Sheik Mohammad Isa Okete was indeed fired for teachings contrary to Islam, but they involved adultery and the Ramadan fast. Note also that after another Muslim preacher, Khalifa Tijjani, denounced Okete's teaching as Satanic, Okete's followers violently attacked Tijjani, and Tijjani's followers carried out a reprisal attack. Religion of Peace!
The main point about this story, however, is this: what Okete was preaching, if this report is accurate, really does run counter to the tenets of Islam. Now consider this: how many times have you heard of any Islamic group anywhere denouncing any Muslim preacher for preaching jihad against the Infidels? I mean specifically for preaching jihad violence against and the subjugation of Infidels, not for preaching "terrorism," which most Muslim groups denounce in a pro-forma, vaguely defined way, or in a way that slyly condemns Israel without condemning jihad violence. (Take, for example, the frequent locution of Muslim spokesmen in the U.S., that they condemn "all forms of terrorism, including state terrorism: with "terrorism" left undefined it's unclear that they mean to include jihad violence -- and they don't -- and "state terrorism" refers to Israeli defensive actions against Palestinian jihadis.) There have been no such denunciations. Anywhere. Ever.
"Nigeria: 'Islamic Preacher' Sacked From Niger," by Aliyu M. Hamagam for the Daily Trust, February 9:
Minna — A self acclaimed Islamic preacher, Sheik Mohammad Isa Okete, in Niger State has been sacked for preaching contrary to the teachings of Islam. He was alleged to have said that committing adultery is permissible while observing five daily prayers, and that the Ramadan fast is not obligatory in Islam.
Daily Trust gathered that Okete alongside his followers, numbering about 100, were on January 7 attacked in his village, Shobawosi in Agaie Local Government Area of Niger State, and was forced to leave the town. The 35 year-old preacher was said to have earlier settled in Bida Local Government Area before he was forced to relocate to his village. It was also alleged that the preacher trivialized the five pillars of Islam by telling his followers to embrace only zikr, saying it is the only way to Paradise.
Problems started for Okete when another Islamic preacher, Khalifa Tijjani from Zaria, visited Shobawosi, and was asked by some Muslim faithful about the new doctrine. The visiting preacher was said to have condemned Okete's preaching, describing it as satanic.
Provoked by the statement, Okete and his followers attacked the Khalifa. And a day after that, the followers of Khalifa Tijjani from other villages carried out a reprisal attack, which forced the sheik and his followers to flee the village.
Later, 18 people believed to be followers of Okete were arrested with the help of the vigilante group in the village, and handed over to the police.
Speaking to Daily Trust chairman of the local government area, Isa Mohammad Etsugaie said when his council visited the village a day after the incident, it was deserted....
In 2006 I wrote the book on the right, The Truth About Muhammad, a biography of the prophet of Islam based on the earliest Muslim accounts of his life, in order to illustrate what Muslims generally believe that Muhammad said and did. In my forthcoming book, Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins, which will be published April 23 by ISI, I examine the historical value of those early Muslim accounts. It is an attempt to determine whether what Muslims believe Muhammad said and did, as recounted in The Truth About Muhammad, actually corresponds to historical reality.
Muhammad already had experience as a warrior before he assumed the role of prophet. He had participated in two local wars between his Quraysh tribe and their neighboring rivals Banu Hawazin.
That he participated in these wars, known collectively as the Fijar War, or Sacrilegious War, is generally agreed upon, but there is no agreement about what he thought later about his role in them. The Egyptian writer Muhammad Hussein Haykal, in his 1933 biography, Hayat Muhammad (translated into English as The Life of Muhammad), quotes Muhammad expressing regret for his participation in this war:
"I had witnessed that war with my uncle and shot a few arrows therein. How I wish I had never done so!" (Pp. 52-3)
However, the ninth-century Muslim historian Ibn Sa'd, in one of the earliest and most important sources for biographical information on Muhammad, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, directly contradicts Haykal by quoting Muhammad saying this about the Fijar War:
I attended it with my uncles and shot arrows there and I do not repent it. (I.143)
So which is it? Is Haykal right that he really did express regret, or is Ibn Sa'd right that he explicitly ruled out doing so? Haykal doesn't give his source, but it is possible that he had access to a hadith or some Islamic tradition that flatly contradicted the one Ibn Sa'd recorded eleven centuries earlier -- although this is unlikely, since Ibn Sa'd often records variant and contradictory reports and discusses how they can be harmonized, or why one should be accepted and the other rejected. In this case Ibn Sa'd gives no hint of any variants. Haykal may simply have altered this tradition for apologetic purposes. Those who cite him as their source on this, or try to build an argument upon his quotation, do so at their own risk.
Nonetheless, such contradictions abound in the hadith reports. Muhammad can quite often be found saying contradictory things, as I show in Did Muhammad Exist?. In that book also I discuss how this odd situation came about: opposing factions both invoked Muhammad as an authority, and invented traditions to support their point of view.
Of course, they didn't come up with all that many decisive variants on the matter of waging war against and subjugating non-Muslims. That Muhammad was a warrior and taught warfare against non-Muslims is not disputed by any party, regardless of their view of whether or not he regretted his participation in the Fijar War -- unfortunately for infidels. Here are two of the many hadiths in which Muhammad counsels war:
"I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah." -- Sahih Muslim 30
"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." -- Sahih Muslim 4294
UPDATE: I have received an email full of various false statements. I know the claims made about me are false, so it should come as no surprise that their claims about Arabic are false as well.
The email took issue with the points I made here on the basis that the Arabic of the passages from Haykal and Ibn Sa’d is identical. But that was not the issue in my post: the question is whether, as I said Haykal “had access to a hadith or some Islamic tradition that flatly contradicted the one Ibn Sa'd recorded eleven centuries earlier” – in other words, that led him to interpret the passage in the way that he did, such that his translator rendered it in one way, and the translator of Ibn Sa'd translated it in the opposite way.
I was working from the two-volume edition of Ibn Sa'd translated by S. Moinul Haq and published by Kitab Bhavan in New Delhi, which I have here in my office, and which is available at Islamicbookstore.com and numerous other Islamic bookstores. Did S. Moinul Haq, a respected Muslim translator of many Arabic works, really make an elementary error in his translation?
Actually, no. There is a good possibility, obliquely acknowledged in the email attacking my post, that the disputed statement from Muhammad could be translated as "I would not be pleased had I not done so." Although it is not incorrect to say that ما as a negating particle is not commonly used to negate a present tense, it still could be used, and a good majority of Arabophones use ما to negate the present tense in a variety of dialects, albeit not necessarily in written form. But this tradition purports to record what Muhammad said; why wouldn’t it be in Arabic as commonly spoken? So it is entirely possible that it uses ما to negate the present, as in common spoken form. Certainly Gulf-Arabic spoken variants do use ما to negate the present tense even today.
The double negative is not necessarily "nonsensical" here, as the email claims, and it would indeed translate into "I would not be pleased had I not done so," or “I do not repent.” To say that “repent” doesn’t appear in the Arabic is a quibble that betrays that the author of the email does not have even a basic understanding of how translation works.
The question asked in this headline is never answered in the article. The AP can't bring itself to consider the possibility that Moeed Abdul Salam read the Qur'an and Sunnah and was "radicalized" in that way. "Why did boarding school graduate join al-Qaida?," by Chris Brummitt and Gene Johnson for AP, January 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Moeed Abdul Salam didn't descend into radical Islam for lack of other options. He grew up in a well-off Texas household, attended a pricey boarding school and graduated from one of the state's most respected universities.
What? But doesn't poverty cause terrorism? Isn't that what the learned analysts always tell us? Was Moeed Abdul Salam simply a Misunderstander of Islam?
But the most unlikely thing about his recruitment was his family: Two generations had spent years promoting interfaith harmony and combating Muslim stereotypes in their hometown and even on national television.
Salam rejected his relatives' moderate faith and comfortable life, choosing instead a path that led him to work for al-Qaida. His odyssey ended late last year in a middle-of-the-night explosion in Pakistan. The 37-year-old father of four was dead after paramilitary troops stormed his apartment.
His Nov. 19 death went largely unnoticed in the U.S. and rated only limited attention in Pakistan. But the circumstances threatened to overshadow the work of an American family devoted to religious understanding.
And his mysterious evolution presented a reminder of the attraction Pakistan still holds for Islamic militants, especially well-educated Westerners whose Internet and language skills make them useful converts for jihad....
It is not clear to what extent Salam's family knew of his radicalism, but on his Facebook page the month before he died, he posted an image of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American al-Qaida leader who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, beside a burning American flag.
He had also recently linked to a document praising al-Awlaki martyrdom and to a message urging Muslims to rejoice "in this time when you see the mujahideen all over the world victorious."
After his death, the Global Islamic Media Forum, a propaganda group for al-Qaida and its allies, hailed Salam as a martyr, explaining in an online posting that he had overseen a unit that produced propaganda in Urdu and other South Asian languages....
The family, originally from Pakistan, immigrated to the U.S. decades ago. Salam's father was a pilot for a Saudi airline, and the family eventually settled in the Dallas suburb of Plano. Their cream-colored brick home, assessed at nearly $400,000, stands on a corner lot in a quiet, upper-class neighborhood....
Salam went on to study history at the University of Texas at Austin and graduated in 1996. His Facebook profile indicated he moved to Saudi Arabia by 2003 and began working as a translator, writer and editor for websites about Islam....
Back in the United States, Salam's mother is a prominent resident of Plano, where she is co-chairwoman of a city advisory group called the Plano Multicultural Outreach Roundtable, as well as a former president of the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation....
Salam's brother, Monem Salam, has traveled the country speaking about Islam, seeking to correct misconceptions following the 9/11 attacks. He works for Saturna Capital, where he manages funds that invest according to Islamic principles — for example, in companies that do not profit from alcohol or pork. He recently moved from the company's Bellingham, Wash., headquarters to head its office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
After the 2001 attacks, he and his wife made a public-television documentary about his efforts as a Muslim man to obtain a pilot's license. They also wrote a column for The Bellingham Herald newspaper that answered readers' questions about Islam....
Officers said they pushed through the flimsy door, and Salam killed himself with a grenade when he realized he was surrounded.
The Islamic media group and the al-Qaida contact in Karachi disputed that account, saying Salam was killed by the troops....
Neighbor Syed Mohammad Farooq was woken by an explosion. Minutes later, one of the troops asked him to go inside the apartment and see what had happened, he said.
"He was lying on the floor with blood pooling around him. One of his arms had been blown off. I couldn't look for long. He was moaning and seemed to be reciting verses from the Koran," he said. "I could hear the children crying, but I couldn't see them."
Hours later, Salam's wife and father-in-law, a lawyer in the city, came to collect the children from the apartment in Gulistane Jauhar, a middle-class area of Karachi, Farooq said. On the night he died, Salam led evening prayers at the small mosque on the ground floor of the apartment building.
"His Koranic recitation was very good," said Karim Baloch, who prayed behind him that night. "It was like that of an Arab."
Actually, from an Islamic legal perspective, he's quite right: if Muslims consider that Islam is under attack, then jihad becomes fard ayn, obligatory upon every Muslim. Mahmoud Amer further misunderstands Islam when he maintains that Christians are infidels, in defiance of the claim that Islamic apologists in the U.S. usually make. In fact, however, here again Amer is right: Qur'an 5:17 and 5:72 labels those who believe in the divinity of Christ kafara -- unbelievers, or infidels.
"Egyptian Cleric Mahmoud Amer Threatens the Secular in Egypt with Jihad and Justifies Islamist Prohibition of Art, Calling It the 'Art of the Bedroom,' 'of Lesbians,' and 'of Prostitutes'; Christians are Infidels who Don't Accept Muhammad," from MEMRI, January 3:
Following are excerpts of an interview with Egyptian cleric Mahmoud Amer, which aired on Modern Houriya TV on December 9, 2011.
Christians are Infidels, Because They Do Not Believe in Muhammad
Mahmoud Amer: "I do not believe that Jesus was crucified. I believe in what the Koran says: 'They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them.'
That's Qur'an 4:157.
Am I supposed to believe in the words of our Lord, or in the words of the Vatican? Those were the words of our Lord, not mine. They think [he was crucified]. That's what Christians believe, and I'm not arguing with their beliefs. If they have an issue with my beliefs, let them come and discuss it with me. But I won't hold them to account, because those are their beliefs."
Interviewer: "It sounds as if you are declaring Christians to be infidels."
Mahmoud Amer: "It's not me who declares them to be infidels."
Interviewer: "Who then?"
Mahmoud Amer: "Do those Christians believe that Muhammad was the Messenger? If so, bring me written confirmation of this from the Vatican, or from the Orthodox Church."
Interviewer: "You consider them infidels because they are not prepared to acknowledge that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?"
Mahmoud Amer: "Let's say that somebody comes along, with the name of Muhammad Ibrahim Ahmad Hassan Hussein - these are all Muslim names - and says: 'Muhammad is not the Prophet. I testify that there is no god but Allah, but Muhammad is not the Messenger'... Do I need Sheik Al-Azhar or the Academy of Islamic Studies [to see he is an infidel]? Is he a Muslim, or is he an infidel? We are talking about axioms here, guys. I don't care what he believes in."
Interviewer: "Maybe not the Vatican, but there are churches like the Orthodox Church, which cooperate with Islam."
Mahmoud Amer: "They all treat Islam as a done deal. That's one thing, but to believe in the Messenger of Allah and his prophecy is quite another."
Interviewer: "What about the Orthodox priest who created a furor when he said that some verses of the Koran had been written after the death of the Messenger? He said: 'after the death of Muhammad the Messenger,' which means that he accepted the fact that Muhammad was the Messenger."
Mahmoud Amer: "I am talking about something specific. Bring me confirmation from Patriarch Shinoda that says: 'Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,' or from the Pope in the Vatican." [...]
"If this [Secularist] Battle with and Mockery of the Muslim Faith Continues, Jihad will be Justified"
"The secular stream is talking about things that are at the very foundation of the Islamic nation. Do you know what will happen if this situation continues?
"I predicted what is happening now as early as 2007. If this battle with and mockery of the Muslim faith continues, Jihad will be justified from the Islamic legal perspective."
Interviewer: "You're talking about civil war."
Mahmoud Amer: "I'm saying this as a warning: Do not make a mockery of the Muslim faith. [...]
"To those who ask: 'How will they implement Islamic punishments when we have Christians among us?' I ask: Do the Christians want to have thieves in the country? Let's say there is a Muslim thief, and we implement Islamic punishments - if he says: 'There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger,' will the judge say he is innocent? Or will he chop off his hand? I don't understand..."
"When [a Christian] Goes Out, Into Society - and It is a Muslim Society - He Must Not Undermine Public Order"
Interviewer: "Doesn't the shari'a say that every religious group should operate according to its own laws? In Coptic religious law, there is no chopping off of hands."
Mahmoud Amer: "That pertains to one's personal affairs, not to the public domain. He can do whatever he likes in his church or in his own home. Nobody can say a thing. But when he goes out, into society - and it is a Muslim society - he must not undermine public order." [...]
