Will the international media and Barack Obama now excoriate Ibrahim Issa for “blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a few,” which is their knee-jerk accusation to anyone who dares suggest that Islamic sacred texts contain incitement to hatred and violence? Will an investigation be opened into “Islamophobia” on Egyptian television?
“Egyptian TV Host Ibrahim Issa: Nobody Dares to Admit That ISIS Crimes Are Based on Islamic Sources,” MEMRI, February 3, 2015 (thanks to Bill):
Following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian journalist and TV host Ibrahim Issa, which aired on ON TV on February 3, 2015:
Ibrahim Issa: Whenever ISIS carries out an act of barbarity, such as decapitations, throat slitting, or the burning of a person alive, as they did today, various sheiks tell you – if they even bother to say anything – that this has nothing to do with Islam, that Islam is not to blame, and whatever. But when the people of ISIS perpetrate slaughter, murder, rape, immolation, and all those barbaric crimes, they say that they are relying on the sharia. They say that this is based on a certain hadith, on a certain Quranic chapter, on a certain saying of Ibn Taymiyyah, or on some historical event. To tell the truth, everything that ISIS says is correct.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone, as a surprise to anyone, and nobody should be shocked by what I am saying. All the evidence and references that ISIS provides to justify its crimes, its barbarity, and its horrifying, criminal, and despicable violence… All the evidence and references that ISIS provides, claiming that they can be found in the books of history, jurisprudence, and law, are, indeed, to be found there, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
[…]
When they kill a person claiming that he is an infidel, when they rape women, when they kill prisoners, and when they slaughter and decapitate people, they say that the Prophet Muhammad said so. Indeed, the Prophet said so! What was the context? The interpretation? That’s a whole different story. None of those [Al-Azhar clerics] who purport to be moderate, and who were told by President Al-Sisi to change the religious discourse, have the courage – not a single grain of courage – to admit that these things are indeed to be found [in Islamic sources] and are [morally] wrong. If it is claimed that a certain companion of the Prophet did this or that, you should respond by saying that he was morally wrong. I would like to see a single Al-Azhar cleric in Egypt have the courage to admit that Abu Bakr burned a man alive. That’s right. He burned Fuja’ah [Al-Sulami]. This is a well-known historical story.
[…]
Was Abu Bakr morally wrong to burn that man alive? Nobody dares to say so. So we are left in this vicious circle, and you can expect more barbarity, because all this barbarity is sacred. It is sacred. This barbarity is wrapped in religion. It is immersed in religion. It is all based on religion. Your mission [as a cleric] is to say that while it is part of our religion, the interpretation is wrong. Do not tell people that Islam has nothing to do with this.
jihad3tracker says
HELLO TO KEITH ELLISON AND ANDRE CARSON ! ! ! DON’T BOTHER TO DENY THAT YOU OBSESSIVELY READ EVERY POST HERE . . .
So, I guess you two fine examples of humanity will now be embarking on a long “virtual” tour to urge imams all other your home states to watch this Egyptian truth teller, and then urge their mosques’ faithful worshippers to get the word out to EVERY MUSLIM IN THOSE STATES.
Right ???? You are going to do this, correct ? Are you there ? Hello ?
Angemon says
Not according to the likes of Obama or Cameron.
Huck Folder says
Sorry Angemon, I hadn’t reached your comment when I made a similar remark.
Angemon says
Hi Huck. I don’t think you need to apologize for that – you’re not required to read the comment section before posting, and even if you were, you’re free to post your opinion, however similar it may be to existing comments.
mortimer says
Fatwa No. 71480
Concerning: The Burning of Ias bin Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr
The scholars differ as to whether this prohibition is for interdiction or just for humility; Ibn Hajar said in [his book] Fath Albari: “..Al Muhallab said: This prohibition is not for interdiction but just for humility, and the proof that burning is allowed is in the acts of the prophet’s companions, the prophet – peace be upon him – burned the eyes of the Oranyeen [from Orayna] with heated iron [nails]. And Abu Bakr burned the aggressors in the presence of the companions, Khalid Bin Alwalid [Muslim Army commander] burned some apostates…(this) is allowed with the NECESSITY as a condition, if it was a way to ACis allowed with the necessity as a condition, if it was a way to ACHIEVE VICTORY UPON THE ENEMY.
…Abu Bakr ordered a fire to be set in the prayer court then he threw him [Ias] in it with his hands tied.
If scholars have different opinions on the prohibition of burning by fire, as we have said, those who objected to burning allowed it in some exceptional cases, but there is no doubt that what Ias Abdul Yalil did was worth burning him [alive]. May Allah REWARD THE CALIPH of the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – for his ZEAL FOR ISLAM.
And Allah knows.
………………………………….
And now we know too: atrocities like this are normative Islam, rather than an aberration.
jihad3tracker says
Greetings again, Mortimer —
David Wood (www.answeringmuslims.com) has a recent post about burning . . . As always, he gets deeply into fetid swamp of Islam’s pathology — citing texts and circumambulatory relevancies.
Peter Buckley says
It should be noted that PC Leftists often refuse to acknowledge the truth when it comes from an “Islamophobic” website such as JW. Therefore, whenever linking to any particular story, it is important to link to the source. Here is the clip on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaHaWta7AFI
This is nothing less than a (secular) MUSLIM admitting that IS are doing precisely what the first muslims did. Again, please forward the youtube clip. Let it “go viral”. Muslims themselves are having to face up to the ugly truth about their religion IN PUBLIC. Islam is collapsing, as predicted by Muhammad himself:
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/Demise-of-Islam.htm
Sagunto says
Ah, it’s all back to “interpretation” and “context”, once again.
