Egyptian Presidential Candidate Says No Freedom in Islam

In a recent TV interview, Hazim Abu Ismail, a candidate for Egypt’s presidency with affiliations to both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis, made clear that the hijab, or veil for women, would be enforced under his leadership. More importantly, along the way, he exposed his views more generally””that there is little freedom under Islam. Especially telling is the military analogy he used: being a Muslim is like being a member of the military; you must obey all its dictates, including dress codes. He fails to add, however, that, whereas much military service is voluntary, in Islam, if you are simply born to Muslim parents, then you have joined Islam””whether you like it or not. Hence, all the persecution of Muslim apostates. But as Abu Ismail puts it, “This is Islam.” Translated excerpts of the interview follow:

Host: You have already begun to try to impose a particular dress code for us.
Abu Ismail: I”ve begun to? It’s the Lord of the Worlds [Allah] who said so. I have nothing to do with it!
Host: Allah left it for me to decide as a personal freedom.
Abu Ismail: Who said that? Where”d you get that from. See, that’s the whole point: If you claim that Allah considers it your personal freedom, show me your reference? Nobody has ever said that — except for people have no understanding of Sharia.
Host: There is “no coercion in religion” [Koran 2:256].
Abu Ismail: This is concerning the creed, you don’t force someone to convert to Islam.
Host: So when Allah in the Koran mentions “religion,” it is synonymous with “creed”?
Abu Ismail: Exactly.
Host: So when He says “today I have perfected your religion for you” [Koran 5:3], He is only talking about the “creed.”
Abu Ismail: Yes; for example, when you say “no coercion to join the Military Academy,” it means that you are free to join or not””but if you do join, then you are obliged to wear their uniform, to attend their classes, to attend the training with them, and to obey their leader.
Host: There is a problem here””shall I say to the unveiled woman who wants to avoid hijab that she should change her creed?
Abu Ismail: Exactly, bravo. If she is a Muslim. You see, this is the difficulty; this is Islam. Does she want to be a Muslim and not obey Allah’s rules? Let them say so; that’s all I ask; let them be honorable and just speak up.

A bold challenge, considering that “speaking up” about not wanting to follow “Allah’s rules” in Muslim countries can get one attacked, hounded, imprisoned, and killed.

Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Egypt: Member of parliament disrupts proceedings with Islamic call to prayer
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Raymond: please send this interview to Obama and his administration especially Hiliary. It’s good to hear the truth (even if it’s evil) about Islam from a muslim leader. To all DHS PERSONELL READING THIS BLOG, please understand that Islam IS THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY! This MoBro leader speaks the truth and this should be a warning to all liberal multiculturalists, this could be Europe and even the US in a few generations.

  2. says

    Again can be seen that a Muslim can be logical and consistent only so far and then no more. Yes, if one could freely leave Islam without fear of bodily harm or death, then the rubes who would remain to bang their heads five times a day and, if female, effectively concede that men are superior in this world (and the next one for that matter) to women would become a diminishing and ridiculous lot over time. But Islam doesn’t allow one to leave Islam so easily. Not by a long shot. A convenient overlook by this Abu Ismail turkey. Nothing new here though since Muslims in droves overlook a hell of a lot about their religion while plugging it.

    Just as important is the admittance by Abu Ismail that freedom and Islam have nothing in common. Always refreshing when a Muslim speaks the truth about his religion. Ah, if only the Western media could be as honest about Islam on a regular basis as truly truthful Muslims. That would be refreshing too. Very.

  3. says

    Problem is that just as Ahmadinejad becoming president of Iran didn’t result in Western countries becoming more anti-Iranian, similarly, if Abu Ismail were to become president of Egypt, it wouldn’t make Western countries alter their policies towards Egypt.

  4. says

    H A Ismael has described Allah as a totalitarian character with a totalitarian view of life for his devotees. The only purpose of such a world view is mind control.

    “It is fortunate for us that the people are blind and stupid” Hitler.

  5. says

    I certainly am reminded of this famous quote from the movie Patton, with appropriate adjustment: “Rommel… you magnificent bastard, *I read your book*!” Hazim Abu Ismail…you magnificent bastard, *I read your ko-ran*, thanks for revealing the truths, for all else to see!!!!

  6. says

    “Host: You have already begun to try to impose a particular dress code for us.

    Abu Ismail: I’ve begun to! It’s the Lord of the Worlds [Allah] who said so. I have nothing to do with it!”

    What does the Quran say about the Veil?

    Traditional explanation for the use of Veil:

    Initially in Prophet Muhammad’s life, the veil was not an issue. His wives didn’t wear it, nor did he require that other women wear it. As he became more important in his community, and as his wives gained stature, Muhammad began adapting Persian and Byzantine customs. The veil was among those.