Islamic spokesmen in the West are always telling us that only greasy Islamophobes think that Muslims want to restore the caliphate and force non-Muslims to pay the jizya, the tax on the subjugated dhimmis specified in Qur'an 9:29, or be killed. Sheikh Nader Tamimi must therefore be a greasy Islamophobe in disguise who has somehow become mufti of the Palestinian Liberation Army despite his bigotry and hatred and ignorance of Islam, or else he is a simple garden-variety Misunderstander of Islam.
Note also that another Jordanian sheikh, Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum, recently misunderstood Islam in exactly the same way. Can one of the smooth and reassuring Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. straighten these guys out and explain to them how they're misunderstanding the Religion of Peace? Honest Ibe Hooper? Boy Reza Aslan? Brave Ahmed Rehab? "Man of Peace" Imam Rauf? Can one of you please go over to Jordan and meet with these two sheikhs and explain to them how the caliphate, jizya, and jihad warfare are relics of the distant past, never to be revived?
Or is that all just blague and guff to fool credulous Infidels?
"Jordanian Sheik Nader Tamimi, Mufti of the Palestinian Liberation Army, to the West: We Will Restore the Caliphate and You Will Pay the Jizya 'or Else We Will Bring the Sword to Your Necks,'" from MEMRI, December 15 (thanks to David):
Following are excerpts from an address by Jordanian Sheik Nader Tamimi, Mufti of the Palestine Liberation Army, which was posted on the Internet on December 15, 2011:
Nader Tamimi: In the Levant, we are involved in a fierce battle, and we will bring about a change in Syria and in the Levant in its entirety. The infidels divided the Levant into four states, and we will reunite them into a single state. The Safavid enterprise that led to Iran occupying Iraq, along with the Americans and the Zionists, will end in the garbage bin of history. The Caliphate in the path of the Prophet will return.
[…]
We await the caliph who will address the leaders of the US and Europe and say: From the Emir of the Believers from Jerusalem…
Crowd: Allah Akbar.
Nader Tamimi: to the rulers of the West, this is the religion of Allah. Either you pay the jizya poll tax, or else you will bring the sword to your necks…
Crowd: Allah Akbar.
Crowd member: Say: "Allah Akbar."
Crowd: Allah Akbar.
[…]
Crowd member: The people wants the restoration of the Caliphate.
Nader Tamimi along with crowd: The people wants the restoration of the Caliphate.
Nader Tamimi along with crowd: The people wants the restoration of the Caliphate.
Now wait a minute. Paul Stockton, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, recently said: “I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam.” Yet al-Qarawi is clearly Islamic. He speaks in Islamic terms about his Muslim brothers, Allah's will, and the struggle against the Jews.
Here again the State Department entangles itself in a contradiction: the Obama Administration has said that Islam and terrorism have nothing to do with one another, and yet it is designating a clearly pious Muslim as a terrorist. So it goes in the make-believe twilight world of fantasy-based policymaking that prevails in Washington.
"US adds Abdullah Azzam Brigades commander to terrorist list," by Bill Roggio at the Long War Journal, December 15:
Qarawi has been described as a "field commander" by Flashpoint Intel, which published a translation of an interview that was released in April 2010. According to Qarawi, he fought with former al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Fallujah (presumably in the two battles in 2004), and was ordered by Zarqawi to form the Abdullah Azam Brigades.
"Allah rewarded me to participate with my brothers in Fallujah, and I came to know the Sheikh Abu Musab al Zarqawi--may Allah have mercy on him--closely, and he assigned me to a job outside of Iraq," he said.
In the same interview, Qarawi said that the Abdullah Azzam Brigades are tasked not only with striking in Lebanon, but elsewhere.
"[The Abdullah Azzam Brigades] are not confined to Lebanon but there are targets that our fires will reach Allah‐willing in the near future...the Brigades are formed of a number of groups that are spread in numerous places...and the groups of 'Ziad al‐Jarrah' in Lebanon are only some of our groups, and we rushed to create these groups and announced them because of the urgency of the battle with the Jews and the priority of the initiative at the time and the place, but the rest of the groups are outside Lebanon."
The "Ziad al Jarrah" is one of several battalions in the Abdullah Azzam Brigades. It operates primarily in Lebanon, and is named after Ziad al Jarrah, a Lebanese citizen who was one of the masterminds of the Sept. 11 attacks on the US. He was the pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into a field in Shanksville, Penn. after passengers attempted to retake the plane from the terrorist hijackers....
The Abdullah Azzam Brigades, which is named after al Qaeda's co-founder and Osama bin Laden's mentor, releases propaganda on a routine basis. Over the past two years, the group has advocated for the overthrow of the Saudi government and called for an uprising in Lebanon, as well as voiced support for Syrian protesters. The terror group also released a statement immediately after the death of al Qaeda emir Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
"May Allah have mercy on Osama, the Sheikh of Jihad, the Imam of Piety, the example of asceticism and the model of patience, the pioneer of glory in this age, and the awakener of the Ummah from its slumber," the terror group said in a statement translated by the SITE Intelligence Group. The group also said it had been formed "after incitation" by bin Laden.
"We in the Brigades of Abdullah Azzam bear witness that we only went out for jihad after incitation from Sheikh Osama bin Laden, by his words and his actions. He is the one enacted among the people of the time, the tradition to invade infidels in their homes, and created a front to fight the Jews and the Crusaders," the statement said....
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum is spectacularly misunderstanding Islam on many fronts, if you believe Islamic apologists in the West who tell us that there is no jihad to spread Islam, no jizya, and no jihad against Israel (just a land dispute). How did Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum come to misunderstand the Religion of Peace™ so severely? Would any of the vaunted moderates of the Islamic establishment in the West care to explain? Honest Ibe Hooper? Boy Reza Aslan? Brave Ahmed Rehab? "Man of Peace" Imam Rauf? Anyone? Anyone?
"Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum of Jordan's Tahrir Party Discusses Jihad Against Germany, Pledges to Impose 'Jizya' Poll Tax on Non-Muslims, and Vows to Annihilate Israel," from MEMRI, December 12:
Following are excerpts from an interview with Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum of the Tahrir Party in Jordan, which aired on JoSat TV on December 8, 2011. [...]
Interviewer: "Should the Muslims fight the People of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians], in order to force them to pay the jizya poll tax? Should the Muslims fight all the People of the Book worldwide?"
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum: "This fighting is in order to remove obstacles. It is waged against countries, not against individuals. When we declare Jihad against Germany, for instance, it is declared against the German state, for refusing to allow Islam to spread to the people of Germany. We give them a choice: Either to convert to Islam, or to pay the jizya and submit to the laws of Islam. The jizya is the only tax paid by non-Muslims, whereas the Muslims pay the zakkat, the kharraj, and the rikkaz, as well as other taxes, if there is not enough money for the army…" [...]
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum: "We will not fight the people, we will not kill the people, but if a certain state insists on preventing the spread of Islam on its soil, we will fight that state."...
Interviewer: "So Samuel Huntington's book The Clash of Civilizations, and even before that, Fukuyama, who predicted that the next conflict would be between Islam and the West… What you are saying means that they were right…"
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum: "There is indeed a clash of civilizations. They brought colonialism to us… If not for Jihad, Islam would not have reached us and all the other places. Within a quarter of a century, Islam reached most of the ancient world by means of Jihad.
"The common people want Islam. Anyone who doesn't can stick to his own religion. Here in the Levant, most of our forefathers were not Muslims, but they converted to Islam because of its goodness and justice. The small minority in the Muslim countries that remained…"
Interviewer: "Fine. Let me just ask you an important question. So, we are commanded to fight in order to spread the religion of Allah…"
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum: "Yes, this is Islam's way of spreading." […]
"Jihad Should Be Declared In Order to Annihilate Israel; This Is a Monstrous Entity That Must Be Eradicated"
Interviewer: "If you come to power, will you liberate Palestine?"
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum: "Yes, yes. Jihad should be declared in order to annihilate Israel. This is a monstrous entity that must be eradicated."
Interviewer: "Would you agree to a Christian becoming finance minister, for example?"
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum: "No, I wouldn't. For starters, there are no ministries in Islam. There is an official who is empowered [by the imam]. This is one of the ruling positions, which are exclusively for Muslims. Anyone who is part of the rule – the head of state, who is the Caliph, the empowered official, the executive official, the wali, or the governor – must be a Muslim. Moreover, he must be a man." […]
"European Countries Live In Prehistoric, Pre-Human Times; Gay Marriage... Is That Your Secularism??!"
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddim: "European countries live in prehistoric, pre-human times. Gay marriage – women with women and men with men… Is that your secularism??!"
Political activist Omar Abu Rassa: "Is that all you've seen in the West?!
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum: "The millions who took to Wall Street shouted: 'The people want to topple the regime.' Don't you cut me off."
Omar Abu Rassa: "The only thing you saw in the West was homosexuals? That's the West for you?
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum: "What else do they have?"
Omar Abu Rassa: "Scientific accomplishments, freedom of thought…"
Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum: "What scientific accomplishments?! We [Muslims] brought them there." […]
"The Future Belongs to Islam; the Islamic Caliphate Is Bound To Come"
"The future belongs to Islam. The Islamic caliphate is bound to come, as was foretold by our Prophet Muhammad. That there will be a caliphate following the path of the Prophet Muhammad." […]
In 1998, Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi leader, visited 114 mosques in the United States. Then he gave testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999, and asserted that 80% of American mosques taught the "extremist ideology."
And in the summer of 2011 came another study showing that only 19% of mosques in U.S. don't teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacism.
And now here is more on the latter study:
Study Shows U.S. Mosques Repositories of Sharia, Jihad, and Muslim Brotherhood Literature and Preachers
Peer-reviewed study most extensive empirical examination of U.S. mosques to date
December 12, 2011 – New York, New York: A leading international peer-reviewed journal specializing in the empirical study of terrorism has published a study that found that 80% of U.S. mosques provide their worshippers with jihad-style literature promoting the use of violence against non-believers and that the imams in those mosques expressly promote that literature.
The study also found that when a mosque imam or its worshippers were “sharia-adherent,” as measured by certain behaviors in conformity with Islamic law, the mosque was more likely to provide this violent literature and the imam was more likely to promote it.
The abstract for the study summarizes the research findings:
A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.
The study was published in December 2011 by Perspectives on Terrorism, a scholarly international journal of the Terrorism Research Initiative (TRI), a global initiative that seeks to support the international community of terrorism researchers and scholars through the facilitation of collaborative projects and cooperative initiatives. TRI was established in 2007 by scholars from several disciplines in order to provide the global research community with a common tool than can empower them and extend the impact of each participant's research activities.
The mosque study had previously been published by the Middle East Quarterly in September 2011, an academic peer-reviewed journal which specializes on Middle East regional issues. Because of the ground-breaking nature of the study, which brings a rigorous empirical methodology to the question of home-grown jihadists, MEQ granted permission to Perspectives on Terrorism to publish a more extensive analysis of the study’s conception, methodology, and results.
The study’s authors, Professor Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University in Israel and David Yerushalmi, who serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., have both published widely on terrorism, Islamic law and its underlying doctrines of jihad and violence against unbelievers.
Here we go again. Will one of the vaunted and lionized Moderate Muslim Spokesmen in the U.S. (Honest Ibe Hooper? Boy Reza Aslan? Man of Peace Rauf? Anyone? Anyone?) or anywhere in the West kindly explain how Sheikh Abu Humam Al-Athari, despite his membership in a Sharia council, has become a Misunderstander of Islam? Of course no one will do this, because no one can, because everything that Sheikh Abu Humam Al-Athari says here is an established element of Islamic law, and those Moderate Muslim Spokesmen know that full well.
"Fatwa Permits Mujahideen to Kidnap, Imprison, and Have Sexual Intercourse with Infidel Women," from MEMRI, November 30 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
On October 28, 2011, the jihadi forum Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad published a fatwa by Sheikh Abu Humam Al-Athari, a member of its shari'a council, in which he unequivocally permits mujahideen to capture the infidels' women and have sexual intercourse with them, even those who are married, on the claim that their marriage bonds to infidels are dissolved as soon as they are taken captive.
Following are the fatwa's main points:
The inquiry in response to which Al-Athari issued the fatwa reads as follows:[1] "Is it permissible for mujahideen in jihad fronts to kidnap the infidels' women and hold them as their captives? What is the ruling regarding a captive in our times? How should they be divided [among the mujahideen]? Is it permissible to imprison [an infidel woman who has been taken captive] in an infidel land, or must she be brought to Dar Al-Islam [the abode of Islam]? How much time must one wait before having sexual intercourse with her, regarding both one who is a virgin and one who is not?"
Al-Athari replies: "There is no doubt that taking the women of the combatant infidels captive – whether they are from Ahl Al-Kitab [i.e., Christians or Jews] or pagans – is permitted according to the shari'a... That being said, it must be done only after [the spoils] has been divided by an imam in Dar Al-Islam; if there is no imam at hand, prisoners may not be taken..."
Al-Athari emphasizes that before deciding to take infidel women captive, "one must consider the gains and losses that will result from this deed, which is to say that if the imam of the Muslims in a given country believes that taking the infidels' women captive will lead the infidels to band together and rape the Muslims' women, and that the Muslims are in too weak a state to prevent this, he should forbid taking [infidel women] captive..."
Al-Athari notes that "there are too many proofs of the permissibility of taking the infidels' women captive to enumerate here, but we can divide them into two categories: 'general proofs' and 'concrete proofs.'" He explains that the "general proofs" are those which clarify that it is forbidden to violate the honor of Muslim women, but that this does not hold true regarding the infidel women, except in cases where they are assured protection. Al-Athari claims that the permissibility is absolute and anchored in the principles of the shari'a. Therefore, he says, it does not necessitate proof, and it falls rather on those who forbid taking infidel women captive to prove the legitimacy their claims.
In his discussion of "concrete proofs," Al-Athari quotes Al-Qurtubi, who says: "Most scholars, including Malik [ibn Anas], Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa,[2] and others, thought that taking [infidel women] captive removes the protection [they previously enjoyed], and permits whoever is holding them to have sexual intercourse with them." Al-Athari also quotes another scholar whose interpretation of Al-Qurtubi's ruling says that the latter uses the word "protection" to refer to married women, who are forbidden to men other than their husbands. That is, when these women are taken captive, their marriage contracts with their infidel husbands become void, and they become permissible to their captors. Al-Athari adds that the amount of time a captor must wait until having sexual intercourse with a captive infidel woman depends on her condition: if she is pregnant, he must wait until after she gives birth; if she is menstruating, he must wait until after her period is over; and if she is young and has not yet begun menstruating, he must wait a month from her capture.
Endnotes:
[1] Rather than providing a name or handle of the inquirer, the website mentions only that the inquiry was taken from forum correspondence.
[2] Al-Qurtubi ("The Cordovan," d. 671), Malik ibn Anas (711-795), Al-Shafi'i (767-820), and Abu Hanifa (699-767) are among the great Koranic scholars, and the last three are founders of major schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
I knew it wouldn't be long for this world, and the website operated by New York City jihad bomb plotter Muhammad Yusuf (Jose Pimentel), "True Islam," has finally been taken offline. I am surprised it took authorities so long to get around to doing this, but they didn't do it before I was able to get several large collections of jihad hadiths that Yusuf published -- you can find them here, here, and here.
"This is a blog setup to educate people about the True Religion of Islam as revealed to the Last Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)."
What is this Blog about?
