Muslim cleric issues fatwa sanctioning killing of U.S. ambassadors, including Chris Stevens

Imagine if a Christian or Jewish cleric issued a theological argument for the killing of anyone — it would be front-page in the New York Times for a week, and all over CNN. But no one will take any particular notice of this. “Prominent Salafi-Jihadi Cleric Issues Fatwa Sanctioning Killing Of U.S. Ambassadors, Including Chris Stevens,” from MEMRI, September 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following the September 11, 2012 killing of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, a number of queries were sent in to the Salafi-jihadi website Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad (MTJ) regarding the legitimacy of this action. Answering on behalf of the website’s shari’a committee, Sheikh Abu Mundhir Al-Shinqiti issued a fatwa in which he approved of the killing of the U.S. ambassador and other U.S. diplomats, and refuted religious arguments raised by some Islamic scholars against such actions.

Islamic supremacist writer discovers that "jihad" is sometimes connected to terrorism
Bangladesh: Islamic supremacist party calls for jihad, quoting Qur'an and Hadith
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    How the rage of the Almighty is building, watching the actions of the mohammedans. Their leaders using the name of god to sanction killing people. Making murder and barbarity sacred and holy.Pray that mohammedans will question these things in their hearts and see the evilness of it. They are the most piteable and wretched of people, enslaved by darkness.

    And let’s remember that the Lord will not withhold His judgment against evildoers forever. Vengeance is His, He will repay.

  2. says

    A key relevant consideration in assessing Islamic jurisprudence questions such as this should be how representative or not various legal conclusions and edicts are.

    For instance, contrary to this cleric’s position, Yusuf Qaradawi has condemned the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, something that I don’t recall seeing anywhere on Jihad Watch. Libya’s grand mufti has issued a similar statement. Other statements rejecting these killings have come from adherents ranging from the Organzation of the Islamic Conference to the Egyptian Ikhwan, to a general in the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

    One could surmise that this is most likely the stance of numerous others, such as Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama.

    I also was afforded the opportunity to listen to a few local sheikhs in my area this past weekend, all of whom unreservedly condemned as anti-Islamic any attacks against embassy personnel or property in Muslim lands.

    In addition, the assertion that any problematic Christian or Jewish religious edict regarding killing arguably innocent parties would warrant extended coverage in the New York Times and CNN is simply untrue. One can look at the dustup regarding Rabbi Shapira’s “The King’s Torah” a couple of years back as an example where there was little to no apparent coverage, to speak of, in either the New York Times nor CNN, though covered quite extensively in the Israeli media.

    Let us hope for a greater measure of balance and accuracy.

  3. says

    As I understand it, letters of marque and reprisal are still considered legal under US law, as brought recently to mind by Senator Ron Paul. What’s to stop such letters being issued or simple bounties being set in realiation for each and every two-bit foreign imam threatening US representatives, citizens and interests? Interested contractors could determine whether this is a business to be made in this particular market sector.

    As the heads of these neanderthals are stacked in ever-increasing piles, or worse for them perhaps, as more of them appear shaven clean and in orange prison jump suits, the appetite for shooting their mouths off might also abate.

  4. says

    SFIL,

    Just about everything I’ve heard or read from the parties I cited has opposed and condemned, specifically, the killing of the US ambassador to Libya.

  5. says

    “Sheikh Abu Mundhir Al-Shinqiti issued a fatwa in which he approved of the killing of..”

    Why didn’t he do it himself? Sheikhs, imams, muftis, ayatollahs etc. are always urging their gullible followers to do the nasty job for them. That’s because they are cowards. Just like their prophet.
    Remember what Muhammad did when he was surrounded by his ennemies… he played dead!

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/03/muhammad-coward.html

  6. says

    PMK,

    Governments are not the subject here, though the Libyan government has condemned the killings and sounds like one of the friendliest governments the USA enjoys at the moment in the Muslim world. Neither are the particulars pertaining to hudood or rida jurisprudence relevant here, either.

  7. says

    Some parts of this fatwa are priceless and worth quoting:

    “… , because the American embassies in the Islamic world are not like other embassies. Rather, they carry out intelligence tasks and strive to spread American influence in the lands of Islam. The war being waged on Islam, such as the fight against jihad (which they call terrorism), and the propagation of the religion of democracy – all this is planned from within these embassies.
    “The American embassies in the lands of Islam do not have shari’ status. Indeed, the shari’ obligation requires severing all ties with the American government and expelling its ambassadors, because it is a state that is at war with Islam and that is conquering the Muslims’ lands… Granting [these embassies] protection is void according to the shari’a, due to the harm it entails to Islam and Muslims, and due to what it entails in terms of loyalty to the enemies of Allah and the enemies [of the Muslims]…
    “As for the baseless claim that these American diplomats are discontent with this film that offends the Prophet and do not support it, we say: Whenever a segment of a group or a state attacks Islam or its sanctities –the [entire] group or the [entire] state is held responsible for this attack, unless it renounces it and assists the Muslims directly in taking action [against it]…
    “Even if these American ambassadors are displeased with the filming of this film, they are pleased with their governments’ actions – the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan; they are pleased with the conquering of the lands of Islam; and they are pleased with the plundering of the Muslims’ resources, and strive to implement this in a practical manner. These are ample grounds for the legitimacy of holding them responsible…”

  8. says

    In my experience, many of those mahoundians condemning attacks on infidels always qualify their statement with “innocent” victims or have “innocence” somewhere in the message. As most JWers know, unbelievers are never innocent because they have rejected allah and mohammed.

    So it’s more obfuscation and taquiyya.

  9. says

    Actions speak louder than words. It’s one thing for there to be opinions or edicts that condemn these actions. That’s easy. What will the governments in question do in response to these killings? If we know who engineered the killing of our ambassador, what is the Libyan government doing about it?

    We’ve seen many killings that have been condoned by Islamic leaders as in keeping with the laws of Islam. A man can kill his daughter for ‘shaming’ him. Someone who leaves the faith is killed. Islamic jurisprudence is highly selective.

    You (and they) can’t have it both ways.

  10. says

    RX,
    If governments are not the subject here, then kindly explain what you were referring to in this sentence:

    A key relevant consideration in assessing Islamic jurisprudence questions such as this should be how representative or not various legal conclusions and edicts are.

    Governments administer edicts and create laws, don’t they?

    Again, you can’t have it both ways.

  11. says

    I found this paragraph very illuminating.

    “…the American embassies in the Islamic world are not like other embassies. Rather, they carry out intelligence tasks and strive to spread American influence in the lands of Islam. The war being waged on Islam, such as the fight against jihad (which they call terrorism), and the propagation of the religion of democracy – all this is planned from within these embassies.”

    Strikes me that the Mohammedthug/ jihad gang boss is projecting, here.

    I think he is taking it for granted that American embassies within dar al Islam behave as do a/ embassies of Muslim countries and b/ MOSQUES and ‘Islamic centres’ **within the lands of the non-Muslims**.

    Let’s see what happens if we try reversing the terms.

    “the Muslim outposts (both embassies and mosques) in the lands of the non-Muslims are not like other embassies. Rather, they carry out intelligence tasks for the Ummah, act as Safe Houses, and strive to spread Islamic influence in the lands of the non-Muslims. The jihad being waged upon the Infidels, principally the campaign to suppress all verbal and physical resistance to Muslim dominance (which resistance, we Muslims deem ‘persecution’, ‘terrorism’ and ‘oppression’), and the propagation of Islam…all this is planned and carried out from within these Muslim outposts…”.