    The Quran does address veiling explicitly, but only in so far as the Prophet’s wives were concerned. The wives were to be “covered,” that is, unseen, when in company of other people. Significantly, the Quran’s requirement did not mention a veil as it’s understood in the West ” as a face covering ” but a hijab, in the sense of a “curtain,” or a separation of sorts. Here is the relevant passage in the Quran, best known as the “Verses of the Curtain”:

    “Believers, do not enter the houses of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless you are given leave. But if you are invited, enter; and when you have eaten, disperse. Do not engage in familiar talk, for this would annoy the Prophet and he would be ashamed to bid you go; but of the truth God is not ashamed. If you ask his wives for anything, speak to them from behind a curtain. This is more chaste for your hearts and their hearts.” (Sura 33:53, N.J. Dawood translation).

    What Led Muhammad to Require Some Covering?

    Traditional explanation:

    The historical context of that passage in the Quran is instructive. Muhammad’s wives had been insulted on some occasions by members of the community, leading Muhammad to see some form of segregation for his wives as a protective measure. One of Muhammad’s closest companions, Omar, famously chauvinistic, pressured Muhammad to limit women’s roles in his life and to segregate them. The Verses of the Curtain may have been a response to Omar’s pressure. But the event closest connected to the Quran’s Verses of the Curtains was Muhammad’s wedding to one of his wives, Zaynab, when guests wouldn’t leave and acted improperly. Shortly after that wedding, Muhammad produced the “revelation” of the curtain.

    Regarding manners of dress, and other than that passage, the Quran requires only that women and men dress modestly. Beyond that, it never requires face or full-body coverings of any form for men or women.

    Correctly read Sura 33:53 says nothing about “speak to them from behind a curtain” but to look away from Muhammads wives, according to the scholar Christoph Luxemberg in “The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran” (2007):

    “Sura 33:53

    A further instance of the misreading of genuine Arabic words is provided to us by Sura 33:53 in the misread word “inãhu”, which has been misinterpreted as “cooked (foods)” (said of a meal) instead of “inãtahu” (his wives) (in referring to the Peophet), and that in a late Medinian text! In the passage in question believers are asked not to enter the houses of the Prophet unless they have been invited for a meal, but then it is said that they are to enter “gayra nãzirina inãhu” (as it reads in the modern Koran – “without waiting for its (the meal’s) being cooked”, where, if read correctly, it should say: “gayra nãzirina inãhu” – “without looking at his wives”.

    In the process th Arabic commentators have even deliberately interpreted the unambigous Arab verb “nãzara” (to look) as “intazara” (to wait) to justify the misreading “its being cooked” instead of “his wives”. In this example it is still a question of a relatively harmless distortion, which our Koran translaters have nevertheless not noticed.” (p. 246).

    Just for further reflection on the matter!

  7. says

    I have written this before in this space: “din” does not mean “religion”; it means, “islamic cult.” The translation, “there is no compulsion in religion,” means: members of the cult are not associated by compulsion. It is nothing but a hollow declaration, based on adherence to other dogmas of the most vulgar murder cult ever to pollute humanity. Islam is a disease; muzlums are its carriers;

  8. says

    The veil?

    Please confirm this with Robert. After Khalid al-Walid converted to the arab murder cult, the enemy was able to amass a large war party. They were so successful that booty concerns arose. (Note – the quran is the only “holy” document to contain a chapter on “division of booty” (anfal). With women a commodity in islam, booty hunters began quarreling over the prettiest to take as 1 of their 4 sperm receptacles. Khalid posed the problem to the fake prophet, who consulted jibrael (read: his own sick mind) who advised veiling as means for hiding beauty. The veil also aids a father who wants to peddle off his commodity to advance his own wealth. Only a sperm receptacle consumer gets to see the product. Hence, a proffer of a beautiful girl will attract only the richest buyers of flesh. islam is a disease; muzlims are its carrier.

  9. says

    The real reason for the veil verse – one day one of the wives of mohammad needed to answer nature’s call and went to the fields. She was a big woman and was recognized by one of mohammad’s creepy companions who shouted “sauda, we see you”. The next day the veil verse was delivered. So basically, the veil in islam was a way for women to cover up a shameful act (in this case answering nature’s call in a public place).

  10. says

    Host: You have already begun to try to impose a particular dress code for us.
    Abu Ismail: I’ve begun to? It’s the Lord of the Worlds [Allah] who said so. I have nothing to do with it!
    Host: Allah left it for me to decide as a personal freedom.
    Abu Ismail: Who said that? Where’d you get that from. … Blah blah blah… Sharia.

