| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The guys at Al-Azhar are crafty enough to know that an item like this will make headlines, and that those headlines will, like the one below, emphasize that that Islam forbids suicide, and the killing of "innocents" of some unstated definition. Of course, the ruling contains the usual elastic clause for "defending religion and the homeland."
From YNetNews: "Islamic leaders: Suicide bombers go to hell"
Suicide? Not in Islam. The following may be bad timing for the Palestinian factions preparing for battle against the Israel Defence Forces in the Gaza Strip and for revenge attacks on the Western world.
On Wednesday, top Islamic clerics at the Supreme Council of Al-Azhar University in Egypt, perhaps the most important in the Islamic world, said that the Islamic rule (Shaaria) forbids suicide, the London-based Arabic newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat reported.
The clerics determined that a connection was mistakenly made between suicide and a "sacrifice to defend religion and the homeland". The clerics stressed that the faith of those who commit suicide is no less than hell.
"Those who commit suicide bombings in the name of religion are not Muslims but rather people who sold their soul to the devil," Islamic clerics ruled. "They didn't understand the principle of the religion according to which there is no killing allowed, except by law."
"There is a difference between jihad and terror, between sacrificing yourself and suicide," said Dr. Mohammad Rafat Othman, a member of the Jurisprudence Research Committee of the Islamic Research Academy, Al-Azhar.The difference between jihad and terror: Cause and effect.
"Many don't fully understand the Islamic commandments in regards to jihad. Someone who blows himself up in the middle of a crowd is a sinner who commits several crimes, first and foremost is suicide. It is well-known that religion has a sweeping prohibition on suicide or killing of others. Taking one soul is one of the worst sins one can do, commanded specifically by God."
Dr. Othman continued: "The second crime that a man who commits suicide carries out is the killings of others, while his motives are political and not religious. There is this suicide bomber who kills himself against his ruler and at the same time kills many innocent people -- that is a sin. Not to mention public and personal property damage."
Suicide justified in war
"Those who commit a suicide bombing because of political motives turn the suicide into a religious ideology using it to sacrifice souls, not of martyrs but of those who commit suicide because God promised them torment on judgment day.
"The martyr, according to Islamic rule, is a man who fights the enemy and sacrifice his life while defending his religion, his homeland, his wives' respect, and protecting his land. This is set in Islamic laws, and only if he dies this way, he is a martyr."
However, Israelis should not be happy about this strict ruling. Dr. Ottman was quick to hint that suicide against Israeli targets is allowed.
"Those using suicide bombing against the enemy, the land robbers, and the occupier of nations, are martyrs," he concluded.
Posted by Marisol at June 30, 2006 9:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I'd only believe that a Muslim was genuine in condemning suicide bombings if he condemned suicide bombings of Israelis.
More generally, any Muslim who claims to want peace, reform or dialogue should have to pass an "Israel test". Many sound so plausible - perhaps many believe their own words - but if you put them on the spot about Israel, their true colours show.
Posted by: Interested![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 30, 2006 9:18 AM
In Islam politics and religion is distinction without a difference.
Gibberish to calm the kafir.
at June 30, 2006 9:19 AM
It is all what is interpreted. Their "innocents and civilians" may not be our interpretation of them. They go on about our misunderstanding of their term Jihad, then they start on about Crusaders and Zionists. Crusaders were the response to Jihad, no Jihad no Crusaders.
They always say the same thing these Muslims, in effect "we condemn terror... But" Whatever they say after the "but" completely overrides whatever they have said previously.
---"The martyr, according to Islamic rule, is a man who fights the enemy and sacrifice his life while defending his religion, his homeland, his wives' respect, and protecting his land. This is set in Islamic laws, and only if he dies this way, he is a martyr."---
The above can therefore mean anything they want it to mean, from being short changed at a candy store to meeting a full scale invasion.
---"Someone who blows himself up in the middle of a crowd is a sinner who commits several crimes, first and foremost is suicide"---
First and foremost... Anyone else would have thought that would have been murdering innocent civilians, but these will be infidels of course, see how they manage to get their point across is such subtle terms! See how they work!
