Religion of Peace watch: “Kill every Israeli in Egypt!”

August 23, 2011

The Sinai peninsula has been in almost a state of anarchy since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak (1). Jihadist groups, including al Qaeda (2), have begun to operate openly as Egyptian sovereignty crumbles in an area crucial to Israel’s security. Late last week, Muslims waging jihad fi sabil Allah struck from Sinai in a series of terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel struck back hard, killing not only the instigators of the attack, but also, unfortunately, some Egyptian soldiers (3).

So, what is the logical response of the average Egyptian Islamic scholar to these events? Demand that the transitional government reassert national sovereignty and the rule of law over Egyptian territory and suppress these groups that are endangering the treaty of peace with Israel? Denounce these hijackers of Islam who clearly misunderstand Muhammad’s message of peace? Does he…

Never mind. We all know what the answer is: Kill every Zionist in Egypt.

Islamic scholar Dr. Salah Sultan issued a religious decree according to which it is permissible to kill “any Israeli on Egyptian land, in response to the killing of Egyptian soldiers near the border with Israel,” Egyptian Al-Shuruq newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Thus Israeli businessmen in Alexandria to make a deal are fair game, even though they had nothing to do with the fighting, because, well… they’re Jews and therefore the enemies of all mankind! And, you see, the brave jihadis wouldn’t have done what they did (in Allah’s name) if those nasty Jews hadn’t been occupying Muslim lands (that is, the whole state of Israel) and those Egyptian soldiers wouldn’t have died in the criminal Zionist attack, so all Israelis (and therefore Jews) are to blame!

Yes, that really is what passes for logic there. And yet some people wonder why Arab Islamic society is screwed up.

I don’t.

Footnotes:
(1) Helped along by our Smart Power Administration. Heckuva job, Barry!
(2) See also the announcement from the Kavkaz Center, the propaganda arm of the Chechen jihadi terrorists.
(3) If you don’t want this to happen, Cairo, maybe you should try suppressing these medieval loons before the Israelis have to do it for you. Just a thought.

UPDATE: Barry Rubin with some interesting background on Sultan Salah.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Leading Iranian cleric: “Hey, it’s okay to kill Jewish babies”

May 31, 2011

Hey, Mesbah-Yazdi said we could!

That’s the takeaway regarding this fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi in response to a questioner asking whether a suicide bomber was, well, committing suicide:

Q: “Now, about [the] targeting [of] civilians in the Zionist state. Some say that according to the teaching[s] of [Ahl Al-Bayt, i.e. the Prophet Muhammad’s household] and the Koran, it is haram to target civilians in any case. They also say that Israelis are civilians like any other people, while others believe they are settlers and usurpers [rather than] civilians.

“Are the operations [carried out] by Hamas and [Islamic] Jihad against [Israeli] ‘civilians’ haram? Why or why not? How about the Israeli children killed in such attacks? If it is not haram, what is the answer to those who quote the Hadith [which forbids targeting] non-combatants.”

A: “Muslims should not attack those civilians of the occupied territories who have announced their opposition to their government’s vicious crimes, except [in] situations in which they are used as human shields and [when] fighting the aggressors depends on attacking those [same] civilians.”

Note that the learned Shiite scholar, though specifically asked about killing children, never says “don’t do it.” Not a word of forbiddance. You shouldn’t target those who denounced their own government, but if they’re being used as human shields… Well, hey. Stuff happens, you know?

I guess it was the fault of the Fogel children that they didn’t publicly oppose Israeli policy.

Note also that the questioner asked about the religious propriety of suicide bombing. You may be surprised to know that this is a controversial issue in Islam, because suicide is a sin. Islamic scholars have argued with al Qaeda leaders about this, and they in turn have had to engage in stretched-to-the-breaking-point arguments to say it isn’t technically suicide. (Read all about it.) Mesbah-Yazdi apparently comes down on the al Qaeda side of the argument, telling the questioner that it is not only permitted, but it is a religious obligation on all Muslims to conduct “martyrdom operations.”

Funny, but the learned Ayatollah himself has yet to strap on a bomb belt and blast his way to glory as a martyr. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time until he gets around to it.

Just as soon as the right Jewish child comes along.

RELATED: In case you find yourself wondering if Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi is some kind of …er… fanatic, you’re right. How much of a fanatic, you ask? How about, “so bad that even Ayatollah Khomeini banned his movement?” Mesbah-Yazdi is a spiritual adviser to President Gilligan Ahmadinejad; he’s appeared in this blog before.

via The Jawa Report and Ynet News.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Jihadist Muslims force US cartoonist into hiding

September 16, 2010

Fatwa this!

The Religion of Tolerance again shows that “irony” has real meaning: Because of threats against her life by Muslims outraged* over her suggestion that everyone draw cartoons of Muhammad to show support for freedom of speech, Seattle political cartoonist Molly Norris has been forced to abandon her identity and go into hiding:

You may have noticed that Molly Norris‘ comic is not in the paper this week. That’s because there is no more Molly.

The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, “going ghost”: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It’s all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” cartoon.

