Archive for the ‘Raymond Ibrahim’ Category
Islam’s Insanities: All Just a ‘Hoax’?
by Raymond Ibrahim
October 11, 2012
You read something immensely disturbing concerning the Muslim world—say, that some Muslims seek to legalize sex-slavery or destroy Egypt’s Pyramids or approve of sodomy-suicide-missions or crucify infidels. Your mind—exclaiming "tell me this is a joke!"—finds it difficult to accept such news. Then, somewhere from the bowels of the Internet, relief arrives.
To determine if a practice is Islamic or not, first determine if it is in the Quran, Hadith, and the rest of Islam’s voluminous literature.
The much welcomed word "Hoax!" appears, reconfirming your worldview. All is well again.
But is it? Are such accounts mere hoaxes? Or is this just another strategy by those who apologize for Islam’s insanities—a strategy that relies exclusively on the fact that the Western mindset cannot fathom such news, anyway, and thus is all too willing to accept the hoax charge without a second thought?
Recall the news that Salafi parliamentarians in Egypt were pushing for a law legalizing necrophilia. This information first appeared in Egypt’s most circulated newspaper, Al Ahram, followed by Al Arabiya. The news went viral, prompting Western dismay. But then a cutesy Christian Science Monitor article titled "Egypt ‘necrophilia law’? Hooey, utter hooey" tried to return us to the status quo. Its author, one Dan Murphy, admonished the many websites that disseminated the necrophilia story: "Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, kids. At least until there’s like, you know, some proof."
And his "proof" that it was a hoax? Nothing. He even confirmed that "there was a Moroccan cleric a few years back who apparently did issue a religious ruling saying that husbands remained married to their wives in the first six hours after death and, so, well, you know [i.e., he permitted necrophilia]. But that guy is far, far out on the nutty fringe."
Aside from Murphy’s immature tone—"so, well, you know" what?—one fails to see how characterizing a cleric as a "nut" means that his religious ruling is a "hoax"—that it never existed? Likewise, when it comes to fatwas, it matters not which nation they hail from, so that Egyptians can easily uphold the fatwa of a Moroccan, or vice-versa, because in Islam there is no "national" distinction, only the umma.
And yet, no matter how shallow or lacking in evidence, these hoax charges resonate well, simply because the mainstream Western mentality instinctively rejects, in this case, the idea of codifying necrophilia.
Much of this is exacerbated by the fact that most Westerners, including reporters, cannot independently verify such stories, as they usually originate in Middle Eastern languages. Which leads to my familiarity with this matter: I get most of my news directly from the Arabic media—knowing that it is better to get my information directly "from the horse’s mouth" than to get it from the limited and filtered Western media.
Accordingly, I am often first to expose stories that go unreported in the West—for instance, the fact that the U.S. embassy in Cairo was being threatened days before the Muhammad movie became a convenient excuse to riot and destroy (the original reason was to coerce the U.S. to free the Blind Sheikh and others).
However, those who prefer to keep such stories suppressed have learned to cry "hoax"—taking advantage of the fact that most Americans cannot read Arabic or verify these accounts for themselves.
Thus, when I documented the indisputable fact that several Islamists were calling for the destruction of Egypt’s Pyramids, the New York Times and Huffington Post cried "hoax"; when I shed light on an obscure "sodomy fatwa" which helped explain the role of intention in Islam (or niyya), Muslims and others cried hoax, including by lying and distorting; and when I reported on how Muslim Brotherhood supporters crucified their opponents, the National Post and others cried hoax.
And yet, none of these naysayers offered any meaningful evidence (click above links for my full responses). Instead, they banked on the fact that it is simply too hard to believe these stories in the first place.
So what should the objective Western reader do—who is stuck in the middle, does not read Arabic, and cannot independently verify anything—when confronted with absurd news emanating from the Islamic world?
Along with evaluating the evidence as best they can, I suggest they learn to connect-the-dots. The fact is, there is no end of bizarre anecdotes emanating from the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia’s highest Islamic authority until he died in 1999, Sheikh Bin Baz—hardly someone to be dismissed as being "far, far out on the nutty fringe"—insisted that the earth was flat and that all scientific evidence otherwise is a Western conspiracy.