Posted by: IceDragon at June 30, 2006 9:23 AM
Got it:
Suicide bombing is 'forbidden except when it is allowed'- that was easy now, wasn't it?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 30, 2006 9:32 AM
" The difference between jihad and terror: Cause and effect."
Or -- The difference between jihad and terror: Strategy and tactic.
Posted by: Television at June 30, 2006 9:59 AM
"Those who commit suicide bombings in the name of religion are not Muslims but rather people who sold their soul to the devil,"
... wait... Im confused here, arent these the same thing anyway ?
Posted by: Sharku at June 30, 2006 10:14 AM
guys at Al-Azhar are typical muslims who lie like a rug. we in the rest can read the koran, and know it sanctions killing of any non-muslim and apposates.
so until they change the koran, they are all terrorist. islam needs to be labelled a terrorist organization, it produces the most terrorists.
at June 30, 2006 10:22 AM
In other news:
Abu Baka (bucktooth) Bashir is out of Jail. In an interview aired tonight on Aussie TV he claimed "the west is out to destroy Islam" and that "the CIA is behind the Bali bombings 1 & 2..."
Other noises coming out of the ME claim that Israel "staged a kidnapping in order to commit genocide on the Palestinians..."
The Red Cross is throwing tantrums about the "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza....
and CAIR's Hooper pooper wants to see "hate-sites" investigated by the FBI and Tayib Erdogan, the turkish PM claims that "criticism of Islam is a crime against humanity..."
Its a perverse world we are living in, but I wouldn't miss it for the world....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 30, 2006 10:28 AM
muslims dont want the West to criticize their cult, yet they are the first ones to make disparaging remarks on all other religions, ie cartoons of Jews,Christians etc. we need to yank their precious chains even more, more cartoons, more blogs, let them show themselves for what they are, terrorists. Islam not a religion of peace.
Posted by: Lulu at June 30, 2006 10:32 AM
Abu Baka (bucktooth) Bashir...
Buck-toothed was he, soothly for to seye.
They're an attractive bunch, these jihadis. One-eyed, one-legged, hook-handed and now buck-toothed.
Bring back the old English low-life names like "Mad" Frankie Fraser and Jack "The Hat" McVittie.
Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 10:58 AM
sheik yer'mami it's time we sheik our booties -
we got to get busy wit it
people will come around if you say 'the emperor has no clothes' enough times... the great thing is that we have carte blanche to say it in the western nations with our guaranteed rights.
this doesn't mean it comes with no cost, however. The cost will be hight, but freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom to pursue happiness are priceless. No question the cost / benefit is worth it.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 30, 2006 10:59 AM
They're an attractive bunch, these jihadis. One-eyed, one-legged, hook-handed and now buck-toothed. - Interested
Don't forget the henna-dyed beards. Especially on this guy, Abu Tir:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3269397,00.html
Of course, it's in the example of Muhammad, so it won't be showing up any time soon in a fatwa from Imam Blackwell.
Posted by: Shinoliite at June 30, 2006 11:04 AM
Does this Abu Tir remind anyone else of a
cross between the Messenger of Islam (Mohammed ) and the Messenger of McDonald's ( Ronald McDonald ) ?
and I use the term 'cross' with all intended disrespect and double entendre.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 30, 2006 11:08 AM
In other words,
"Islam forbids suicide, except for when it allows it."
I've been hanging around a website called "From Gaza With Love" or somesuch... the hateful old witch that runs it has been on Democracy Now! a lot lately. If anyone wants to come and see me redden the asses of the commenters there, please visit!
I'm OVER trying to get you guys to lay of the Liberals, now I just concentrate on trying to get my fellow Libs to wake up to the truth about Islam, Israel, etc.
Heading out on Saturday for a four-day solo hike in the woods. Everyone have fun!