Peace be upon all those who seek and follow the Truth. I created this Blog in order to help people learn about the Religion of Islam, and to help clarify many issues within the Religion of Islam that many people might have a hard time understanding. My goal is to explain Islam and many topics dealing with Islam as clearly and easy to understand as possible for non muslims who want to learn about the religion. I will also provide as much evidence as possible, from muslim sources and non muslim sources in order so that the readers can feel more secure about the information provided in this Blog. I will touch on topics such as Islam, The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH), Jihad and Terrorism, Muslim Men and Women, Islamic Countries, Politics in Islam, The Life of this World, and The Afterlife. As far as Muslims who will visit my blog God Willing this blog will help you learn the Religion better and will acquaint you with the trustworthy sources where one should seek knowledge from. All negative or hater comments will be deleted, so dont waste ur time. Time is too precious to be wasted on negative energy. May The God guide us all to the Truth and to the Straight path Ameen.
So why was it taken down? Did it make it too obvious that Islam's texts and teachings motivated his jihad attack -- something authorities have been doing their best to obfuscate?
As noted before, there is a wealth of information at New York jihad bomb plotter Muhammad Yusuf's website, including several collections of ahadith about jihad. Here is one segment of that collection. Muhammad Yusuf says at his website that he collected these together himself, but actually they are just long passages from the canonical hadith collection of Bukhari, the collection Muslims consider most reliable.
It is noteworthy that none of the Islamic spokesmen in the U.S. will make any effort to show that these hadiths are false, or that Muhammad Yusuf is misunderstanding them. Yet it is on the assumption that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ that the legitimacy of such spokesmen lies: the average non-Muslim takes for granted that Muhammad Yusuf is indeed a "lone wolf" who is twisting and hijacking the true, peaceful teachings of Islam. Yet the mainstream media never presses them to demonstrate this, and so they never bother.
If they did, and if they were sincere about what they claim to be (I am speaking of the likes of Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad, etc.), they would already have formulated a response to the understanding of Islam that people like Muhammad Yusuf hold, and would be making sure it was being taught in mosques in the U.S. The fact that they do not indicates that they are not sincere.
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 182
Narrated 'Ali:
When it was the day of the battle of Al-Ahzab (i.e. the clans), Allah's Apostle said, "O Allah! Fill their (i.e. the infidels') houses and graves with fire as they busied us so much that we did not perform the prayer (i.e. 'Asr) till the sun set."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 183
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet used to recite the following invocations during Qunut: "O Allah! Save Salama bin Hisham. O Allah! Save Al-Walid bin Al-Walid. O Allah! Save 'Aiyash bin Rabi'a O Allah! Save the weak Muslims. O Allah! Be very hard on Mudar tribe. O Allah! Afflict them with years (of famine) similar to the (famine) years of the time of Prophet Joseph."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 184
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa:
Allah's Apostle invoked evil upon the pagans on the ay (of the battle) of Al-Ahzab, saying, "O Allah! The Revealer of the Holy Book, the Swift-Taker of Accounts, O Allah, defeat Al-Ahzab (i.e. the clans), O Allah, defeat them and shake them."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 185
Narrated Abdullah:
Once, the Prophet was offering the prayer in the shade of the Ka'ba. Abu Jahl and some Quraishi men sent somebody to bring the abdominal contents of a shecamel which had been slaughtered somewhere in Mecca, and when he brought them, they put them over the Prophet Then Fatima (i.e. the Prophet's daughter) came and threw them away from him, and he said, "O Allah! Destroy (the pagans of) Quraish; O Allah! Destroy Quraish; O Allah Destroy Quraish," naming especially Abu Jahl bin Hisham, 'Utba bin Rabi'a, Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al Walid bin 'Utba, Ubai bin Khalaf and 'Uqba bin Abi Mitt. (The narrator, 'Abdullah added, "I saw them all killed and thrown in the Badr well).
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 186
Narrated 'Aisha:
Once the Jews came to the Prophet and said, "Death be upon you." So I cursed them. The Prophet said, "What is the matter?" I said, "Have you not heard what they said?" The Prophet said, "Have you not heard what I replied (to them)? (I said), (‘the same is upon you.')"
As noted yesterday, there is a wealth of information at New York jihad bomb plotter Muhammad Yusuf's website, including several collections of ahadith about jihad. Here is one segment of that collection. Muhammad Yusuf says at his website that he collected these together himself, but actually they are just long passages from the canonical hadith collection of Bukhari, the collection Muslims consider most reliable.
It is noteworthy that none of the Islamic spokesmen in the U.S. will make any effort to show that these hadiths are false, or that Muhammad Yusuf is misunderstanding them. Yet it is on the assumption that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ that the legitimacy of such spokesmen lies: the average non-Muslim takes for granted that Muhammad Yusuf is indeed a "lone wolf" who is twisting and hijacking the true, peaceful teachings of Islam. Yet the mainstream media never presses them to demonstrate this, and so they never bother.
If they did, and if they were sincere about what they claim to be (I am speaking of the likes of Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad, etc.), they would already have formulated a response to the understanding of Islam that people like Muhammad Yusuf hold, and would be making sure it was being taught in mosques in the U.S. The fact that they do not indicates that they are not sincere.
Hadiths About Jihad From Saheeh Bukhari -2
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadiths 112-181
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 112
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, " Horses are kept for one of three purposes; for some people they are a source of reward, for some others they are a means of shelter and for some others they are a source of sins. The one for whom they are a source of reward, is he who keeps a horse for Allah's Cause (i.e. Jihad) tying it with a long tether on a meadow or in a garden with the result that whatever it eats from the area of the meadow or the garden where it is tied will be counted as good deeds for his benefit, and if it should break its rope and jump over one or two hillocks then all its dung and its foot marks will be written as good deeds for him; and if it passes by a river and drinks water from it even though he had no intention of watering it, even then he will get the reward for its drinking. As for the man for whom horses are a source of sins, he is the one who keeps a horse for the sake of pride and pretense and showing enmity for Muslims: such a horse will be a source of sins for him. When Allah's Apostle was asked about donkeys, he replied, "Nothing has been revealed to me about them except this unique, comprehensive Verse: "Then anyone who does an atom's (or a small ant's) weight of good shall see it; and anyone who does an atom's (or a small ant's) weight of evil, shall see it.' (101.7-8)
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 113
Narrated Muslim from Abu Aqil from Abu Al-Mutawakkil An-Naji:
I called on Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari and said to him, "Relate to me what you have heard from Allah's Apostle." He said, "I accompanied him on one of the journeys." (Abu Aqil said, "I do not know whether that journey was for the purpose of Jihad or 'Umra.") "When we were returning," Jabir continued, "the Prophet said, 'Whoever wants to return earlier to his family, should hurry up.' We set off and I was on a black red tainted camel having no defect, and the people were behind me. While I was in that state, the camel stopped suddenly because of exhaustion. On that the Prophet said to me, 'O Jabir, wait!' Then he hit it once with his lash and it started moving on a fast pace. He then said, 'Will you sell the camel?' I replied in the affirmative when we reached Medina, and the Prophet went to the Mosque along with his companions. I, too, went to him after tying the camel on the pavement at the Mosque gate. Then I said to him, 'This is your camel.' He came out and started examining the camel and saying, 'The camel is ours.' Then the Prophet sent some Awaq (i.e. an amount) of gold saying, 'Give it to Jabir.' Then he asked, 'Have you taken the full price (of the camel)?' I replied in the affirmative. He said, 'both the price and the camel are for you.' ''
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 114
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
There was a feeling of fright in Medina, so the Prophet borrowed a horse called Mandub belonging 'to Abu Talha and mounted it. (On his return), he said, "I did not see anything of fright and I found this horse very fast."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 115
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle fixed two shares for the horse and one share for its rider (from the war booty).
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 116
Narrated Abu Ishaq:
Somebody asked Al-Bar-a bin 'Azib, "Did you flee deserting Allah's Apostle during the battle of Hunain?" Al-Bara replied, "But Allah's Apostle did not flee. The people of the Tribe of Hawazin were good archers. When we met them, we attacked them, and they fled. When the Muslims started collecting the war booty, the pagans faced us with arrows, but Allah's Apostle did not flee. No doubt, I saw him on his white mule and Abu Sufyan was holding its reins and the Prophet was saying, 'I am the Prophet in truth: I am the son of 'Abdul Muttalib.' "
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 117
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
When the Prophet put his feet in the stirrup and the she-camel got up carrying him he would start reciting Talbiya at the mosque of Dhul-Hulaifa.
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 118
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet met them (i.e. the people) while he was riding an unsaddled horse with his sword slung over his shoulder.
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 119
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Once the people of Medina were frightened, so the Prophet rode a horse belonging to Abu Talha and it ran slowly, or was of narrow paces. When he returned, he said, "I found your (i.e. Abu Talha's) horse very fast. After that the horse could not be surpassed in running....’
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 120
Narrated ('Abdullah) bin 'Umar:
The Prophet arranged for a horse race amongst the horses that had been made lean to take place between Al-Hafya' and Thaniyat Al-Wada' (i.e. names of two places) and the horses which had not been Mad.? Lean from Ath-Thaniyat to the mosque of Bani Zuraiq. I was also amongst those who took part in that horse race. Sufyan, a sub-narrator, said, "The distance between Al-Hafya and Thaniya Al-Wada' is five or six miles; and between Thaniya and the mosque of Bani Zuraiq is one mile."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 121
Narrated Abdullah:
The Prophet arranged for a horse race of the horses which had not been made lean; the area of the race was from Ath-Thaniya to the mosque of Bani Zuraiq. The sub-narrator said, "'Abdullah bin ‘Umar, was amongst those who participated in that horse race.”
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 122
Narrated Abu Ishaq from Musa bin 'Uqba from Mafia from Ibn 'Umar who said:
"Allah's Apostle arranged a horse race amongst the horses that had been made lean, letting them start from Al-Hafya' and their limit (distance of running) was up to Thaniyat-al-Wada'. I asked Musa, 'What was the distance between the two places?' Musa replied, 'Six or seven miles. He arranged a race of the horses which had not been made lean sending them from Thaniyat-al-Wada', and their limit was up to the mosque of Bani Zuraiq.' I asked, 'What was the distance between those two places?' He replied 'One mile or so.' Ibn 'Umar was amongst those who participated in that horse race."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 123
Narrated Anas:
The she camel of the Prophet was called Al-Adba.
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 124
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet had a she camel called Al ‘Adba which could not be excelled in a race. (Humaid, a sub-narrator said, "Or could hardly be excelled.") Once, a Bedouin came riding a camel below six years of age which surpasses it (i.e. Al'Adba) in the race. The Muslims felt it so much that the Prophet noticed their distress. He then said, "It is Allah's Law that He brings down whatever rises high in the world."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 125
Narrated 'Amr bin Al-Harith:
The Prophet did not leave anything behind him after his death except a white mule, his arms and a piece of land which he left to be given in charity.
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 126
Narrated Al-Bara:
That a man asked him. "O Abu 'Umara! Did you flee on the day (of the battle) of Hunain?" He replied, "No, by Allah, the Prophet did not flee but the hasty people fled and the people of the Tribe of Hawazin attacked them with arrows, while the Prophet was riding his white mule and Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith was holding its reins, and the Prophet was saying, 'I am the Prophet in truth, I am the son of 'Abdul Muttalib.' "
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 127
Narrated 'Aisha:
The mother of the faithful believers, I requested the Prophet permit me to participate in Jihad, but he said, "Your Jihad is the performance of Hajj."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 128
Narrated 'Aisha:
The mother of the faithful believers: The Prophet was asked by his wives about the Jihad and he replied, "The best Jihad (for you) is (the performance of) Hajj."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 129
Narrated Anas:
Allah's Apostle went to the daughter of Milhan and reclined there (and slept) and then (woke up) smiling. She asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What makes you smile?" He replied, (I dreamt that) some people amongst my followers were sailing on the green sea in Allah's Cause, resembling kings on thrones." She said, "O Allah's Apostle! Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He said, "O Allah! Let her be one of them." Then he (slept again and woke up and) smiled. She asked him the same question and he gave the same reply. She said, "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He replied, ''You will be amongst the first group of them; you will not be amongst the last." Later on she married 'Ubada bin As-Samit and then she sailed on the sea with bint Qaraza, Mu'awiya's wife (for Jihad). On her return, she mounted her riding animal, which threw her down breaking her neck, and she died on falling down.
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 130
Narrated 'Aisha:
Whenever the Prophet intended to proceed on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst his wives and would take the one upon whom the lot fell. Once, before setting out for Jihad, he drew lots amongst us and the lot came to me; so I went with the Prophet; and that happened after the revelation of the Verse Hijab (i.e. veiling).
Muhammad Yusuf's mother, Carmen Sosa, says he began changing when he converted to Islam and started reading the Qur'an. Her account here contradicts that of the unnamed New York authorities who said that he wasn't very religious, and was a drinker and marijuana user. I wonder who knows him better: his mother, or some politically correct, compromised cop inside a willfully blind NYPD?
"Terror suspect Jose Pimentel’s mom says sorry to city: ‘I feel very bad ... I thank the police,’" by Henrick Karoliszyn, Glenn Blain and Tracy Connor for the New York Daily News, November 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):
The mother of homegrown terror suspect Jose Pimentel says she loves the city — and her son.
“I want to apologize to the City of New York,” Carmen Sosa, 56, said Monday in the lobby of a Harlem apartment building.
“I love the city. I’ve been here since 1987 and I’m very disappointed with what my son was doing. I didn’t raise him that way.
“I feel very bad about the situation. I thank the police. They did what they’re supposed to do.”
Sosa said her son’s personality began to change after the then-teenager swapped salsa for Islam about five years ago.
“My son was a normal American guy,” she said. “He did what young people do. Then he became a Muslim and he changed.”...
Schenectady County District Attorney Robert Carney said there was nothing in
Pimentel’s court file “speaking to anything about terrorism” — but the suspect’s mother was getting worried about his fascination with Islam.
When he started reading the Koran in 2001, Sosa wasn’t happy because she’s a Catholic, but she noted that “in beginning, he wasn’t a fanatic.”
“He prayed and went to the mosque,” she said.
Over time, he stopped writing and listening to salsa music and spent his days praying, reading and sleeping.
There is a wealth of information at New York jihad bomb plotter Muhammad Yusuf's website, including several collections of ahadith about jihad. Here is one segment of that collection. It is noteworthy that none of the Islamic spokesmen in the U.S. will make any effort to show that these hadiths are false, or that Muhammad Yusuf is misunderstanding them. Yet it is on the assumption that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ that the legitimacy of such spokesmen lies: the average non-Muslim takes for granted that Muhammad Yusuf is indeed a "lone wolf" who is twisting and hijacking the true, peaceful teachings of Islam. Yet the mainstream media never presses them to demonstrate this, and so they never bother.
If they did, and if they were sincere about what they claim to be (I am speaking of the likes of Rauf, al-Marayati, Aslan, Hooper, etc.), they would already have formulated a response to the understanding of Islam that people like Muhammad Yusuf hold, and would be making sure it was being taught in mosques in the U.S. The fact that they do not indicates that they are not sincere.
