| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
It's all about the Saudi Wahhabis, you say? Other Muslim groups teach peace? Consider this: here is a Washington, D.C. Muslim community that is at odds with the Saudis, and has had several bitter confrontations with them. Details here. But the leader of the anti-Saudi group, Imam Mohammad al-‘Asi, doesn't seem to have any disagreements with them regarding what ought to be done with infidels. He excoriates them for making deals with the kuffar -- unbelievers. In "The Unknown Prophet: Forgotten Dimensions of the Seerah," he writes:
Our first priority should be to rediscover and relearn how our commanding Prophet approached the issue of power: how he set about dislodging the power of kufr [unbelief] and consolidating the power of Muslims. This should be the burning issue for every Muslim who no longer tolerates a continuation of generations and centuries that have been spent on explaining matters of personal hygiene, night prayers, and a terrifying argument about the exact minute if not the exact second when a Muslim should break his fast (in other words, does night begin with sunset or with nightfall?)! The millions of Muslims who are lost to hunger, illiteracy, malnutrition, refugeehood, and warfare every year do not allow us the ivory-tower and slow-motion ‘da'wah approach' (favored and sponsored by those arch-enemies of the Prophet's Sunnah and Seerah, the usurpers of the Haramain) [that is, the Saudis] that are responsible for our sad state of affairs from Morocco to Makkah as well as from Mongolia to Madinah. We should not be studying hair-splitting fiqhi issues in halaqat (study sessions and circles); we should be learning how to consolidate our social will-power and how to form active and status-quo-challenging units throughout our African and Asian lands to reclaim them for Islam.
In other words, we must work to reestablish Sharia in Muslim lands. Will he stop with Muslim lands? I doubt it. To do so would be to transgress Muhammad's command.
His conclusion is that Muhammad's example should become the basis for a revolutionary movement, just as Maududi, Qutb, and other contemporary jihad theorists have emphasized:
Imagine if there were Muslims who took Islam as seriously as the Prophet did, and at this level of understanding, would we be where we are today? Billions of dollars that are spent of individualizing and secularizing Islam would become the concern of the Islamic movement that draws its inspiration from the way the Prophet of Allah set about on his 23 year mission of destroying the injustices that come from wealth and power accumulations and excesses. This much-needed reconsideration of Muhammad (saw) is the rapturous issue of our time; the past several generations have proven that as long as the Prophet is unidentified as a model for radical ideological change the Muslims will continue to limp from one setback to another.
In the Lecture at the bottom of this page, he lionizes Khomeini, the man who said: "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, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. 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 the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."
And in the Q&A below that, he justifies suicide bombing.
(Thanks to Bobby for the heads-up.)
UPDATE: Dr. Rusty Shackleford notes that Al-'Asi is also a Holocaust denier.
SECOND UPDATE: Here (thanks again to Bobby) is video of this imam discussing the Holocaust.
Posted by Robert at February 13, 2007 10:33 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Like rat poison, Islam comes under several brand names. And like rat poison, all are equally deadly.
It sure is nice to see how much the Wahabbis and the Khomeinists have in common. Both need to be demolished.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 13, 2007 11:54 AM
Nice set of priorities al-‘Asi has...but there's one small tiny issue. There is no proof for the existence of Allah and until such extraordinary claims are solidified with extraordinary proof - there is no reason to respect this Imams moral position anymore than we should respect the opinion of a Mayan sacrificial priest.
If this god does not exist (chances are near zero), how can anyone regard these opinions as anything more than challengeable..and defeatable? I know this is hard for those who are religious to confront but for how long will we refuse to publicly challenge this Islamic extinction trap?
My real burning question is why are we even having this conversation? Should we not be going for the philosophical throat and defeat the probability of Allahs existence?
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at February 13, 2007 12:12 PM
The only thing more ridiculous than Izlam is Izlamic Scholarship.
Izlamic Scholarship?
Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was one!
As one of my old professors used to say:
BULLSHIT IS BULLSHIT!
BUT THE STUDY OF BULLSHIT IS SCHOLARSHIP!
at February 13, 2007 12:14 PM
"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 the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war?"
I wonder if this fellow also protested the pope when he cited that islam is all about violence and bare of rationality...
"Does that mean that islam is a religion.."
No, this simply means islam is not a religion at all. It's a totalitarian ideology bare of all rationality.
"People cannot be made obedient except with the sword!"
Couldn't that be a nice answer to the question: Please tell us in one sentence the essence of islam?
at February 13, 2007 12:22 PM
"From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion."
for anyone who's interested in old texts - that's just an excerpt from Pope Urban's speech Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html
at February 13, 2007 12:37 PM
I really would like people to be careful in tossing labels around like Nazi or Holocaust Denier, because the left does it to impune people. (Ellen Goode of the Boston Globe just said people who question global warming being manmade are like Holocaust Deniers.)