Posted by: kj at June 30, 2006 11:09 AM
Marisol has pegged it. Al-Azhar announced this simply to get the headline, and when you read the fine print at the bottom you find that sacrificing one's own life as a martyr against the enemy is accepted. Thus, suicide bombing against non-Muslims who
-refuse to accept Islam,
-refuse to accept dhimmitude,
-won't accept slavery,
-aren't protected by temporary truce or strategic alliance
is accepted (any or all of the above are grounds for declaring jihad).
The headline really only affirms that Islam generally forbids suicide. But it doesn't forbid self-sacrifice in jihad (that's not news to anyone here). The highest reward in Islam goes to those who martyr themselves in jihad.
"...sacrifice souls"
The problem with this phrase is that the Koran explicitly states that the souls of some (perhaps all) disbelievers are already lost; they are already dead; "Allah" has predetermined it, as no one dies except by Allah's will. Therefore, on that interpretation*, no soul is sacrificed if a disbeliever is killed. Some of the statements in the above article appear to be alluding to suicide attacks that kill Muslims, thus sacrificing souls.
*This interpretation is not universally accepted. However, it is reflected in jurisprudence because in many cases there are no penalties or reduced penalties for killing a disbeliever. There is no penalty for killing an apostate.
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/post-240-islamwatch.html#240
3:143. You did indeed wish for death (AshShahadah - martyrdom) before you met it. Now you have seen it openly with your own eyes."
Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4655:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Of the men he lives the best life who holds the reins of his horse (ever ready to march) in the way of Allah, flies on its back whenever he hears a fearful shriek, or a call for help, flies to it seeking death at places where it can be expected. (Next to him) is a man who lives with his sheep at a hill-top or in a valley, says his prayers regularly, gives Zakat and worships his Lord until death comes to him. There is no better person among men except these two.
at June 30, 2006 11:12 AM
Could someone collect a series of photos showing these esteemed religious and political leaders?
Let's see the Usual Suspects lined up... line them up so people can see the eye patches and the hook hands and the orange beards and the teeth which can eat corn on the cob through a picket fence. That would be an assault on aesthetics and decorum to the western eye (especially women) to say the least.
at June 30, 2006 11:14 AM
kj,
Have a good one. BTW, I'm always glad to hear about JWers taking the message into other fora.
Posted by: Archimedes at June 30, 2006 11:18 AM
TV,
You may be interested in this linked article.
_Tying Down Academic Freedom_
http://www.writely.com/View.aspx?docid=ah6sxjndq9qq_53kt9zs
at June 30, 2006 11:26 AM
line them up so people can see the eye patches and the hook hands and the orange beards and the teeth which can eat corn on the cob through a picket fence.
They can't help being ugly, but, as my mother says, they could stay indoors.
Perhaps the reason why Mohammed was against portraits was that he had the beard, the teeth, the eye patch and the hook.
Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 11:28 AM
could be Interested... :)) he was a pirate raider after all...
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 30, 2006 11:33 AM
he was a pirate raider after all...
But none of his wives called him Long John Silver.
at June 30, 2006 11:41 AM
ha
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 30, 2006 11:42 AM
Seems to me that the clerics have a valid point. blowing yourself up in London is a no-no rewarded in the heat of hell, blowing yourself up in "israel" against the oppressors and occupiers during conflict, have at them. I don't see what the problem is.
Posted by: TooBad at June 30, 2006 11:47 AM
Too Bad - You're almost as entertaining as Interested, but I have the feeling you're serious.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 30, 2006 11:51 AM
I am serious. The clerics have explained their position and that is what I got from it. There doesn't seem to be any "double speak" in there.
Posted by: TooBad at June 30, 2006 11:53 AM
TooBad,
They said that "martyrdom" (which non-Muslims refer to as suicide/homicide bombing) is Islamically justified in war against non-Muslims. I didn't see these jurists rule the London bombings to be Islamically illegal, did you? Nor did they explicitly name the bombings in Israel as being Islamically acceptable. The scholars are engaging in semantic games for public-relations purposes, nothing more. This is not a new ruling.
