The Muslim Council of Britain has gained worldwide headlines — and praise — for the announcement. Secretary of State Tillerson said Monday in New Zealand: “I was actually encouraged when I heard on the news this morning that a number of imams in London have condemned these attackers and said they will not perform prayer services over their funerals, which means they’re condemning their souls. And that is what has to be done, and only the Muslim faith can handle this.”
Moderate Muslims stand up at last, right? Here is the MCB’s statement:
“Over 130 Imams & Religious Leaders from diverse backgrounds refuse to perform the funeral prayer for London attackers in an unprecedented move,” Muslim Council of Britain, June 5, 2017
Imams and religious leaders from across the country and a range of schools of thought have come together to issue a public statement condemning the recent terror attack in London and conveying their pain at the suffering of the victims and their families.
In an unprecedented move, they have not only refused to perform the traditional Islamic prayer for the terrorist – a ritual that is normally performed for every Muslim regardless of their actions – but also have called on others to do the same. They said:
“Consequently, and in light of other such ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam, we will not perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer over the perpetrators and we also urge fellow imams and religious authorities to withdraw such a privilege. This is because such indefensible actions are completely at odds with the lofty teachings of Islam.”
This all sounds great, but there’s just one catch: Muhammad is depicted in hadiths as forbidding funeral prayers for martyrs, and Islamic law forbids such prayers as well:
“Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger used to shroud two martyrs of Uhud in one sheet and then say, “Which of them knew Qur’an more?” When one of the two was pointed out, he would put him first in the grave. Then he said, “I will be a witness for them on the Day of Resurrection.” He ordered them to be buried with their blood (on their bodies). Neither was the funeral prayer offered for them, nor were they washed. Jabir added, “When my father was martyred, I started weeping and uncovering his face. The companions of the Prophet stopped me from doing so but the Prophet did not stop me. Then the Prophet said, ‘(O Jabir.) don’t weep over him, for the angels kept on covering him with their wings till his body was carried away (for burial).'” (Bukhari 5.59.406).
“Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: The Prophet collected every two martyrs of Uhud in one piece of cloth, then he would ask, “Which of them had (knew) more of the Qur’an?” When one of them was pointed out for him, he would put that one first in the grave and say, “I will be a witness on these on the Day of Resurrection.” He ordered them to be buried with their blood on their bodies and they were neither washed nor was a funeral prayer offered for them.” (Bukhari 2.23.427)
Muhammad’s words in hadiths that are deemed authentic are normative for Islamic law, and Islamic law consequently states: “It is unlawful to wash the body of a martyr (O: even if in a state of major ritual impurity (janaba) or the like) or perform the funeral prayer over him. A martyr (shahid) means someone who died in battle with non-Muslims (O: from fighting them, as opposed to someone who died otherwise, such as a person killed out of oppression when not in battle, or who died from fighting non-polytheists, such as (N: Muslim) transgressors).” — Reliance of the Traveller g4.20
So what has been taken by Rex Tillerson and the world as a great show of Muslim rejection of terrorism is actually a display of Muslim adherence to Islamic law, acceptance of terrorist deaths as Islamic martyrdom, and application of Muhammad’s dictum “war is deceit.”
(Thanks to Lars.)
Jaladhi says
Oh Islam is so full of deceit!! And the infidels fall so w=easily for it!
Michael Copeland says
Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for pointing this out.
We are all much indebted to you for your knowledge.
afrostreetwise says
In Short, Islam has a lie Muslims can use for each and every occasion? Actually it feels like being asked to point the beginning and the end of a perfect sphere..
Walter Sieruk says
Of course those imams who live in England had refused to have Islamic funeral for those Muslim terrorists. This is because they are trying very desperately to salvage the image and reputation of their religion.
overman says
Yes, and they’re starting to get seriously worried.
Jayke says
” And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die”
Krazy Kafir says
Islam most surely is the sneakiest ideology in the history of this world. Without a doubt.