In stating that, there is evidence that the holocaust did not happen the way it is being taught. The Nazi did indeed round up people, but the numbers of 6 million Jews do not match Red Cross and work to death camp records. In looking at this, it appears the numbers were "double dipped" in Jews were double counted in those removed from Denmark would be re recorded as dead in a work camp. Added to this were communist Jews murdered in eastern Europe in mass graves who were considered enemy combatants by their host nations and even Jews who were serving as soldiers in Stalin's regime were counted as "the 6 million".
Why is the question for the rigged numbers. Perhaps since so many millions died in Europe and America, the numbers were inflated to gain sympathy and set apart so the Jews could gain a nation. The problem in the numbers though is what gives kooks license to state that none of this happened.
Lev Navrozov of the World Tribune, a Russian scholar wrote a defining piece on this in that Stalin planned to attack Hitler to destroy Germany (which was sanctioned by the European cartel elite) via a communist Jewish sect which declared war on Germany, but Hitler beat Stalin to the punch.
Some and SOME of the Jews collected in the dead numbers were Soviet communist agents trying to destroy a Christian German state forever.
There has been too much lumping all Jews as Jews for easy explanations and making the Holocaust into a money making industry.
Hitler was a darwinist socialist Baylonian rites supremicist who decided that Slavs and Russians were "lesser" humans. Jews were deemed subhuman and the French a little above as the English in their search for the Aryan race. All of these factors combined to form work camps which worked huge numbers of people who never did a thing to anyone to horrid deaths.
Yes the Nazi (National Socialists) accomplished the murder of the holocaust, but equally the Soviet agents who were instigating German destruction have just as lethal part in this.
Stalin was though the darling of the European cartel as they via Marx set up Lenin in order to pillage Russia of wealth. So Stalin murdering 40 million Ukrains is "acceptable", but Hitler is deemed the worst because Hitler tried to destroy the communists before the reds got Germany.
Millions of Jews of different sects did die, but actual work camp deaths appear closer to a 850,000 to 1,350,000 figures depending on sources. That should have been enough horrific murder, but as stated if Americans lost 500,000 soliders perhaps it would not have moved Truman. No one knows but the people who arrived at the 6 million and they are not telling why.
History is complicated in facts with enough vile creatures to judge, but that is why the "holocaust deniers" have grounds to make charges because the "scholars" have been hiding things and lying to people for decades in trying to protect a literal "world order" from getting blame it deserves.
Judeans are still suffering from this and are being murdered by proxy Muslims yet. Until the entire story comes out none of this is going to stop.
at February 13, 2007 1:08 PM
Take note: a Sunni Muslim Imam is lionizing a Shiite Ayatollah.
Posted by: remote_control at February 13, 2007 1:53 PM
Can someone send that Khomeni quote to the Frank Pastore guy at Townhall. Or did the Ayatollah not know Islam?
Posted by: tokyobk at February 13, 2007 1:54 PM
As far as I know, not a single person on trial at Nuremburg denied that the holocaust occured.
What group would have had more to gain in denying the holocaust than the defendants in the Nurenburg trial -- especially if it didn't really happen? and knowing that their lives were at stake.
But it did happen, and they knew it happend, and thay knew that the evidence precluded any attempt to save themselves by denying it.
The only defense any of the defendants could put on was that they either didn't know, or that they were only following orders.
The "I didn't know" defense saved a few from the hangman, as with Albert Speer", but the "only following orders" defense didn't fly with the judges.
But the bottom line is that they didn't deny it happened, so todays Holocaust deniers are contridicting the very men who iniated and carried it out.
So maybe the words of Goering, and the other defendants at Nuremburg, should be dredged up to answer these screwball deniers today.
Posted by: rational
at February 13, 2007 2:13 PM
Let's not focus so much on the honest jihadists and focus more on those who use the usual taqiyya and kitman. Remember the video I posted? I'll keep bringing it up again because the imams in that video do worse damage than this honest imam.
BTW, anyone know if there is anything Da'wa event coming up in the Bay Area. I haven't found any yet.
Posted by: wrathofasma at February 13, 2007 2:39 PM
I agree with wrathofasma. After a converstion I had with a Muslim last nite, it's the "moderate", smiling, polite in manner but crazy in thought Muslim that concerns me. The Catholic church I attend had a talk last nite as part of a speaker series given by a local college religious studies professor entitled, "Islam: what a Christian needs to know." It was not your typical "religion of peace" apologia from an academia, and was sort of fair, but still skewed towards the polictially correct view that we have more in common with Islam than we do differeces. When I asked what would happen to me if I was born Muslim in Afghanistan and decided to convert to Christianity, you could hear a pin drop. It was a loaded question and more rhetorical since, from the example of Abdul Rahman a couple of years ago, I already new the answer...that being a sentence of death. After the talk, a well dressed very western appearing Muslim took polite exception to my contention that militant Islam poses a very real threat to our way of life. He tried to draw a parallel between Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 bastards. He stated that the perception of violent jihad is all MEDIA DRIVEN BY ZIONISTS TO DISCREDIT ISLAM AND RECOMMENDED THAT I CHECK OUT DAVID DUKE'S WEB SITE!! When I asked him if I should also check out Mein Kampf and the Elders of Zion he said absolutely. That was my first first-hand experience with taqyiaa or kitman and it deeply troubled me. I kept hearing that song by the O-jays in my head, "Smiling Faces...smiling faces tell lies." It also makes me think, that we have a bigger problem on our hands with infiltrative Islam then we can possibly know.
