| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Over at the Counterterrorism blog, the indefatigable and courageous Steven Emerson exposes some of the terror ties of those who trumpeted yesterday's fatwa against terrorism:
This morning a group of American Islamic leaders held a press conference to announce a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against “terrorism and extremism.” An organization called the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) issued the fatwa, and the Council on American - Islamic Relations (CAIR) organized the press conference, stating that several major U.S. Muslim groups endorsed the fatwa.In fact, the fatwa is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate. In fact, officials of both organizations have been directly linked to and associated with Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations. One of them is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to Al-Qaeda.
I spoke with Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl who told me that the fatwa was “vacuous because it does not name the perpetrators of Islamic terrorist theologies and leaders of Islamic movements like Yousef Al Qaradawi, Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahari, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.” Pearl told me that these groups are “trying to perpetrate a deception on the American public.”
Officials of both groups have been linked to various terrorist organizations:
The Chairman of the Fiqh Council, Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami al-Arian, the alleged North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, whose trial began in June 2005 in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Alwani has been named in court documents as an official of several entities in northern Virginia suspected of being connected to terrorist financing. Documents released in the Al Arian trial show that Alwani funded the Islamic Jihad front groups in Tampa.
Another past trustee of the Fiqh Council, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, is serving a 23-year prison sentence for illegal financial dealings with Libya and immigration fraud, has admitted to his part in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince, and has vocally announced his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Additionally Alamoudi was just named by Treasury as having been a financier for Al Qaeda.
In 1998, Fiqh Council member Sheikh Muhammad al-Hanooti, gave a speech calling for jihad against the United States and the United Kingdom, saying that “Allah will curse the Americans and British” and “Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans.” Additionally, Hanooti is strongly linked to Hamas, having served on the board of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). A 2002 INS memo extensively documented IAP’s support for HAMAS and noted that the “facts strongly suggest” that IAP is “part of HAMAS’ propaganda apparatus.”
On October 28, 2000, Muzammil Siddiqui, the President of FCNA, at a rally in Lafayette Park in Washington D.C., said, “America has to learn -- if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come!"
In the past 4 years, several CAIR officials have been convicted of or charged with various terrorism-related offenses.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at July 29, 2005 7:46 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Articles about this very subject, the nonsense and lies and half-truths and ellipses (as in that Qur'anic passage about "He who kills a man...." with the important Muslim exceptions interpolated into the Hebrew original that do allow for such killing, and even make it a duty -- well, such articles need to be written and submitted to local papers, and their contents made the subject of calls to various talk shows, nonstop. In other words, make those who are foolish or ignorant enough not to see through these documents be shown up, publicly, so that the wider public, already deeply suspicious, will receive one more booster shot in the series, intended to innoculate them against taqiyya and kitman. Everything, if approached in the right way, can become what is called a teaching moment.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 29, 2005 8:47 AM
The article and the FATWAH are, indeed, bogus. They were only stated so that, in the future, they have a point of reference during a trial to say, "see, we denounced it."
It is called appeasement. This is what the moderates do and what the ["hopefully we can look like moderates and fly under the radar"] do. I do not buy in to it.
Posted by: JW gal at July 29, 2005 9:53 AM
"Fatwa" is Bogus
Of course it is. It was done this way so the
islamic terrorists can see who among the people
they are destroying is smart enough to realize
it.
I am not sure what to do but I think we have
no choice but to expose it as the fake it is.
However since one is free or actually encouraged
to lie for Islam expect one shortly to come
that has all the nice wordings many of us see
are not in this one. The news media being the
lap dogs for Islam that they are will start
posting attacks on Spencer and the like for
being so far a field. Since the newer Fatwa
will be so perfect to the media and once again
the good guys will look bad.
at July 29, 2005 9:55 AM
Of course the "Fatwa" is bogus for the reasons stated by Emerson and the above posters. But why is the "Fatwa" necessary? Can't American Muslims or Muslims anywhere on earth make a decision without running to the Imam for a decision on this important matter, or even very small matters? Certainly an ideology that requires such control can't be American as Americans are expected to think for themselves. Muslims are slavishly chained to the mosque, the imam, and to personages and forces somewhere else in the Muslim world. They can't be good for America and such allegiance is patently treasonous.