In 2007, Egypt’s second highest Islamic authority, Sheikh Ali Gomaa—the same "moderate" Grand Mufti who deems all Christians "infidels"—decreed that drinking the urine of Muhammad was a great blessing. Likewise, a few weeks ago in Egypt it was revealed that there is now a clinic "healing" people by giving them camel urine to drink—because Muhammad once advised it.
Then there are the notorious breastfeeding fatwas: Several Islamic clerics—including Dr. Izzat Atiya, of Egypt’s Al Azhar University—advised Muslim female workers to "breastfeed" their male co-workers in order to be in each other’s company (more "moderate" clerics say it is not necessary for the man to drink the milk directly from the teat but may use a cup).
The list goes on and on: Several Muslims, including prominent ones, are calling for the reinstitution of sex-slavery, whereby "infidel" women can be bought and sold in markets. One female Kuwaiti politician even recommends that Russian women seized during the Chechnya jihad be sold as sex-slaves on Muslim markets.
Other prominent clerics insist that Islam allows men to get "married" to baby girls still in the cradle, having sex with them once these children are "capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men."
How does one explain these absurd and vile teachings—teachings advocated, not from radicals nor clerics "far, far out on the nutty fringe"—but often from its highest authorities? Simple: Islamic jurisprudence, which is responsible for defining what is right and wrong in Islam, is fundamentally based on the words of a 7th century Arab whom Muslims venerate as a prophet. And this man said and did many things that defy modern day sensibilities.
Indeed, he said and did many things that defied the sensibilities of his contemporaries—such as stripping naked and lying with a dead woman to the surprise of her gravediggers (which, incidentally, is cited by the necrophilia fatwas). And it was the prophet who first ordered a woman to "breastfeed" a man in order to be in his company. Though she expressed shock at the very idea, she went through with it anyway.
Here, then, is the rule of thumb: When it comes to determining whether a story from the Muslim world is a hoax or not, first determine whether it is it Islamic or not—whether it has doctrinal or historic support; whether it has some backing in the Quran and/or the hadith.
As it happens, destroying pyramids and pre-Islamic antiquities is very Islamic with a long paper trail; engaging in forbidden acts like sodomy or suicide or lying in order to empower Islam is legitimate according to the Islamic notion of niyya (or intention); crucifying the opponents of Islam is prescribed in the Quran—just as is sex-slavery and pedophilia; drinking urine—whether camels’ or Muhammad’s—is lauded in the hadith.
In short, the true test of whether an Islam-related story is a hoax or not, is not whether it accords with our sensibilities, but whether it accords with Islam’s teachings, many of which are strange if not downright bizarre by Western standards.
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
Crucifixions, Not Fictions
by Raymond Ibrahim
Investigative Project on Terrorism
September 4, 2012
I recently wrote an article based on Arabic reports that Muslim Brotherhood supporters had crucified Morsi’s opponents. Because it was picked up by several websites and disseminated far and wide, as usual, Islam’s apologists and others claimed "hoax."
Readers sent me a couple of these articles which, upon further investigation, seem to be based on a National Post article titled "Egypt’s ‘crucifixion’ hoax becomes an instant Internet myth" by one Jonathan Kay. He characterizes the crucifixion account as "a story worth dissecting—not because it’s true (it isn’t), but because it is a textbook example of how the Internet, once thought to be the perfect medium of truth-seeking, has been co-opted by culture warriors as a weapon to fire up the naïve masses with lies and urban legends."
Alternatively, dissecting Kay’s claims is useful as it is a textbook example of how the Western mindset tries to rationalize away whatever does not fit its intellectual boundaries.
First, after mentioning the several websites that carried or quoted my article, Kay wondered how none of the "sources supply the original Sky reporting that purportedly outlines the facts." Then, he offers the following sentence as its own paragraph, apparently as something of an eye-opening revelation:
"That’s because there is no Sky report on the subject."
Actually, this big "aha" moment was made earlier and by someone else—me, in my original article. After posting the names of several Arabic websites that carried the same verbatim quote from Sky News, I pointed out that Sky removed its original report. I did not have to make this point, or mention Sky News at all, since other reports—including El Balad, a much higher trafficked Arabic website which I also quoted—independently mentions the crucifixions in original language and further adds that two people died. And that report, as of now, is still up.