"Hadiths About Jihad From Saheeh Bukhari 1," from Muhammad Yusuf's True Islam website:
Hadiths About Jihad From Saheeh Bukhari -1
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadiths 41-100
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 41
Narrated Abdullah bin Mas’ud:
I asked Allah's Apostle, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Apostle anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 42
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
Allah's Apostle said, "There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 43
Narrated 'Aisha:
(That she said), "O Allah's Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed. Should we not fight in Allah's Cause?" He said, "The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj-Mabrur (i.e. Hajj which is done according to the Prophet's tradition and is accepted by Allah)."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 44
Narrated Abu Huraira:
A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 45
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Somebody asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Who is the best among the people?" Allah's Apostle replied "A believer who strives his utmost in Allah's Cause with his life and property." They asked, "Who is next?" He replied, "A believer who stays in one of the mountain paths worshipping Allah and leaving the people secure from his mischief."
Book 4, Volume 52: Hadith 46
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty."
Jihad Watch reader Kamala kindly alerted me to jihad bomb plotter Muhammad Yusuf's blog, True Islam. Now that he has been arrested for a jihad bomb plot, Islamic apologists in the U.S. will say that he was a Misunderstander of the Religion of Peace™; ironically, however, he dedicates his blog to clearing up those ever-present misconceptions about Islam:
"This is a blog setup to educate people about the True Religion of Islam as revealed to the Last Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)."
What is this Blog about?
Peace be upon all those who seek and follow the Truth. I created this Blog in order to help people learn about the Religion of Islam, and to help clarify many issues within the Religion of Islam that many people might have a hard time understanding. My goal is to explain Islam and many topics dealing with Islam as clearly and easy to understand as possible for non muslims who want to learn about the religion. I will also provide as much evidence as possible, from muslim sources and non muslim sources in order so that the readers can feel more secure about the information provided in this Blog. I will touch on topics such as Islam, The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH), Jihad and Terrorism, Muslim Men and Women, Islamic Countries, Politics in Islam, The Life of this World, and The Afterlife. As far as Muslims who will visit my blog God Willing this blog will help you learn the Religion better and will acquaint you with the trustworthy sources where one should seek knowledge from. All negative or hater comments will be deleted, so dont waste ur time. Time is too precious to be wasted on negative energy. May The God guide us all to the Truth and to the Straight path Ameen.
And obviously he believed that that straight path involved killing kuffar. Yet I doubt that any of the usual suspects among the Islamic spokesmen in the U.S. (Honest Ibe Hooper, Boy Reza Aslan, etc. etc. etc.) will bother to explain to those kuffar just how Muhammad Yusuf came to misunderstand Islam even in the process of clearing up misunderstandings of it, and what they're doing to prevent that from happening in the future.
He always wanted to know what Islam permitted and what Islam forbade, was always quoting the Qur'an, and yet he ended up dedicated to promoting violent jihad on the Internet. How did he misunderstand the peaceful faith to which he had dedicated his life?
"Witness says Mehanna sought terror training," by Milton J. Valencia and Martin Finucane for the Boston Globe, November 15:
A former friend of Tarek Mehanna told a jury in federal court yesterday that he brought the Sudbury native and two of his associates to Logan International Airport in 2004, so they could travel to Yemen to train in a terrorist camp.
Mehanna had believed “there was an obligation for Muslims to stand up and fight against the invasion in Iraq and US forces in Iraq,’’ Hassan Masood said, testifying yesterday in Mehanna’s terrorism trial in US District Court in Boston.
Masood added that the 29-year-old Mehanna and his two associates “found someone who was going to help them in Yemen. They wanted to go to Yemen to look for training camps there.’’
Masood was the second former associate of Mehanna to testify in his terrorism trial, and he told jurors that he often spoke of violent jihad and watched violent videos with Mehanna and his close friends. They opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and glorified the terrorists behind the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Masood said.
He said Mehanna conspired with Ahmad Abousamra and Kareem Abuzahra to travel to Yemen, though Abuzahra did not complete the trip.
But Masood acknowledged under questioning by Mehanna’s lawyers that he may not have spoken to Mehanna about the trip to Yemen, that his primary source of information was Abousamra and that he assumed his associates had the same intent in seeking terrorism training.
He agreed with the lawyers that Mehanna seemed to be more interested in his studies of Islamic law, that Mehanna once told him that he visited a school in Yemen, and that he often considered Abousamra’s opinions on certain issues to be extreme.
“For Tarek, it was always about what Islam required or Islam permitted or Islam forbids, right?’’ attorney J.W. Carney Jr. asked. Masood responded yes....
Prosecutors say that Mehanna and Abousamra ultimately failed to find a terrorist camp in Yemen, but that Mehanna returned home with a newfound dedication to distribute materials and videos promoting violent jihad on the Internet, to help promote Al Qaeda’s ideology.
Mehanna’s defense lawyers agree that he translated materials and distributed them on the Internet, but say he was simply expressing his beliefs, a right protected by the First Amendment, no matter how controversial the matter.
At no point did he work in cooperation with or at the direction of any terrorist organization, they said, and they argue that Mehanna went to Yemen looking for places to study, to further educate himself on Islamic law and on the Arabic language.
Masood agreed with defense lawyers that Mehanna often cited the Koran and that his views on Islam were conservative and far less extreme than his associate Abousamra....
Masood acknowledged under Carney’s questioning that while Abousamra had extreme views, Mehanna often had scholarly texts with him, and that he cited Islamic law in their discussions.
Mehanna, for instance, opposed suicide bombings and called them a last resort, because of the potential to hurt innocent civilians. But he supported attacking military targets to defend Muslims, including US military targets on foreign soil, Masood said.
Masood said, “I kind of assumed that because they used to hang out with Ahmad that their beliefs were similar.’
In "The Truth about Islam" in National Review today, I respond to Andy McCarthy's piece here, in which he took issue with my rejection of the term "Islamism." I have to thank Andy: it is refreshing to have a civil discussion about a disagreement after the smears, abuse and defamation that I routinely receive from Islamic supremacists and their useful idiots on the Left.
Last Friday, a Bosnian Muslim named Mevlid Jasarevic walked up to the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo with a rifle and opened fire, terrorizing the city center until he was wounded by a police sharpshooter. Media reports identified him as a “radical Islamist.” What made him an “Islamist”? The fact that he shot up the embassy. On Thursday, Mevlid Jasarevic was simply a Muslim. He became an Islamist with the first shot from his Kalashnikov.
To be sure, the media have also identified Jasarevic as a Wahhabi — but that signifier likewise offered no clue before Friday as to what he was going to do on that day. After all, Wahhabi Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, and no one thinks that every last Saudi citizen is likely one day to start firing at infidel embassies.
My point is that while my friend Andy McCarthy is quite right that there are some Muslims who are interested in implementing Islam’s supremacist political program and some who are not, the “Islam/Islamism” distinction is worthless to distinguish one group from the other. This is precisely because, as Andy quotes me as saying before, the distinction is artificial and imposed from without. There are not, in other words, Islamist mosques and non-Islamist mosques, distinguishable from one another by the sign outside each, like Baptist and Methodist churches. On the contrary, “Islamists” move among non-political, non-supremacist Muslims with no difficulty; no Islamic authorities are putting them out of mosques, or setting up separate institutions to distinguish themselves from the “Islamists.” Mevlid Jasarevic could and did visit mosques in Austria, Serbia, and Bosnia without impediment before he started shooting on Friday; no one stopped him from entering because he was an “Islamist.”
So if Muslims do not generally make this distinction among themselves, should non-Muslim analysts make it? The problem I see with doing so is that for all too many it is a way of implying that Islam itself has no political or supremacist elements, and that those Muslims who do hold political and supremacist aspirations constitute a tiny minority of extremists who have twisted and hijacked the religion. This is not only false, but misleading; it can and does make for wrongheaded and foolish policies that have wasted American lives, money, and matériel, and led us into numerous alliances and agreements with entities we would have been wiser about, had our analysis of Islam been more realistic and accurate.
All too often, American analysts have assumed that Muslim individuals and groups who have no open involvement with terrorism fully accept pluralism, constitutional values, and Western notions of human rights, including the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women. And all too often, they have been wrong in that assessment, often disastrously so. The billions that the U.S. has given to a duplicitous Pakistani government is a large-scale example; the tour of security procedures at O’Hare Airport given a few years ago to the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a smaller one. In these and many other cases, however, the foolishness of the authorities in question stemmed from their assumption that the people they were dealing with were not “Islamists,” and hence were natural allies.
We have been fooled by too many because of our haste to make this distinction where it cannot be legitimately made. We assume that Muslims who aren’t in al-Qaeda reject the al-Qaeda program, and certainly many do. But for some, the rejection is of al-Qaeda’s tactics, not of its goal.
Contrary to Andy’s characterization of my views, I am not saying that no distinctions can or should be made among Muslims. I am observing that Muslims themselves don’t make this one, and that no good comes from non-Muslims’ making it. It is important, as Andy puts it, to denominate “supremacist Muslims striving to impose on societies a classical, rigid construction of Islamic law, distinguishing them from authentic Muslim moderates who elevate reason, embrace pluralism, and take sharia as spiritual guidance rather than the mandatory law for civil society,” just as it was important to distinguish the 1,347 delegates who voted for Richard Nixon from the one who voted for Pete McCloskey at the Republican National Convention in 1972 (and the proportions are similar). But in doing so, we should be careful not to deceive ourselves about the foundations that the latter group has in Islamic texts and theology, or about its relative strength and influence within the Islamic world. Using the term “Islamist” for the dominant, mainstream, and traditional understanding of Islam, as if it were the non-traditional minority offshoot, deceives in precisely that way.
Andy says: “I think we have to separate Islamists from Islam.” Certainly we have to separate the people Andy calls Islamists (i.e., proponents of political Islam, even if spread by peaceful means) from our allies. We have to separate them from societal influence. But it is not up to us to separate them from Islam. That is up to the sincere Muslim moderates upon whom Andy places so much hope, but whose power, influence, and numbers are actually so sparsely in evidence.
Meanwhile, some of Andy’s critique is simply out of focus. He asserts that I say that “there is and can be but a single authentic form of Islam.” In reality, I have never claimed such a thing. I don’t think there can be a single authentic form of Islam. The false assumption Andy makes here is that if one rejects the Islam/Islamism distinction, one therefore believes there is only one authentic form of Islam. Actually there are many authentic forms of Islam, but one of the things they all agree on is that Islamic law should rightly be the law of society and that Islam should have a political manifestation. Sunnis, Shi’ites, and even Sufis (who were for a considerable period the leaders of the jihad in Chechnya against the Russians) hold to this idea....
Fantasy-based analysis is now required at the highest levels in Washington. In FrontPage this morning I discuss the new truth-denying policies:
It has been a long time coming, but the Obama Administration has now officially banned the truth. Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole declared Wednesday at a conference in Washington that he had “recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security.” This “reevaluation” will remove all references to Islam in connection with any examination of Islamic jihad terror activity. The Obama Administration has now placed off-limits any investigation of the beliefs, motives and goals of jihad terrorists.
Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
Holton said that he had spoken with Attorney General Eric Holder about FBI training materials that Holton claimed were “egregiously false,” and that Holder “is firmly committed to making sure that this is over….we’re going to fix it.” Holton said that this “fix” was particularly urgent because the rejected training materials “pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam.”
Cole suggested that these training materials had done damage domestically as well: “One of the many, tragic legacies of 9/11 has been an increase in prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed against persons of the Muslim and Sikh faiths and those who are, or who are mistakenly perceived to be, of Arab or South Asian descent. Some have wrongly sought to blame the horror of 9/11 on Arab-American, Muslim American, Sikh-American and South Asian American communities. It has led to attacks against places of worship and other hate crimes, to job discrimination, and to the tragic harassment of children in our schools.”
After sketching out this horror tale, Cole declared: “We must never allow our sorrow and anger at the senseless attack of 9/11 to blind us to the great gift of our diversity.” And this, he said, must involve a rejection of the stereotyping of Muslims: “All of us must reject any suggestion that every Muslim is a terrorist or that every terrorist is a Muslim. As we have seen time and again – from the Oklahoma City bombing to the recent attacks in Oslo, Norway – no religion or ethnicity has a monopoly on terror.” It was George Bush, he said, who after 9/11 “made clear to the nation that these terrorist acts were committed by individuals who distort the peaceful religion of Islam,” and now all government analysis of jihad terror would reflect that perspective.
Of course, the controversial training materials did not really claim that all Muslims are terrorists or that all terrorists are Muslims, and it is noteworthy that Cole had to resort to dismissive caricatures to make his point. For in taking this course, the Obama Administration is bowing to pressure from the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic advocacy groups. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed that appeared on the same day as the conference in Washington, Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) roundly criticized existing training materials about jihad terror and demanded that the FBI and the Justice Department “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community; establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials; invite experts who have no animosity toward any religion to conduct training about any religious community to law enforcement.”
Al-Marayati complained that training materials reflected “bigoted and inflammatory views on Muslims, including claims that ‘devout’ Muslims are more prone toward violence, that Islam aims to ‘transform a country’s culture into 7th century Arabian ways,’ that Islamic charitable giving is a ‘funding mechanism for combat’ and that the prophet Muhammad was a ‘violent cult leader.’”
In this al-Marayati was simply repeating talking points from an “expose” of FBI training materials by hard-Left journalist Spencer Ackerman in Wired, who has been conducting a campaign for some time to get the bureau to purge its terrorism training seminars of any hint of the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. Yet like virtually all Leftist and Islamic supremacist critics of anti-jihad and anti-terror material, Ackerman and al-Marayati take for granted that such assertions are false, without bothering to explain how or why. Apparently they believe that their falsity is so self-evident as to require no demonstration; unfortunately, however, there is considerable evidence that they are true, and that in banning such materials, the Obama Administration has essentially banned the truth.
The term "Islamist" is in common use to refer to Muslim individuals and organizations that adhere to Islamic law's political aspects (most notably its denial of any legitimacy of a separation between religion and the state) and consequently most fiercely oppose America, Israel and the West in general. The implication is that Islam itself, in its authentic form, has no requisite political aspect, and no incompatibility with Western values or democratic government.
The problem with this is that it is a Western, artificial distinction, imposed by non-Muslims upon the Islamic world and lacking any real substance with reference to Islamic law as it has always been formulated by the Sunni and Shi'ite madhahib (schools of jurisprudence). Islam has always been political, and the union of religion and the state has always been essential to its political program; the idea that all this can and should be separated from Islam proper is the wishful thinking of Western analysts who do not wish to face the implications of the fact that these ideas represent mainstream Islamic thinking.
In line with this, I recently received this email from a Jihad Watch reader in Canada:
A conversation with several friends on Facebook erupted into something quite extraordinary. An 18 year old Muslim student, from Western University and born in
Mississauga had this to say about the distinction between Islam and Islamism:
"case and point on why you dont understand Islam. No one makes this distinction [between Islam and Islamism] other then the Western world, for the sake of having a tidy little system to classify everything. Our religion and political ideology are one. Furthermore, I really wouldnt use the term islamist or Islamism. Many muslims, including myself, find the term deeply offensive."
In other words, IN CANADA, there is an entire generation of Muslims who openly subscribe to 'Islamism' as indistinguishable from Islam.
And that should come as no surprise. Except to willfully blind non-Muslim analysts in the West.
Is his understanding of the Qur'an and Islam and jihad wrong? If so, will some Muslim spokesman in the U.S. care to explain how? "Transcript: Read Abdulmutallab's statement on guilty plea," from the Detroit Free Press, October 12 (thanks to Dearborn Underground):
The following is the transcript of what accused underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab said to the court today as he pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges in federal court in Detroit. The transcipt was provided by the U.S. District Court in Detroit.