To this tv-host, I’d like to ask: exactly how does “context” matter, if the founder of your violent doctrine orders unarmed captives to be slaughtered?
Islamic doctrine leaves two options for a muslim: a) be active, and follow in Mo’s violent footsteps b) be inactive, and be a de facto non-muslim.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag
toni says
Please read this link if people still doubt about how barbaric Islam have genocide billions of people around the world and force conversion and taken over the land written by ex muslim Imam…We all have the duty to protect our freedom in this century to share to all people about the evil of Islam to stand against sharia law into Europe, Canada,Australia, New Zealand, America and many more countries ISLAM is trying to take over please people don’t underestimate Islam is patience and http://madworldnews.com/obama-history-lesson-islam/?fb_comment_id=fbc_640278526101945_640314526098345_640314526098345 to wait for their domination agenda say about 30 years that is the tactic we have to be aware of…
Jaladhi says
Exactly – taqiyya (lying) thy name is Islam!!
lebel says
Easy, one can look to the jewish precedent with moses- the founder of judaism if you will – he ordered his army officers to kill all the male children of the Midianites then kill all the non virgin gilrls and save the others for sexy time for the troops (Numbers 31:15-18) – I think they are “contextualising” this incident these days.
Mirren10 says
As usual the meretricious muslim apologist lebel, is attempting to equate Judaism with islam.
Of course, there are no Jews murdering people on the basis of Numbers 31:15-18 today, but plenty of muslims murdering people on the basis of the Koran *today*. You’re a fool, lebel.
Joseph says
Lebel, YOU ARE A TARD!!!! The Bible is a description. The Koran is a prescription. DO YOU GET THIS???? Stop trying to defend that which can not be defended. Muslims are a bunch of blood-thirsty maggots.
In case you need help, TARD = RETARDED. Get used to it, that’s you!
lebel says
You’re right, there are none. So they managed to get past or ignore the horrible behavior of the founder.
I was answering the previous gentleman’s quesiton: ” exactly how does “context” matter, if the founder of your violent doctrine orders unarmed captives to be slaughtered?”
Thats how context matters, if jews can do it, Muslims can too. Thats what the journalist is trying to say.
Now, back to practicing taqqiya on unsuspecting jwatchers….
Joseph says
Lebel, ONE MORE TIME. The Bible is a description Koran, P R E S C R I P T I O N! Jews and Christians do not go around murdering people in the name of God. If they did the whole world would be trying to wipe them out.
Stop trying to justify Islam. You are selling and we are not buying.
Mirren10 says
”I was answering the previous gentleman’s quesiton: ” exactly how does “context” matter, if the founder of your violent doctrine orders unarmed captives to be slaughtered?”
”Thats how context matters, if jews can do it, Muslims can too. ”
Are you really as stupid as you appear, or do you just hope to snare some unwary newcomer to Jihad Watch, who will take your mendacious nonsense at face value ?
I see no other reason for your consistent, and inept, attempts to whitewash islam and its adherents.
As has been pointed out to you, ad nauseam, and which you *never* attempt to come to grips with, (because you can’t) the commands of ‘allah’ in the koran are for all time, never to be changed or ignored, and prescriptive on all muslims.
”Thats how context matters, if jews can do it, Muslims can too.”
You are deliberately and wilfully ignoring what has been pointed out to you.
Jews can do it because the events described in the Old Testament are descriptive. There is no command in Numbers for the Israelites to continue to search out and murder the Midianites now, in the future, and until the end of time.
For muslims, however, the commands in the koran to destroy the unbelievers wherever you find them are prescriptive, now, in the future, and for all time.
Which is why muslims are murdering non-muslims all over the world, now, and will continue to do so, because that is what they are ordered to do; ”until all the world is for allah”.
Of course, you, lebel, are perfectly well aware of this. You are merely trying to obfuscate and deflect. How intellectually, and in every other way, dishonest you are.
Sagunto says
Hi Mirren10,
In your feb 11 comment, you said:
Angemon says
lebel posted:
“Easy, one can look to the jewish precedent with moses- the founder of judaism if you will – he ordered his army officers to kill all the male children of the Midianites then kill all the non virgin gilrls and save the others for sexy time for the troops (Numbers 31:15-18) – I think they are “contextualising” this incident these days.”
The destruction of the Midianites was ordered because they treated Moses as an enemy (Numbers 25:16-18). And it was clear who should be destroyed – the Midianites, a specific set of people in a specific time. In the quran, a command is given for muslims to fight non-muslims until the end of times, and it’s not because the non-muslims have treated the muslims as an enemy. Hardly the same situation.
Jay Boo says
Islam is laughable beyond belief.
Except for its violence and intimidation it would already be deceased.
Vanity prevents Muslims from admitting this.
It is only natural to expect:
Followers of Islam Behead, Burn, Crucify, or force conversations and kill those wishing to leave,
or murder their own children in the name of Allah.
Islam, It hides its true face then comes in the darkness as a murderous thief.
Huck Folder says
@Jay Boo et al:
“Except for its violence and intimidation it would already be deceased.”