Kay then quotes a Sky News official who supposedly told him that the crucifixion claim
began on social media. It started getting pick-up from there and eventually reached us [Sky News]. Our reporters came across reports of the alleged crucifixions and a story very briefly appeared on the Sky News Arabia website. The story—which was taken down within minutes—was based on third-party reports and I am not aware that any of our reporters said or confirmed anything along the lines of what is quoted in the article… none of our correspondents confirmed this issue or commented on it.
Several points here:
First, Sky News admits to having published a story about crucifixions. Likewise, though it admits to taking it down, it never states that the crucifixion accounts are a "hoax" or even false. It simply offers no comment. This is not proof that the story is a hoax.
As for the claim that the report was "taken down within minutes," in fact, someone forwarded me the Sky News link almost two days before I actually clicked it, and the article was still up and written exactly like a report. Investigative reporter Patrick Poole sent me a clear snapshot of the webpage before it was removed, which is before me.
The title, "Protesters Crucified in Front of Presidential Palace in Egypt," is followed by the following standard reporting information: "Thursday, August 9, 3:19 am Abu Dhabi time; 11:19 pm Greenwich; Samir Umar [reporter], Cairo, Sky News Arabic," followed by the portion I originally translated: "A Sky News Arabic correspondent in Cairo confirmed that protestors belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others."
Moreover, the photo of the page shows 286 face book likes: one doubts that a report on a modestly trafficked website would reach that number if it was only up for mere minutes.
Kay also ignored the context of the crucifixions in my original article: Muslim Brotherhood supporters were brutalizing the media for constantly exposing the Islamist agenda—a well documented fact. A major news media facility was ransacked, popular anchors beat and terrorized. Soon thereafter, Brotherhood officials were appointed to "oversee" major media outlets in Egypt.
As I originally pointed out, Sky News may have "censored itself for fear that it would be next in the terror campaign against the media." If this is the case—if Sky News had removed its report on Brotherhood crucifixions in light of the fact that the Brotherhood was in the process of abusing and threatening the media—would it then get itself in deeper trouble by, of all things, telling a Western reporter, "Yes, the Brotherhood crucified people and we took the story down in fear of the Brotherhood"? Not likely.
Kay also writes: "If that [crucifixion] happened, wouldn’t someone, you know, take a picture?… Maybe just a few shots with a cell phone camera from one of the tens of thousands of people who no doubt would have witnessed this Biblical horror in one of the most densely trafficked patches of real estate in the entire Arab world?"
One wonders if Kay has ever been around a wild pro-Sharia mob in Egypt savaging its opponents. It’s not pretty; the usual instinct is to run for one’s life, not take photos and thus further enrage the mobs by collecting evidence against them. Likewise, if photos were the ultimate criteria to validate reports, then over 90% of all news stories become suspect for not carrying pictures.
Even so, yet another reputable Arabic website, Dostor Watany, did post a graphic picture, which appeared in my original article. It depicts a man rescued by security forces, with one side of his body literally carved off. But apparently doubting Kay needs to see the actual holes in the victim’s hands before he believes that the same Muslim Brotherhood supporters who mutilated this man could ever crucify someone.
Moreover, the reports do not mention any numbers. Yet even if there were, as Kay asserts, "tens of thousands" of people present—and there weren’t—that would still say very little.
Recall Egypt’s Maspero Massacre: while the disconnected Western mainstream media was portraying it as violent Christians attacking Egyptian police, in fact, it was the Egyptian military slaughtering Christians, killing dozens and wounding hundreds, simply because they came out in large numbers to protest the constant destruction of their churches. And although there were several thousands of people present that night, only a very few amateur videos appeared showing armored-vehicles running over Christians—and these, too, I now see have been taken down from YouTube.
Kay’s "evidence" culminates by quoting, of all things, a comment under one of the websites carrying my story, from someone who claims to be a Copt, lives near the area, and heard of no such occurrences.
Such is the sort of "proof" being relied on to "debunk" this story—as if this commenter could not be, say, a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer living up to the dictum of Islam’s prophet, that "war is deceit."
