| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Sir Iqbal Sacranie enjoys the favor of Queen and Parliament, and he is ready to go after the London bombers with both rhetorical barrels blazing. From IslamOnline, with thanks to The One Who Must Not Be Named:
CAIRO, July 10, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – Britain’s top Muslim scholars are drafting a fatwa stripping those behind the grisly London blasts, if proved Muslims, from the right to call themselves Muslims, a leading British newspaper said Sunday, July 10.Signed by dozens of prominent Muslim bodies, mosques, Islamic scholars and community groups, the religious edict will brand the attacks as a breach of the most basic tenets of Islam, reported The Independent.
"If these bombers are found to be Muslims, we will make it clear we utterly dissociate ourselves from them - even if they claim to be Muslims or are acting under the mantle of the Islamic faith. We reject that utterly," said the official spokesman of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).
A sign of the deep divisions within the Islamic community is that reaction within secret passworded Muslims-only websites was not uniformly favorable. These come from a discussion under the title UMMAH NEWS on one Islamic forum:
Even if one agrees that these bombings are haram, that doesn't make the alleged perpatrators unbelievers. The MCB is such a tawagheet [apostate rulers]-butt kissing organization. They should really fear with whom they will be raised up with on the day of judgement.Walaa [affection, or agreement] to the extreme...GOD DAMN EXTREMISTS!
Ajeeb - How can a Kaffir [unbeliever] declare a muslim a kaffir?
just remember this when your kafir brothers turn on you and your familes. when they drag your sisters outa the house by their hair and pour petrol on your parents just remember how those who u call kafir and those who u threw out of your cushy society warned u about it and reminded you of what Allah(swt) tells you.
"Those behind this atrocity aren't just enemies of humanity but enemies of Islam and Muslims," said Sacranie. Look at how the Queen's favorite pet "Muslim" rushes to the defense of his masters. Just like a little yelper dog..."We're not talking about Muslims here. We're talking about a bunch of nutters," said Qureshi. Another tawagheet-butt kissing "Muslim" who is little more then another barking dog. The[y] figure if they bark enough their masters will feed them."
Posted by Robert at July 10, 2005 9:33 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
actually, moderates were only moderates in disguise. hey, like closet radicals! maybe the London homicdes brought them out in the open.
ya think?
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 10, 2005 10:16 PM
Iqbal, I wouldn't even buy a used cocktail shaker from you, let alone believe what you say after members of your religion start letting off bombs in my capital city.
Posted by: Doctor Phibes at July 10, 2005 10:25 PM
???????????????????
I still don't see any outright condemnation
of the actual terrorists,what I do hear is the spineless response to threaten them that when ther're caught they will no longer be called a Muslim.
Islam is being exposed for the death-cult it is and how ironic that one of the trains targeted
is down in the rat-infested bowls of the earth
very close to the pits of hell where Muhammed and his thugs beam with delight as more of Gods children are slaughtered for Allah's crusade to
oppress humans under his forced "Submission" .
I no long care about Muslims having their "Feelings" hurt by the blood-lust killers that they claim are tarnishing the true Peaceful ways of their Prophet Muhammed the Pedophile/Misognynist/murderer .
The Iraq liberation was because the gutless Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East allowed Saddam to slaughter humans at will,the violence and maltreatment of females there was accepted as the norm because of the Quran that enshrined this negative bias against women under Islamic Sharia
Laws .
The "Backlash" hasn't even started,if Muslims continue to profess they oppose violence and yet do nothing when it occures,then the gloves are coming off and they'll have to choose between human rights and Allah,and if they stay with
these murderous thugs then I have no problem with declaring Islam a Toxic Faith that should be
rejected in the West and any Mosque caught teaching the hateful part from the Quran will have their Permits revoked and charity status
removed.
Muslims can meet at their homes and express whatever they want on their property,but keep it inside the homes and don't try to force Islam on other via proxy as in the "Islamophobia and Racism" workshops being brought into the Public schools in my area. Children are being poisoned with this tripe and once they get the hooks into them the next step is to teach hatred for the Jews and push them to learn Arabic so they can go to the Middle East and learn at a Islamic madrassa
the REAL life of Muhammed.
NO ISLAM - KNOW GOD
Posted by: ala-sux at July 10, 2005 10:25 PM
A fatwa that calls them unbelievers. Yeah, that oughta scare 'em. That'll stop any future attacks.
This is just the PR department of Islam speaking. And they're using false advertising, because they know it works so well on gullible dhimmis worldwide. Like the old days when the cigarette companies told you that smoking was actually good for you.
Posted by: feralee at July 10, 2005 10:31 PM
This is being done for one reason only, and we all know what it is. There has been no conversion on the road to Damascus. The epiphany or realization has been otherwise: we have to do a bit more, and more ostentatiously, for otherwise our own position will be weakened, and we want Islam to continue to make its steady inroads without arousing the Infidels.