We’re told again and again that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, yet, again and again, people are forced to go into hiding or get police protection because they have dared to criticize Islam and have been threatened by Muslims: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Lars Vilks, Salman Rushdie, and a bunch of Danish cartoonists, among others, all now run a real risk of being killed and have to live a life on the run. And they’re not just being paranoic “Islamophobes:” the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was gunned down by a Muslim and was stabbed and had his throat slit while begging for his life. All for exercising the liberty of free speech that is our inalienable, natural right.

Apologists will again try to tell us that what happened to Norris was just the work of a tiny minority of extremists who don’t represent the real Islam. (And is that true for Hirsi Ali, Vilks, van Gogh, and all the others, too?) Forget it. The Qur’an tells us that Muhammad is a perfect example for all mankind: his actions define what is moral. Thus the killing of those who criticize Islam carries the imprimatur of Muhammad, himself. While there are many, many Muslims who are rightfully horrified and embarrassed by moments like this, it is without doubt that those Muslims who threaten and act against critics of Islam are just following the path of Islam’s prophet.

I truly hope Ms. Norris, whatever she is calling herself now, has a concealed carry permit, a weapon, and knows how to use it, because it’s all too likely she will have to.

*(What else is new?)

LINKS: More from Sister Toldjah, who asks “How would the media react if Christians had made this threat?” Good question. Also Big Peace and at The Sundries Shack.


Things that make you think “WTF??”

May 23, 2010

You would think the Muslim world would want to forget this ever happened, since it was such an embarrassment the first time.

You would be wrong. At least, in some parts…

Saudi scholar’s fatwa wades into controversy

A Saudi scholar has waded into controversy after he said that women could give their milk to men to establish a degree of maternal relations and get around a strict religious ban on mixing between unrelated men and women.

According to Shaikh Abdul Mohsin Al Abaican, a consultant at Saudi Arabia’s royal court, a man who often entered a house and came in contact with the womenfolk there should be made symbolically related to the women by drinking milk from one of the women.

Under the fatwa, the act would preclude any sexual relations between the man and the donor woman and her relatives.

However, Al Abaican said that the donor woman should not breastfeed the man directly.

“The man should take the milk, but not directly from the breast of the woman,” Al Abaican said. “He should drink it and then becomes a relative of the family, a fact that allows him to come in contact with the women without breaking Islam’s rules about mixing,” he said, quoted by Kuwaiti and Saudi media on Saturday.

In the first instance, a scholar at the premier university in the Sunni sphere said it would be okay for unrelated men and women to work together, as long as the woman suckled the man, first. Oddly, many people objected to the cleric’s ruling. So, Mr. Abaican helpfully came up with a compromise: no need to suck on your best friend’s sister’s breast to make it okay to visit his house, she can just give you a glass of warm milk….

And yet some close-minded bigots still object. Amazing.

As Marisol at Jihad Watch points out, Mr. Abaican is just following Islamic precedent, as laid down by Muhammad himself:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. She (i. e. the daughter of Suhail came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (purbety) [sic] as men attain, and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that something (rankles) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared. (Sahih Muslim 3425)

And, since Muhammad is a perfect example of conduct to be emulated for all time, well, who can argue?

Drink up!


Warrior for the Religion of Peace? Or a lone nut?

January 1, 2010

And is there a difference?

Danish police shoot man trying to enter Mohammed cartoonist’s home

Danish police on Friday shot and wounded a man trying to enter the home of an artist who drew controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

The man, a 27-year-old Somalian who was armed with an axe, was caught trying to break into the home of Kurt Westergaard at 10pm local time, police said.

Police shot the man, injuring him in his leg. He was taken into custody and is expected to recover.

Mr Westergaard, 74, was one of 12 cartoonists commissioned by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper to produce caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed five years ago. He has received several death threats since.

Get that? This brave jihadi was trying to take an ax to a 74 year old man for drawing a cartoon. By another account, his wife and their grandchild were in the house at the time, too. This is what the dominance of Islam and sharia law would bring: a death sentence not just for an individual who criticizes Islam and Muhammad, but for free speech itself. No one would ever feel free to speak their mind, lest it offend some imam who’s just dying to issue a fatwa. And Westergaard is by no means the first: Salman Rushdie has been in hiding since 1989 for writing a book that offended Ayatollah Khomeini. More recently, Somali refugee and Dutch citizen Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, and Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan have all had to take measures against death threats for criticizing Islam. The simple exercise of freedom of speech cost Theo van Gogh his life, gunned down and stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street by a Muslim angry over his criticisms of Islam.

Killing for insulting Islam and Muhammad is an old tradition in Islam, of course, going all the way back to Muhammad himself. The Bukhari collection of hadiths relates how Muhammad himself had a Jewish poet, K’ab bin al-Ashraf, assassinated for saying things offensive to “Allah and his Apostle.” (See volume 5, book 59, number 369)

Congratulations to Mr. Westergaard for surviving this attack, and all praise to the Danish police for their quick response. And for all of you who shout “democracy go to hell!” and think it’s a blessing to kill those who exercise their rights as freeborn people, you can fatwa this:

To exercise your rights as a free human being and see more blasphemous images, including the infamous Jyllands-Posten cartoons, visit the Zombietime archive.

