; we can’t just fix our economic relationships without fixing our personal and cultural ones.

You can read the whole thing, but this brief excerpt includes the basic premises of Ms. Samaran’s argument, all of which are false.

Begin with Ms. Samaran’s assumption the man who “identifies as a leftie” — a Marxist, socialist, or anarchist — would be “monogamous” because he “respects women.” Left-wing men do not respect private property or the rule of law; why should we expect them to respect women? Socialism is the ideology of parasitical moochers, Marxism is the ideology of totalitarian dictators, and anarchy is the ideology of criminal psychopaths. Any woman who would voluntarily associate herself with such men should consider seeking psychiatric care.

Why does Ms. Samaran believe the man who “identifies” this way would be interested in monogamy? Surely such a man has read Friedrich Engels’The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which denounces monogamy as a bourgeois prejudice and condemns the marriage-based family as inherently oppressive, an obsolete remnant of primitive tribalism and medieval feudalism.

Every intelligent person who has studied Marxism understands that this ideology is incompatible with the traditional family. Why should anyone imagine that men who have no desire to become husbands or fathers would be monogamous? How could Ms. Samaran assume that the man who subscribes to such a vicious left-wing ideology “respects women”? Has she never read what Ludwig von Mises said on this subject?

Proposals to transform the relations between the sexes have long gone hand in hand with plans for the socialization of the means of production. Marriage is to disappear along with private property . . . Socialism promises not only welfare — wealth for all — but universal happiness in love as well. This part of its programme has been the source of much of its popularity. It is significant that no other German socialist book was more widely read or more effective as propaganda than Bebel’s Woman and Socialism, which is dedicated above all to the message of free love.

Sexual perverts have always been attracted to left-wing ideologies because they hope that a radical change in the social order will create circumstances in which they have access to whatever deviant pleasures their depraved imaginations crave. Men whose desires are abnormal, or who are unable to find happy relationships with attractive partners under the status quo, will align themselves with radical movements that promise to destroy the status quo. Furthermore, such men are apt to make the cynical calculation that women who are involved in these movements are more sexually promiscuous than women who espouse traditional values. When I covered the 2013 D.C. “SlutWalk” protest, I observed that there were several young men participating in the march, either because their girlfriends had dragged them along for the day, or because they hoped that, by showing their solidarity with the feminist movement, they might “score” with some of the protesters.

To think that a left-wing man “respects women” requires a certain kind of  naïveté about the psychology of the type of person whom Eric Hoffer called The True Believer. Anyone who has paid close attention to the behavior of men involved in radical politics (e.g., Karl Marx, who fathered a bastard child by his family’s housekeeper) understands that depraved immorality among left-wing men is the rule, rather than the exception. No American ever seriously expects moral virtue from a Democrat politician (e.g., Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey, Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, et al.) and what Democrats do routinely is only considered a “scandal” if a Republican does it.

We may therefore surmise that, when Ms. Samaran uses the phrase “respects women” in addressing left-wing men, what she actually means is supports feminism. This is Ms. Samaran’s way of smuggling into her argument the false premise that supporting feminism is synonymous with respecting women, a misguided assumption that cannot withstand even casual scrutiny. I would argue that it is respect for women that motivates opposition to feminism, but no such argument is actually necessary, when all we have to do is ask whether Bill Clinton “respects women” more than did Ronald Reagan. Or, to look at the obverse side of the issue, why did feminists hate Margaret Thatcher but defend Hillary Clinton? Yet feminists have no sense of morality other than the dogmas of their political ideology. Therefore, Ms. Samaran believes, a man who “respects women” is one who supports taxpayer-funded abortion, etc.

“I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
Nina Burleigh, 1998

Knowing that Nina Burleigh is an atheist who hates Christmas (because she hates Jesus, hates the Bible, and hates Christians), her expression of support for Bill Clinton and abortion does not surprise us. All feminists share Nina Burleigh’s sick worldview — The Culture of Death, as it has been called — which is why feminism is rejected by every intelligent person who believes in God and believes that human life has a transcendent meaning and purpose. Feminists endorse the most hideous cruelty, demanding the deliberate slaughter of innocent life. Feminists advocate every manner of sordid sexual perversion, and they oppose everything that is decent, honest and wholesome in human society.