"The martyr, according to Islamic rule, is a man who fights the enemy and sacrifice his life while defending his religion, his homeland, his wives' respect, and protecting his land. This is set in Islamic laws, and only if he dies this way, he is a martyr."
Posted by: Archimedes at June 30, 2006 12:16 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My contention is that Robert states that there is some kind of "double speak" going on. There isn't. It is quite clear that it is the opinion of these islamic scholars that sacrificing your life against occupiers, oppresors or whatever in the name of islam is not a sin.
Posted by: TooBad at June 30, 2006 12:24 PM
TooBad you can't read....
"Those using suicide bombing against the enemy, the land robbers, and the occupier of nations, are martyrs," he concluded.
at June 30, 2006 12:40 PM
Sheik er' Bouti: You seem to be missing my point. My contention is not with what the islamic scholar says, it is with Robert's use of the term "double speak". There is no double speak that I can see.
Posted by: TooBad at June 30, 2006 12:46 PM
kj
I generally do lay off Liberals on this site, but do attack pro-Islamic Leftists (and Rightists, like the Administration). Nonetheless, I wish you success in your efforts to convert the good people at Dailykos and Move-On.org to the anti-Jihad. I'd like to see both Republicans and Democrats have a common viewpoint on this, just like they did on the "do-not-call" lists. That way, Liberals here can vote Democrats, Conservatives can vote Republican, but neither side would be voting in pro-Islamic parties.
One can dream, can't one?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 30, 2006 1:47 PM
TooBad,
I think Marisol meant it was craftily enough expressed so that it could mean different things to different hearers.
The editors and staff at disloyal dhimmified publications such as the New York Times would probably wet themselves in excitement reading something like this:
"Many don't fully understand the Islamic commandments in regards to jihad. Someone who blows himself up in the middle of a crowd is a sinner who commits several crimes, first and foremost is suicide. It is well-known that religion has a sweeping prohibition on suicide or killing of others. Taking one soul is one of the worst sins one can do, commanded specifically by God."
"There, do you see," they would cackle dementedly, having found what they were hoping to find (as the propagandist is only too aware) - because any understanding nearer the truth would mean they would have to re-examine their false but oh-so-comfortable settled assumptions.
Look at the statement I excerpted above again. What could be clearer than that? It's only if one suspends judgment - as a rational man would (bearing in mind Al-Azhar's (and Islam's) past form) - and reads on while remaining alert to words and phrases that could have more than one meaning that one begins to understand that more is being said than immediately meets the eye.
The statement was "ironic" in the original meaning of the term. Here's Fowler's definition of irony:
irony postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that and of the outsiders' incomprehension.
For a devout Muslim the "more that is meant than meets the ear" is that "protecting his land" means attempting to seize someone else's land. In this case that is land that morally, historically, and legally belongs to Israel, since Islam holds that any land it has ever got its grubby paws on at any time in the past (Spanish, Indians, and many others beware) remains forever its possession.
Al-Azhar is at one and the same time saying one thing to Muslims and another to Western 5th columnists such as the New York Times. At the same time, its phraseology is tipping the wink to the aforesaid Muslims and inviting them to giggle at the way in which ignorant fools like the Times are being gulled.
Posted by: Yojimbo at June 30, 2006 1:52 PM
I don't think it is as complicated as you make out yojimbo.
There are 2 things misleading but that is just the titles used.
Suicide bombers go to hell is a little misleading because only under certain circumstances do they go to hell.
The "double speak" is misleading becuase it is quite clear from the article what the scholar is talking about.
Suicide by blowing yourself up amidst the enemy - go to heaven.
Suicide by blowing yourself up amidst non enemy - go to hell.
It seems perfectly clear to me if you read the entire piece that is what the scholar is saying.
Posted by: TooBad
at June 30, 2006 3:36 PM
MOre taqiyyah and kitman from the religion of deception and lies.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at June 30, 2006 3:49 PM
is a man who fights the enemy and sacrifice his life while defending his religion, his homeland, his wives' respect, and protecting his land.......from the topic
.
