What this sounds like is that the godly Dr. Gomma'a got caught in a lie...a lie that he put forth in the Washington Post in an attempt to make Islam more attractive to potential converts outside of the countries already ruled by shar'ia law. Of course, one cannot leave Islam, by being born into an Muslim family or, later, as a convert. Islam is a religion without exit visas. Severe punishment and possible death is the fate of those leaving Islam. Of course, that dictate is exactly opposite of what Muslims want those living in the West to know. Ironically, it was probably English speaking Muslims who expressed outrage over Dr. Gomma'a Washington Post comment and forced a retraction from him. Calling Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR to paper over this ugly truth about Islam.

Posted by: maryrose at July 25, 2007 8:11 AM

...his Islamic cohorts probably pulled him aside and quietly informed his of his future if he failed to abide by the Islamic 7th rules, the Shar'ia law, and the Qur'an, all of which clearly define the fate of those who choose to leave Islam.....he probably told them, "Ooops , my bad."

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 25, 2007 8:16 AM

Ummm...how can he deny this statement when it's right here?

Posted by: Godefroi at July 25, 2007 8:28 AM

There is no compulsion in religion....that is, in religions other than Islam.

No matter how good the Islamic "used car salesman" is, the reality is that when one subscribes to Islam, they are most assuredly getting a "lemon".

Posted by: awake at July 25, 2007 8:31 AM

"Ummm...how can he deny this statement when it's right here?

Posted by: Godefroi "

...is he Muslim?...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 25, 2007 8:41 AM

Not "Ali Goma", the beacon of Arab Islamic tolerance? Waiting for 'An American' to rationalize this one away....(sound of crickets)...

Posted by: Abu Allah at July 25, 2007 9:08 AM

The ironic thing is, many people in Egypt don't give a rat's you-know-what about Gomaa. He seems to have far more influence outside his country than in it.

Posted by: GetBornAgain at July 25, 2007 11:27 AM

"Ummm...how can he deny this statement when it's right here?"

Looks like another Arafat moment---saying one thing to Westerners and another to the natives. This time, the natives read the Western press and were undoubtedly outraged.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 25, 2007 11:27 AM

"Egypt's top cleric yesterday denied in a statement that he had said a Muslim can give up his faith without punishment."

"What I actually said is that Islam prohibits a Muslim from changing his religion and that apostasy is a crime, which must be punished,"

Oh, yes I see. The two statements are way different!! Does he really think that this was a denial?

Posted by: liander1 at July 25, 2007 12:50 PM

Robert, Hugh, and the other veterans of this fight really ought to head over to the "Muslims Speak Out" forum and tear it up. The taqqiyya being spewed is absolutely breathtaking.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/

Posted by: Godefroi at July 25, 2007 12:51 PM

This is why Islamic law is evil.

Posted by: traeh at July 25, 2007 2:43 PM

unfortunately, instapundit is reporting,

"ALI ETERAZ: Huge News: Egyptian Mufti Kills Death Penalty for Apostasy."

the link is to the blog of Ali Eteraz. We here in the West are so easily taken in by pronouncements like the one by this mufti. after all, we want to believe that islam's muftis & imams are taking a few tentative steps out of the 7th century & into the 21st. but I think it's a terrible mistake for us to report on, much less believe, statements by muftis/imams to Western audiences. all that really counts is what they actually do and say publicly in their home countries. Let the mufti make public calls in Egypt for the renunciation of punishment for apostasy, & stand by his position when challenged by traditional muslims. only then -- and not before then -- should any mufti's or imam's statements suggesting islam is moderating be reported in the Western media.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at July 25, 2007 3:11 PM

If anyone needed conclusive proof how islam is inherently violent, this is it!

Posted by: Proud_Islamophobe at July 25, 2007 3:52 PM

If Islam is so wonderful why must they kill people for leaving? Answer: Islam is darkness.

Why must they stop women from marrying Christians? Answer: Because Christians make better husbands than Islamic husbands. Women's shelters in Europe are filled with Muslim women trying to escape the violence of their husbands.

Posted by: James Martel at July 25, 2007 6:23 PM

I don't see what all of the fuss is about. Eteraz is claiming that Gomaa has "killed" the death penalty for apostasy. Nonsense.