    So you see, it all reduces down to Allah’s Sharia. Never mind that Allah was a Pagan Moon-god favored above all the others by Mohammad, nor that (as others stated) once born into Islam there is no possibility of backing out without penalties, often death; nor that this so-called Koranic ‘religion’ is actually a legal and political system geared to world conquest supremacy of the Arabs, as adopted by their conquered peoples from Berbers of North Africa, to Persians and Turks, to Christians in the Holy Land, to Hindus and Buddhists of Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, all the way to the Indonesian archipelago, so no backing-out for them either. It all hinges on Allah’s Sharia principle to enslave, deny natural human freedoms, and to punish severely anyone who dares to seek their personal conscience, or ask questions, or deny the creed of Allah. Once trapped by Islam, there is no backing out, or the punishment is death…. Who said that?… Why it was Mohammad, of course. And all the successive Caliphs and mullahs for 1400 years of conquest-Jihad. So, taken within the context of this bigger picture, what’s a “dress code” worth any consideration? There is a much bigger issue, to conquer the world for Moon-god Allah’s mythological universe. Why, the Pagans never had it so good as their Moon-god morphed into Mohammad’s Lord of the Worlds, Allah. So get in with the program, all Egyptian men and women, children, forget that Western invention called “freedom”, and do as you’re told… blah blah blah… Sharia. Any questions?

  11. says

    Lol, we have two issues here.

    The one is – as Robert Spencer would say it – that to all intents and purposes many Muslims believe that Islam or the Quran demands the veiling of women, be it fully or partly.

    The other is that I still remember my astonishment on the day I first read about the defective Arab script, and how it opened up for the huge errors that are so obvious in the translations of the Quran. And by this I mean the translations from tales in Syriac and from Christian hymns, slotted into Arab traditions of a heroic brigand and warlord, and finalized into the Arabic Quran as we know it today, by half-ignorant scholars who no longer had full command of the meaning and language of a script that was at most useful as an aid to memorizing a text that was generally well known.

    Imagine an alphabet without vowels, and consonants that had as much as 5 different meanings! And scholars unaware that a text could have been written in a related but different language. And the errors resulting from copying. And …and …and …

  12. says

    Does the Lord of Worlds take time off to worry about female fashion?

    Does any other religion have required clothing for women and not for men?

    It’s all camel kaka.

    Muslimahs are the property of men. As such, men can decide what their slaves wear. Do they want other slave owner to get a peek at their property? By Allah, no!

    Consider the story of Zainab. She was the wife of Ali, the prophet’s adopted son and one day Mo catches a glimpse of her naked body behind a flimsy curtain. Naturally, Ali offers to divorce Zainab so Dad can do more then look at her. Not so fast! First, Mohammed must receive an aya from Allah making it all halal.

    So what does a Muslim with a beautiful do? Cover her up in a tent so Mo doesn’t see something he likes.

  13. says

    What is the Shariah?
    by Mentat

    Examples of Shariah Law
    What is the Shariah?

    To whom it may concern:

    Islam is often in the news these days. News articles that relate to Islam sometimes refer to the Shariah. What is the Shariah? The Shariah is the Islamic Sacred Law which was developed hundreds of years ago by Islamic jurists using the Koran and hadith (remembrances about what the Prophet Muhammad said and did during the time he was alive) as guideposts. The Shariah outlines a complete way of life in a legal framework which tells you how to do everything from how to pray to how to go to the bathroom. What does the Shariah law actually state? Here are some examples of Shariah law:

    1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;
    2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;
    3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;
    4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;
    5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;
    6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;
    7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;
    8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;
    9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;
    10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;
    11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;
    12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;
    13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;
    14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;
    15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;
    16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;
    17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;
    18. Laughing too much is forbidden;
    19. Musical instruments are unlawful;
    20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden;
    21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory;
    22. Slavery is permitted;
    23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;
    24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and,
    25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad).

  14. says

    “The veil?

    Please confirm this with Robert.”

    I would also recommend that you confirm your view with Robert:

    “there is no compulsion in religion,” means: members of the cult are not associated by compulsion.”

    Let me quote Robert on the interpretation of Q 2:256:

    “Many see v. 256 as contradicting the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers, but actually there is no contradiction because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order.

    Says Asad: “All Islamic jurists (fuqahd’), without any exception, hold that forcible conversion is under all circumstances null and void, and that any attempt at coercing a non-believer to accept the faith of Islam is a grievous sin: a verdict which disposes of the widespread fallacy that Islam places before the unbelievers the alternative of “conversion or the sword.'” Quite so: the choice, as laid out by Muhammad himself, is conversion, subjugation as dhimmis, or the sword.