I'll bet his wives hate him and there is no way they would ever give him respect. They would probably rather see him dead. They would be thankful there would be no more beatings, other wives and / or children and no more forced sex.
at June 30, 2006 5:05 PM
Why would you assume that a muslim man is any more predisposed to spousal abuse than a non-muslim ? Wife beating is an all too common crime worldwide.
Posted by: TooBad at June 30, 2006 6:46 PM
Because their war manual sanctions wife beatings.
Posted by: freewoman at June 30, 2006 7:11 PM
So what if their "war manual" sanctions it ? What is the excuse for non muslims slapping their missus around ?
Posted by: TooBad at June 30, 2006 7:14 PM
Apparently toobad, you need things spelled out for you.
Women don't stand a chance in islam, because the laws of the koran ALLOW the wife to be abused.
And men who are REAL men don't hit their wives, so I figure those men who do have a power or anger problem or are just idiots. If they're stupid enough to hit their wife they deserve the jail time they get.
Posted by: freewoman at June 30, 2006 8:11 PM
So suicide is evil, except when it's OK. Got it. This from the same "religious" types who make it clear that ignoring treaties is fine when it's to your advantage to do so. Ah, Islam. What a swell religion. An illiterate pedophile makes up a story about a rock named Allah in a stone hut, two hundred years later it's written down from somebodys memory and we wonder how come these people are nuts?
Posted by: OLDPUPPYMAX at June 30, 2006 9:14 PM
"There is a difference between jihad and terror, between sacrificing yourself and suicide," said Dr. Mohammad Rafat Othman, a member of the Jurisprudence Research Committee of the Islamic Research Academy, Al-Azhar.
However, Israelis should not be happy about this strict ruling. Dr. Ottman was quick to hint that suicide against Israeli targets is allowed.
"Those using suicide bombing against the enemy, the land robbers, and the occupier of nations, are martyrs," he concluded.
Posted by Marisol at June 30, 2006 09:07 AM | Print this entry | Email this entry
++++++++++++
It not murder if the ones bieng murdered are enemies of islam.
So this applies to Israel also, since Israel is at war with Islam then it is ok for Israel to kill to protect it people and country.
at June 30, 2006 11:41 PM
Thanks for the link Archimedes. I believe the Van Der Horst story was featured here at Dhimmi Watch a few weeks ago.
Van Der Horst wrote: "Much of the Islamic vilification of Jews has its roots in German fascism."
Funny that neither he, nor the many scholars of Islamic history that he said praised his speech when they read it, apparently had any problems with such a gross historiographical error: i.e., most of Islamic vilification, as you well know, has its roots in original Islam beginning in the 7th century; the more accurate way to put what Van Der Horst was referring to would have been to say: "Some aspects of the modern Islamic vilification of Jews -- which is essential to Islam in its entire history -- were influenced by German fascism."
at July 1, 2006 2:48 AM
Main Entry: dou·ble·speak
Pronunciation: 'd&-b&l-"spEk
Function: noun
: language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth
"Those who commit suicide bombings in the name of religion are not Muslims but rather people who sold their soul to the devil," Islamic clerics ruled. "They didn't understand the principle of the religion according to which there is no killing allowed, except by law."
Emphasis on "in the name of religion"
Obvious obfuscation and misrepresentation.
"What is the excuse for non muslims slapping their missus around ?"
U2? A great band.
False logic and Tooquoque from TooBad.
Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti at July 2, 2006 1:48 PM
Geez, you guys are in this semantic fight when it seems that everyone agrees that Islam okays the kill of ANY jew or infidel (that's everybody else that ain't muslim) by ANY means. They may use double-speak or some other verbal game to get to that point but those are the facts. As I've posted many times in many blogs, the war against terror is really a war against Islamic domination.
Posted by: czekmark` at July 2, 2006 8:16 PM
czekmark, you are correct.
Posted by: Sheik er' Bouti at July 3, 2006 10:10 AM
"we sacrifice everything for our children
they sacrifice their children for nothing"
(Gerri Satosky)
at July 3, 2006 10:32 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)