1. Egypt doesn't have an official death penalty for apostasy, so Gomaa can't "kill" what isn't there under his jurisdiction. Unlike the 13 or 14 (or more?) Islamic countries in which public apostasy is punishable by death, Egypt, like most Islamic countries, engages in various forms of official and unofficial persecution and discrimination against apostates.

2. In the original statement and in the subsequent clarification, Gomaa maintains that there is an earthly penalty for public apostasy.

For example, Gomaa wrote: "Religious belief and practice is a personal matter, and society only intervenes when that personal matter becomes public and threatens the well-being of its members."

And in Islamic societies, publicly expressed apostasy from Islam is considered a threat to the well-being of Muslims.

He also wrote: "If the case in question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment."

Right; not merely "rejecting faith." The distinction in mainstream Islam, and apparently endorsed by Gomaa, is that the apostasy from Islam must be public, i.e., must be detected through some overt words or acts, to constitute a crime worthy of earthly punishment. So if you keep secret your apostasy, and no other person finds out about it or reports it, you won't be punished, except by Allah. Nothing new there. That is classical Islamic jurisprudence.

Gomaa continues: "If, however, the crime of undermining the foundations of the society is added to the sin of apostasy, then the case must be referred to a judicial system whose role is to protect the integrity of the society."

Right. The foundations of society, in this case Egypt's, happen to include Islam. And publicly expressed apostasy, in particular doing so in a way that encourages others to apostatize from Islam to another religion or no religion, is regarded as a major threat to Islam. Also, publicly expressed apostasy can easily fit under the category of blasphemy. Gomaa clearly regards blasphemy against Islam as a major crime, e.g., see his words and deeds in response to the cartoon crisis.

This next part of Gomaa's ambiguous piece, which is misleading, is probably part of what has got the apologists excited:

"...while bearing in mind that God will punish this sin on the Day of Judgment, unless it is combined with an attempt to undermine the stability of the society, in which case it is the society that holds them to account, not Islam."

If "not Islam," then on the basis of what does the society object to the public apostasy in the first place? In fact, Islamic law does explicitly recognize crimes against society/man, so the distinction here by Gomaa is misleading. Crimes against society are under Islamic jurisdiction.

Gomaa writes, referring to public apostasy as sedition:

"Depending on the circumstances, this may reach the level of a crime of sedition against one’s society. Penalizing this sedition may be at odds with some conceptions of freedom that would go so far as to ensure people the freedom to destroy the society in which they live. This is a freedom that we do not allow since preservation of the society takes precedence over personal freedoms. This was the basis of the Islamic perspective on apostasy when committed at certain times and under certain circumstances."

Right; again, there's nothing new here. The penalty for public apostasy remains exactly the same as it was and is completely unaffected by the public relations statements in the Washington Post by Gomaa. Gomaa is, I suspect, merely sounding certain notes for the Americans to keep the $$$ flowing into Egypt, while issuing this slick smooth taqiyya which dances around and says nothing while evoking all sorts of wishful thinking among apologists.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at July 25, 2007 7:27 PM

Khaybar:

you said, "The distinction in mainstream Islam, and apparently endorsed by Gomaa, is that the apostasy from Islam must be public, i.e., must be detected through some overt words or acts, to constitute a crime worthy of earthly punishment. So if you keep secret your apostasy, and no other person finds out about it or reports it, you won't be punished, except by Allah."

It would seem, then, that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in practical terms, for an apostate to avoid public apostasy. Wouldn't he have to practice his new religion entirely in private, avoiding association with his new religious cohorts (assuming he could find them)? Going to a church, for example, would seem to be entirely out of the question. And wouldn't he have to continue to display enough outward aspects of islamic piety even after conversion to avoid suspicion of apostasy, or, if such suspicions are unavoidable, be prepared to renounce his new religion when confronted by another?

Posted by: sheik yer booty at July 25, 2007 8:50 PM

Someone please tell this to Oprah Winfrey who backs Barack Obama for President, apparently believing that he is a safely Christianized ex-Muslim.

We all know there is no such thing. And that Obama is STILL really a Muslim...

Posted by: pythagoras at July 25, 2007 9:56 PM

So what really happened is he spouted a bit of Taqqiya hoping to deceive the kaffirs into thinking Islam is tolerant not realising that what he said would be broadcast to a larger audience. When he found it was he had to backpedal furiously or his neck would be on the chopping block literally.