Who is the “Feminist Man” seeking “Dating Tips” from Nora Samaran’s blog? We must suppose that such a man is a desperate and dangerous sort of pervert. Only a man utterly lacking moral scruples and self-respect would ever knowingly date a feminist, but our nation’s public school system has become marvelously successful at destroying the morality and self-respect of children, so we may suppose that most young men nowadays are dangerous perverts — socialists, Marxists, anarchists, etc. — who would turn to Nora Samaran for advice.

When she first posted her “tips” at a left-wing Canadian site three years ago, the comments turned into a firestorm of criticism from men who, quite naturally, objected to Ms. Samaran’s basic assumptions that (a) men are always to blame for everything wrong with heterosexual relationships, and (b) Ms. Samaran is an expert qualified to advise others on how to conduct their romantic lives. These are the implicit premises of all feminist discourse about heterosexuality. Ms. Samaran is one of those women who seem to believe that, merely by calling herself a “feminist,” she gains the authority to tell other people what to do, no matter how young or inexperienced she may be, or whether her own life exemplifies any ideal a responsible person would care to emulate.

Perhaps the perfect example of this phenomenon is Miriam Mogilevsky, a young mentally ill woman who describes herself as “queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible . . . lesbian with exceptions . . . on the asexual spectrum somewhere,” who does not “experience primary sexual attraction,” but nonetheless considers others (including males, toward whom she has never felt any normal erotic interest) to be in need of her expert advice on the subject of sexuality, which she delivers via columns for the Everyday Feminism blog. Any sane man encountering Miriam Mogilevsky in person would likely avoid having anything to do with her.


The more you read what feminists write about sex, the more you realize that “feminist” is just another word for weirdo or loser, and we may assume that the reason feminists constantly complain about male sexual inadequacy is because feminists are such frightening lunatics that no adequate man would ever bother speaking to them.

When Nora Samaran posted her “tips” in 2013, she reacted to criticism of her advice with this revealing comment:

It is stuff I want people who date me to know. . . . And two out of the i dunno maybe ten or fifteen guys I’ve had encounters with in my adult life have been bad at these skills. And I want more of the people I might date in the future to be better at these kinds of skills, so i don’t have to limit my dating pool to only my awesome exes.

Questions: How old is Ms. Samaran? Do most women consider it normal to have had sexual “encounters” with 10 or 15 different partners? Even by the degenerate standards of Canadian feminists, isn’t Ms. Samaran unusually promiscuous? If Ms. Samaran’s “dating pool” included so many “awesome” men, why did none of her previous “encounters” lead to a long-term relationship?

It seems reasonable to assume that Ms. Samaran is what some guys call a “carousel rider,” the type of “pump-and-dump” woman that men are willing to have casual sex with — a quick hookup, or a “friends with benefits” arrangement — but whom no man would ever consider desirable as a lifelong companion. Even a man who is an atheist with no moral objection to fornication would probably hesitate to become seriously involved with a woman who has as many former sex partners as Ms. Samaran does. A woman who has been so often been used and discarded by other men is obviously not a “keeper,” or else some man would have done whatever was necessary to keep her. Does anyone expect a man of quality to choose his wife from among the culls and rejects in the bargain basement discount pile of sexual leftovers?

Think about it this way: A girl who is popular in high school can have her pick of numerous guys who are interested in her. If she chooses wisely among them, it is likely that she will have exactly one serious boyfriend in high school. Well, sometimes things don’t work out, and perhaps she and her high-school sweetheart later break up. She is attractive and popular, however, so she can still be picky as to which guy she dates in college, and expect him to treat her as a serious romantic partner. A woman doesn’t have to be an uptight religious prude to see that casual promiscuity is an activity fraught with heartache and health hazards. Therefore, isn’t it likely that any genuinely attractive woman with good common sense will have had relatively few sexual relationships before she graduates college? And isn’t it likely that such a woman will be married by the time she is 25?

All the feminist activism in the world will never change the fact that young bachelors tend to sort women into two categories:

  1. Potential wives;
  2. Everybody else.

Wise young women understand this, and strive to avoid the kind of behavior that will get them assigned to the “everybody else” category.

Exactly what kind of fool is Nora Samaran, that she could run up a number as high as 15 (!!!) partners without realizing that her “awesome exes” were just using her for their own selfish purposes? She is a typical feminist fool, a future member of the Crazy Cat Lady Club.