    Qutb accordingly denies that v. 256 contradicts the imperative to fight until “religion is for Allah” (v. 193), saying that “Islam has not used force to impose its beliefs.” Rather, jihad’s “main objective has been the establishment of a stable society in which all citizens, including followers of other religious creeds, may live in peace and security” – although not with equality of rights before the law, as 9:29 emphasizes. For Qutb, that “stable society” is the “Islamic social order,” the establishment of which is a chief objective of jihad. …”

    Read it all:

  15. says

    Verse 33.53 does not talk about the veil. But others do such as –

    24.31 – And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

    Pulling over the head to cover the chests implies that the face also must be covered. So stop misleading with irrelevant verses. The veil is mandated by the quran.

  16. says


    Not to be burdensome, but can you provide a precise a hadith reference? I would love nothing more than to throw this back in the face(s) of any muslim/apologist to repute this disgusting “fact” about Al-Insane-al Camel.

  17. says

    “Verse 33.53 does not talk about the veil.”

    No. It is a prelude to defining what is the meaning of modesty in 33:59:

    “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.”

    You refer to Sura 24:31 in Sahih International translation:

    “And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, …”

    However Pickthall and Yusuf Ali say that women should “reduce their vision” only by “lower their gaze”:

    “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons …” (Pickthall).

    “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, …” (Yusuf Ali).

    Thats why you arrive at the wrong conclusion:

    “Pulling over the head to cover the chests implies that the face also must be covered. So stop misleading with irrelevant verses. The veil is mandated by the quran.”

    Neither this Sura or any other says or imply anything about face covering. Robert Spencer knows this. That is why he refers to the hadiths when interpreting what must be covered:

    “… This leads in verses 30-31 to rules for modesty. … Women, meanwhile, should cover their “adornment” (v. 31).

    … What should they cover?

    In a hadith, Aisha recounts that Muhammad said that “when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.” Even today some Muslims use this hadith to justify mandating the hijab, or headscarf, for women. In another hadith, a woman with a veil over her face came to see Muhammad; she was looking for her son, who had been killed in battle. Muhammad asked her: “You have come here asking for your son while veiling your face?” She responded: “If I am afflicted with the loss of my son, I shall not suffer the loss of my modesty.” Pleased, Muhammad told her: “You will get the reward of two martyrs for your son,” because “the people of the Book have killed him.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn agrees that v. 31 means that when in public women should cover “all that is other than the face and the hands.” …”

    (Quoted from Robert Spencers “Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 24, “The Light,” verses 21-64).

    I think that concludes the matter. No face cover mentioned in the Qur’an.

  18. says


    Not to be burdensome, but can you provide a precise a hadith reference?”

    The hadith reference is Sahih Muslim 26:5397:

    “‘A’isha reported that the wives of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) used to go out in the cover of night when they went to open fields (in the outskirts of Medina) for easing themselves. ‘Umar b Khattab used to say: Allah’s Messenger, ask your ladies to observe veil, but Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) did not do that. So there went out Sauda, daughter of Zarn’a, the wife of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), during one of the nights when it was dark. She was a tall statured lady. ‘Umar called her saying: Sauda, we recognise you. (He did this with the hope that the verses pertaining to veil would be revealed.) ‘A’isha said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, then revealed the verses pertaining to veil.”

  19. says

    Both pickthall and yusuf ali talk of drawing the head veil over the bosom. So, first of all veil (head cover) is compulsory. Secondly, this veil must be drawn over to cover bosom. You may argue whether this implies face or not. I believe it is implied, the only way to draw the head veil to cover the bosom is to draw it over the face. This is the interpretation of salafis as well. The idea is not “modesty” but separation. The purpose of the verses is segregation of women.

  20. says

    Re no 21 in the list of things that sharia permits and/ or prescribes, as compiled by a former jihadwatch poster, ‘Mentat’.

    Strictly speaking, female ‘circumcision’, or female genital mutilation (FGM), is regarded as *obligatory* (that is, every woman must have it done, just as every Muslim male must have his foreskin removed) by one of the four classic ‘schools’ of Sunni Islamic sharia, namely, the Shafiite school.

    But that school of Sharia is followed not only by Egypt but by the Muslims of Sudan and in East Africa (e.g. Somalia); and not only there, but in Kurdistan, and in part of Yemen, in Bahrain, and…in Malaysia and in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Islamic country, as the media never tire of telling us. That is an awful lot of people. And although it *is* a pre-islamic practice in Africa, it was never practised in Indonesia before the arrival of Islam , which, tragically for Indonesian women, was brought by adherents of the Shafiite school.

    Furthermore: although the other three Sunni schools of sharia – Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi – do not regard FGM as *obligatory* in the same way as the Shafiite school does, they do not condemn it or forbid it.

    Indeed, the Hanbalis while not seeing it as obligatory still speak approvingly of it. As Nonie Darwish says in her book on Sharia, “Cruel and Usual Punishment” – “Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (from whom the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence takes its name) quotes Mohammed as saying “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women”.