Posted by: Realist at July 25, 2007 10:04 PM

Why don't they stop hiding behind the word punishment and call it what it is. Murder!

Those who choose Islam or are BORN into Islam are to be killed when they choose no longer to be in Islam.

There are no one billion or more muslims.There may be hundreds of millions of muslims though.

Thats why i have always said Islam is surrounded.There are muslims who do not wish to be muslims.But the rule of death and torture is a strong silencer when you have many so willing to hack and butcher.

Islam is nothing,especially without it's oil.

Without any oil at all we would be seeing MORE islamic children with flies on thier faces on "Please feed me" send me your money commercials.

The new Arab golden age would resemble a pile of camel crap without anyone else to hand to it.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at July 25, 2007 10:57 PM

"This is a freedom that we do not allow since preservation of the society takes precedence over personal freedoms."

Shouldn't that be 'preservation of the Islamic society takes precedence over personal freedoms"

and that Right there--is the bottom line -- why Islam is in no way compatable with the preservation of

human rights [even if just sometimes principles] in Western society

women's rights [even if sometimes just principles] in Western society

children's rights [even if just sometimes principles] in Western society

that the preservation of Islam will take precedence over

individual rights in which ever society they so preside...once an Islamic society is established.

that preservation of Islamic society will take precedence over the principles and by laws of the UN, especially the individual RIGHTS OF NATIONS...

Islam will take precedence over the rights of individuals including INDIVIDUAL STATES,

including INDIVIDUALS VIA MINORITIES

including invidividuals as HUMAN BEINGS PERIOD.

In other words, Islam, takes precedence, over every other religion, belief, laws [as they even said in the hidden video Mosque in UK--Islam takes precedence over 'man made laws']

so basically--Islam as you just said--takes precedence over everything--no matter what--and murder, violence, rape, child pedaphilia/rape is TOTALLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING IT THAT WAY

if that be the case--wouldn't t have just been simpler to just mandate forced lobotomies to every single citizen in Egypt--

that way--you save a lot of time since Islam takes precedence over the individual [esp women and girl children] anyway--

so why the need for a brain. Seriously--would save a lot of time and money...

then you'd have no need to even worry about apostacy anymore. You could just have a world with horny lobotomized men and lobotomized holes, I mean, er women and four year old girls or is it six now [recent case in Pakastan was a four year old girl--and another, I read in Egypt--or was it Afghanistan-where a four year old girl was raped by her endearing loving marriage, uh hum,

and had to be rushed to the hospital to have her vagina sewed up before she bled to death--and she will not be able to have children. Just think--if you forced lobotomies--might not bother those men when those little girls cry and scream huh...

never mind--mistaken--I'm thinking of people who actually have hearts...

yes Allah is merciful--those little girls being raped at the ages of six, seven, eight and nine--

sing that huh. It would be merciful to give those poor kids, KIDS, lobotomies---at least they wouldn't feel their bodies ripped in too by dirty old men sicko perverts who are nothing but child rapists.

Natasha

Posted by: Natasha at July 26, 2007 1:34 AM

"This is a freedom that we do not allow since preservation of the society takes precedence over personal freedoms."

Shouldn't that be 'preservation of the Islamic society takes precedence over personal freedoms"

and that Right there--is the bottom line -- why Islam is in no way compatable with the preservation of

human rights [even if just sometimes principles] in Western society

women's rights [even if sometimes just principles] in Western society

children's rights [even if just sometimes principles] in Western society

that the preservation of Islam will take precedence over

individual rights in which ever society they so preside...once an Islamic society is established.

that preservation of Islamic society will take precedence over the principles and by laws of the UN, especially the individual RIGHTS OF NATIONS...

Islam will take precedence over the rights of individuals including INDIVIDUAL STATES,

including INDIVIDUALS VIA MINORITIES

including invidividuals as HUMAN BEINGS PERIOD.