It is truly astonishing the way feminists seem to assume that other people, men as well as women, are in need of their advice. If all you want to do with your romantic life is to be a carousel rider, bouncing around from one partner to the next, ultimately dying alone and childless, certainly there are many feminists who are qualified to tell you how to do that. One could cite a long list of eminent feminists — including Shulamith Firestone — who never married and never gave birth to a child. However, if a woman aspires to have a husband and children at some point in her life, she must take into consideration factors that feminists habitually ignore, for example, what do men want?

Feminism is hostile to any suggestion that women should care about men. Everything men do is bad and everything men say is wrong, according to feminists who view all men as complicit in the oppression of women.

“Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery. . . . We reject marriage both in theory and in practice. . . . Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression. It’s like a mass psychosis.”
Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1969

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, 1969

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“Sexuality is that social process which creates, organizes, expresses, and directs desire, creating the social beings we know as women and men, as their relations create society. . . . The organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its structure, gender and family its congealed forms, sex roles its qualities generalized to social persona, reproduction a consequence, and control its issue.”
Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”
Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)

“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

Because “marriage means rape and lifelong slavery” and all men are “agents of oppression,” according to feminist theory, ultimately heterosexuality is itself a force of “patriarchal domination” that men impose on women through “coercive power,” and it is only an “illusionthat heterosexuality is the norm.” Feminists reject the possibility that men can ever be anything other than rapists and oppressors, and yet here we have Ms. Samaran, arrogantly assuming herself qualified to issue “dating tips” for men under headlines like this:

The Opposite of Rape Culture Is Nurturance Culture

Yes, of course! A radical ideologue who advocates killing babies in the womb is an expert on “nurturance culture.” This makes perfect sense to the kind helpless fools who do not automatically laugh at the phrase “Feminist Man,” and who seek Ms. Samaran’s advice:

The opposite of masculine rape culture is masculine nurturance culture: men increasing their capacity to nurture, and becoming whole. . . .
Compassion for self and compassion for others grow together and are connected; this means that men finding and recuperating the lost parts of themselves will heal everyone. . . .
To heal rape culture, then, men build masculine nurturance skills: nurturance and recuperation of their true selves, and nurturance of the people of all genders around them.

What is this gooey, gushy Hallmark-greeting-card treacle? As a father of six who spends a good bit of his time babysitting his two young grandsons, I suppose that I have more “masculine nurturance skills” than any “Feminist Man” to whom Ms. Samaran addresses her “Dating Tips.” Do Ineed to be lectured on this topic by a promiscuous Canadian radical woman? Well, never mind such doubts, let’s read some more of Ms. Samaran’s profound feminist insights:

I am discovering a secret, slowly: the men I know who are exceptionally nurturing lovers, fathers, coworkers, close friends to their friends, who know how to make people feel safe, have almost no outlets through which to learn or share this hardwon skill with other men. They may have had a role model at home, if they are lucky, in the form of an exceptionally nurturing father, but if they do not have this model they have had to figure everything out through trial and error, alone, or by learning with women rather than men. This knowledge shapes everything: assumptions about the significance of needs, how one ought to respond to them, what closeness feels like, how to love your own soul, and what kind of nurturance is actually meant to happen in intimate space.
Meanwhile, the men I know who are kind, goodhearted people, but who are earlier on in growing into their own models for self-love and learning how to comfort and nurture others, have no men to ask. Growing entails growing pains, certainly, but the way can be smoothed when one does not have to learn everything alone.
Men do not talk to one another about nurturance skills: doing so feels too intimate, or the codes of masculinity make doing so too frightening. If they can’t ask and teach each other — if they can’t even find out which other men in their lives would welcome these conversations — then how do they learn?

Amid the gooey greeting-card stuff here — what does it mean to “love you own soul”? — Ms. Samaran ignores three basic problems:

  1. Feminists hate all men, but they hate fathers the most.The fundamental goal of radical feminism since its inception in the late 1960s has been to destroy the marriage-based family, thus to deprive fathers of any influence on the lives of women and children. Feminists condemn marriage as a slavery, and specifically denounce the influence of fathers as the basis of “patriarchy,” an oppressive institution they vow to “smash.”
  2. Feminists are against “nurturing.” The reason feminists insist on abortion as an essential “right” is because feminists hate babies, who require the kind of “nurturing” that feminists lack the emotional capacity to perform. Caring for others — especially someone as helpless as a newborn infant — requires generosity and kindness, whereas feminism is an ideology that justifies and rationalizes selfish cruelty. Feminism negates all moral values for the sake of a fanatical pursuit of the movement’s idée fixe, a political abstraction called “equality.” How can feminists demand that men be “nurturing,” when feminists themselves reject “nurturing” as antithetical to their movement’s goals?
  3. Feminism is about silencing men. Ms. Samaran implies that some men might have worthwhile things to say about such topics as “how to make people feel safe” and “how to comfort and nurture others,” and yet no one in the feminist movement wants to hear a man speak. Everything men say, feminists mock and deride as “mansplaining,” and so no man with any sense ever talks to feminists. Ms. Samaran laments that men have “no outlets” for sharing their knowledge and skills “with other men,” but why is this? Because feminists have done everything within their power to destroy formerly all-male institutions where such knowledge was formerly transmitted. Feminists demanded that every school, college and university must become coed, and many institutions that were all-male 50 years ago are now majority female. On some of these campuses, feminists demand the abolition of fraternities.

The faculty of public schools are female-dominated, and the policies that prevail in the system are designed to reward girls and punish boys, so as to discourage male academic success. The feminist movement seeks to eradicate male influence in education and culture. Feminists have organized boycotts of male authors, and demand a reduction in the number of films directed by men. Feminists advocate deliberate discrimination against men in order to achieve “equality,” and any man who objects to this discrimination is condemned as a “misogynist.”

In order for a man to be a “nurturing father,” and thus “a role model at home” for his sons, he would have to find a woman who wants to get married and become a mother, but feminist ideology is anti-marriage and anti-motherhood, and therefore few feminists have husbands or children. The man who wants to become a husband and father would be a fool to waste time dating a feminist, who would certainly be obliged to get an abortion if she became pregnant.

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Not content to abort every child that might accidentally be conceived in their own wombs, feminists seek to deprive men of any role in the lives of children born to other women. Feminists encourage women to divorce their husbands, and to prevent fathers from having visitation or custody of their own children. Insofar as any woman has a husband or any child has a father, these marriages and families represent the influence of “patriarchy” that feminists are determined to “smash.”

Here is a headline that feminists everywhere celebrated:

I Aborted My Baby — Because it was a Boy.
. . . I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. . . .


Every boy is a “monster” and all males are “enemies,” according to feminist ideology, and yet Ms. Samaran seems to believe that “masculine nurturing” is something to be encouraged.

Nora Samaran addresses her lectures to men who “fall in love with strong, smart, feminist women,” as if strength and intelligence are synonymous with feminism. My wife is strong and smart, but she is is a Christian, and I thank God for blessing me with such a wonderful wife. On Valentine’s Day, I gave her a dozen roses and a box of candy.

Feminists hate Christian women like my wife. Feminists don’t believe in love, and feminists denounce Valentine’s Day as “heteronormative,” so I guess nobody gave Nora Samaran roses or candy for Valentine’s Day and, as a feminist, she must be glad she got nothing. This is what men should always give feminists — nothing. The best “Dating Tip” I could give a young man is never to give feminists anything, not even an explanation for why you don’t speak to them.


ICNA Canada’s online syllabus on stoning adulterers, chopping off thieves’ hands


On its official website ICNA Canada shares with its members, followers and supporters the book “Riyad us Saliheen” (“The Gardens of the Righteous” رياض الصالحين) compiled by Imam Zakaruya Yahya Bin Sharaf An-Nawawi, a Sunni Shafi’ite jurist and hadith scholar who lived in 13th century.

The Gardens of the Righteous (Arabic: Riyadh as-Salihin), is a compilation of verses from the Qur’an and hadith by Al-Nawawi. It contains a total of 1905 hadith divided across 372 chapters, many of which are introduced by verses of the Quran.

The book “Riyad us Saliheen” (“The Gardens of the Righteous”) which appears on ICNA Canada site adds modern commentary to the verses from the Qur’an and hadith.

The following are excerpts from the book which deal with the fixed punishments in Islam including the stoning of adulterers, chopping off thieves’ hands and whipping for the offence of drinking alcohol:

“[Hadith]: 1209. Ibn `Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) reported: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, “I have been commanded to fight people till they testify `La ilaha illallah’ (there is no true god except Allah) that Muhammad (PBUH) is his slave and Messenger, and they establish Salat, and pay Zakat; and if they do this, their blood (life) and property are secured except when justified by law, and it is for Allah to call them to account.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].”