“In the name of Allah, the most merciful, if I were to say I the father did not do it, but my son did it and he conspired with the holy spirit to do it, or if I said I did it but the American people are guilty of the sin, and Obama should pay for the crime, the Court wouldn’t accept that from me or anyone else.
“In late 2009, in fulfillment of a religious obligation, I decided to participate in jihad against the United States. The Koran obliges every able Muslim to participate in jihad and fight in the way of Allah, those who fight you, and kill them wherever you find them, some parts of the Koran say, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
“I had an agreement with at least one person to attack the United States in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants.
“As a result, I traveled to Yemen and eventually to the United States, and I agreed with at least one person to carry an explosive device onto an aircraft and attempt to kill those onboard and wreck the aircraft as an act of jihad against the United States for the U.S. killing of my Muslim brothers and sisters around the world.
“I was greatly inspired to participate in jihad by the lectures of the great and rightly guided mujahedeen who is alive, Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki, may Allah preserve him and his family and give them victory, Amin, and Allah knows best.
“Participation in jihad against the United States is considered among the most virtuous of deeds in Islam and is highly encouraged in the Koran; however, according to U.S. law, which is unjust and oppressive according to the Koran, my actions make me guilty of a crime in the United States, in particular, the following counts in my indictment.
"Count 1, conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries, so by me traveling to Yemen, then to Djibouti, to Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, the Netherlands, and eventually the United States, with an agreement with at least one person to carry an explosive device in an attempt to kill those onboard for the U.S. killing of innocent Muslims, I’m guilty in U.S. law of this count.
“Count 2, possession of a firearm or destructive device in the furtherance of a crime of violence, I carried with me an explosive device onto Northwest 253, again, to avenge the killing of my innocent Muslim brothers and sisters by the U.S. So I am guilty in U.S. law of this count.
“Count 3, attempted murder within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, again, in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel and Israel massacres of innocent Palestinians, so I am guilty of this count, too.
“Count 4, use and carrying of a firearm, destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence by carrying an explosive device and attempting to use it on Flight 253 for the U.S. killing of innocent Muslims, I am guilty of this count, too.
“Count 5, willfully placing a destructive device in and upon, in proximity to a civil aircraft which was used and operated in interstate, overseas, and foreign air commerce which was likely to have endangered the safety of such aircraft, I intentionally carried an explosive device onto Flight 253, for the United States tyranny and oppression of Muslims, so I am guilty of this count in U.S. law, but not in the Koran.
“Count 6, possession of a firearm/destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence. I was in possession of an explosive device intended for use against the United States for U.S. interference in Muslim countries, so I am guilty in U.S. law of this count.
“Count 7, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, I attempted to use an explosive device which in the U.S. law is a weapon of mass destruction, which I call a blessed weapon to save the lives of innocent Muslims, for U.S. use of weapons of mass destruction on Muslim populations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond. So I am guilty in U.S. law of this count and innocent in Muslim law.
“Count 8, willful attempt to destroy and wreck a civil aircraft, I intended to wreck a civil aircraft for the U.S. wreckage of Muslim lands and property, so I am guilty in U.S. law of this count.
“The United States -- the United States should be warned that if they continue and persist in promoting the blasphemy of Muhammad and the prophets, peace be upon them all, and the U.S. continues to kill and support those who kill innocent Muslims, then the U.S. should await a great calamity that will befall them through the hands of the mujahideen soon by God’s willing permission. Or God will strike them directly with a great calamity soon by his will, Amin.
“If you laugh at us now, we will laugh at you later in this life and on the day of judgment by God’s will, and our final call is all praise to Allah, the lord of the universe, Allahu Akbar.”
There is an interesting case for Muslim moderates: they could explain why Abdulmutallab would actually be found guilty under Islamic law. Unfortunately, no moderate spokesmen in the West will take up this challenge.
Abdulmutallab also said: "My Muslim brothers in the Arabian Peninsula, you have to answer the call of jihad because the enemy is in your land along with the Jewish and Christian armies." But make no mistake: the jihad would not end if what Abdulmutallab sees as "Jewish and Christian armies" left Muslim land. The pretext would shift; the jihad imperative would remain. Still more on this story. "Nigerian Man Pleads Guilty in Qaeda Plane Bombing Case," by Monica Davey in the New York Times, October 12:
DETROIT — Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a commercial airliner with a bomb in his underwear in 2009, abruptly pleaded guilty Wednesday morning to each of the eight counts against him, officials said.
The sudden reversal came before the start of the second day of proceedings in the jury trial of Mr. Abdulmutallab, who is not a lawyer but who was representing himself and had pleaded not guilty months ago.
After officially entering his guilty plea, Mr. Abdulmutallab, dressed in a gold-shaded tunic, calmly read a six-minute speech to the courtroom in which he suggested that his crimes had been a fitting payback for American-led killings of people in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, and that he would never be judged as guilty under Islamic law.
“I intended to wreck a U.S. aircraft for the U.S. wreckage of Muslim lands and property,” the Associated Press quoted him as saying....
In an opening statement, Jonathan Tukel, an assistant United States attorney, told jurors that Mr. Abdulmutallab had admitted to a fellow passenger that he had been trying to ignite an explosive device aboard the plane, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, and that Mr. Abdulmutallab had made similar admissions to a paramedic and a federal agent, who Mr. Abdulmutallab told, “I’m with Al Qaeda.”...
“He wanted jihad, he sought it out and he found it,” Mr. Tukel said of Mr. Abdulmutallab....
“My Muslim brothers in the Arabian Peninsula, you have to answer the call of jihad because the enemy is in your land along with the Jewish and Christian armies,” Mr. Abdulmutallab said in the video, according to Mr. Tukel....
"Participation in jihad against the United States is considered among the most virtuous of deeds in Islam and is highly encouraged in the Quran." How did Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab come to misunderstand the Religion of Peace™ so spectacularly? Would any of the vaunted moderates of the Islamic establishment in the West care to explain? Honest Ibe Hooper? Boy Reza Aslan? Brave Ahmed Rehab? "Man of Peace" Imam Rauf? Anyone? Anyone?
More on this story. "'Underwear bomber' pleads guilty on all charges," by Robert Snell and George Hunter for The Detroit News, October 12 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
Detroit— Accused "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab surprised the federal courtroom during the second day of his terrorism trial Wednesday by pleading guilty to all charges.
His plea to eight charges came after he returned from a 45-minute recess, ending the most high-profile terrorism case in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The 25-year-old Nigerian and self-proclaimed al-Qaida operative faced up to life on the charges that include attempted murder, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction and conspiracy to commit terrorism, for his attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.
Abdulmutallab said Wednesday he tried to bomb the plane in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel and to avenge the killing of Muslims in Middle East.
He said the bomb was a "blessed weapon to save the lives of innocent Muslims."
"Participation in jihad against the United States is considered among the most virtuous of deeds in Islam and is highly encouraged in the Quran," Abdulmutallab told the judge, reading from a statement.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds earlier asked him if he wished to waive his right to a trial and plead guilty.
"That's right," he said....
"Guilty," Abdulmutallab said.
"And are you pleading because you believe you are guilty?" the judge asked him.
"Yes," he answered.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Tukel asked him if he carried an explosive device on board.
"If you say so," Abdulmutallab said.
"You knew it was an explosive, correct?" Tukel asked him.
"Yes," he answered.
"It was intended to explode?" Tukel asked him.
"Yes," Abdulmutallab answered....
"The United States should be warned," he said. "If the United States continues the blasphemy of Muhammad and the prophets and continues to support those who kill innocent Muslims, it should await a great calamity that will befall them at the hands of the mujahedeen soon or God will strike them directly with a great calamity soon. If you laugh at us now, we will laugh at you later in this life and at the day of judgment."...
He shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before being handcuffed and escorted out of the courtroom by a deputy U.S. Marshal....
He swore to base his obedience to Abu Bakir Bashir (Baasyr in this story) on the Qur'an and Sunnah, and yet misunderstood the Religion of Peace™ to the extent that he attacked a church. "Java: church attacker, spiritual son of the Islamic leader Baasyr," by Mathias Hariyadi for Asia News, October 10 (thanks to C. Cantoni):
Jakarta (AsiaNews) - Beni Asri, one of the country's best-known Islamic extremists, arrested after the attack on the Christian church of Solo (Java) last September, has admitted strong links with the leading Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Baasyr. (09/25/2011 At least three killed in a suicide attack on church in Indonesia). Beni Asri has been accused of planning several suicide bombings in Indonesia, and in particular of being the organizer of the attack against the Solo church. Beni Asri was arrested Sept. 30 in his parents' house in Solok, West Sumatra province.
Beni Asri...made a crucial testimony to Indonesian security services investigators who are trying to trace the roots of radical fundamentalism that is spreading among young people. Beni Asri confirmed he had been spiritually "baptized" by Abu Bakar Baasyr after a short course of prayers and Islamic teachings in Cirebon, West Java, in 2008....
Syarif, the perpetrator of the suicide attack on the Cirebon Police Headquarters, was killed in the attack, which injured several officers. "Beni Asri was very committed, he followed the sermons held continuously by Abi Bakar Baasyr in the An Nur Mosque in Cirebon," said a police spokesman, Gen. Anton Bachrul Alam. "Beni Asri received 'baiat' and his companion was Agung Nur Alam". The "baiat" is a spiritual oath, professed by young novices in front of their spiritual director and teacher, after a period of intense preparation and physical and moral training. According to the spokesman, Beni Asri was to an extent "kidnapped" by Agung Nur Alasm, Syarif and a third person, Sueb, to bring him to Abu Bakir Baasyr.
Beni Asri recieved "baiat" along with 15 other young unknown men. The only thing he remembers about that day and the "oath" is that he must "be loyal to all that the Amir (the spiritual leader, Ed) tells him to do, based on the Koran and Sunnah of the Prophet, in the effort to achieve the implementation of Sharia. " After the "baiat" Beni Asri was as an active member of the Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (Jat), an organization founded by radical Muslim Abu Bakar Baasyr after having abandoned, , his former fundamentalist group, the Indonesian Mujahidin Council (MMI) after strong divisions.
According to General Alam, Beni Asri was subjected to a brainwashing to inculcate a false idea of jihad (holy war spiritual) in a series of courses held by Baasyr in the Zaitun mosque of Cirebon. Considered the Amir of the Jemaah Islamiyah, Baasyr’s meetings, which were attended by about thirty young men.
In what way was Bashir's idea of jihad false? Why is the falsity of the jihadists' version of Islam always asserted but never explained? If they swore an oath to do all that Bashir told them to do based on the Qur'an and Sunnah, why didn't they ever notice the apparently abundant contradictions between what Bashir said to do and what the Qur'an and Sunnah said to do?
Al-Azhar University is the most prestigious institution in all of Sunni Islam. Not long after 9/11, the New York Times hailed it as moderate.
In Islamic theology, jihad warfare is fard kifaya, an obligation of the community as a whole but not of every individual believer. Jihad becomes fard ayn, obligatory on every individual Muslim to aid in some way, when a Muslim land is attacked.
"Deputy Rector of Al-Azhar University, Sheik Muhammad Ashur: Our Enemies Support the Offspring of Pigs and Apes," from MEMRITV, September 30 (thanks to Wimpy):
Following are excerpts from an address by Sheik Muhammad Ashur, deputy rector of Al-Azhar University, which aired on Al-Alam TV on September 30, 2011:
Muhammad Ashur: I say to all my brothers and sisters: Jihad has become an individual duty incumbent upon each and every one of us, because our enemies have grown arrogant and have persisted in their great tyranny. In an even uglier display, they publicly declare their support and defense of injustice, even though they boast that they denounce any injustice and that they are the ones who legislate human rights.
But the rights of what human are they defending and supporting? They support the unjust oppressors, the offspring of pigs and apes.
The Qur'an says that Allah cursed the disobedient Jews and transformed them into apes and pigs (2:62-65; 5:59-60; 7:166).
How did Sheikh Abu Al-Hassan Al-Azdi come to misunderstand the Religion of Peace™ so spectacularly? Would any of the vaunted moderates of the Islamic establishment in the West care to explain? Honest Ibe Hooper? Boy Reza Aslan? Brave Ahmed Rehab? "Man of Peace" Imam Rauf? Anyone? Anyone?
"Jihadi Book Justifies Killing of Non-Muslim Women and Children in Retaliation for Killing of Muslim Women and Children," from MEMRI, September 22 (thanks to Wimpy):
On July 30, 2011, the jihadi forum Ansar Al-Mujahideen published a new e-book by Sheikh Abu Al-Hassan Al-Azdi titled The Just Scale – On the Permissibility of Killing the Infidels' Children and Women as Reprisal. As its title suggests, the book seeks to provide religious justification for killing women and children in attacks that come in response to aggression against Muslims. The author presents alleged proofs for his position from the Islamic sources, as well as commentary on each proof by Islamic scholars. In certain cases he also rebuts theoretical arguments that might be brought against the proof's validity.
In the introduction, Al-Azdi rebukes mainstream Muslim scholars for denouncing the mujahideen's attacks on women and children while ignoring attacks by non-Muslims that cause deaths among women and children. Each of the subsequent eight chapters expound on one or more Koranic verses or hadiths, which Al-Azdi presents as supporting his thesis....
A former terrorist leader leader named Nasir Abas is now 'reformed' and attempting to talk people out of joining the violent jihad via his own comic book. But rather than coming out with a frank and honest assessment of how violent Islam is, how deeply rooted Islamic supremacism and violence against non Muslims (and less devout Muslims) are in the Quran and other Islamic source documents, what we get with Nasir Abas' book is the usual Islamic whitewash and the usual misleading assertions ('jihad is a peaceful struggle', et al.) that have little to no basis in Islamic scripture. So while the former Malaysian terrorist Nasir Abas may mean well, in the end his whitewash of Islam only serves the interests of Muslim supremacists in Indonesia and elsewhere. "Fighting extremism via comics", by Amy Chew, The Star, 2 October 2011
Nasir Abas, a former Jemaah Islamiah leader, is now waging a private jihad to stop teenagers from being recruited for suicide bombings and other terror activities.
Malaysian-born Nasir Abas is an unlikely comic book hero he is a former al-Qaeda-linked militant, leader of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) and a weapons expert who
fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
His journey from an idealistic student to a militant and later an ally to the police in their counter-terrorism efforts has been turned into a 137-page comic book titled I Found the Meaning of Jihad.
The book comes as Indonesia suffered another bomb blast last Sunday when a suicide bomber detonated explosives in a packed church in Solo, Central Java, killing the bomber and injuring 27 people.
Launched on Sept 8 in Jakarta when the movie Captain America was playing in the local cinemas, it inspired the Associated Press to nickname Nasir “Captain Jihad”.
“Since then, I have received phone calls from people looking for Captain Jihad',” says Nasir in a telephone interview from Jakarta where he resides.
Nasir, 42, is a well-known figure in Indonesia for his regular appearances on TV and seminars where he speaks out against extremism and the twisted intrepretation of “jihad” as espoused by the late Osama bin Laden and slain Malaysian terrorist, Noordin Top.