In other words, Islam, takes precedence, over every other religion, belief, laws [as they even said in the hidden video Mosque in UK--Islam takes precedence over 'man made laws']

so basically--Islam as you just said--takes precedence over everything--no matter what--and murder, violence, rape, child pedaphilia/rape is TOTALLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING IT THAT WAY

if that be the case--wouldn't t have just been simpler to just mandate forced lobotomies to every single citizen in Egypt--

that way--you save a lot of time since Islam takes precedence over the individual [esp women and girl children] anyway--

so why the need for a brain. Seriously--would save a lot of time and money...

then you'd have no need to even worry about apostacy anymore. You could just have a world with horny lobotomized men and lobotomized holes, I mean, er women and four year old girls or is it six now [recent case in Pakastan was a four year old girl--and another, I read in Egypt--or was it Afghanistan-where a four year old girl was raped by her endearing loving marriage, uh hum,

and had to be rushed to the hospital to have her vagina sewed up before she bled to death--and she will not be able to have children. Just think--if you forced lobotomies--might not bother those men when those little girls cry and scream huh...

never mind--mistaken--I'm thinking of people who actually have hearts...

yes Allah is merciful--those little girls being raped at the ages of six, seven, eight and nine--

sing that huh. It would be merciful to give those poor kids, KIDS, lobotomies---at least they wouldn't feel their bodies ripped in too by dirty old men sicko perverts who are nothing but child rapists.

Natasha

Posted by: Natasha at July 26, 2007 1:35 AM

So anyone IS allowed to change their religion, as long as their religion ISN'T Islam?

But, shouldn't they be killed in any case... even for converting to Islam... since Mohmmad said: "Kill anyone who changes his religion."

This strict interpretation would cut down on conversions TO Islam, which would be an improvement over the status quo.

The mutually-exclusive and contradictory statements, and fatal logical inconsistences of Islam, when taken to their illogical conclusions, doom Mohammedism, revealing it as a kind of sanctified schizophrenia.

The more people think about Islam, the less sense it will make.

Beginning with its immoral and irrational death threat if you try to leave the cult.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 26, 2007 2:32 AM

Typically sneaky double-speak. Too subtle for the MSM to correctly report.

Posted by: Lili at July 26, 2007 4:29 AM

Profitsbeard:

"But, shouldn't they be killed in any case... even for converting to Islam... since Mohmmad said: 'Kill anyone who changes his religion.'"

In one hadith, it's just "religion". In another, it's "Islamic religion" (Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

Obviously it was in their best interest to allow apostates FROM Christianity, Judaism, etc...so the latter one is the one that is practiced.

Posted by: Godefroi at July 26, 2007 9:17 AM

profitsbeard, Godefroi,

back on May 10, 2007, we had a short discussion here at JW, in a posting by Robert Spencer about ElBayly of the islamic center of Johnstown, PA and in the comments section:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016383.php

Usually, the word used by muslims to refer to islam, and which word is often translated as "religion", is "deen". My understanding is that "deen" means something along the lines of faith/religion/belief/true path. Realistically however, "deen" is used with great reverence, and refers only to islam, as muslims don't treat other faiths with reverence. There are other arabic words used to refer to other belief systems which we describe as religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism. One of those words is transliterated as "muzdhab". Perhaps it would help if fluent arabic speakers could add something here.

A significant portion of successful taqiyya/kitman/muslim-propaganda is the misunderstanding of the meaning of words, between the muslim propagandist, and the target of the propaganda. The target is then led down a path of propaganda, with submission as the destination.

The word transliterated as "deen" and translated as "religion", is right in the center of muslim propaganda. In reality, "islam" is not a religion, in the way most westerners mean by "religion". It is a belief-system and, as Hugh Fitzgerald writes, "a-total-regulation-of-life, doubly totalitarian".

Posted by: del at July 26, 2007 10:51 AM

Godefroi, del-

I grasp the Hadithic distinctions and understand that only Submission is a real religion to Mohammedans (with the "people of the Book" exception added to ease the conversion of the conquered Christians and Jews).

I'm just trying to assist in Islam's conceptual implosion by accentuating their own competing interpretations of what Mohammad said.

Sowing confusion among those hunting your head- with their own dogmas- is one small tool of the anti-Jihad.

Plus, there's always the hope that some militant crackpot imam in Egypt or Yemen would pick up the ball and issue a fatwa saying: "Kill anyone who changes any from any religion to any other religion!" if we give them the Koranic encouragement to do so.

It would scare off at least some of the dewy-eyed converts to Islam in the West if such a doom even seemed vaguely possible.

Rumors of war...

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 26, 2007 1:42 PM

"Sowing confusion among those hunting your head- with their own dogmas- is one small tool of the anti-Jihad."

Couldn't agree more.

Hope I didn't offend.

~GdB

Posted by: Godefroi at July 27, 2007 6:04 AM