From your lips to Qaradawi’s ears – or vice versa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi
“In February 2013, on an episode of Shariah and Life show, which broadcast on Al-Jazeera, Qaradawi stated since the 15th century, the application of the DEATH PENALTY for those who leave Islam is a NECCESSITY, stating, “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment Islam wouldn’t exist today.””
All the horrid details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
But a ray of hope here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Muslims
Charli main says
I hope this man has a bag packed and ready to go. I rate his chances of medium term survival at less than zero.
There is going to be a zillion peace loving Muslims desperate to get a one way ticket to Allah’s whore house in the sky, sweet little boys and a large herd of sexy female goats.
terry says
I was about to say the same thing, that this man’s life is in danger unless, of course, he takes all necessary precautions.
cs says
Now and then we see a honest man talking. It is very unfortunate, people do not realize that.
Jaladhi says
Nobody dare say ISIS crimes are based on Islam because ” Muslims don’t think these are crimes” for them its a holy work done for spreading Islam- a duty for all Muslims. If it involves killing infidels that is acceptable. But they don’t want infidels to know that since it will be an insult to Islam and Mo/allah. Murderers !!
mortimer says
Islam has nothing to do with Islam.
A ≠ A.
jewdog says
Some of the people in the Muslim countries have far more awareness than the normally clueless idiots here at home. We have decent people like this guy and then we have informed, but morally depraved true believers. When the decent and informed skeptics are numerous enough, there will be change.
Beagle says
Great point. For over a decade I have preferred Muslim critics far more than the leftist (but not only leftist) liars in government, media, entertainment, and education.
The professional deceivers make the lives of the honest critics of Islam impossible by denying the need for real reform
Though many aver otherwise, not all Muslims are fanatical or practicing taqiyya. Ibrahim here sounds like a straight shooter.
Hope he survives the week.
Matthieu Baudin says
Likewise to Jewdog and Beagle; Bravo Ibrahim Issa for integrity and courage.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
To tell the truth, everything that ISIS says is correct.
What we have here is an informational no-go zone, where the academics and news entertainers dare not put boots on the ground to talk about the fact that ISIS is only doing its duty assigned by Allah. It’s gotten to the point that the regular people are starting to draw the conclusion that what the Moslem activists say is right: ISIS (and Al-Qaeda, and the rest of them) are doing their duty by Allah.
But there is that critical middle layer holding the critical lever of control over information, our Elites, who insist on continuing to dwell in fantasy land. Orwell’s double think = cognitive dissonance = betrayal, and we’re being betrayed in the worst way, in the newspaper and on the TV set.
Beagle says
Ibrahim Issa is a brave man and truth teller. So I figure his punishment will be swift and harsh. Good luck, Ibrahim.
Sheri says
Wow! Didi I ever have a ‘Charlie Manson” flashback.
bobm says
the condition of reproductive thrall would seem to describe the state of blood bliss islam enters into .. like some kind of Klingon rite… it is observed with popular ignorance by the majority… in denial if required as it would be inappropriate to bring attention to this copulatory blood sport .. returned to in season like dogs returning to their vomit..it must be the dogs fault…as surely as the heats of the flesh must be satiated.. islam must have its’ jihad… for the sake of the whole .
BC says
A remarkably courageous man. This is the equivalent of saying on radio ‘Hitler is a lunatic’ in Nazi Germany. Of course nobody was allowed to say anything on radio in those days except Goebbels.
Jae says
This man is very courageous. Sad that we live in a day when simply telling the truth is an act of courage….but we do. Sadder still is that our leaders are deny the truth and thus support such heinous, evil, barbaric criminal ideology. The illogical insanity that is being shoved in our faces is beyond understanding. God help us.
Laila says
SHIA PEN:
REVEALING THE TRUTH
Ch 8: EXAMPLES OF SUNNI MORALITY
As we stated in the previous chapter, Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have made a big mistake by attempting to argue that Shi’ite hadeeth literature legitimises immorality. All that we have discussed leaves no doubt that Mut’ah is in no way immoral, and that it was sanctioned by Allah (swt) and His Prophet (s). Conversely, the Sunni hadeeth literature abounds with some of the most lurid and disgusting tales. The Sunni fiqh is, at times, even worse. Some notable examples of the public immorality of some companions and Sunni ‘ulama are given below, as well as some of the blasphemous stories attributed to the Holy Prophet (s) himself. For the sake of taste, we would normally not bring such issues up; but Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi have uttered words of utter blasphemy against Allah, His Prophet, and His Religion, as well as forging numerous hadeeths against them. Since Dr. Salamah has decided to make a moral argument, than we will see how “moral” the Sunni belief system, hadeeth literature, and law is:
(1) First example of Sunni morality
SALAFI “ULAMA RULED THAT MASTURBATION (WANKING) IS HALAL
Shamsuddin Ibn Qayyim al Jawziya who is one of the only scholars that the Wahabis do not reject and who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya. Let us quote what he writes in his Bada’i al-Fuwa’id, page 129:
“Ibn ‘Aqeel, and many of our scholars, and our Shaykh [Ibn Taymiyya] have ruled that masturbation is makruh (disliked), and never explicitly said he that it was haram”.
Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 129
He then presents his own discussion on the conditions that make masturbation halaal:
“If a man is torn between continued desire or releasing it, and if this man does not have a wife or he has a slave-girl but he does not marry, then if a man is overwhelmed by desire, and he fears that he will suffer because of this (someone like a prisoner, or a traveller, or a pauper), then it is permissible for him to masturbate, and Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) is explicit on this. Furthermore, it is narrated that the Companions of the Prophet (s) used to masturbate while they were on military expeditions or travelling”.
COMMENT:
The polytheists at the dawn of Islam must have been terrified by that scene: an army of pious companions, their pants nice and short, their beards stretching down to their wastes, their swords held high with one hand while they heartily masturbate with the other. If this was the type of scene going on, we might be able to understand why so many companions refused to go on jihad. Would Dr. Salamah march off to battle with only an army of masturbators to protect him? Or was this tactic of masturbatory jihad supposed to be some sort of an offensive stratagem, to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy? Indeed, these companions were masters at the art of war!
We appeal for justice: who is promoting debauchery, the Sunnis or the Shi’a? There are a lot of Ahkam surrounding travelling mentioned by the Prophet (s) and the Imams (as): the obligation to pray two rakaat for zuhr instead of four, or the obligation to break one’s fast. This Sunni ‘alim, who is one of the singularly most distinguished Sunni’ ulama and is adored by the Wahabis, has offered another hukm for travelling the permissibility of masturbating. And yet when a Shi’a says that a man is allowed to contract temporary marriage in order to satisfy his desires, Dr. Salamah passes a hukm of takfir. One is allowed to masturbate but not contract a temporary marriage? Is this not the peak of insanity?
(2) Second example of Sunni morality:
SUNNI ‘ULAMA LEGITIMISED THE USE OF DILDOS (FEMALE SEX TOYS)
After this ingenious fatwa, Ibn Qayyim then goes on to make permissible the use of a dildoe by women. It is only logical; when the husbands leave to go masturbate and spread Islam by the sword, they need something to do with themselves. On the same page as quoted above, Ibn Qayyim writes:
“If a woman does not have a husband, and her lust becomes strong, then some of our scholars say: It is permissible for the woman to take an akranbij, which is a piece of leather worked until it becomes shaped like a penis, and insert it in herself. She may also use a cucumber”.
COMMENT:
Now, according to Dr. Salamah’s logic, the Saudi government should therefore purchase a large number of such dildoes, and distribute them to old widows or otherwise unattractive women who cannot marry. Since anything that is permissible, according to Dr. Salamah, requires stand sanction and support, than clearly a dildoe distribution office needs to be immediately established in the great Islamic state of Saudi Arabia.
Maybe this is another reason why ‘Umar the Khalifa never went on jihad: somebody had to stay behind and organize the cucumber distribution.
(3) Third example of Sunni morality –
SUNNI ‘ULAMA HAVE RULED ON PERMISSIBILITY OF HAVING SEX WITH WATERMELONS
That was not a typographical error. Ibn Qayyim continues this discussion, which exemplifies the morals espoused by Sunni Islam:
“If a man makes a hole in a watermelon, or a piece of dough, or a leather skin, or a statue, and has sex with it, then this is the same as what we have said about other types of masturbation [i.e., that it is halaal in the same circumstances given before, such as being on a journey]. In fact, it is easier than masturbating with one’s hand”.
COMMENT:
All the Muslims should certainly be grateful that Ibn Qayyim has offered this advice on the easiest way to masturbate, and clearly Ibn Qayyim has done a lot of personal research on this issue. This is the ruling of the “saved sect”: Contracting temporary marriage with a woman is haram, but contracting temporary marriage with a watermelon is halaal. In his defence, perhaps Ibn Qayyim only meant that it is allowed to marry a watermelon with the intent of divorcing it, for doing Mut’ah with a watermelon would clearly be an act of fornication.
Let us remember the words of Dr. Salamah quoted at the beginning of this book:
Mut’ah, on the other hand, is an open license for sexual pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford. The women who engage in Mut’ah are hired women; thus, it can be performed with all women irrespective of their age, character, conduct or religion. It requires no witnesses, nor is there any obligation on the man’s part to provide food and shelter to the woman.
• Well, it seems that in the Nasibi logic having sex with as many women as one can afford is utterly immoral, but having sex with as many watermelons as one can afford is not. Based on this, let us ask him some questions about the Ahkam related to having sex with watermelons: Are there any conditions as to the age of the watermelon? For example, is it allowed to perform a marriage with the intent to divorce with a newly grown watermelon, or must one wait until the watermelon is nine years old?
• Must it be a pious watermelon, or is it permissible to contract a marriage with the intent to divorce with a watermelon that is known to “get around”?
• May a pious brother share his watermelon with another pious brother, or would the second man’s marriage with the intent to divorce constitute an act of fornication unless the watermelon observes proper ‘iddah?
• Are witnesses required in the marriage with the intent to divorce of a watermelon? May other watermelons serve as witnesses in that marriage, since according to Sunni fiqh all marriages require witnesses? Applying the Sunni principle of Qiyas (analogy), we can strongly argue that if it is allowed to marry (with intention of divorce) a watermelon, than certainly it is allowed for a watermelon to bear witness to another watermelon’s blessed and chaste marriage.
• What about oranges?