Commentary: “Except when justified by law” means that after the acceptance of Islam, if someone commits a crime which is punishable by Hadd this will be certainly imposed on him, or her, i.e., cutting of hand in case of theft, one hundred stripes or stoning to death in case of fornication, capital punishment in retaliation for murdering an innocent person.”

“In this Hadith the words “it is for Allah to call them to account” means that if they are not sincere in the acceptance of Islam and would put up an appearance of Islam like hypocrites, or would commit a crime which is liable for Hadd but is somehow not detected by the Islamic court or authorities concerned, they will be taken to account for it by Allah, that is Allah will decide about them on the Day of Judgement. It is evident from this Hadith that so long as Kufr [heresy] is present in this world, it is necessary to wage Jihad against it to finish it off, and so long as all the disbelievers do not openly accept Islam and adopt the Islamic way of life, Muslims are duty- bound to make Jihad against them.”

“[Hadith]: 1628. `Uqbah bin `Amir (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, “Avoid (entering a place) in which are women (uncovered or simply to mix with them in seclusion).” A man from the Ansar said, “Tell me about the brother of a woman’s husband.” He replied, “The brother of a woman’s husband is death.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].”

Commentary: This Hadith tells us an extremely important point in respect of the veil about which the majority of Muslims are unaware or negligent. The point that it tells us that a woman must observe the veil from the real brothers, cousins etc., of her husband because their visits in her home are very frequent and there may occur several occasions when they come across each other alone. For this reason, there are greater chances of mischief with them. This explains why the husband’s male relatives have been regarded as “death”, that is from the religious point of view they are fatal. In other words, if they commit the mischief, it will prove fatal because in an Islamic state this crime is punishable by Rajm (stoning to death). This can also be fatal in another way. If the husband begins to suspect that his wife has illicit relations with someone else, he might kill her or divorce her out of his sense of honour. Even in case of divorce, her life will become desolate. Another meaning of it can be that one should be as much afraid of meeting such women in seclusion with whom any kind of contact is not permissible as one is afraid of death.”

“When a woman is required to observe the veil from the real brothers of her husband, why would it not be essential to observe the veil from the husband’s friends. Slackness in this matter is also very common nowadays. Although the dangerous consequences of this fashion come to our notice everyday through newspapers, people do not learn any lesson from them, and the fashion of non-observance of the veil is spreading fast like an epidemic. May Allah save us from this evil!”

“[Hadith]: 1770. `Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) reported: The Quraish were anxious about a woman from Banu Makhzum who had committed theft and asked : “Who will speak to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) about her?” Then they said: “No one will be bold enough to do so except Usamah bin Zaid, the (Companion who was) dearly loved by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).” So Usamah (May Allah be pleased with him) spoke to him and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) (angrily) said, “Are you interceding regarding one of the punishments prescribed by Allah?” He then got up and delivered an address in which he said, “Indeed what destroyed the people before you was just that when a person of high rank among them committed a theft, they spared him; but if the same crime was done by a poor person they inflicted the prescribed punishment on him. I swear by Allah that if Fatimah daughter of Muhammad should steal, I would have her hand cut off.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].”

“In another narration `Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) said: (Upon hearing the intercession of Usamah), the face of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) changed color (because of anger) and he said, “Do you dare to intercede in matters prescribed by Allah?” Usamah pleaded: “O Messenger of Allah! Pray for my forgiveness.” `Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) added: Thereafter the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) gave orders to have that woman’s hand cut off.”


l. Hadd is the punishment fixed by Shari`ah and which no one has the authority to increase or decrease. For instance, theft is punishable by the cutting of the hand; the punishment of adultery is a hundred stripes or Rajm (stoning to death); the punishment of drinking of intoxicants is forty stripes etc.

2. Nobody has the right to intercede or make any recommendation in this matter.

3. There is no distinction of male or female in the matter of these punishments (Hudud). Whoever commits a crime which is punishable by Hadd, whether that person is male or female, will be liable for punishment prescribed under Hadd – the punishment, the limits of which have been defined in the Qur’an and Hadith.

4. No one is exempted from Hadd, no matter how great he is, because there is no distinction of great or small in the matter of Hadd.