Westman says
It’s macabre-amusing. Islam’s ideology is so infused with contradictions and allowances for mendacity to “protect” Islam that everything it proclaims requires a close inspection with the expectation of unstated motives.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Of course the Holy Prophet forbade funeral speeches for fallen mujahadin, they’re on the way to the Islam porno heaven Jannat. In fact, this is the one time the hairy people may drink, throw a shot and beer boilermaker party even. Cuz the fallen mujahadin will be gargling wine up top in the orgasm porno heaven, for they are finally off duty. It’s coutnerintuitive, but at the fallen mujahadin funeral the earth bound hairy ones are off duty for a few hours too. Praise Allah!
pat mott says
Please make this generally known!
mortimer says
MORE TAQIYYA !! This is typical Islamic disinformation! A big announcement is made that conceals Islamic doctrine. The dirty KAFIRS are tricked, the Muslims snicker between themselves and the world goes back to sleep while the jihadists plot the next attack.
This is one of the CRAFTIEST deceits I have read about.
By NOT reciting the prayers for the dead, those mullahs are ACTUALLY RECOGNIZING the EXALTED STATUS of the jihadists and secretly praising their murderous ‘martyrdoms’.
-“Taqiyya permeates almost all the activities and dealings of Muslims with non-Muslim societies…” – former sheikh Sam Solomon
overman says
“By NOT reciting the prayers for the dead, those mullahs are ACTUALLY RECOGNIZING the EXALTED STATUS of the jihadists and secretly praising their murderous ‘martyrdoms’.”
Yes, mortimer l was thinking the exact same thing.
RationalVoice says
Its all so irrational and silly this religious talk of angels, souls, non-existent beings and paradise.
All these gods seem to have taken early retirement hundreds and even thousands of years ago because no one has ever heard or seen them since.That is unless you count peasant children brainwashed in the Catholic religion in Fatima and Lourdes hallucinating.
That any sane,intelligent adult should still believe this stuff beggars belief !!!!
James says
So what evidence would you not dismiss as unreliable ? “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”. Those who parade their fancied superiority to those they dismiss as “peasant children brainwashed in the Catholic religion in Fatima and Lourdes hallucinating” are making themselves incapable of receiving the evidence they require.
Is it too much to ask for the Catholic-bashing to stop while one is on a site run by a Catholic ?
You say it “beggars belief” “that anyone should still believe this stuff” – but why should that be so ? How is believing in the reality of electricity made impossible by believing in the existence of angels ? What scientific hypotheses are spoiled by having a strong faith in the reality of Paradise ? How is one any less a human being for believing, and founding entirely plausible, the idea that each human being is endowed with an immortal spiritual soul ?
Why believe in anything, when every reason for believing in an external world can be refuted, and when reason itself can be explained away as a meaningless concourse of electro-chemical processes ? You call “religious talk” “silly and irrational” – but how is belief in the reality of an external world any different ? The senses can deceive, people can be wrong, language can be misunderstood – there is no way to prove, to a sufficiently determined sceptic, that 1+ 1 = 2.
If you can’t look directly at the Sun with naked eyes, how can you expect to see the One compared with Whom the Sun is less than a candle ? Creation shows us humans our limitations in a hundred different ways: trees live longer, peacocks are more colourful, spiders spin strong webs out of their own bodies, leopards outrun us, camels need to drink less often, migratory birds travel great distances without compasses, the list goes on. Cats mature sooner, kittens are more attractive to look at, snakes and spiders can moult. Man has a very high opinion of himself, but he cannot regrow a missing limb – the starfish can. He has no natural camouflage, unlike the chamaeleon. So how can something as laughably feeble and limited as man demand evidence of God ? Atheists treat the God Who created all things with an offhand presumption that they would not dream of showing to a mere mortal.
Donald R Laster Jr says
“Atheist” only look at the part of science that gives them support. They are ideologues typically and don’t want to see what is around them. It is inconvenient to look at the facts and science that undermines their positions.
