A sermon delivered by popular Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid clearly demonstrates why Western secular relativists and multiculturalists — who currently dominate media, academia, and politics — are incapable of understanding, much less responding to, the logic of Islamic intolerance.
During his sermon, al-Munajjid said that “some [Muslim] hypocrites” wonder why it is that “we [Muslims] don’t permit them [Western people] to build churches, even though they allow mosques to be built.” The Saudi sheikh responded by saying that any Muslim who thinks this way is “ignorant” and
wants to equate between right and wrong, between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], monotheism and shirk [polytheism], and gives to each side equal weight, and wants to compare this with that, and he asks: “Why don’t we build them churches like they build us mosques? So we allow them this in return for that?” Do you want another other than Allah to be worshiped? Do you equate between right and wrong? Are Zoroastrian fire temples, Jewish temples, Christian churches, monks’ monasteries, and Buddhist and Hindu temples, equal to you with the houses of Allah and mosques? So you compare this with that? And you equate this with that? Oh! Unbelievable, for he who equates between Islam and kufr[non-Islam], and Allah said: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers” (Koran 3:85). And Prophet Muhamad said: “By Him in whose hand is the life of Muhamad (By Allah) he who amongst the Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent, and dies in his state (of disbelief), he shall be of the residents of Hellfire.”
What’s interesting about the sheikh’s zealous diatribe is that, although “intolerant” from a Western perspective, it is, in fact, quite logically consistent and reveals the wide gap between Islamic rationalism and Western fantasy (despite how oxymoronic this dichotomy might sound).
If, as Munajjid points out, a Muslim truly believes that Islam is the only true religion, and that Muhammad is its prophet, why would he allow that which is false (and thus corrupt, cancerous, misleading, etc.) to exist alongside it? Such gestures of “tolerance” would be tantamount to a Muslim who “wants to equate between right and wrong,” as the sheikh correctly deplores… Keep reading
Marken says
The sheik is right of course, he is correctly teaching the fabricated lie of Islam.
Let me guess, in a part 2 “sermon” his sheik-ness would seamlessly “reason” why the non-hypocritical Mohammadan should show hardness (harass, force conversion, force taxation, kill) toward these same nice kufr mosque builders…
Hard to believe Mohammadans need to be enlightened to the basic tenets of Islam…the sermon is just a reminder for those who would stray.
Jay Boo says
It is unbelievable that non-Muslims still need to be enlightened that Islam is not equal to ‘other’ religions.
Islam is such unmitigated filth.
The name (Muhammad) is a constant reminder of Islam’s disgrace.
All Muslims should bow the heads in shame and lie prostrate against the floor like a lowly snake beneath the soles of our boots in symbolic submission and repentance for following the shameful example of the Serpent of Satan.
Marken says
Yep, and everyday the non-Mohammadans are messaged media and government ‘sermons’ about how swell Islam is.
It helps keep non-Mohammadans paving the way to their own annihilation. Any non-Mohammadan in leadership, still peddling the ‘virtuous Islam’ product should by now know this and has no excuse to not know it. That ‘leader’ should be referred to as a traitor and scum not courteously labeled as ignorant and naive.
Scott M says
Totally agree – islam is shitslam. It is the most vile ideology since Nazism and probably worse. I also cannot ‘get’ how with all that is going on – some people still defend and apologise for this filthy disgusting brain-washing cult. shitslam must be destroyed.
Angemon says
What’s interesting about the sheikh’s zealous diatribe is that, although “intolerant” from a Western perspective, it is, in fact, quite logically consistent and reveals the wide gap between Islamic rationalism and Western fantasy (despite how oxymoronic this dichotomy might sound).
Indeed.
Christianblood says
There is NO way the world can defeat the global scourge of islamic jihadism as long as Western secular relativists and multiculturalists are running the show in the Western world today. There will be NO victory as long as those traitors are calling the shots.
Matthieu Baudin says
“… Western secular relativists and multiculturalists — who currently dominate media, academia, and politics — are incapable of understanding, much less responding to, the logic of Islamic intolerance…”
Once again, congratulations Raymond Ibrahim on taking this bull by the horns. The mainstream media, academia, public school bureacracies and many political and social elites have been captured by the modes of thinking of multicultural relativism and have transformed into institutions of mass indoctrination of the public at large. This development is wholly undemocratic and accountable to no one outside of this self perpetuating social elite. It is in reality a type of Cultural Revolution, something openly discussed and aspired to for decades by frustrated intellectuals who have wanted to transform society to fit their own dreamy ideals through any available social leverage. This can be seen as a triumph of the ideals of the generation of the New Left and Counter Culture that emerged in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s. Unfortunately these air heads are caught in a rut of their own thinking and instinctively fall into a protective mode towards Radical Islamic Movements as these are seen to be ‘alternative’ to the ‘mainstream’. The disaster of Chamberlains generations excessive pacifism was a forerunner of the naivety and stubbornly blinkered mindset of today’s ageing New Left generation.
somehistory says
Christians don’t try to force others to convert. Christians follow the example and instructions and commands of Christ Jesus as to how to treat those who don’t share the Christian faith. Christians leave it to God to judge what rewards or punishments will come to those who refuse His Kindness.