5. We must learn a lesson from the history of past nations so that we can save ourselves from such misdeeds which caused their ruin.

6. This Hadith brings into prominence the distinction and eminence of Usamah and his position in the eyes of the Prophet (PBUH).”

“[Hadith]: 242. Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (PBUH) said, “When a slave-girl commits fornication and this fact of fornication has become evident, she must be given the penalty of (fifty) lashes without hurling reproaches at her; if she does it again, she must be given the penalty but she should not be rebuked. If she does it for the third time, he should sell her, even for a rope woven from hair (i.e., something worthless)”. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].”

Commentary: If a slave-girl is guilty of fornication, she is liable to a punishment of fifty stripes, and this punishment can be given by her master. This Hadith is, in fact addressed to the master of such a slave-girl. The order that one should not censure and reproach her is perhaps based on the consideration that she may abstain from such a sin in future because politeness often proves more effective than reproach. If politeness proves ineffective and she commits that sin again then that slave-girl should be sold for cheap.”

“[Hadith]: 243. Abu Hurairah (May Allah bepleased with him) reported: A man who had drunk wine was brought to the Prophet (PBUH) and he asked us to beat him; some struck him with their hands, some with their garments (making a whip) and some with their sandals. When he (the drunkard) had gone, some of the people said: “May Allah disgrace you!” He (the Prophet (PBUH)) said, “Do not say so. Do not help the devil against him”. [Al-Bukhari].”

Commentary: To imprecate a Muslim virtually amounts to helping Satan against him, because the latter is avowed to mislead people and to expose man to humiliation in this world and the Hereafter. Such people who believe that no Hadd punishment is fixed for drinking take support from this Hadith. They hold that its punishment is discretionary which can be increased or decreased according to the circumstances. But other learned men who hold that its Hadd is forty stripes argue that the incident quoted in this Hadith relates to the period when its Hadd had not been fixed.”

“When the Prophet (PBUH) ordered the punishment of forty stripes for it then it became its prescribed Hadd. Abu Bakr (May Allah bepleased with him) followed it during the period of his caliphate. `Umar (May Allah bepleased with him) also applied it in the early years of his caliphate but subsequently raised its punishment to eighty stripes.”

“The `Ulama’ [scholars] who maintain the punishment of forty stripes contend that the original Hadd was forty stripes and the additional forty stripes comprised discretionary punishment for which the Head of a state has full authority. If he feels, he can add discretionary punishment to the Hadd. The nature of this additional punishment depends on his discretion. The latter opinion seems to be more correct that Hadd is fixed for drinking and its punishment is not based on discretion. The Hadd for it is forty stripes but this Hadd can be increased by adding discretionary punishment to it. Allah knows best.”

Canadian Muslim perspective on executing apostates and enemies of Islam

Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Kader Kandil (أحمد عبد القادر قنديل) serves since 2007 as the imam of al-Jisr Mosque in Laval, Quebec and he is a member of Conseil des imams du Québec (Imams Council of Quebec).

Of Egyptian descent Kandil was in 1990-96 an imam of several mosques in Cairo and Alexandria and worked for 8 years as an imam, preacher and teacher for the Egyptian Ministry of Endowment. In CanadaKandil worked as a teacher of Arabic language and Koran in private schools in Edmonton and Montreal and was for two years the imam of al-Rashid Mosque in Edmonton before moving to Laval.

The following are excerpts of Kandil’s sermon that was titled “The Types of Apostasy” and given on May 12, 2013 at Alrawdah Mosque in Montreal (originally in Arabic):

“The apostasy and the meaning of apostasy… [i.e.] a man uttered the two testimonies. He said I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and he was pleased with the Sharia [Law] of Islam and was pleased with the constitution of Islam… whether he was born as a Muslim or became Muslim after being an infidel, and then removed this [Islamic faith] from his mind, [meaning] he removed from his mind the bond which he tied to his soul by disowning the religion as a whole or by disowning part of it or information regarding the religion that must be known [to Muslims]… meaning that you as a Muslim are being held as a person who knows this religion, i.e. that the prayer is a religious duty, that fornication is forbidden and is regarded in the religion of Allah a major sin, that theft is a major sin, that drinking wine is a major sinyou left the religion of Allah… meaning that a person who commits one of these deeds… turns apostate