Ehrmet says
And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, “They are dead.” Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not. (Quran 2:154)
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them – that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve. (Quran 3:169-170)
Gart says
Well if some of the boys died in battle but you could not retrieve the bodies for the usual funeral rites it would seem logical to provide an alternative otherwise they would not be granted the blessings of a proper funeral. This could happen in many ways, (a) you lost the battle and could not get to the dead (b) you won but had to move on quickly to press the enemy further or needed supplies for those still alive (c) bodies could not be identified (d) and so on.
It seems to me logical that a reason not to give such rites would be created to solve such issues if the body could not be produced.
Gart says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o
Phil Copson says
Tillerson:”….a number of imams in London have condemned these attackers and said they will not perform prayer services over their funerals, which means they’re condemning their souls. And that is what has to be done, and only the Muslim faith can handle this.”
———————————————————————————————————————————-So once again a Western politician has just taken the easy path of accepting things at face value, and wants everybody else to accept his version of Islam – that not being prayed over “condemns their souls”.
Why didn’t he check first, rather than assuming that an alien belief-system would mean the same thing by this as genuine religions ?
So what it comes down to is that Islam teaches that anyone who “dies for Allah” has done something so virtuous that they don’t stand in any need of anyone’s prayers, shrouds etc in this world. The imans are, in fact, honouring the dead terrorists by observing this practice.
(If you still find that hard to understand, this instinct isn’t so different from Western tradition where burying a fallen soldier in his armour was seen as conferring more honour than sending him out of the world in a cotton shroud.)
Secondly, its absolutely none of Tillerson’s business to bolster the Islamisation of the United Kingdom by pronouncing that “only the Muslim faith can handle this.”. It’s for the British government to decide how they handle it, and since the imans are pretending that they want nothing to do with the murderers, then they are hardly in a position to complain, whatever is decided upon.
The Government should cremate their bodies and flush the ashes, no service, no families, no publicity.
The usual pointless posts about wrapping their bodies in pigs carcases etc aren’t going to achieve anything, but I do think that re-introducing the old practice of dissolving executed murderer’s bodies in quick-lime as a demonstration that their deeds have put them outside the normal considerations of human dignity would be well-deserved and a salutary lesson to others.
SV says
I never cease to learn something interesting from this website.
Joe says
Our politicians still trying to screw a nail into the wall. They need to learn more how to use the right tools to understand islam!
DRHazard says
Recipe for disaster: one part Quran, one part Muslim, two parts terminally naive non-Muslim..
Donald R Laster Jr says
Always remember that it is acceptable for Islamic to lie and deceive to advance Islam and confuse the non-Islamics. So don’t give praise to Islamics for doing what Islam tells them to do.
Mockingjay says
“UK imams hailed for refusing to perform funeral prayers for jihadis, but Islam forbids funeral prayers for jihadis”
– This just serves as (more) proof how absolutely, diametrically opposed islam as a culture is to our own.
– What is good in our world, is bad in theirs, and vice versa.
– But if you’re ignorant of all these “moral reversals”, and most people still choose to be, you of course could easily interpret something that in reality is really, really bad, as something really, really good – as we see demonstrated so clearly in this case.
Matthieu Baudin says
The bodies of these Jihad Warriors should not be returned to their families for burial but should instead be buried out of view and without ceremony in unmarked graves so the the ‘martyrdom cycle’ can be broken.
Joy D. Brower says
Seems as if our new Sec. of State Tillerson is a bit behind the times, but that’s no surprise! His knowledge of Islam is probably only surface & minimal, but Robert’s is far superior – and we’re in his debt for pointing this out!
Nothosaur says
This is why I read jihadwatch. Where else would we learn this? Were the Imams giving this clarification when they refused prayers? Of course not. Did the New York Times offer this analysis?
Lioness says
When Osama Bin Ladin was killed by US forces, it was reported that they had an imam with them who prayed over his body before it was committed to the deep. So I guess that was a serious mistake that really irritated muslims, rather than endear the Americans to the Islamists, like Obama was hoping.
Warren Raymond says
We don’t know whether that bin Laden imam was praying. He was just supervising the dispatch of the “martyr”.
In the case of the London jihadists the imams got first priority to pay their respects to the “martyrs”, while being cordoned off from the filthy kafirs, thanks to Londonistans Muslim mayor. Don’t anyone get the idea they were praying for the victims, that’s ‘unislamic’.