Christians and Jews are what most people in the West *see* when they see religion. And the many that view all religions as the same thing, don’t distinguish between the familiar and islam. islam in the world since the first moslim, the murdering raper of children died, doesn’t even tolerate other moslims…sunni/shia…So why should they *tolerate* anyone else? moslims are not loving and kind to other moslims of a different sect, so why should they be to non moslims? They aren’t loving and kind to their own families, so why should anyone expect them to be toward infidels?
To Christians, Christianity is the True Faith. But since Christ taught His followers to be peaceful and loving and kind, others look on these qualities as tolerance. Christians don’t *tolerate* wrong, but endure it until God says it will end.
mortimer says
PREACHING SUPREMACISM FROM THE HEARTLAND OF ISLAM!
In the West, almost NO POLITICIANS and almost NO JOURNALISTS and almost NO POLICE and almost NO SCHOOLTEACHERS and almost NO SOCIAL WORKERS know 1) the JIHAD DOCTRINE 2) the KAFIR DOCTRINE or 3) the CONSENSUS DOCTRINE of Islam.
If they did, they would understand that JIHAD, HATRED of kafirs and COMPULSORY BELIEFS in the previous two doctrines are all normative Islam, rather than aberrations.
According to popular Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, bigotry is normative Islam.
Their lack of interest in learning the sources of Islamic terrorism borders on criminal negligence.
Cliffhild says
Let’s put it this way:
If you’re a Muslim, you are not moderate
If you’re moderate, you are not a Muslim
MO_THE_iDIOT says
Saudi led Wahabis is the fountain head of terrorism, get them before they get us.
MEL says
The sheikh is absolutely correct. islam cannot be equated with other religions. To start with, islam is not a religion, just a criminal cult. With due respects to all and with all humility, I claim to have read and understood relevant portions of the quran (I do not use capitals for words like islam, quran etc). If the word ‘allah’ or G-d were to be removed from that sacrilegious bound book of toilet paper, whatever is left is violence, hate, intolerance etc. towards non-muslims. muslims are so convinced that in the afterlife men will enjoy 72 virgins (in the hadith – sahih al bukhari)for ever etc if they committed violence against non-muslims that they go out of their way to lie to, be violent and kill Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc. To date, no muslim has returned from the afterlife and provided feedback as to whether the 72 virgins narrative is the truth or a con. Having said all this, I am compelled to draw your kind attention (in the quran’s favour) to Chap.109 vs. 1-6 (kaafiruun) which refers to tolerance towards apostates and non-muslims. These are the only verses which have any decency in that bound book of toilet paper. But, unfortunately, muslims do not seem to have read these verses.
THE HINDU says
The sheikh is absolutely correct. islam cannot be equated with other religions. To start with, islam is not a religion, just a criminal cult. With due respects to all and with all humility, I claim to have read and understood relevant portions of the quran (I do not use capitals for words like islam, quran etc). If the word ‘allah’ or G-d were to be removed from that sacrilegious bound book of toilet paper, whatever is left is violence, hate, intolerance etc. towards non-muslims. muslims are so convinced that in the afterlife men will enjoy 72 virgins (in the hadith – sahih al bukhari)for ever etc if they committed violence against non-muslims that they go out of their way to lie to, be violent and kill Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc. To date, no muslim has returned from the afterlife and provided feedback as to whether the 72 virgins narrative is the truth or a con. Having said all this, I am compelled to draw your kind attention (in the quran’s favour) to Chap.109 vs. 1-6 (kaafiruun) which refers to tolerance towards apostates and non-muslims. These are the only verses which have any decency in that bound book of toilet paper. muslims do not seem to have read these verses.
bernie says
The Hindu: thanks for your comment. I know that this has been pointed out many times before, but it bears repeating: according to a Semitic languages scholar named Christophe Luxemburg, the word “hur” (“virgins” in Arabic) is actually a mistranslation from the Aramaic word “hur” which means “raisins.” Luxemburg has stated that much of the Quran is derived from Aramaic-Syriac words rather than just Arabic.
vcragain says
I had a goods laugh at Bernie’s comment – won’t they all be annoyed when they are handed their little pile of 72 raisins ! The ultimate comment on their history ! Why are these young men all so hung up on the concept of being able to rape 72 virgins anyway? – says so much about their general ideas of what is a priority in life – I think it is part of the whole cover-up business – all their women are tormenting them so much by showing only their eyes that all the men are raving sex-addicts ?? Why don’t we send a few million blow-up dollies to Muslim countries – that might be what’s needed !!! Ugh, what a disgusting culture !
vcragain says
WOW – we learn something every day – I have just been cruising : http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7025?eng=y
and now realize what a HUGE subject the origins, translation & interpretation is of the writings that make up the Koran. It cannot be just read as-is in either Arabic or English and assumed to be ‘truth’ even if you are a Muslim. I think that the jihadwatch guys should take note of this researcher and incorporate this knowledge into anything we say or do about Islam. If there is so much division within the cult, there is no way we should understand the whole of Islam, by a few of their extremists. So – we need an extreme education on this subject asap to enable us to deal with the threat from the preachers of violence. It is not enough to just believe that ‘most humans do not want violence’ – we need to be able to out-smart the preachers of violence on their own book !