And of course, Bin Laden was wrong. Far better not to engage in terrorism. Far better to slowly settle in, learn how, through all those helpful special language classes and other Infidel-sponsored courses that will help "integration" of Muslims (sort of like the Americans offering to train KGB agents in American life and language, so they can perform better as spies), how to best operate among the Infidels, how to gain their confidence, how to offer them feigned for in return their real friendship, how to do things so that we can never be dislodged, as our numbers steadily, inexorably, increase, and the obvious solutions, that we would not hesitate a minute to employ, and indeed have employed, all over the Middle East -- mass expulsions of those deemed to be security risks, is something that Infidels simply, for reasons that are not clear, unacceptable, even if it means that their own way of life, and art and science and mental freedom and physical security, will all be sacrified on the altar of some mind-forged manacles that they themselves have clapped on their own hands -- preventing them, that is, from doing what was, just a few decades ago, considered perfectly appropriate, even by advanced, tolerant Czechoslovakia in 1946.
Why have the Infidels gotten themselves into this mess? And why do they not see what is staring them in the face, or can be read, on the Internet, a click away -- the texts of Islam, the teachings of Islam, the history of Muslim conquest and of dhimmitude.
You want to begin? Click on www.dhimitude.org, and give yourself some history lessons. And ask yourself this: if the texts are immutable, then surely the tenets and the attitudes of Muslims are immutable as well. That being the case, we have every right to learn from history. And what we learn does not comfort us. We cannot be comforted. We need to decide that our own civilization is worth saving, and that following Benes, or for that matter the means used by the good side, our side, in World War II, have not suddenly fallen into permanent disfavor, and can be resurrected. And should be.
Posted by: Hugh at July 10, 2005 10:40 PM
"You call me an unbeliever.? Well, you're the unbeliever. Take that!" It's the pot calling the kettle.
This is only lip service. When they run these and others to ground, hogtie them, bring them in, and turn them over, then I might believe...maybe. The lesson of history is that this taqiyya -- lying for the purpose of survival
Posted by: epg at July 10, 2005 10:44 PM
CGW says, "I never believe anything that a muslim says." Good enough for me.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 10, 2005 10:49 PM
"the violence and maltreatment of females there [in Saddam's Iraq] was accepted as the norm because of the Quran that enshrined this negative bias against women under Islamic Sharia
Laws"
More accurately, beginning in the late 80s, Saddam felt forced to institute Sharia measures, including the official punishment of BEHEADING for prostitutes -- and some of the decapitated heads of prostitutes were stuck on a pale in front of their houses as a warning to the rest.
The fact that a brutal dictator like Saddam felt like he had to kowtow to the Muslims and their Sharia shows how overwhelmingly dominant that Islamic mentality was in Iraq, because Saddam himself would just as soon take or leave Sharia.
In other words, Saddam calculated that his dictatorial power would be less threatened if he instituted parts of Sharia, which he did more and more beginning in 1988.
If even a brutal dictator like a Saddam, who maintains power through mass-murder and mass arrests, has to worry about grass-roots Islam, that just shows how deep and tenacious its roots are in that part of the world.
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 12:00 AM
"the violence and maltreatment of females there [in Saddam's Iraq] was accepted as the norm because of the Quran that enshrined this negative bias against women under Islamic Sharia
Laws"
More accurately, beginning in the late 80s, Saddam felt forced to institute Sharia measures, including the official punishment of BEHEADING for prostitutes -- and some of the decapitated heads of prostitutes were stuck on a pale in front of their houses as a warning to the rest.
The fact that a brutal dictator like Saddam felt like he had to kowtow to the Muslims and their Sharia shows how overwhelmingly dominant that Islamic mentality was in Iraq, because Saddam himself would just as soon take or leave Sharia.
In other words, Saddam calculated that his dictatorial power would be less threatened if he instituted parts of Sharia, which he did more and more beginning in 1988.
If even a brutal dictator like a Saddam, who maintains power through mass-murder and mass arrests, has to worry about grass-roots Islam, that just shows how deep and tenacious its roots are in that part of the world.
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 12:12 AM
metaxy,
It's difficult for most Westerners to understand why Hussein held such a heavy hand over the people of Iraq. The problem, typically, is the eventual corruption and excessive cruelty it fosters.
I remember similar sentiments about the Uzbek situation a couple of months back.
In the real Islamic world, heavy-handed dictatorship is a viable, proven method of keeping the real whack jobs at bay.
I've learned alot at JW/DW, much of it unpleasant, but realistic.
Posted by: PRCS at July 11, 2005 12:30 AM
"the violence and maltreatment of females there [in Saddam's Iraq] was accepted as the norm because of the Quran that enshrined this negative bias against women under Islamic Sharia
Laws"
More accurately, beginning in the late 80s, Saddam felt forced to institute Sharia measures, including the official punishment of BEHEADING for prostitutes -- and some of the decapitated heads of prostitutes were stuck on a pale in front of their houses as a warning to the rest.