Bin Laden and his ilk have repeatedly cited numerous verses from the Quran to justify their actions. Exactly how is this a 'twisted interpretation'?
Noordin is blamed for a string of bomb attacks in Indonesia, including the devastating first Bali bombings of 2002 which killed 202 people.
“The ultimate jihad is to struggle for peace for the people and nation, not just for Muslims but non-Muslims as well. It defends human rights,” says Nasir.
“Jihad such as suicide bombing, which kills innocent lives, is not true jihad,” he adds.
How do Muslims define 'peace' and 'human rights'? And exactly who is considered 'innocent' by Islam? Can a non Muslim ever be considered as 'innocent'? Don't look for answers for these pressing questions from 'Captain Jihad' or in his comic book.
No one wants them, of course. “Nobody mentions him -- nobody in New York. There is not a big demand for him.” That's why they're still selling them. Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: "Mouthpiece of madness sells in B’klyn," by Len Maniace for the New York Post, October 1:
Anwar al-Awlaki is still alive and well in Brooklyn -- on tape at least.
Copies of the terror mouthpiece’s religious tracts were readily available on Atlantic Avenue yesterday in the heart of a heavily Yemeni neighborhood.
The CDs don’t contain the same vitriol as the cleric’s caustic YouTube rants -- which local lawmakers fought to remove from the site -- but are full of his insights on Islam.
“He is a very good speaker,” said Hamed Nabawy, 51, owner of the Fertile Crescent on Atlantic Avenue near Fourth Avenue in Boerum Hill, a combo grocery and Islamic cultural store.
“He compares what is justice in Islam, and then turns to recent history. He looks at the lack of justice in American policy around the world and the Middle East.”
Still, Nabawy admits that many on the strip have distanced themselves from the hatemonger.
“Nobody mentions him -- nobody in New York. There is not a big demand for him,” said Nabawy.
Nabawy sells a set of CDs called “Travel Companion Edition: Abu Bakr al Siddiq,” in which Awlaki recounts the life of a prophet who followed Mohammed.
He charges $35 for the set of eight CDs.
“He is reciting from the Koran,” said Nabawy.
“There’s nothing about politics. Our policy here is we are against extremists of both sides.”
At another Middle Eastern store on Atlantic Avenue, Dar-Us-Salam, near Nevins Street, also in Boerum Hill, a merchant who did not give his name suggested Awlaki increasingly became a problem seller for New York customers.
“We used to [carry the CDs],” he said. “We used to have them. But he has issues.”...
He helped fellow jihadists who were going to kill themselves in an act of murder. He seems to be just a bit selective about how and when he cares about "human rights" and personal safety, and that is because of the double standard that is part and parcel of jihadist rationalizations about killing civilians: it all depends on your definition of "innocent."
"Terrorist we can't kick out: Released after half his sentence but still 'a risk to the public'... the suicide bomb fanatic who's free to stay - thanks to his human rights," by Chris Greenwood for the Daily Mail, September 25:
A fanatical terrorist has escaped being thrown out of the UK because it would breach his human rights.
Hate-filled Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali, graded the highest possible risk to the public, was released after serving just half of his nine-year sentence for helping the July 21 bombers.
He now mingles freely among the Londoners his co-plotters tried to kill six years ago.
Graham Foulkes, whose 22-year-old son David was killed on July 7, said he was ‘filled with despair’.
He said: ‘These people were plotting to commit mass murder - what about the human rights of victims and families?
‘These people had no consideration for the women and children they were trying to kill. How can they claim we should look after and support them?’
Ali, 35, knew about the potentially murderous July 21 conspiracy and helped the fanatics clear up their explosives factory.
He was jailed for 12 years in February 2008 for aiding and abetting the Al Qaeda cell. Judge Paul Worsley QC said he must have ‘harboured the hope’ the bombers would ‘destroy society as we know it’.
The sentence was reduced to nine years on appeal and after time Ali spent in jail while awaiting trial was taken into account, he was automatically released on licence several weeks ago. He is now living at a bail hostel on a leafy residential street in north-west London. He has been seen travelling on the Tube and catching buses.
With music headphones plugged into his ears and a bag slung casually across his shoulder, he appeared to be caught on camera chatting on a mobile phone.
It is understood that Ali is being monitored around the clock and must obey a curfew and other conditions, including a ban on using the internet.
He is the second high-risk terrorist linked to the July 21 attacks to win the right to remain in the UK on human rights grounds in recent weeks.
Ismail Abdurahman, 28, who hid would-be bomber Hussain Osman for three days, escaped being deported to his native Somalia after judges feared for his safety. Abdurahman is also living at a bail hostel in London despite the protests of police and Home Office officials.....
Once again, as ever, we see this baldly asserted, without supporting evidence. The fact that Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and to make recruits among peaceful Muslims, is never countered or even addressed. So it is in the U.S. also: we are constantly admonished that we must accept that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ that has been Hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists, but this is never explained. We are constantly excoriated for pointing out that Osama bin Laden and other jihadis portrayed themselves as the exponents of True and Pure Islam, and told that this amounts to accepting bin Laden's view of Islam. But no coherent alternative that explains a different way to view those Islamic texts and teachings is ever presented.
"Islam promotes peace: Advisor," by B K Tahir for the Pakistan Observer, September 24:
Bahawalpur—Islam is the religion of peace, love, tolerance, harmony, brotherhood and care so we can overcome all problems through following the teachings of Islam in its true spirit as Islam also orders to fully protect and care the minorities for healthy society. These views were expressed by the speakers in a function held to promote Inter-Religion Harmony among all the religions of the country to establish peace and solidarity in the country.
The function was organized by a local NGO, Cholistan Development Council of Pakistan, Bahawalpur, the Advisor to the Punjab Chief Minister, Mian Baleegh-ur-Rehman was the chief guest on the occasion while Haji Zulfiqar Ali (MPA), Syed Tabish Alvri (Ex MPA), eminent political, social and literary personality of the area, Malik Habibullah Bhutta, Station Director, Radio Pakistan, Bahawalpur, Sajid Hassan Durrani, renowned literary figure, Dr.Javed Iqbal, Director, Public Relations, Bahawalpur, Ejaz Ghouri, notables of the city, representatives of the Christian and Hindu communities of the area and females besides media men largely attended the function and appreciated the efforts of the Cholistan Development Council of Pakistan for the promotion of peace, social, cultural and literary activities side by side the uplift of Cholistan.
The Advisor to the Punjab Chief Minister, Mian Baleegh-ur-Rehman remarked on the occasion that the Punjab Chief Minister, Mian Shahbaz Sharif had been taking keen interest in the uplift of the Cholistan.
The FBI came under fire again Wednesday from hard-Left journalist Spencer Ackerman in Wired, who has been conducting a campaign for some time to get the bureau to purge its terrorism training seminars of any hint of the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism.
Ackerman reported with breathless self-righteous indignation that “the FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that ‘main stream’ [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a ‘cult leader’; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a ‘funding mechanism for combat.’ At the Bureau’s training ground in Quantico, Virginia, agents are shown a chart contending that the more ‘devout’ a Muslim, the more likely he is to be ‘violent.’ Those destructive tendencies cannot be reversed, an FBI instructional presentation adds: ‘Any war against non-believers is justified’ under Muslim law; a ‘moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah.’”
Like virtually all Leftist and Islamic supremacist critiques of anti-jihad and anti-terror material, Ackerman’s piece takes for granted that such assertions are false, without bothering to explain how or why. Apparently Ackerman believes that their falsity is so self-evident as to require no demonstration; unfortunately for him, however, no one else has provided any proof of this, either. And there is considerable evidence that what this FBI training material asserts is true.
Are mainstream American Muslims “likely to be terrorist sympathizers”? Certainly all the mainstream Muslim organizations condemn al-Qaeda and 9/11; however, some of the foremost of those organizations, such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Students Association, and the Council of American-Islamic Relations, and others, have links of various kinds to the jihad terrorist group Hamas and its parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated to imposing Islamic law around the world. A mainstream Muslim spokesman in the U.S., the Ground Zero Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, refused to condemn Hamas until it became too politically damaging for him not to do so; another, CAIR’s Nihad Awad, openly declared his support for Hamas in 1994. Another mainstream Muslim spokesman in this country, Reza Aslan, has praised another jihad terrorist group, Hizballah, and called on the U.S. to negotiate with Hamas. Other mainstream Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. such as Obama’s ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Rashad Hussain, and media gadfly Hussein Ibish, have praised and defended the confessed leader of another jihad terror group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad: Sami al-Arian.
Do these men and organizations represent a tiny minority of extremists that actually does not express the opinions of the broad mainstream of Muslims in this country? Maybe, but if so, they simply do not have any counterparts of comparable size or influence who have not expressed sympathy for some form of Islamic terror.
Was Muhammad a “cult leader”? Certainly one definition of a cult is that members are not free to opt out if they choose to do so – and it was Muhammad who enunciated Islam’s notorious death penalty for apostasy by saying, ““Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9.84.57). Also, there are several celebrated incidents in which Muhammad lashed out violently against his opponents, ordering the murder of several people for the crime of making fun of him -- including the poet Abu ‘Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess ‘Asma bint Marwan. Abu ‘Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad’s question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop ‘Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, ‘Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676).
Is the “Islamic practice of giving charity” no more than a “‘funding mechanism for combat’”? If not, one wonders why so many Islamic charities in the United States and around the world have been shut down for funding terrorism, including what was once the largest Islamic charity in the United States, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), as well as the Global Relief Foundation (GRF), the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), and many others.
Is it true that “the more ‘devout’ a Muslim, the more likely he is to be ‘violent,’” and is it also true that “moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah”? While certainly not all devout Muslims are terrorists, virtually all Islamic terrorists are devout Muslims. In recent years, not only Osama bin Laden but also devout Muslims such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would-be Times Square bomber Feisal Shahzad, Arkansas jihad murderer Abdulhakim Muhammad, and other jihad terror plotters such as Khalid Aldawsari, Baitullah Mehsud, and Roshonara Choudhry, among many others, reference Islamic teachings to justify violence against unbelievers. Just this week, Detroit underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab declared in court that Muslims should only be judged by the Qur’an.
Can “any war against non-believers” really be “‘justified’ under Muslim law”? Majid Khadduri, an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world....The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law endorsed by the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, says that the leader of the Muslims “makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax,” and cites Qur’an 9:29 in support of this idea: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o9.8)
Are there wars against unbelievers that cannot be justified by Islamic law? Certainly. But there is also a broad mandate for such wars – broad enough to have served as a justification for wars between Muslims and non-Muslims throughout history. During World War I, the crumbling Ottoman Empire even tried to shore up support for its war against the Allies by declaring it a jihad.
In the face of Ackerman’s reports, the FBI is in full retreat. It announced after an earlier report that it had banned use of my book The Truth About Muhammad, which is simply a biography of Muhammad based on the earliest Muslim sources. And this latest report quickly drove the bureau further into Lysenkoism; it quickly announced late Thursday that it was dropping the latest program that Ackerman had zeroed in on as well.
Lysenkoism was ideologically biased junk science regarding biology and agriculture that was adopted as official policy by the Soviet Union under Stalin. The real scientists who told the truth were sent to the gulag.
It is no surprise that in an official environment that refuses to speak about “Islam” and “terrorism” in the same sentence -- a policy which must involve quite a lot of mental and verbal gymnastics when jihad terrorists start quoting Qur’an and other Islamic sources -- that the truth about Islam would come under fire whenever it appears as part of counterterrorism studies. It is no surprise that in an official environment that thinks that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular” and that jihad is a wholly positive interior spiritual struggle would get nervous at revelations that somewhere the truth about Islam and jihad was getting through.
As Lysenkoism grows more entrenched and the FBI’s heads planted more firmly in the sand, Spencer Ackerman’s responsibility for the next jihad attack in the U.S. grows apace.
He also says that Christians in Egypt will have to submit and pay the jizya in a state of humiliation. And that there will be no art or tourism in the Egyptian Sharia State. Sheikh 'Adel Shehato is a severe Misunderstander of Islam. He says things that I get branded with "Islamophobia" for saying in America. If only the Center for American Progress or the SPLC or Hamas-linked CAIR would explain how it is that so many imams and Islamic leaders like Sheikh 'Adel Shehato keep misunderstanding Islam in the exact same way that greasy Islamophobes do.
"Senior Official in Egyptian Islamic Jihad: If We Come to Power, We will Launch a Campaign of Islamic Conquests to Instate Shari'a Worldwide: 'The Christian is Free to Worship His God in His Church, but if the Christians Make Problems for the Muslims, I Will Exterminate Them,'" from MEMRI, August 29 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
On August 13, 2011, the Egyptian daily Roz Al-Yousef published an interview[1] with Sheikh 'Adel Shehato, a senior official in Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), who, on March 23, 2011, was freed from prison in the wake of the Egyptian revolution. He was imprisoned in 1991 upon returning from a three-year sojourn in Afghanistan. [...]
Following are excerpts of the interview:
Sheikh 'Adel Shehato
The Term "Democracy" is Not in the Arab or Islamic Lexicon; Once Allah's Law Reigns Supreme, the People's Role will End
Q: "Do you support the uprising?"
Shehato: "...The [Egyptian] youth rose up for a certain ideal... They did not rise up in order to put the shari'a into practice, nor did they [complain] that Mubarak's regime did not rule in accordance with the shari'a... As Muslims, we must believe that the Koran is our constitution, and that it is [therefore] impossible for us to institute a Western democratic regime. I oppose democracy because it is not the faith of the Muslims, but the faith of the Jews and Christians. Simply put, democracy means the rule of the people itself over itself... According to Islam, it is forbidden for people to rule and to legislate laws, as Allah alone is ruler. Allah did not hand down the term [democracy] as a form of rule, and it is completely absent from the Arab and Islamic lexicon..."
Q: "If you do not believe in the rule of the people, why did you go out to Al-Tahrir Square with the slogan 'he People Wants to Implement the Shari'a?' Are you exploiting democracy in order to achieve what you want [only] to then abolish [democracy]?"
Shehato: "I am not exploiting democracy, since I have never joined and will never join politics or party activity... We believe that implementation of the shari'a [must be accomplished] far from the political game, though some [other] Islamic streams are willing to participate [in this game] in order to achieve the same goal [i.e., implementation of the shari'a]. We said that 'the people wants to implement the shari'a' because most of the people are Muslims, and also based on [our] reading of the situation on the ground. [At the same time,] we did not make demands for the people's sake in the people's name, but demanded the rule of Allah. And once Allah's law is instated, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme." [...]
Q: "Are you against blowing up churches?"
Shehato: "Yes and no. The Christian is free to worship his god in his church, but if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari'a, and it stipulates that they must pay the jizya tax while in a state of humiliation..."
Q: "These positions of yours frighten us, as Egyptians."
Shehato: "I will not act [in ways] that contradict my faith just in order to please the people... We say to the Christians, convert to Islam or pay the jizya, otherwise we will fight you. The shari'a is not based on [human] logic but on divine law. That is why we oppose universal, manmade constitutions."
If the Muslims Rise to Power in Egypt, They Will Form Muslim Battalions to Enforce the Shari'a Worldwide
Q: "If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?"
Shehato: "Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari'a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari'a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah's help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]..."
Q: "You said that you endorse the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Does this mean that your way of implementing shari'a in Egypt will be through violence and war, like their [way]?"