Really, we have to ask all reasonable Muslims: would you rather follow ‘ulama that rule on the permissibility of having sex with fruits and vegetables, or follow the pious path of the Holy Imams (as), of whom Allah (swt) has said:
We intend, O Family of the Prophet, to remove from you all impurity, and to give you a through purification.
Al-Qur’an, Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 33
Does somebody who spends his time thinking about whether or not it is permissible to have sex with watermelons really sound like somebody who has been removed of all impurity? Why is Ibn Qayyim even thinking about such things? What kind of personal life does such a person have that would lead him to debate such issues in his mind? What happened in Ibn Qayyim’s life that one day he woke up and said: “I really need to find out if its halaal to have sex with watermelons.” Is the type of clergymen who openly rules for the permissibility of having sex with watermelons (with conditions, of course, such as that one is on a journey) be the kind of person you would want to meet in a dark alley, much less do taqlid of?
(4)Fourth example of Sunni morality –
A SALAFI WOMAN CAN SUCKLE A SALAFI MAN WITH A BEARD
We read in Sahih Muslim Hadith Number 3426:
Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. ‘Amr came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.
COMMENT:
This reference is especially for Dr Salamah who has accused the Shi’a of being filthy proponents of Mut’ah, what right do you have to attack us when have the above Fatwa of Ayesha allowing your women to suckle men with beards so as to make them mahram? How many pubescent Salafi men has your mother suckled so that they can enter your house? When your madhab allows your mothers / daughters to breast feed men with beards what gives you the right to attack the practice of Mut’ah? If today any Nasibi tries to suggest that this practice no longer exists in their school and it was only Ayesha who had issued the fatwa then we shall present the thoughts of their Imam Ibn Tamiyah as quoted by one of the revered scholars of Salafies Ibn Uthaimeen:
واختار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيميه رحمه الله التفصيل وقال إذا دعت الحاجة إلى إرضاع الكبير وأرضع ثبت التحريم
“Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymia (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) chosed to explain in details and said that if the breast suckling by an adult was necessary and he suckled, then the prohibition (of marriage) is established.”
Fatawa Nur Ala Aldarb, Volume 10 page 204
Imam Ibn Hazm records:
ورضاع الكبير محرم ولو انه شيخ يحرم كما يحرم رضاع الصغير
“The breast suckling by an adult prohibits (marriage) even if he is an old man just like it prohibits (marriage) in the case of suckling by a child”
Al-Muhala, Volume 10 page 17
Now compare this morality to the comments of a contemporary Salafi scholar from “Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women” compiled by Muhammed al-Musnad and translated by Jamal Zarabozo. In Chapter 19, Questions of a Miscellaneous Nature under the sub heading Ruling Concerning Women Driving Automobiles’, Imam of the Salafi Nasibi Shaykh bin Baz stated:
There have been numerous questions concerning the ruling of women driving automobiles. The response is the following:
There is no doubt that such is not allowed. Women driving leads to many evils and negative consequences. Included among these is her mixing with men without her being on her guard. It also leads to the evil sins due to which such an action is forbidden. The Pure Law forbids those acts that lead to forbidden acts and considers those means to be forbidden also. Allah has ordered the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the women of the believers to remain in their houses, to wear hijab and not to display their adornments to non-mahram males as that leads to promiscuity that overruns a society.
Now on the one side these moralistic Salafi have this kind of fatawa prohibiting their women from (Allah forbid) driving a car as this may cause promiscuity, and on the other hand they deem it permissible for their women to suckle men with beards! Women driving ‘leads to many evils and negative consequences’, but if the same women were to remain at home suckling men with beards, that’s fine!
(5) Fifth example of Sunni morality –
BESTIALITY CAN BE PERFORMED DURING HAJJ
Sunni Imam Abu Bakar al-Kashani (d. 587 H) records in his authority work ‘Badaye al-Sanae’ Volume 2 page 216:
ولو وطئ بهيمة لا يفسد حجه
“If he had sexual intercourse with an animal that will not make his hajj void”
(6) Sixth example of Sunni morality –
PEDOPHILIA, BESTIALITY & NECROPHILIA CAN BE PERFORMED WHILST ONE IS FASTING
In Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603:
“It was narrated by Ahmed that a man came to him that feared that he would ejaculate while he was fasting. Ahmed said: “What I see is that he can release semen without ruining the fast, he can masturbate using his hands or the hands of his wife, If he has an “Ammah” whether be it a girl or a little child, she can masturbate for him using her hands, and if she was a non-believer, he can sleep with her without releasing (his semen), if he released it in her, it becomes impermissible”.
Bada’i al-Fuwa’id of Ibn Qayyim, page 603
Not to be hard done by, the Hanafi’s follow suit. In Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820, the learned Hanafi scholar Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan sets out those acts that do not invalidate one’s fast, and he includes:
“Sex with animals, dead people and masturbation, does not invalidate one’s fast provided ejaculation does not occur”
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Page 820
COMMENT:
What can we say about such Fatwas of morality? Fasting in Islam, is viewed as a means via which a believer purifies himself, via self-discipline, he dedicates that time to the remembrance of Allah (swt) and keeps aloof from sinful thoughts and acts. That is the theory, but the Hanbali and Hanafi madhab allows a man (whilst fasting) to have sex with kaffir women, animals, and dead people, the only proviso being that no ejaculation takes place! Ibn Hanbal was however more considerate to his adherents allowing for a man to ejaculate whilst fasting, providing the deed is achieved via masturbation, and to this end he can do it himself, or seek the help of his wife or a small child! Is this is not evidence that Ibn Hanbal was endorsing paedophilia? Would any decent man (Muslim or Non Muslim) find it appropriate to use a child for sexual stimulation? If we put together these type of fatwas one shudders to think of the image of these great Salaf, entering the war whilst fasting, their buttocks exposed, having sex with melons at the ready. This image would have terrified the opposition!