(hat tip: Power Line)

UPDATE: According to the Danish Security and Intelligence Service, the assassin has “close ties to the Somali terror organization al-Shabaab as well as to al-Qaeda leaders in East Africa….” Fancy that.

LINKS: More from Fausta and Mark Steyn. Also at Infidels are Cool.


Hollywood fears the fatwa

November 15, 2009

With the release 2012, Islamist Watch wonders why the film shows holy places being destroyed around the globe – except Mecca.

“Who will survive 2012?” asks a website promoting Roland Emmerich’s new end-of-the-world film set three years from now. The answer: Muslims — or at least their cherished holy places:

For his latest disaster movie, 2012, the 53-year-old director had wanted to demolish the Kaaba, the iconic cube-shaped structure in the Grand Mosque in Mecca. …

But after some consideration, he decided it might not be such a smart idea, after all.

“I wanted to do that, I have to admit,” Emmerich told SciFiWire.com. “But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right.”

Have a look to see how else Hollywood has gone out of its way to avoid offending Muslims, but shows no such concern for other religions, and learn why David Rusin rates Hollywood a D for Dhimmitude.


Religious freedom for me, but not for thee

September 1, 2009

In Egypt, an American ally where Coptic Christians are regularly oppressed and persecuted, controversy over the treatment of non-Muslim minorities has arisen anew after the issuance of a fatwa (a ruling on Islamic religious law) that prohibits the building of new churches or donating money to build them, comparing them to “a nightclub, a gambling casino, towards promoting the alcohol industry or for building a barn for rearing pigs, cats or dogs.”

[Dr. Naguib Gabraeel] went on to inquire “So what is the Shari’a position to what was mentioned especially concerning the will of a Muslim to donate for the building of a church or a monk’s cell? If the answer is prohibition, aren’t these houses where the name of God is mentioned? Is not Christianity a recognized religion according to the Egyptian constitution? There are also a lot of wealthy Copts and Coptic businessmen who donate towards the building of mosques.”

The Fatwa Council replied affirming the correctness of what came in the textbook and issued a Fatwa on September 10, 2008 (document number 1809), which is also published on its official website.

To highlight the reason for this “sin” the Fatwa went on to state: “Salvation in the Christian religion is the belief in Jesus as Lord, where Muslims fundamentally disagree on it. Muslims believe that Issa [Jesus in Arabic] peace be upon him, is a slave of Allah and His Messenger, and that Allah is one. He begets not and He is not begotten and there is none like unto Him. So if it is seen that one sect has deviated from this absolute Monotheism, then according to that person’s own religion he is forbidden to donate for the erection of buildings where Allah is not worshiped alone.”

According to Mohammed el-Maghrabbi, deputy chief of the Faculty of Law, and author of the controversial textbook, what he wrote is a principle agreed upon by all Islamic jurists. He added that a will, if devoted by a Christian for building a Church, is forbidden and sinful and is considered in Islam as separation from God. So it is also illegal if a non-Muslim wills his inheritance towards building a Church or a Synagogue.

This Fatwa has shocked many as it classified churches with nightclub, gambling casinos, and places for rearing pigs and dogs, which are considered ‘unclean’ animals according to Islam and Muslims.

The article later reports that Dr. Gabraeel called on Grand Sheikh Tantawi, the head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, which is the acknowledged center and intellectual leader in Sunni Islamic thought, to seek a clarification from him. Sheikh Tantawi then caused a ruckus of his own by denying the fatwa:

On August 19, 2009, a delegation from EUHRO, headed by Dr. Gabraeel, paid a visit to Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, who said that the Fatwa was wrong and untrue and that Muslims can make voluntary contributions to build churches, as a church is a house for “worshiping and tolerance” and that “Shari’a does not prevent Muslims from donating to the building of a church, as it is his free money. He also affirmed that Al-Azhar does not object to the “unified law for building places of worship.”

Tantawi added that building churches should be left to the Christians and Muslims are not allowed according to Shari’a to interfere in other faiths, “because religion, faith and what a person believes in is a relationship between him and his God.” He also called on the Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa to hold the five jurists who issued the Fatwa accountable.

Other Islamic scholars were quite upset with the Grand Sheikh, and with reason: the prohibition against building or repairing churches and synagogues is fundamental to Islamic law, being a part of the Pact of Umar, a deal made between the second Caliph, Umar, and subjugated Christians. Christians agreed not to:

1. Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”;
2. “Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”;

(…)

10. “Publicize practices of Shirk” – that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. (This is the argument of the fatwa-issuers. -Phineas) In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive;
11. Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” – again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed;
12. “Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”;

Follow the link to read the whole thing. It’s enlightening. In essence, Sheikh Tantawi was going against the decree of one of Muhammad’s own companions, one of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. One wonders if he sincerely believed this, or if his statement was “political,” meant to avoid another Muslim-Copt riot.

Regardless, this contretemps over Coptic churches is another example Islam’s compulsion to seek supremacy over all other faiths and of the incompatibility of Islamic law with Western democratic liberties.

LINKS: The site of the U.S. Copts Association. More from Jihad Watch.