All this leads to the most important point. Whereas Kay appears intent on proving that the crucifixions never happened, a close read of my article shows that I never said they did happen. As always, I merely reported and translated what was on the Arabic media; noted that Sky News took its story down; and then offered my own interpretation—including the fact that Muslims have been known to crucify their opponents in the modern era, crucifixions are prescribed by the Koran and Sharia, and an Egyptian parliamentarian recently called for crucifixions to be legalized.
In light of all the above, I reiterate my original conclusion: "there is little reason to doubt this crucifixion story."
Indeed, soon after this crucifixion story appeared in the Egyptian media, a disturbing video surfaced from Yemen, of a mutilated man, crucified.
How long before the usual naysayers try to portray even this video as a "hoax"?
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
by Raymond Ibrahim
Originally published by the Gatestone Institute
May 11, 2012
As the United States considers the Islamic jihadi threats confronting it from all sides, it would do well to focus on its southern neighbor, Mexico, which has been targeted by Islamists and jihadists, who, through a number of tactics—from engaging in da’wa, converting Mexicans to Islam, to smuggling and the drug cartel, simple extortion, kidnappings and enslavement—have been subverting Mexico in order to empower Islam and sabotage the U.S.
According to a 2010 report, "Close to home: Hezbollah terrorists are plotting right on the U.S. border," which appeared in the NY Daily News:
Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana, right across the border from Texas and closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S. In this, it has shadowed the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran, which has been forging close ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who in turn supports the narcoterrorist organization FARC, which wreaks all kinds of havoc throughout the region.
Another 2010 article appearing in the Washington Times asserts that, "with fresh evidence of Hezbollah activity just south of the border [in Mexico], and numerous reports of Muslims from various countries posing as Mexicans and crossing into the United States from Mexico, our porous southern border is a national security nightmare waiting to happen." This is in keeping with a recent study done by Georgetown University, which revealed that the number of immigrants from Lebanon and Syria living in Mexico exceeds 200,000. Syria, along with Iran, is one of Hezbollah’s strongest financial and political supporters, and Lebanon is the immigrants’ country of origin. Just like only 19 jihadists were necessary to cause the devastation of September 11, 2001, only a handful of these 200,000 are necessary to wreak havoc north of the border.
A jihadist cell in Mexico was recently found to have a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. The weapons, it turned out, had been smuggled by Muslims from Iraq. According to this report, "obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah’s presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO’s) operating along the U.S.-Mexico border."
As far back as 2005, an article entitled "Islam is gaining a Foothold in Chiapas" showcased the inroads of Islam in Mexico:
Long a bastion of Catholicism, southern Mexico is quickly turning into a battleground for soul-savers. Islam, too, is gaining a foothold and the indigenous Mayans are converting by the hundreds. The Mexican government is worried about a culture clash in their own backyard… Muslim women in headscarves have become a common sight….
To appreciate the significance of the fact that Muslim headscarves "have become a common sight" in Mexico, consider the words of former jihadist Tawfik Hamid, who personally knew al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri. In his book, Inside Jihad, he writes: "The proliferation of the hijab [Muslim headscarves] is strongly correlated with increased terrorism…. Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities."
After discussing an increase in converts to Islam, the article continues by saying: "It’s a development that is beginning to worry the Mexican government. Indeed, the government even suspects the new converts of subversive activity and has already set the secret service onto the track of the Mayan Muslims. Mexican President Vincente Fox has even gone so far as to say he fears the influence of the radical fundamentalists of al-Qaida" [emphasis added].
Kidnappings, as part of a drug cartel or as part of a jihadist operation, which legitimizes crimes such as kidnapping and child slavery, have become increasingly common. To convert non-Muslims to their cause, Islamists also whip up—and then exploit—a sense of "grievance" against the "white man."
In addition, according to counterterrorism experts in this report, Islamic terrorists blend in better with Mexicans than with Europeans, thereby enabling them to sneak into the U.S. across the southwest border. This Muslim cleric, for example, discusses how easy it is to smuggle a briefcase containing anthrax from Mexico into America, thereby killing at least some 330,000 Americans in a single hour.
Similarly, Michael Braun, formerly assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), said that the Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America; however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S. Hezbollah relies on "the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels."
Only a few months ago, Washington announced that FBI and DEA agents disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States," tied to Iran with roots in Mexico. The increased violence—including beheadings, Islam’s signature trademark—is even more indicative that Islamists are well ensconced in Mexico’s drug cartel.