(7) Seventh Example of Sunni morality –
THE PERMISSIBILITY OF PRAYING BEHIND A DRUNKEN PERSON
According to the great Salafi Ibn Taymiyyah, it is entirely permissible to pray behind a drunkard. We read in the his Majmu’ al-Fatawa, p. 271
The Companions would pray behind people whom they knew to be open transgressors, such as when Abd ‘Allah ibn Mas’ud and other Companions would pray behind Walid ibn ‘Uqba ibn Abi Mu’it, who may have recently drunken alcohol (when he was praying) and would wind up praying four rakaats.
COMMENTARY:
The salat is the pillar of the religion, and yet here we see it being stated that it is permissible to pray behind someone who is drunk at the time, and who is so intoxicated that he prays four rakaats for the morning prayer. Yet let us remember that, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, it is entirely impermissible to pray behind a Shi’a!
(8) Eighth Example of Sunni morality –
THE PERMISSIBILITY TO PAY FOR SEX, WITHOUT FEAR OF ISLAMIC PUNISHMENT
We read in Dur al-Mukhthar, Volume 2, Page 474 (a compilation of the great Fatwas of Imam Abu Hanifa) as follows:
We read in Fathul Qadeer that if a man informs a woman that he is paying her for sex then he cannot be subject to any manner of Islamic penalty.
Dur al-Mukhtar, Volume 2, page 474
It is indeed sad to say that the Hanafi madhab whilst catering for a man’s sexual appetite is very prejudicial to monkeys. In Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188 we read the very sad plight of this immoral, promiscuous monkey:
Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
If this Hanafi had paid this she monkey for sex he would have been absolved of any Islamic penalty, whilst this poor she monkey who releases her animal instincts is stoned to death!
(9) Ninth example of Sunni Morality Fatwa of Abu Hanifa on –
THE PERMISSIBILITY OF HAVING SEX WITH ONE’S MOTHER
Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan writes in his book of fatwa, Volume 4, p. 820:
Of things which are haram but for which there is no Islamic penalty, these include… marrying your wife’s sister, or her mother, or a woman who is already married.
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, page 820
On the very next page Qadhi Khan records a classic Fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa
“if a person marries a mahram (mother, sister, daughter, aunt etc.) and has sexual intercourse with them and even admits the fact that he knew while performing the marital rites that it was Haraam for him to do that even then according to Imam Abu Hanifa, he is not subject to any type of Islamic penalty”.
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 4, Ppage 821
We read in another authority Hanafi work, Fatwa Alamgiri:
“If someone marries five women at a time or marries a fifth woman while already having four wives or marries his sister in law or mother in law and then performs intercourse with her and then says that I knew that it is haram for me or performs nikah al mutah with a woman then there will be no plenty of adultery on him in all of these situations though he confessed that he knew it was haram on him”
Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 3 page 264
COMMENTARY
Let us understand this then: in accordance with the fatwa of ‘Umar, the Sunni position is that anybody who contract Mut’ah should be executed. However, if somebody marries his mother, not just commits incest, but actually pronounces a formal marriage, there is no penalty for that person.
This should demonstrate the degree to which Sunni Islam is nothing but an artificial construction, designed solely to be a bulwark against the mission of the Ahl al-Bayt (as). When a sincere reader sees that these individuals have ruled that there is no Islamic penalty for marrying one’s mother, but that there is for doing Mut’ah, does not reason dictate that such fatwas about Mut’ah are motivated only by bigotry and hatred of the Shi’a? When a Sunni rules that it is permissible to pray behind a drunk person who is so intoxicated he can’t even keep track of the number of rakaats he has prayed, but then says that it is not permissible to pray behind a sober Shi’a, what should one think? Does this seem like the religion of the Prophet (s), or the religion of a group of hate-filled scholars?
(10) Tenth example of Sunni morality –
THE “HONOURABLE” TACTIC OF AMR BIN AAS TO SURVIVE IMMINENT DEATH ON THE BATTLEFIELD
As we are intending on highlighting the morals presented by a favourite of the Salafi and Nasibi we have chosen to rely on the following authentic Sunni sources:
1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, Volume 7 page 293
2. Al Akhbar at Tawaal, page 177 Dhikr Sifeen
3. Al Manaqib al Khwarizmi page 162 Dhikr Sifeen
4. Al Fusul al Muhimma, page 91 Dhikr Sifeen
5. Tadhkira al Khawwas al Ummah, page 51 Dhikr Sifeen
6. Mutalib al Saul, page 122 Dhikr Sifeen
7. Nur al Absar, page 94 Dhikr Sifeen
8. Aqd al Fareed, page 235 Dhikr Sifeen
9. Al Imam wa al Siyasa, page 99 Dhikr Sifeen
We read in al Bidaya:
“One day ‘Ali attacked Amr ibn Aas, he threw a spear and Amr fell to the ground, Amr fell to the ground and he then exposed his buttocks. ‘Ali then turned away his face [people said] this was Amr bin Aas. ‘Ali replied he showed me his anus and this made me merciful to him. When Amr ibn Aas returned, Mu’awiya said ‘You should praise Allah and your anus”.
Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, Volume 7 page 293
Allamah Abu Hanifa Ahmed bin Dawud Dinori in ‘Akhbar al Tawaal’ has reported the flashing incident in the same manner, with the words of Mu’awiya to his beloved Commander as follows:
“You should shower praises on Allah (swt) and that black anus that saved your life today”
COMMENT:
Islam has a code of ethics for all scenarios, including behaviour during Jihad, we are yet to find any code wherein Rasulullah (s) authorised the Sahaba to expose their buttocks as a means of sickening the opposition! In Karachi a Nasibi scholar said to his blind followers ‘Had Mu’awiya not entered on the plains of Sifeen the entire continent of Europe would have been conquered’. We agree with this conclusion but it would have been achieved through the battle tactics of Amr ibn Aas, since not even the greatest military tactitioner would not have accounted for this ‘shock and awe’ tactic! Our appeal to our Rafidi brethren is to control the illiterates in our community from throwing mud at Amr ibn Aas for this immoral act: after all had Amr not survived that day, who would have been enlightened enough to place the Qur’an on spears? Who would have dishonestly made Mu’awiya the khalifa during the negotiations? The Salafi are no doubt ever indebted to Amr bin Aas, for all future events such the rise to power of their fifth Khalifa Mu’awiya as Khalifa was all through the Sadaqa of the anus of Amr ibn Aas.
Jae M says
Wow. You really did your research. The stuff they believe is much worse than I once thought. Yikes.
Laila says
AN ISLAMIC MARRIAGE COURSE:
When a young Muslim tells his father he wants to get married, his father tells him to “come out back & I will teach you a few tricks”!
He cuts a branch off a tree & gathers a pile of rocks.
“Now son, on your wedding night, when she comes on all “lovey dovey”, give her the Mother of All Beatings”. She will begin to cry,
“But I didn’t do anything wrong”!
But you tell her, “That’s in case you EVER think of doing anything wrong”!
The father tells him, “Son, in Islam we marry the VAGINA, THE PUSSY & its to be always ready for us to “play” with:
RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER:
A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW
Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri
w45.0 A WIFE’S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS (from m5.I, end)
A WIFE’S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE SHAFI’I SCHOOL
*
w45.1 (Abu Ishaq Shirazi:) A woman is not obliged to serve her husband by baking, grinding flour, cooking, washing, or any other kind of service, because the marriage contract entails, for her part, ONLY THAT SHE LET HIM ENJOY HER SEXUALLY, and she is not obligated to do other than that. (A: Rather, it is considered sunna in our school for the wife to do the housework, and the husband (who is obliged to support her) to earn the living, since this is how the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) divided the work between Fatima and ‘Ali (Allah be well pleased with them)) (alMuhadhdhab fi fiqh ai-Imam al-Shafi’i (yI25), 2.68).
A WIFE’S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE HANAFI SCHOOL
w45.2 (Nahlawi:) The wife’s serving her husband at home-by cooking, cleaning, and baking bread-is religiously obligatory for her, and if she does not, she is committing a sin, though it is not something that she may be forced to do by the court (al-Durar al-mubaha fi ai-hazr wa ai-ibaha
(y99),I72).
“Now son, if you tell her you want to “play” with PUSSY, then she has to drop everything, especially her knickers & get up them stairs”.
“If she doesn’t, then give her a couple of wallops of the stick & that will teach her manners.”
“And what are the rocks for Dad?”
“Well son, there might come a time when she feels like running away & you have to defend your HONOR. This is were the rocks come in handy.
Dig a big hole in the backyard; put her into a sack & hop the rocks of her head. She won’t run away again”!
“Women have a knack of having a “headache”, when you want your “iron”!
“Well, just show her the stick & rocks & tell her,
“I’ll give you all the headaches you want, if you don’t behave yourself!
Get up them stairs & warm the bed. I’m feeling horny just thinking about it”!
WE NEED TO PRODUCE TEE SHIRTS WITH THIS LOGO – ALLAH ROCKS!
AND A PICTURE OF A BLOODY HEAD STICKING UP FROM THE GROUND, WITH ROCKS ALL AROUND IT.
Lia Wissing says
Mr Issa, you suffer from the very same things as your president: honesty and bravery. Do you have protection against the IS murderers/ It is important, because we/the West need to hear you loud & clear, from presidents down to streetsweepers.
TH says
If they are going to rinterpret Islamic barbaic texts, then it will be a case of “the operation was a success, but the patient is dead”.
terry says
Wow! How did you arrive at this?
It really sums up the argument for and against the possibility of Islam being reformed!
Aaron says
Didn’t Abu Bakr say later in life, “I wish that I had not burned al-Fuja’a al-Sulami and that I had quickly killed him or for-bearingly let him go”?
Laila says
NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION?
Apostasy
Question:
Does Islam proscribe the death penalty for Muslims who wish to embrace another religion?
Summary Answer:
Those who turn their back on Islam are to be executed. This is confirmed by the words and deeds of Muhammad. The only freedom of belief in Islam is the freedom to become Muslim.
The Qur’an:
Qur’an (4:89) – “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
Qur’an (9:11-12) – “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.”