Posted by: Publius at February 13, 2007 4:35 PM
One more thing from last nite. When I point blank asked him if the west has anything to fear from Islam he unequivocally replied, "NO".
Posted by: Publius at February 13, 2007 4:40 PM
Publius
Did you ask about religious sanction lying to infidels (taqiyya)? If you didn't, oh you should have. If I were there, I would also ask about the Satanic verses (not the book by Rushdie) and child marriage, among other things. Furthermore, I would be more prepared. You know, print flyers for the others.
Posted by: wrathofasma at February 13, 2007 6:40 PM
Wrathofasma,
I did not ask him that particular question. I did ask him why, if Islam is a religion of peace, is it that Muslims seem to constantly be at war with themselves or their neighbors: Muslims v. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v. Buddists in SE Asia, Muslims v. Christians in Africa, Muslims v. Muslims in Iraq. He had no response except to say it was all a big media hoax. As far as the flyers, I plan on taking out an add in our church bulletin recommending alternate reading materials than the ones proffered at last nite's meeting. Specifically, America Alone by Mark Steyn and Londonistan by Melanie Phillips.
Posted by: Publius at February 13, 2007 9:58 PM
"Our first priority should be to rediscover and relearn how our commanding Prophet approached the issue of power: how he set about dislodging the power of kufr [unbelief] and consolidating the power of Muslims".
The truth is that every nation, every empire in history (without exception) has been established by violence, by conquest, by cultural extermination of the "other", often by the actual physical extermination of some recently "native" peoples and usually this is done via some "religious" justification-rationalization. This is true of the Aztec Empire, the Chinese Empire, the Spanish Empire, and especially the Arab empire. The Muslim Empires were among the most successful killing and mass murder machines in history (from India to Spain). The above words are typical in history.
Behind all of this "religious" nonsense is a will to power and rationalization for oppression in man, exploitation and genocide hidden under "religious" rationalizations. Islam is the most successful mass murder and oppression machine in history. (Hitler saw that it was an excellent tool to establish empire and thought it very compatible with Nazi ideology.) Islam is typical to the pattern of history-but much more successful as a rationalization for oppression and mass murder than any other ideology invented by man.
Posted by: Frank at February 13, 2007 10:15 PM
The more we (humans) recognize the truth about our nature, the more we will able to deal with the potential for oppression and exploitation that lurks in all peoples. Nations and empires (and Islam) merely write in large script what is essentially human nature. The more I contemplate Jesus' mandates against all hypocrisy-deception, the more I realize that Gandhi was right that "he was offering us a way out of the madness".
The plain truth is that all of this (Islam) is a cover and rationalization for a will to power over "the other". "Allah" is a smokescreen for what is typical to human nature. But there is no question that Islam has been and remains the most successful justification-rationalization for murder and exploitation in history. Hitler was right that it is perfectly compatible with Nazi ideology. It would make Nazism "holy". It's perfect for killing and oppression and exploitation with a clear conscience.
Posted by: Frank at February 13, 2007 10:28 PM
The Islamic empires were typical of ALL empires in the subjugation, oppression, exploitation and forced submission or murder done (usually in the name of God) to establish hegemony over what Waffa Sultan has called "the other". But of all the systems invented by man, all that rationalize and make "holy" the will to exploitation and oppression, the will to power, Islam is the most successful in its justifications for doing that. It's perfect for doing with a clear conscience what man has done in all of history. Mohammad was a genius in inventing the perfect rationalization for exploitation and the will to power of man over man. It's perfect for that.
Posted by: Frank at February 13, 2007 10:52 PM
This D.C. Imam wants to inspire a bloody consolidated Muslim revolution?
Break his sword, throw him in irons, give him his quick tribunal, then take him out back and shoot him.
Oh for the good old days....
I swear JW regulars know more about true Islam than the empty-headed slaves this pinhead Al Assi wants to educate.
at February 14, 2007 9:28 AM
Every American should read what Black Jack Pershing did when he confronted muslim terrorists in the Phillipines. Disgusting but it was effective for 42 years.
Posted by: PJ720 at February 19, 2007 4:35 PM
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.)