Shehato: "No, we will implement the shari'a through da'wa [preaching], while violence will be directed only at the infidel Arab rulers. In their case, there is no choice but to use force, though the shari'a does not call it 'violence' but 'jihad for the sake of Allah.' There is no other way... because they have power and weapons..."
Q: "How will the foreign ministry [operate] in an Islamic state?"
Shehato: "There are Muslims and there are infidels. We will have ambassadors in every country. We want to call all other countries to join Islam, and that will be the task of the ambassadors. If [the countries] refuse, there will be war. We will not tolerate mutual trade and cultural ties with non-Muslims."
"In the [Islamic] State, There will Be Only Islamic Culture"
Q: "If you rise to power, what will be your approach to tourism?"
Shehato: "There will be tourism for purposes of [medical] treatment, but the tourism sites of the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Sharm Al-Sheikh will be shut down, because my task [as a ruler] is to get people to serve Allah rather than [other] people [i.e., tourists]. No proud Muslim will ever be willing to live off tourism profits, because the tourists come [to Egypt] to drink alcohol and fornicate.
Sheesh, Shehato, you don't have to travel all the way to Egypt to drink alcohol and fornicate.
[If they] want to come, they must comply with the conditions and laws of Islam. We will explain to them that, according to the shari'a, the pyramids are [the remains of] a pagan and polytheistic age."
Q: "What will be the state of art and literature in such a state?"
Shehato: "In Islam, there is no such thing as art. Painting, singing, and dancing are forbidden. Therefore, in the [Islamic] state there will be nothing but Islamic culture, for I cannot teach [people] the infidel culture. As for literature, such as [the works] of Naguib Mahfouz, it is forbidden. Naguib Mahfouz was a criminal who stimulated [people's] desires and struck a severe blow to modesty. We will return to the decent culture of the Muslims and the Muslim forefathers, and to Islamic history."
Will Honest Ibe Hooper or Boy Reza Aslan or some other giant of Moderate Islam denounce the Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad as Misunderstanders of Islam or even as Greasy Islamophobes? Or are they not misusing the Qur'an and Muhammad's words at all?
"Gaza-Based Salafi Group Launched Rockets at Israel," by Chana Ya'ar for Israel National News, August 28 (thanks to Benedict):
A radical Salafi Islamist group affiliated with the international Al Qaeda terrorist organization has taken responsibility for launching Sunday morning's Grad rocket attack at southern Israel.
The Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad (JTJ) jihadist organization (Group of Monotheism and Jihad) allegedly issued a statement claiming “credit” for the attack on Be'er Sheva, the largest city in Israel's southern region. [...]
Among the Koranic texts taught by al-Shami and cited by JTJ in justifying its slaughter is an alleged quote from the Islamic prophet Muhammad, “Whoever slaughters a non-Muslim [at war with Islam, or 'enemy occupiers'] sincerely for the sake of Allah, Allah will make hellfire prohibited upon him.”
That's not in a "Koranic text" at all. That's a hadith.
Another quote allegedly from Allah (G-d) often cited by the group to justify its actions directs operatives to behead its victims: “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off the fingertip of them.”
The difference, he explains, is one of motive: "a soldier who fights for getting money cannot [be] a serious combatant but when a soldier knows he sells his soul to get Heaven instead, then he has no fear." Indeed, Islam created a nearly invincible war machine by guaranteeing booty to the victorious soldier (see Qur'an 8:41) and a Paradise of sensual delights to the defeated soldier (see Qur'an 9:111). So it was a win/win situation.
"Grand Shia Cleric: Islam is the Religion of Peace," from the Ahlul Bayt News Agency, August 14:
(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - Grand Shia cleric says "Muslims are not war-mongers and Islam is the religion of peace."
Speaking among Qom seminary students, Ayatollah Jafar Sobhani underscored the importance and the necessity of Jihad in Islamic World.
“Islam is not a pro war religion and the only thing which can keep our lands and countries safe is the sprite [sic] of Jihad and Martyrdom, “ said the grand Ayatollah stating that such a sprite let us defend out country when the enemies attack it.
The seminary instructor went on,” a soldier who fights for getting money cannot have a serious combatant but when a soldier knows he sells his soul to get Heaven instead, then he has no fear. “
“Islam is the religion of balance and Muslims people should be a paradigm for other people by abiding the rules of this religion,” the grand Ayatollah mentioned.
Why don't some enlightened Western Muslims like Honest Ibe Hooper or Boy Reza Aslan go over to Pakistan and straighten out these schools that are getting Islam so terribly wrong? After all, in America they will tell you that only greasy Islamophobes think that Islam justifies suicide bombing and jihad against Jews and Christians. How did greasy Islamophobes get control of Islamic schools in Pakistan?
Afghan parents who have sent their sons to schools in Pakistan say they're becoming increasing alarmed about the type of education their children are receiving.
Rather than serve as centers of learning, many fear that these schools and madrassas are designed primarily to turn out a never-ending supply of suicide bombers.
One father in Kapisa province, who asked that his name not be used because he was concerned about security, described the dramatic change his 18-year-old son had undergone after one year at a school in Pakistan.
"My son is vehemently opposed to the government. He says suicide attacks are considered a superior form of martyrdom and courage in Islam, and that Muslims must wage a jihad against the Jews and their friends," he said.
Students, his son told him, were shown footage of Americans and Britons being beheaded.
"I'm not going to allow my son to go back to study in Pakistan again, because I know I will lose him," the father said. [...]
Afghans have long sent their children to Pakistan for religious education.
When Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in 1979, many of these schools help galvanize opposition to the occupation.
In subsequent years, however, they also became a breeding ground for the Taliban, and of late have encouraged their students to wage jihad against the Afghan government and its western allies.
Many Afghan families now fear their children will be caught up in an insurgent strategy of recruiting young people for suicide attacks.
One 17-year-old in Laghman province, home on vacation from a madrassa in Peshawar, described the school's curriculum.
"We were always being told that the Jews and Christians had attacked Muslim countries. They destroy the dignity and faith of Muslims. We were shown footage of the Americans searching people's homes and killing them... or killing civilians in bombardments," he said. "They showed us Israeli massacres in Palestine. Young people, even children, were therefore prepared to wage jihad against the United States." The 17-year-old's parents said he would not be returning to Peshawar.
A representative of the Taliban in Kapisa province, who spoke on condition that his name not be used, justified the course of instruction at madrassas in Pakistan.
"Those who say these people are being deceived are puppets of the United States. During their studies in Pakistani madrassas, people learn the path of virtue and jihad," he said. "They come to understand the reality that human beings are guests in this world for just a few days, and that they must do something for their religion and the next life. They learn the Islamic precepts in which jihad has high status, and thus they arrive at practical action they fight for the interests of Islam, they satisfy their God, and they bring illumination to the next life." Afghan officials say they are responding to the threat posed by these schools by building more madarassas [sic] in the country....
Al-Qaeda, the Next Generation. Purists will say it could never top The Old Series.
Despite being the number-one brand name in global jihad, al-Qaeda's ideology is not of its own invention, and that is ultimately the source of its resilience. It is a waste of precious time that even being able to discuss the jihad ideology must be a struggle, and it only hamstrings efforts to understand, engage, and defeat al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups. "Spec ops chief warns of al-Qaida 2.0," by Kimberly Dozier for the Associated Press, July 28:
ASPEN, Colo. (AP) — The top commander of U.S. special operations forces said Wednesday that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida is bloodied and "nearing its end," but he warned the next generation of militants could keep special operations fighting for a decade to come.
Navy SEAL Adm. Eric T. Olson described the killing of bin Laden by a special operations raid on May 2 as a near-killing blow for what he called "al-Qaida 1.0," as created by bin Laden and led from his hideout in Pakistan.
Olson said the group had already lost steam because of the revolts of the Arab Spring, which proved the Muslim world did not need al-Qaida to bring down governments, from Tunisia to Egypt.
Actually, both bin Laden and Zawahiri (just yesterday) have expressed support for the uprisings. They fully expect more overtly Islamic regimes that are more likely to impose Sharia law, which is the aim of jihad in all its forms. And they fully expect those regimes will be more openly and demonstratively hostile to Israel.
"I think the death of bin Laden was an uppercut to the jaw," Olson told a packed crowd, opening the Aspen Security Forum. "It just knocked them on their heels."
Olson echoed other administration officials who are predicting al-Qaida's demise if a few more key leaders can be eliminated.
But the four-star admiral warned of the fight to come against what he called al-Qaida 2.0, with new leaders like American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, who Olson said understands America better than Americans understand him.
"It will morph, it will disperse," he said of the movement. "It will become in some ways more westernized, (with) dual passport holders" and "fewer cave dwellers," he said.
Olson said others like al-Awlaki will probably refine their message to appeal to a wider audience, and seek ungoverned spaces to operate from, where they can smuggle in weapons and train their followers. He described how current offshoots like al-Awlaki's al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen are cooperating with militants in Somalia, describing what he called an "invisible bridge" between the two.
Nor did the admiral write off bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahri. He said al-Zawahri had not yet put his stamp on the original organization, so U.S. counterterrorist forces do not yet know what kind of threat his leadership will present.
Olson agreed with the White House's newly announced policy to strike terrorists through focused action rather than full-scale invasion, preferably by training and working with the host country's forces. He cautioned against thinking raids would solve all U.S. foreign policy problems.
"This idea of being able to wait over the horizon and spring over and chop off heads doesn't really work," he said, describing the "yin and yang" of special operations as including capture-and-kill raids as well as long-term engagement with host countries' militaries. The latter involves U.S. troops "developing long-term relationships, learning languages, meeting people, studying histories, learning black markets."
"If you don't know that, you won't be an effective counterterrorism force," Olson said....
What did Joseph Adams say that was inaccurate? What did he say that was false? If Muhammad was not "the first terrorist of Islam," did he not say that he was, according to Islamic tradition? "I have been made victorious through terror" (Bukhari 4.52.220).
"Lib adviser sacked after anti-Islam web posts," by Heath Aston for the Sydney Morning Herald, July 10:
THE O'Farrell government has been embarrassed by a Liberal adviser who posted anti-Islamic comments online, including a description of the Prophet Muhammad as ''the first terrorist of Islam''.
Joseph Adams, who worked in the electorate office of the Smithfield Liberal, Andrew Rohan, was sacked on Friday. Mr Adams, pictured, had angered some of his 1000 Facebook friends - which include 15 state government MPs and four ministers - with selected excerpts from the Koran which he said prove Islam promotes killing, not love.
He was labelled a ''bigot'' and the ''biggest f---ing racist ever'' by shocked friends.
What race is Islam again?
A record of his posts between March 24 and June 17, obtained by The Sun-Herald, show the criticism only spurred him on to make more offensive remarks.
''The religious babble you refer to is Islam,'' he commented on June 4. ''There was no war. It was terrorism. Muhammad was the first terrorist in the name of Islam.''
He followed up with: "Why are you getting upset? I'm not the one who is teaching others to kill in the name of Islam. Mohommed is not my hero.''
Do Islamic jihadists not kill in the name of Islam? They consistently and unanimously explain and justify their actions with references to Islamic texts and teachings.
On March 24, he taunted ''friend'' Faten Dabs with the comment: ''If you leave Islam it is HALAL for you to be EXECUTED. Lol. No wonder people are afraid to leave Islam.''
Does Islam not have a death penalty for apostasy? Do not all the sects of Islam and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach this? Did not Muhammad say, according to Islamic tradition, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari 9.84.57)?
After being branded a bigot on Facebook , he responded: ''Your biblical quotes are as ridiculous as your comparisons. I guess you never paid attention at Sunday school. Jesus spoke in parables. Mohommed on the other hand gave orders to kill.
Did not Muhammad say, according to Islamic tradition, "If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them" (Sunan Abu Dawud, 19.2996)?
''You seem to like standing up for killers and murderers. Is Ivan Milat a good person too? Perhaps you think Hitler was a great Prophet too? After all he did put a book together called Mein Kampf. Don't waste our time here Aaron. The only bigot here is someone with an uninformed view.''
Indeed.
Mr Adams, who identifies himself as an Australian of Assyrian Christian descent, told The Sun-Herald on Friday that he was not ''thinking politically'' when he made the remarks.
''Rather than listen to what people say about the Koran I decided I would read it myself,'' he said.
''It was nothing political, it was out of pure emotion. I didn't think it would be used against me and people would accuse me of being racist.
''What I did was a mistake, I did not think it would be used for political purposes. In my mind I was living in a free society where we value free speech. Why should religion be a taboo subject?''
Indeed.
But the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, did not agree. Late on Friday a government spokesman said in a statement: ''The comments were totally inappropriate and the staff member has already been terminated.''
How odd that the Supreme Leader is so happy about this flowering of secular democracy in the Middle East. He has the crazy idea that the uprisings have something to do with Islam. He must be some kind of Islamophobe. "'Uprisings testify to Qur'an promises,'" from PressTV, July 5:
"The uprisings of the nations in the region are clear signs of the definite fulfillment of God's Qur'anic promises," the Leader told a group of participants in the 28th International Holy Qur'an Competition in the Iranian capital of Tehran on Tuesday.
The Leader added that the US, Israel, and their allies would not even think of a revolution in Egypt, but the Egyptian nation became victorious with the help of God, IRNA reported.
By helping the Egyptian nation, God proved once again that if the Almighty helps somebody, no power can defeat them, Ayatollah Khamenei said.
The Leader also said Qur'an is "the most important factor of unity, dignity and authority of Muslim nations."...
We're constantly told by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, in government, in media, in law enforcement, everywhere, that Osama bin Laden represented no one but himself and his Tiny Minority of Extremists™, and that he represented a newly-minted and eccentric form of Islam that the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims abhorred and rejected. And yet the evidence of our eyes for years now has told us that he was widely popular in the Islamic world, respected, and even revered.
There is no explanation for this cognitive dissonance other than the one I have offered here for seven and a half years now, and in ten books, and in thousands of articles: that the conventional wisdom is wrong, and that Islam is not a Religion of Peace, and that therefore the claims of Islamic authenticity from Osama and other jihadists found a receptive audience among Muslims, and therefore our policies regarding Islamic states, terrorism, Muslim immigration, stealth jihad Islamization initiatives in this country and in Europe, and myriad other matters are drastically wrongheaded.
A Palestinian woman walks towards a coffee shop hanging a picture of al-Qaeda's slain chief Osaman bin Laden on its window with the Arabic slogan below it: 'Osama bin Laden, the worrior [sic], the martyr' in the West Bank city of Jenin on July 1, 2011.
Editor's Note: I think it may be of interest to some readers who recall Aymenn Jawad's public attack on me last March to note that Aymenn has written to me and apologized, and has recently sent me the article below. Our differences and minor disagreements should not interfere with our common work in defense of human rights, although they often do among the petty, the small-minded, the vindictive and the pathologically competitive. -- RS
Lesley Hazleton: Karen Armstrong II by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
It is not uncommon, as we go through our lives, for us to meet certain individuals who like to call themselves “spiritual seekers.” Apparently suffering from pathological narcissism, they feel a constant need for some sort of spiritual “nourishment” (i.e. a hopelessly vague outpouring of emotions), and accordingly flutter like bees from the flower of one religion to the next, tasting the nectar only for a brief time before moving on. They constitute a clear contrast, then, from normal people who can satisfy themselves for most of their lives with adhering to one religion or none at all.