The ruling on apostasy… the apostate must come to the [Muslim] judge or to the Imam of the Muslims… meaning the emir or the head [of the state] or the ruler… the meaning of the Imam in this context is that he [the apostate] should be brought to the emir or the head of the state or the judge who is in charge of Sharia [Islamic Law] affairs in the Islamic country…

There are two types of apostates… one of them is a person who committed apostasy… and uttered it [the act of apostasy]. We heard him [saying] ‘I’m apostate, I don’t believe in this prayer… I don’t like Islam, I left Islam and turned for example a Christian… He left Islam for another religion or disowned information about Islam that should have been known to all Muslims, but his actions were done on the personal level, he stayed in his home and did not went to fight against Islam or the Muslims or joined a group that fights against the Islamic State or he did not come out and spread his beliefs among the people and launched a website and spread atheism in the country etc…

The second type is a person who committed apostasy, but he did not stop there and joined a vile group in fighting Islam and spread atheism and provoked suspicions [about the Islamic faith] and tried to spread the corruption among the people.

“Each one has a different ruling. Jurists’ opinions were divided on the first case. Most of the jurists agreed that he will be asked for three days to repent. He will be given a period of three days for repentance [and during this time] the scholars will sit with him, pose arguments against him, remove his confusion, answer his doubts and try to convince him. If after the third day he still adheres to his position he will be killed. This is the opinion of the mainstream jurists. Abu Hanifa [founder of a school of Islamic jurisprudence] said that if [the apostate] is a male he will be killed… a woman will not be killed… she will be jailed until death… According the Shafi’i and Maliki [schools of Islamic jurisprudence]… the apostate, male or female, who did not join a group and did not fight [against Islam] will never be killed… he [or she] will be asked to repent and then will be incarcerated till he changes his mind or dies in jail…

“The second case deals with a person who fights against Allah and His messenger and joined a vile group. His verdict will not be a regular execution. His verdict will be identical to the punishment for banditry. ‘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.’ [Quran 5:33]. This is the difference between them. The first will be asked to repent and the second will be killed immediately without repentance or asking him to repent…

The third type… there are people called the Westernised Muslims. Did you hear about them? Who are the Westernised Muslims?… There are people called orientalists. The orientalists are European, American and other scholars who came to our countries, learned the Arabic language and the culture of the Arab and the Muslim society and started trying to find doubts in the [truthiness of] the religion of Allah, Blessed and Exalted be He, in order to use them to destroy Islam. Unfortunately, some of them are our kin… our respected secular brothers… they traveled to their [orientalists] countries and learned from them or mingled with them in our countries and started repeating these words of folly uttered and made by the orientalists, for example that Islam oppresses the woman…

They started spreading these suspicions and sedition saying that Islam treats harshly women and that Islam is a rigid religion. [They say:] ‘why the hand of the thief is chopped off? And why the person who commits fornication is stoned to death… and why a person who drinks wine is flogged 80 times? This is a rigid religion. This is cruelty. Is this Islam? Is this the Sharia [Islamic law]? Is this tolerance?’

“By doing so and by these words they addressing Allah directly and accusing Him , Glorified be He, of injustice. They say: ‘Our Lord, you are unjust…’ The Westernized Muslims repeated these statements and this is one of the facets of apostasy, because they accused Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, of injustice

Another aspect of apostasy is the alliance with the infidels… ‘O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies.’ [Quran 5:51]. This is a very important issue… the meaning of the alliance is support, you support him [the infidel] against the believers, subordination, you act in self-deprecation, submit to him or make him judge in issues commanded by Allah, and then love, which makes you love him more than the believers or give him precedence over the believers… and humiliation by belittling yourself in front of him and surrendering to him on the expense of your religion. All of this is alliance, meaning that you are helping an infidel against a Muslim, that you give precedence to an infidel over a Muslim in a matter… that adds strength to the heresy and weaken the power of Islam.”

See also:

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus on wearing hijab and honour killing in Islam

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus legalizes “slave-girls”

ICNA Canada online syllabus: “Muslims will dominate the Jews”, kill them

ICNA Canada syllabus: “give us victory over the disbelieving people”

ICNA Canada’s syllabus explains ruling on ‘sex slaves’ in Islam

ICNA Canada free book: “Every human being is born as a Muslim”

ICNA – Canada’s senior official appears to blame gays for Ontario “lurid” sex education

Trudeau: We strive to show that “Islam is not incompatible” with Western values