The threat is not limited to Hezbollah; back in 2006, according to ISN, "Mexican authorities investigated the activities of the Murabitun [a da'wa, or missionary-outreach, organization named after historic jihadists along Spain's borders] due to reports of alleged immigration and visa abuses involving the group’s European members and possible radicals, including al-Qaeda."
Even innocuous reports, such as this Muslim article, are cause for concern: "Today, most Mexican Islamic organizations focus on grassroots da’wa. These small organizations are most effective at the community level, going from village to village and speaking directly to the people." Although this may not sound problematic, the strain of Islam being spread by many of these da’wa organizations is the radical, "Salafist," anti-American variety. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian TV cleric saying that while Muslims must never smile to non-Muslims—who, as "infidels," are by nature the enemy—they are free to do so if the Muslim is engaged in da’wa, trying to win over the infidel into the fold of Islam, especially if the potential convert can help empower Islam in any way.
These are but a few of the many reports on Islam in Mexico. The evidence that many Islamists in Mexico are plotting against the U.S., using all means—such as drug trafficking, which is not forbidden in Sharia law if it serves to empower Islam—is overwhelming.
Under various methods—from the violent to the subversive to the exploitative—Islam allows Muslims to lie and commit other duplicitous acts in the furtherance of Islam. Taqiyya [dissimulation] permits Hezbollah and other Islamists to engage in Mexico’s drug cartel, just as "pious" members of the Taliban in Afghanistan pursued the heroin trade. Aside from sheer violence, justified as "jihad," or holy war, tactics pursued by Mexico’s Islamists include:
· Kidnappings and enslavement, for which Mexico is already notorious. Sharia permits kidnapping, and even enslaving the infidel, in this situation, any non-Muslim in Mexico. The Quran not only approves of this, but allows male jihadists to have sex with female captives of war (Sura 4, verse 3). Here, for example, is a Muslim politician trying to legalize the institution of "sex-slavery."
· Extortion and blackmail, features of the Mexican landscape, are also permissible in Islam. According to Sharia, during jihad, Muslims are permitted to hold for ransom infidels to be sold back for large amounts of money. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian sheikh saying that the Islamic world’s problem is that it has stopped plundering and enslaving its infidel neighbors. He even boasts that under true Sharia, he could go to the local market and "buy" a female "sex-slave."
In using subversive elements for da’wa, Muslims might comfortably use false arguments to turn Mexicans against their northern neighbors. For instance, they often argue that Islam is a religion of "racial equality," whereas Christianity is the "white man’s" religion, imposed on their ancestors by racist whites who sought to keep them "impoverished" beyond the border. Islamist strategies in Mexico amount to trying to win the unbelievers over to their side, whether through conversion or just cooperation. For those who refuse to cooperate, they are infidels to be used in any way that seems appropriate.
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
by Raymond Ibrahim
Originally published by the Gatestone Institute
April 5, 2012
Apologists often try to explain away Islamic terrorism as a byproduct of something else. The usual argument is that, because Muslims are politically, socially, or militarily weak—the archetypal example often given is Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians—they have no choice but to resort to terror to strike at their stronger adversaries. In other words, they resort to terrorism simply to even the odds—hence the argument that terrorism is the "weapon of the weak."
Though this narrative is widely accepted, it is demonstrably false. Consider the following account that took place a couple of weeks ago in Muslim-majority Egypt:
More than 300 Muslim lawyers inside and outside a courthouse in the southern Egyptian province of Assuit today [3/16] prevented defense lawyer Ahmad Sayed Gabali, who is representing the Christian, Makarem Diab, from going into court. Mr. Diab was found guilty of "Insulting the Muslim Prophet" and was scheduled today for a hearing on his appeal. Attorney Dr. Naguib Gabriell, head of the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization, said there was "terror in the Assiut Court today." He added that he was on his way to court when he was advised that Muslim lawyers have issued death threats to any Christian lawyers who attend the court session. "Makram Diab was assaulted by Muslim lawyers during his transfer from the courtroom and security failed to protect him." Peter Sarwat, a Coptic lawyer, said that Muslim lawyers representing the plaintiffs prevented the defense team from entering court: "They said no Muslim will defend a Christian. It was agreed that Christian lawyers would take over and two Coptic lawyers volunteered, but the Muslims decided later that even Christians would not defend him." Sarwat said the Muslim lawyers wanted to assault the chief judge but he managed to leave the court via a rear door [emphasis added].