Posted by: epg at July 29, 2005 11:08 AM
The interviews, statements, etc., from Muslim representatives in the West are now prolific and ripe with the same old lies, and half truths: "Islam is against violence. We are not terrorists."
Of course, the real issues are never addressed: Sura 9, the violent examples of Muhammad, the hadith on martyrdom and jihad, the objective of establishing Sharia law. I have yet to see an interviewer ask an intelligent question of these Muslim 'representatives'. How about:
"Do you reject the Sahih Bakuri hadith that praises martyrdom (then provide a quotation)?" Or, "do you reject the ninth Sura of the Qur'an and statements like "Slay the infidels wheerever you find them"?" "What about the objectives of so-called Muslim terrorist groups, like establishing Sharia law, do you reject that as a legitimate goal of a Muslim?" Or, "Terrorists claim that American citizens are not innocent civilians but combatants and hence legitimate targets in jihad, a war to defend and advance Islam. Will you assert for us, unequivocally, that the violent jihad, any violent jihad, against non-believers is un-Islamic?"
Please, just one intelligent question. The media is letting these so-called spokesmen get away with murder, or the cover-up thereof.
Posted by: JTF at July 29, 2005 11:49 AM
Excuse me for putting this into a category, but:
I told you so.
Posted by: Foehammer at July 29, 2005 1:14 PM
a beautiful example of takiyya!
at July 29, 2005 1:21 PM
The ayatollah Khomeini didn't beat around the bush:
Here is a statement from the Ayatollah Khomeini. Do you think that this statement, from a leading Shi’a theologian, misstates Islamic theology, and is simply one man’s view, or do you think that it correctly expresses a view that can be easily derived from a reading of Qur’an and the hadith contained, for example, in the “sahih” collections of Bukhari and Muslim?
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.
But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world….Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies[. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we sould surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Porphet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
at July 29, 2005 2:10 PM
Glenn Reynolds reports on what he sees as signs of progress in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Islamic community. I am not so convinced.
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch expresses his concerns here and here.
Mr. Spencer asks:
D"o you renounce any intention of imposing Shari'a on the US now or in the future?"
If sincerity is the goal of those whose hobby is to issue edicts under pressure, then I would add the following pre-requisites:
A categorical condemnation of Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi, as well as British Muslim leaders who have publicly expressed support for the London homicide bombers and have called for a continued campaign of terror against the British people. Add to this all of the Palestinian terror groups and their leaders, the Pakistani madrassas that teach hatred and intolerance, Wahhabism, etc. , etc., etc.
In other words, a direct, strong and clear statement that names names and does not mince words.
I'm not done.
A complete repudiation of the doctrine of abrogation (naskh). From Robert Spencer's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):
"This [naskh] is the idea that Allah can change or cancel what he tells Muslims: "None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Qur'an 2:106). According to this idea, the violent verses of the ninth sura, including the Verse of the Sword (9:5), abrogate the peaceful verses, because they revealed later in Muhammad's prophetic career. In fact, most Muslim authorities agree that the ninth sura was the very last section of the Qur'an to be revealed."
More here
Posted by: Lumpy at July 29, 2005 2:25 PM
Actually, we need only two concessions (each with two prongs) by Muslims and their spokespersons:
1.
a) Renounce the principle that Muslims have the right and obligation to defend Islam through any means other than intellectual persuasion in the marketplace of ideas.
b) Transfer all actions of self-defense of Islam that involve legal and law enforcement measures to secular authorities, whose job it is to protect individuals and groups (religious and non-religious) under the aegis of the nation-state.
2.
a) Renounce all political & legal enforcements of Sharia and accept Sharia as a personal choice by individuals and as a communal expression through the networking of those individuals.
b) Renounce all aspects of Sharia (whether private or public) that conflict with modern Western human rights.
at July 29, 2005 3:07 PM
Gee, a phony fatwa, who'da thunk it?
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 29, 2005 4:55 PM
These pagan, piddling, lying toads are allowed to lie to all non-moslems be they fellow pagans or Christians. And their pagan nations can abrogate any pact, treaty or agreement they make with any other nation. They are liars and is that any wonder as the head of their pagan religion is the father of all liars - of course, satan. One of their clownish leaders has been passing a fatwa, or should that read 'fart-wa', around many mosques in Australia forbiding woman to attend universities. numbat
Posted by: numbat at July 29, 2005 10:15 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)