The fact that a brutal dictator like Saddam felt like he had to kowtow to the Muslims and their Sharia shows how overwhelmingly dominant that Islamic mentality was in Iraq, because Saddam himself would just as soon take or leave Sharia.
In other words, Saddam calculated that his dictatorial power would be less threatened if he instituted parts of Sharia, which he did more and more beginning in 1988.
If even a brutal dictator like a Saddam, who maintains power through mass-murder and mass arrests, has to worry about grass-roots Islam, that just shows how deep and tenacious its roots are in that part of the world.
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 12:33 AM
(woops, double post)
yes, PRCS, one can see that wherever in the Muslim world that there is either so-called "moderate Islam" (Indonesia, Morocco, Tunisia) or a "secular" state (Saddam's Iraq, Turkey, Egypt) -- it is always possible, apparently, ONLY through varying degrees of dictatorship.
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 12:38 AM
Malaysia is another example of a so-called "moderate" Muslim state (our Leftists like to call it "moderate") -- yet the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, delivered a major speech to a world conference of Muslim leaders in 2003, in which among other paranoid lunatic things, he told them that the "Jews rule the world by proxy", and that Jews had invented such political diseases as "socialism, communism, human rights, and democracy" [!!!!]
And guess what -- his speech received a standing ovation from that summit of Muslim leaders from around the world!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3196234.stm
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 1:02 AM
Muslims however "moderate" they claim themselves to be - they will always be against the Kaffirs and infidels.
I am from India and consider Mahatma Gandhi to be the greatest DHIMMI ever lived. He sold out half of India to the Muslims, appeased the Islamists, got killed by a Hindu Fanatic after
1. When Hindus got masaccared, he remained quiet, but when Hindus retaliated in Kind, he started a fast-unto-death saying that Hindus should be kind to theier "brothers".
2. He started another fast-unto-death demanding that the Indian Govt pay Pakistan
Now the context ...
IN spite of Gandhi being a fav DHIMMI of the Islamists, you know what ??
A prominent Muslim Leader of India said " Even the lowest of the lowest criminal, pariah Muslim is purer and better than Gandhi since Gandhi is a non-Muslim". This Muslim leader was a "friend" of Gandhi himself.
Now tell me, can you believe a Muslim like "Sir" Iqbal Sacraine ??
NEVER EVER BE TAKEN IN BY THESE STATEMENTS.
Prophet Muhammed [ PBUH - PISS be upon him and his tribe ] is nothing but an old, raving lunatic paedophile.
Posted by: TheHindu at July 11, 2005 2:51 AM
The July 11 edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail contains the following quote of the day:
''As far as I am concerned these people are not British. . . . They should be put away and sent back to their countries.'' Lord Nizar Ahmed, a Muslim in the House of Lords, on radical Muslims living in Britain.
Now this would be the same Lord Ahmed who brought some notorious Swedish Holocaust denier to Britain to speak?
(Granny and other Brit posters please help. I'm pretty sure I have my facts straight.)
Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 11, 2005 8:12 AM
UK Fatwa to Call Bombers Unbelievers, If Proved Muslims.....
I'll believe it when I see it. This sounds like just so much bllsht. These mod Muzzies don't want a knife stuck in their back as they stroll down a London Street.
Posted by: dennisw at July 11, 2005 8:13 AM
waterdragon
It would indeed be the same Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham who invited Israel Shamir, that detestable Jew-Hater (anti-semite is too mild a phrase for him) to speak in the House of Lords.
at July 11, 2005 8:24 AM
I'm too busy misunderstanding Islam to get any of this.
Posted by: Beagle at July 11, 2005 9:17 AM
... if PROVED Muslim, from the right to call themselves Muslims ...
???
First you prove he's a muslim.
And then you tell him not to call himself a muslim.
What kind of nonsense is that?
If you don't want someone to call himself a muslim, you should prove that he is NOT a muslim.
at July 11, 2005 9:17 AM
Testing comments again.
Posted by: Sekimori at July 11, 2005 9:39 AM
"I am from India and consider Mahatma Gandhi to be the greatest DHIMMI ever lived." Excellent observation, 'TheHindu'. Not only was Gandhi a great dhimmi, but an anti-semitic one, as well. I guess one couldn't take the educated English upbringing out of the boy, after all. With Gandhi being an anti-semitic dhimmi, it's no wonder our liberal lefties fawn all over his memory. They have so much in common.
Posted by: Rick at July 11, 2005 10:35 AM
Nazir Ahmad -- Lord Ahmad, I presume? For what? Services to Curry?
Posted by: Hugh at July 11, 2005 11:04 AM
Zico:
Thanks, but wasn't there another one as well, or is Shamir domeciled in Sweden?
Hugh:
I think Ahmed's is, primarily, a perveyor of a variety of teas that have received a royal warrant.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 11, 2005 11:41 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)