The report goes on to explain how Muslim lawyers and activists went to court to defend Diab’s right to a fair trial only to be assaulted by other Muslim lawyers: "They were assaulting us in a beastly and strange way just because we went there to defend a citizen who happened to be a Christian," said one of the lawyers, adding that exiting the court required security intervention: "We left court in a security vehicle which took us to Security headquarters, otherwise, we don’t know what the outcome would have been for us."
More details include eyewitnesses reporting that the Muslim lawyers were "armed with clubs." Several, including reporters, were injured in the ensuing melee, and human rights groups were "forced out of the courtroom by the Muslims."
Was the condemned Christian’s attorney right to categorize this incident as "terrorism"? According to Dictionary.com, the primary definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." In other words, terrorism is not just limited to 9/11-type strikes, but involves intimidating, bullying, threatening, etc.—precisely what happened at this courthouse trial.
Some more key points to keep in mind:
- Those making the death threats, physically assaulting others with clubs, and otherwise engaging in terrorist behavior were "more than 300 Muslim lawyers"; not jihadis or fugitives hiding out in caves, but lawyers.
- The entire issue revolves around something that, by Western standards of freedom, would be a non-issue to start with: insulting a "holy" figure, Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. In a Western court of law, the Christian "blasphemer" would not even be tried, but rather the terrorist "lawyers."
- The attacks on fellow Muslim lawyers who merely sought to represent the condemned Christian is in keeping with Islam’s doctrines of loyalty and disloyalty, which command Muslims always to side with fellow Muslims, while having enmity for non-Muslim infidels—certainly those perceived to have insulted their prophet.
The ultimate lesson emerging from this shameful fiasco is one of sheer predictability. Anyone familiar with the doings of the Islamic world—its history, its doctrines—cannot be surprised at any of the above: rage and violence in response to a non-Muslim insulting the prophet; rage and violence toward Muslim members of a legal system for trying to represent an "infidel"—these are quite standard, with ample precedent, regardless of whether the enraged Muslims are suit-and-tie wearing lawyers, or kalachnikoff-wearing jihadis.
Contrary to popular belief, then, and as this episode clearly shows, Islamic terrorism is not a byproduct of "weakness," but rather the typical approach to those who transgress the bounds of Sharia. Whether one man "blaspheming" Muhammad in a Muslim-majority nation (as in this example) or whether an entire nation existing on land perceived to be Islam’s (as in the case of Israel)—terror is never far behind for those transgressing the bounds of Sharia
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
Christians, Jihadists, and the Fate of Syria
by Raymond Ibrahim
Originally published by the Stonegate Institute
March 9, 2012
What is the alternative to Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria? A simple if indirect way to find out is to consider which groups in Syria are especially for or against Assad—and why.
Christian minorities, who, at 10% of the Syrian population, have the most to gain from a secular government and the most to suffer from a Sharia-state, have no choice but to prefer Assad. They are already seeing aspects of the alternative. A recent Barnabas Fund report titled "Christians in Syria Targeted in Series of Kidnappings and Killings; 100 Dead," tells of how "children were being especially targeted by the kidnappers, who, if they do not receive the ransom demanded, kill the victim." In one instance, kidnappers videotaped a Christian boy as they murdered him in an attempt to frame the government; one man "was cut into pieces and thrown in a river" and another "was found hanged with numerous injuries."
Accordingly, it is understandable that, as an earlier report put it, "Christians have mostly stayed away from the protests in Syria, having been well treated and afforded a considerable amount of religious freedom under President Assad’s regime." After all, "Should Assad fall, it is feared that Syria could go the way of Iraq post-Saddam Hussein. Saddam, like Assad, restrained the influence of militant Islamists, but after his fall they were free to wreak havoc on the Christian community; hundreds of thousands of Christians were consequently forced to flee the violence. Many of them went to Syria."