Mark A says
Excellent article Robert. I was waiting for your resp[onse to this.
lebel says
Let me get this straight. If they perform the funeral prayer its proof that they support terror and if they don’t its proof that they support terror?
This is how Robert Spencer asks Muslims to do something and as soon as they do he starts poking holes in it or just uses the trump card (Taqqiya!)
Phil Copson says
(Bukhari 5.59.406). (Bukhari 2.23.427) Reliance of the Traveller g4.20
Robert Spencer isn’t asking anyone to take his word for it; he has quoted the relevant texts with references so that anyone can check it for themselves, and frequently quotes the pronouncements of authoritative muslim Islamic scholars past and present as additional corroboration for his articles.
If you won’t accept what Islamic texts say about Islamic practice, then what authority would you trust in preference ?
Nobody is saying that every iman supports terrorism, but every iman is certainly working to spread Islam – that is their job, after all – and the Koran etc lays down explicit and extensive instructions on how this can be achieved, and what is permissable under Islam.
Since these were devised 1400 years ago in an entirely different part of the world and were barbaric even by the standards of that place and time, then it is obvious that great swathes of it are directly in opposition to Western values.
The spread of Islam is endangering our countries, since every advance of Islamic values means a corresponding loss of ours.
(You don’t have to believe the weather-man, but that won’t stop it raining…..)
Donald R Laster Jr says
The practices of Islam were barbaric even compared to the normal practices of the time when Mohammad lived. Please don’t insult the people of that time. All of the followers will support terrorism when it advances Islam occupation of non-Islamic States. Some just prefer to use the other tactics Mohammad used to take over places – lies, deception, and so on.
Phil Copson says
Donald: re your comment: “The practices of Islam were barbaric even compared to the normal practices of the time when Mohammad lived. Please don’t insult the people of that time.”
In response to my post saying: “…Islam…….. barbaric even by the standards of that place and time….”
Could be time to clean your glasses ?
Donald R Laster Jr says
Mea Culpa – a simple misread on my part.
Phil Copson says
Not at all; I once got something wrong myself – I thought that I’d made a mistake, but I hadn’t……
lebel says
By the way Mr. Spencer, you never mentioned this finding when a funeral was held for another terrorist in Copenhagen.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/02/500-muslims-attend-funeral-of-copenhagen-jihad-murderer
Wonder why that is?
Lets just be honest Mr. Spencer, if Muslims do something “good” you are the first to do your best to cast doubt on it. Islam must ALWAYS be ALL bad for this site to make sense.
don vito says
The post you cite has nothing in it about imams saying a prayer over the “martyr” at the “martyr’s funeral. This post quotes 130 imams as saying they won’t say prayers over these 3 dead terrorist “martyrs”. This is in keeping with shriah law. Will there be a funeral for these 3 dead recent “martyrs”? A funeral wasn’t written about in this post. You do see the difference of subject matter in the respective posts, don’t you?
D Cripps says
Checking online what different fiqhs have to say about funeral prayers for ‘martyrs’, it seems that while Maliki and Shafi’i say that a prayer should not be offered, Hanbali says that it is permissible though not obligatory, and Hanafi says that the ‘martyr’ is to be “shrouded and prayed for, but not washed” and that “the prayer is to show the dignity of the dead, and the martyr has first priority in this. Moreover, the person free of sins, is still in need of supplication, like a prophet or a child.” I gather from Wikipedia that “Hanafi is the fiqh with the largest number of followers among Sunni Muslims”. While we have no knowledge of which fiqh these imams subscribed to, the largest groups of UK Muslims originate from Pakistan and Bangladesh, areas in which the Hanafi fiqh allegedly predominates. I wish we had access to translations for these different fiqhs and their subsets (e.g Barelvi, Deobandi) for more clarity and precision.
References: https://islamqa.info/en/14012, http://fiqhlessons.blogspot.co.uk/2005/01/funerals.html, http://www.myiwc.com/modules/Fiqhussunnah/fus4_62.html