Other verses that seem to support the many Hadith demanding death for apostates are Qur’an verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.
From the Hadith:
The reason why executing apostates has always been well-ensconced in Islamic law is that there is an indisputable record of Muhammad and his companions doing exactly that according to the reliable Hadith. According to verse 4:80 of the Quran: “Whoso obeyeth the Messenger obeyeth Allah.”
Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.
Bukhari (83:37) – “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”
Bukhari (84:57) – [In the words of] “Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”
Bukhari (89:271) – A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to “the verdict of Allah and his apostle.”
Bukhari (84:58) – “There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, ‘Who is this (man)?’ Abu Muisa said, ‘He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.’ Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, ‘I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.’ Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, ‘Then we discussed the night prayers'”
Bukhari (84:64-65) – “Allah’s Apostle: ‘During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'”
Abu Dawud (4346) – “Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?” Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to “repent” under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad’s former scribe who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine “revelations” upon finding out that he could suggest grammatical changes. He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).
al-Muwatta of Imam Malik (36.18.15) – “The Messenger of Allah said, “If someone changes his religion – then strike off his head.”
Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 – “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).
Islamic Law:
There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the disbeliever is called a murtad.
Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: “An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din [religion]’…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution.”
The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”
The equivalent, gravely negative implications of the OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims: “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.” Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called “apostates” from Islam: “[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.; [22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.; [22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.”
From Andrew Bostom’s CAIR’s Silence on Pastor’s Apostasy Death Sentence is Deafening
In 2012, the website, Islam QA, offered a studied defense of killing apostates and “enemies of Islam” which was captured by Jihad Watch: Apostates from Islam and Those Who Wage War Verbally on Islam Must be Put to Death
Additional Notes:
While the rest of the world generally believes that if God wanted people dead over their religious beliefs then he would do the job himself, apostasy is taken so seriously by Muslims that it spawned the first of many major internal wars.
Immediately after Muhammad’s death, several tribes wanted to leave Islam and return to their preferred religion. In a conflict known as the Riddah (apostasy) Wars, they were slaughtered in such places remembered as “Garden of Death” and “Gulley of Blood” during the first caliph Abu Bakr’s aggressive and violent campaign to force submission (and keep the tribute payments flowing back to Mecca, of course). Within months, a great many people were dead, including Muslims who had memorized the Qur’an by heart.
As Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s closest companion, explained in a letter at the time, his prophet “struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.” Thus did Abu Bakr promise to “burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive” any who left Islam. (al-Tabari v10 p.55-57)
Ali, the fourth “Rightly Guided Caliph” was Muhammad’s son-in-law and one of the first converts to Islam. He also had people burned alive for wanting to follow their conscience. An old man named Rumahis b. Mansur, who regretted leaving Christianity and vowed not to remain a Muslim, was beheaded by Ali. (al-Tabari v.17 p.191).
In 1400 years, there has never been a system of Islamic law that did not prescribe the death penalty for any Muslim choosing to leave Islam. Even in modern, ostensibly secular Islamic countries with constitutions “guaranteeing” freedom of religion, there is de facto enforcement of this law with intimidation and the occasional murder of apostates.
A sound philosophy never requires violence or threats to retain believers. Contemporary Muslim apologists sometimes find it embarrassing that their religion – and theirs alone – endorses killing over a change in opinion (as critic Geert Wilders puts it, “Any religion that invites you in but then will not let you out is no longer a religion”). As such there are various tricks played to deny or explain away this weak and draconian which is so well-ensconced in Islamic tradition.
Such defenders usually quote verse 2:256 to Western audiences. The verse states “Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out from error.” They may also include a fragment of verse 10:99-100, “Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?” What they don’t say is that Muslim scholars agree that both verses were spoken by Muhammad during an earlier time in his teachings, when he did not have the power to compel others. They are abrogated by later verses, such as verse 9:29, which clearly commands Muslims to fight unbelievers until they relent and either accept Islam or a state of humiliation under Islamic rule (an obvious illustration of compulsion).
These apologists also ignore the actions of Muhammad at Mecca and those of his companions following his death, particularly the bloody Ridda Wars. How could those closest to him have felt that there should be “no compulsion in religion” if they were instructed to kill anyone who wanted to leave Islam? How could the mandated killing of apostates have become a part of Islamic law?
The “Religion of Peace” expanded across the globe by conquering people of other religions and then making life miserable for those who didn’t “embrace Islam.” Once spoken, a person was locked into the faith. Any sign of false witness – such as raising their children in another faith – was punished with death. Thus did Islam gradually supplant other religions.
One of the world’s most respected Sunni scholars, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, admitted in 2012 that if Muslims had “gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today”. (Astonishingly enough, he was not apologizing for the beheading, torture, burning and murder of millions but rather trying to justify it).
And, while some apologists bend the truth in order to distance Islam from one of its most draconian rules, one of the world’s most popular recently affirmed that the death penalty should be applied to those who leave Islam and share their faith with others. (Ironically Zakir Naik made his comments on a British television channel called Peace TV).
At the end of the day, even Muslims who insist that the mandate to kill apostates from Islam isn’t a part of the “true” religion, never appear all that bothered when it does happen, nor do they champion the right of other religions to evangelize in Muslim countries; In fact, they discourage it. They know as well as anyone that Islam cannot compete within the arena of free ideas and must rely on brute force at some level to retain believers.