In short, should "rebels" get their way and topple the Assad regime, the same brutal pattern experienced by Iraq’s Christian minorities—who have been liked to, and killed off like, dogs, to the point of nearing extinction—will come to Syria, where a preacher recently urged Muslims to "tear apart, chop up and feed" Christians who support Assad "to the dogs." From last week alone, some 70 additional Christian homes were invaded and pillaged, and "for the first time in the history of the conflict in Syria, an armed attack has been made on a Catholic monastery," partially in search of money.
And who are these "rebels" who see and treat Christians as sub-humans to be exploited and plundered to fund the "opposition" against Assad? In fact, many of them are Islamists, internal and external, and their "opposition" is really a jihad; moreover, they are acting on anti-Christian fatwas that justify the kidnapping, ransoming, and plundering of "infidel" Christians.
As in Libya, it is a fact that al-Qaeda is operating among the Syrian opposition; Ayman al-Zawahiri himself "urges the Syrian people to continue their revolution until the downfall of the Assad regime, and stresses that toppling this regime is a necessary step on the way to liberating Jerusalem." Even the influential Yusif al-Qaradawi and Hamas, the latter supported by Iran—Assad’s ally—both back the "rebels." All these facts should place the "opposition"—who they are, what they want—in better context.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Obama, who was remarkably reticent when Iranians seeking Western-style freedom tried to revolt against the oppressive Islamist regime of Iran, made it a point to single out Assad by name as needing to go at his recent State of the Union Address (not that the Republican presidential candidates seem to know any better; see Andrew McCarthy‘s recent article where, drawing on America’s other misadventures in Islamic nations, he shows how the U.S. has little to gain and possibly much to lose by supporting the anti-Assad opposition).
The lesson here is clear: while it is true that not all of Assad’s opposition is Islamist—there are anti-Assad Muslims who do not want a Sharia-state—the Islamists are quite confident that the overthrow of Assad equates their empowerment. And why shouldn’t they be? Wherever Arab tyrants have been overthrow—Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, etc.—it is Islamists filling the power-vacuums. Just ask Syria’s Christian minorities, who prefer the dictator Assad remain in power—who prefer the devil they know to the ancient demon their forefathers knew.
Rebutting Muslim Apologetics Concerning Tawriya ("Creative Lying")
by Raymond Ibrahim
March 9, 2012
Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam recently forwarded me an article titled "Tawriya: Islamic Doctrine of ‘Creative Lying’? Response to Raymond Ibrahim," appearing on a website called Muslim Debate Initiative, and written by one Shadid ("Severe") Lewis in response to my recent exposition on the doctrine of tawriya. Although this response—poorly written, poorly argued—would normally be ignored, I address it for three reasons: 1) To date, it is the only rebuttal I have seen from a Muslim concerning tawriya; 2) Far from rejecting tawriya, it actually validates it (the author spends his time chasing red herrings, not disproving the doctrine); 3) It is a good example of the speciousness and sophistry employed by those who try to downplay or rationalize some of Islam’s more problematic doctrines, in this case, tawriya. (Note: Although Shadid’s original article is littered with grammatical and punctuation errors, in the interest of readability, I have corrected the more egregious when quoting him.)
At the start, after informing readers that he "read the article of Raymond Ibrahim posted on Frontpagemag.com and I just had to respond," Shadid argues that tawriya really "means deliberate ambiguity rather than creative lying." Discerning readers understand such euphemisms change nothing about the doctrine.
After I pointed out that most Muslim scholars (or ulema) are agreed that tawriya should not be used to commit an "injustice," I added "’injustice’ as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards." To this, Shadid responds: "Says who? None of the sources he [me] cited said as only defined by Sharia. A commonly known wrong is a commonly known wrong just the same in Islam (stealing, cheating, murder, etc. is wrong and accepted as such in Islam)."
First, of course the Muslim authorities do not bother pointing out that they mean justice and injustice as defined by Sharia; that’s a given. Likewise, anyone familiar with Islamic law and doctrine—presumably Muslims like Shadid himself—know that many of Islam’s views on "right" and "wrong" do not agree with "universal standards." One example: Islamic law holds that any Muslim who converts out of Islam and refuses to return is an apostate to be executed. Whereas in Islam, such executions are deemed "just," from a Western point of view, which acknowledges religious freedom, they are unjust. In this context, then, it is "just" to use tawriya (lying) to enable the execution of an apostate.