Readers may recall -- as a prime example of this unstable “spiritual seeker” personality -- the egregious Karen Armstrong, who around four years ago entered into a feud with Robert Spencer over a highly dishonest review she wrote for the Financial Times, in which she attacked Spencer’s book The Truth About Muhammad. For example, Armstrong, who is herself the author of two hagiographical works on Muhammad, falsely accused Spencer of not citing earlier verses of the Qur’an -- such as 29:46 -- that counsel tolerance towards Christians and Jews. In fact, Spencer cited 29:46 twice in his book (pg. 17 and pg. 51).
Much of Armstrong’s howling against Robert is rooted in her own anti-Christian bigotry, especially her hostility against the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, Islam has apparently done much to aid her “convalescence”: supposedly, she is recovering from a bad religious experience during her time as a nun, or something. As she put it in an interview with Al-Jazeera on December 20, 2005:
“I really admire the Muslim tradition so much…it was the study of Islam and Judaism, but Islam particularly, that brought me back to a sense of what religion could be at its best…I have absorbed so much of Islam that it has become a part of me…I would describe myself as convalescent; recovering from a bad religious experience by the study of these other traditions which continue to inspire me and feed me.”
Reread the parts highlighted in bold, and before your eyes unfolds a picture of a deeply and hopelessly confused woman.
At the most extreme, “spiritual seekers” turn out to be clinically diagnosable psychopaths such as David Wulstan Myatt, who has been noted before here at Jihad Watch as a neo-Nazi-Satanist-turned-jihadist. Prior to this, Myatt had also practiced Buddhism and Taoism, but now seems to have left Islam for his own harmless lunatic philosophy, which he dubs “The Numinous Way.” This is based on rather bizarre readings of the fragments of pre-Socratic philosophers like Heraclitus.
Today, however, it seems that a successor to Karen Armstrong has arisen in one Lesley Hazleton. Echoing Armstrong's disdain for Christianity, Hazleton has little problem with writing books like Jezebel that disparage Biblical figures, yet thinks it necessary to become an Islamic apologist and to deflect all rational scrutiny of traditional, orthodox interpretations of core Islamic texts. A case in point is a talk she gave to TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design), entitled “On Reading the Koran.” What follows is a fisking of the main misleading distortions in her dreadful lecture:
"You may have heard about the Koran's idea of paradise being 72 virgins.”
On the contrary, it has been noted here and elsewhere that the concept of 72 virgins derives not from the Koran, but from the Hadith:
“None is made to enter Paradise by Allah Most High except Allah Most High shall marry him to seventy-two wives, two of them from the wide-eyed maidens of Paradise and seventy of them his inheritance from the People of Hellfire, not one of them but her attraction never lags nor his arousal ever wanes.” This was narrated by Ibn Majah, Ibn `Adi in the Kamil, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Ba`th wal-Nushur.
As-Suyuti described the above chain of transmission as “fair” in al-Jami al-Saghir.
If Hazleton imagines that this idea is not taken seriously anywhere, how does she explain the fact that in 2004, a would-be Palestinian suicide bomber by the name of Husam Abdu was convinced by his handlers that he would get 72 virgins in Paradise if he were to blow himself up? None of this is to say that the concept of 72 virgins is the correct or dominant view of Jannah across Islamic sects; yet the notion of virgins in Paradise is undeniably well-grounded in mainstream Islam and is found in the Qur’an. Hazleton dismisses as “old-fashioned orientalism” the image of the houris of Jannah as virgins with large eyes or big breasts. Let the Qur’an speak for itself. Take various renderings by Muslims of sura 52, ayah 20:
YUSUF ALI: They will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks; and We shall join them to Companions, with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes.
PICKTHALL: Reclining on ranged couches. And we wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes.
SHAKIR: Reclining on thrones set in lines, and We will unite them to large-eyed beautiful ones.
Are Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir “old-fashioned orientalists,” Lesley?
Meanwhile, in 78:33, we do find that some Muslim translators are so embarrassed about the Arabic word “كَوَاعِبَ” that they disguise its true meaning. For context, we should give 78:31-34, rendered as follows by some non-Muslim translators and two Muslim translators:
Arberry: Surely for those who fear God awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing.
Rodwell: But, for the God-fearing is a blissful abode, Enclosed gardens and vineyards; And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in age, And a full cup.
Al-Hilali and Khan: Verily, for the Muttaqûn, there will be a success (Paradise); Gardens and grapeyards; And young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; And a full cup (of wine).
Note: words in brackets indicate Al-Hilali and Khan’s explanatory parentheses.
In his tafsir on the Qur’an, Ibn Kathir, endorsing the authority of Ibn Abbas, Mujahid and others, writes that 78:33 “means round breasts. They meant by this that the breasts of these girls will be fully rounded and not sagging, because they will be virgins, equal in age.” Is Ibn Kathir likewise an “old-fashioned orientalist,” Lesley?
Anyway, on to her next deception:
“And where the Bible is addressed exclusively to men, using the second and third person masculine, the Koran includes women -- talking, for instance, of believing men and believing women -- honorable men and honorable women.”
As is to be expected, the “feminist” Lesley Hazleton glosses over Qur'anic verses such as 4:34, which affirms:
YUSUF ALI:Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHALL:Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
SHAKIR:Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
The emphasis here is clearly on obedience and male superiority. It is noteworthy that Yusuf Ali and Shakir seem rather embarrassed by the traditional import of the verse, and are thus less blunt than Pickthall. Though Yusuf Ali puts the word “lightly” in brackets after “beat them” in reference to disobedient wives, it should be pointed out that the original Arabic implies nothing of the sort. It just says, “Beat them.” It would be nice if this verse were viewed as only applying to a specific historical context in traditional theology. Yet, for example, the 13th century classical commentator Mahmud Al-Alusi in his commentary Ruhul Ma’ani gives four reasons that any Muslim man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.”
The result of this traditionally interpreted divine sanction is the widespread prevalence of wife-beating in Muslim countries. For instance, Amnesty International reports that “according to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, over 90% of married women report being kicked, slapped, beaten or sexually abused when husbands were dissatisfied by their cooking or cleaning, or when the women had ‘failed’ to bear a child or had given birth to a girl instead of a boy.” Again, pace what many of our opponents like to claim, we are not saying that Al-Alusi's interpretation of 4:34 is necessarily the correct or only view taken amongst theologians of the verse. Nevertheless, it is simply wishful thinking to deny any connection between the ayah and abuse of women in the Islamic world today.
Finally, we come to Lesley Hazleton’s distortion of the traditional doctrine of offensive jihad:
“Or take the infamous verse about killing the unbelievers. Yes, it does say that, but in a very specific context: the anticipated conquest of the sanctuary city of Mecca where fighting was usually forbidden. And the permission comes hedged about with qualifiers.”
It is of course true that taken at face value from an outsider’s perspective, 9:5, to which Lesley is referring, appears to have a specific historical context in referring to the conflict between Muhammad’s followers in Medina and the pagans at Mecca. Nonetheless, the ninth sura, normally considered in traditional theology to be amongst the last verses revealed in Muhammad’s career, is interpreted in the orthodox schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as the culmination of the doctrine of jihad and as abrogating previous verses that may counsel peace. In particular, 9:29 is seen as offering unbelievers three choices: conversion, subjugation under Islamic law and payment of the jizya poll tax, or death. This has been documented numerous times at Jihad Watch, and I see no reason for repetition. Yet suffice it to say that there is a clear continuity between these broad elements of traditional theology on the subject of aggressive warfare and the justifications that modern-day jihadists invoke for their actions.
For example, my aunt’s husband in Baghdad was kidnapped in early 2007 by Tanzim Qaidat Al-Jihad fi Bilad Al-Rafidayn (“Al-Qa’ida in Mesopotamia” -- AQM), which demanded ransom money of $1 million from my family as jizya to fund their jihad. Though he was released after three weeks for only $40,000, others did not get off so easily, such as the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul -- Paulos Faraj Rahho -- who was similarly taken hostage by AQM the following year so as to allow the group to levy jizya from the Christian communities in Mosul. His murder took place in February or March 2008.
Would Lesley Hazleton care to explain why she thinks that Osama Bin Laden, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Tehreek-e-Taliban and a whole host of jihadists, their organizations and cheerleaders amongst Muslims, are all “misunderstanders” of Islam? The point is that non-Muslims are not supposed to make a pretense of knowing what constitutes “true” or “pure” Islam. However, it is useful to see where the jihadists find the basis for justifying what they do. To point out and shed light on their sources is not hateful; nor does it constitute essentializing the entire Islamic religion. If anything, it is pseudo-intellectuals such as Lesley Hazleton and Karen Armstrong who are guilty of the very essentialism they accuse us of practicing. Some readers may well disagree with me at this point, and if you wish to discuss the matter further, you can ask Robert for my e-mail and engage in private correspondence with me.
That said, there is no doubt that Lesley Hazleton, who has proven to be another one of those irritating “spiritual seekers,” has simply taken up Karen Armstrong’s mantra. Hence we can all agree her flimsy apologetics must be exposed.
Westminster Institute Conference [May 25, 2011]: Fighting the Ideological War. Strategies for Defeating al-Qaeda. by Ibn Warraq
Complete article
The overall philosophy or mission of the conference was to educate the public and the government about the ideology of our enemy which is, as the Westminster Institute announced, "well-organized, well-funded, and grounded in the authority of religious texts. The United States therefore has a particularly difficult battle to fight. It is engaged with an enemy who cares first and foremost about the ideological battle—rebuilding a distinct Muslim identity, strengthening the ummah, and defeating the West, both materially and spiritually. Without directly confronting the ideology driving such groups as Al Qaeda, the United States will never be able to defeat the threat of terrorism. Drawing on the expertise of those who were directly involved in the fight against past totalitarian ideologies and of those who are intimately familiar with the ideology and strategy of the current enemy, this conference will draw lessons from the past for today’s fight against Al Qaeda and associated movements.”
Patrick Sookhdeo, author of Global Jihad, and Adjunct Professor at George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, inaugurated the conference with a lucid presentation of the underlying problems in fighting Islamic Terrorism, and offered some tentative solutions. In what follows, I have taken Sookhdeo’s talk as the basis of my analysis. I have added further examples that were not in the original talk, and have fleshed out some of his arguments. Thus the present article should be seen as my own take on the problem, though of course heavily derived from Sookhdeo, and certainly in the spirit of his presentation.
Sookhdeo’s talk was divided into three parts: Confusion, Understanding, and Prospects.
First, he pointed out that our policy makers were confused about what the terrorist ideology was, and thus were unable to take the necessary measures needed to defeat it.
Michael Hayden, who was the Director of the CIA until 2009, declared in 2008 that there had been “significant setbacks for al-Qaida globally - and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically', as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam.” However, as Sookhdeo insisted, “al-Qaeda and radical Islam remain significant and in some cases a growing threat. Al Qaeda has continued to strike in the West and even on US soil, has established new bases and is consolidating existing strongholds, is recruiting new generations of young Muslims and Muslims living in the West. Successes such as the death of Bin Laden will not have a fundamental impact on the underlying issues which continue to make Islamic radicalism a significant force.” In May 2010, the White House released the document “US National Security Strategy, 2010” [NSS, 2010], which declared that “We are at war with a specific network, al-Qa’ida, and its terrorist affiliates”. But nowhere in this document is there a mention of the whole Islamist culture and ideology which justifies terrorism; instead we have a vague enemy called “violence and hatred”: “For nearly a decade,” NSS 2010 tells us, “our Nation has been at war with a far-reaching network of violence and hatred”.
As Katherine Gorka of the Westminster Institute underlined in November 2009, “The 9/11 Commission Report, released in July 2004, clearly stated the nature of the perpetrators and the ideology that was driving them. As Stephen Coughlin, an expert on radical Islam, has recently pointed out, the 9/11 Report used the word Islam 322 times, Muslim 145 times, jihad 126 times, and jihadist 32 times. In sharp contrast, The National Intelligence Strategy of the United States, issued in August 2009, uses the term Muslim 0 times, Islam 0, and jihad 0. Similarly, The FBI Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon, the purpose of which is ‘to standardize the terms used in FBI analytical products dealing with counterterrorism,’ uses the term Muslim 0 times, the term Islam 0 times, and the term jihad 0 times.”
On August 6, 2009, John O. Brennan, Barack Obama's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said “Even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent….Using the legitimate term jihad, which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”
This can only be characterized as appeasement; and what legitimate grievances do Al-Qaeda represent?
A ranking US Defense Department official, speaking at a recent conference: “We are not at war with jihad. Jihad is a legitimate component of Islam.” The muddled thinking behind such statements is clear: “We must not give the impression that we are at war with Islam, a great world religion of peace and tolerance….”.
President Obama in a similar vein indulges in fantasy when he declares, “...we reject the notion that al-Qa’ida represents any religious authority. They are not religious leaders, they are killers; and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.” [NSS, 2010, p.22] British Ambassador to Lebanon, Frances Guy, speaking after the death of the Hezbollah leader Shiekh Muhammad Hussein Falallah, displays his own kind of wishful thinking, “The world needs more men like him willing to reach out across faiths, acknowledging the reality of the modern world and daring to confront old constraints.” President Obama’s ecumenical gush was replied to by Anjem Choudary, the British radical cleric, “There is a place for violence in Islam, there is a place for jihad in Islam...Jihad is the most talked about duty in the Koran after tawhid – belief.”
It is time Western policy makers woke up to the reality of the struggle we are facing: we are not faced with freedom fighters, or latter day Robin Hoods trying re-distribute wealth; we are dealing with ideologues who wish to impose their worldview on the entire globe, and who are willing to use every kind of violence at their disposal. All the violence is justified with references to the Koran, Hadith, and the example of the wars and tactics employed by Muhammad and his Companions.
The West is still consumed with post-colonial guilt, is hampered by political correctness, and wishful thinking. Adding to the confusion have been the geopolitics of oil, and the wars in the Islamic world which have influenced policy adversely -- seeing allies where there are none. President Obama in particular has tried to deny reality, and pursues his goal to win popularity in the Muslim world. There are no quick fixes; we are engaged, as in the Cold War, in a long ideological struggle that is likely to endure for decades. Since poverty is not the problem -- as Khomeini once said, we did not make the revolution to reduce the price of melons -- the solution is not to throw money -- billions of dollars of taxpayer money -- at various Islamic regimes.
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.” — Oriana Fallaci
“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or
“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq
“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.” — Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute
“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.” — Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs
“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.” — Former Congressman Tom Tancredo
“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.” — Raymond Ibrahim
“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.” — Brad Thor, novelist
“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.” — Daniel Pipes
“A brilliant scholar and writer.” — Douglas Murray
“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.” — Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury
“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’” — Neal Boortz
“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.” — Michelle Malkin
“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.” — New York Times
“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.” — Washington Post
“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House in 2012.” — New York Magazine
“A hero of the American right.” — Karen Armstrong
"The go-to Islam expert for the right wing." — Salon Magazine
“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.” — Stephen Suleyman Schwartz
“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.” — Hamas-linked CAIR
“Satanic ignoramus.” — Khaleel Mohammed
“The Likud anti-Christ.” — Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)
“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.” — Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”
Of course I'm serious