Next, Shadid distracts the issue by making irrelevant points: "Sheikh Al-Munajjid, another source cited by the article’s author, said excessive use of puns leads to lying. So the claim that this [tawriya] can be used whenever and wherever is a lie in itself."
Yes, at the very end of his fatwa, after giving many proofs validating tawriya, Munajjid warned that too much tawriya can "lead one to slip into a lie," meaning that, by getting caught up in one’s own dissembling game, one can end up committing an actual lie—one that is not "technically" true, a criterion of tawriya—without realizing it. More to the point, saying that some ulema warn against using tawriya too much, does not change the fact that Islam permits lying through tawriya, and that it is up to the individual Muslim to decide how much is too much.
Shadid continues: "Al Munajjid said this [tawriya] is used for embarrassing circumstances. Yet the author would have us believe Muslims can use this to lie in business transactions, and to take peoples’ property and other commonly accepted wrong activities."
Seems like Shadid is engaging in his own bit of tawriya here: yes, Munajjid did say tawriya can be used for embarrassing circumstances, but he mentioned embarrassment as an example of, not the sole justification for, tawriya. Rather, the two criteria he gave, and which I noted in my original article, are 1) that the words literally fit the alternate meaning, so that the lie is technically true, and 2) that there is a "legitimate need" (i.e., a Sharia compliant need).
Caught up in his own convoluted logic/tawriya, Shadid next contradicts himself: "Another source cited by the articles author which he ignores is: Al-Nawawi, who said the deliberate ambiguity [tawriya] is permissible if the need arises or a legitimate interest …"—there it is again, "legitimate interest." In other words, Nawawi, just like Munajjid, is simply another Muslim scholar who confirms that tawriya is permissible if it serves a "legitimate interest," i.e., if the lie enables something deemed "legitimate" according to Sharia.
Then there are Shadid’s ridiculous arguments:
Mr. Ibraham told us Muhammad is recorded saying "Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations"; and "I have been sent with obfuscation"; and "whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr" (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).
However the source he cites clearly is Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30). Did you catch it? The source is about AL TAQIYYA not about TAWRIYA. And taqiyya deals with a situation only when a Muslim’s life is in immediate danger [not true] and they utter words of disbelief because they are threatened with being killed or tortured. Thus this citation does not support any proof for "creative lying."
Apparently Shadid’s point is that any quote contained in a book that is not specifically devoted to the topic of the quote, is to be ignored. This is tantamount to saying "I reject any quote on jihad, regardless of the authority, unless it comes from a book with the word ‘jihad’ in its title. But if the title of the book is, say, ‘Islamic Law,’ or ‘War in Islam,’ then the quote on jihad is inadmissible."
Better for you, Shadid, to address the actual quote itself—that your prophet’s mission was rooted in obfuscation, according to his own words—rather than quibble about the title of the book containing the quote.
Next he complains that I misrepresented a hadith when I wrote:
Muhammad said: "If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [breaking wudu], hold your nose and leave" (Sunan Abu Dawud): " Holding one’s nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though people will think it was someone else who committed the offense."
According to Shadid:
Those familiar with this hadith can quickly see that Ibrahim has added his own conclusion about this hadith not endorsed by the Islamic position. No where is it taught that this hadith teaches for one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell.
Yet, he fails to mention that this hadith figures in the literature devoted to justifying tawriya, including Munajjid’s fatwa. And if this hadith does not teach "one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell," then what is its significance, why does Muhammad teach to hold the nose, and why are the ulema referring to it in the context of tawriya? After all, wasn’t Shadid himself arguing earlier that tawriya is to be used only for "embarrassing" situations—and what’s more embarrassing than this?
In light of all the above, readers are free to conclude whether, as Shadid put it, my article on tawriya is "a clear example of how these haters just make up blatant lies to taint Islamic teachings and draw false conclusions based on their over zealous bias against Islam," or whether Shadid’s entire rebuttal—which strains out a gnat while accepting that Islam permits lying—is itself an example of obfuscation.
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests
by Raymond Ibrahim
March 1, 2012
Because it is now almost axiomatic for American school textbooks to whitewash all things Islamic (see here for example), it may be instructive to examine one of those aspects that are regularly distorted: the Muslim conquests.
Few events of history are so well documented and attested to as are these conquests, which commenced soon after the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (632) and tapered off circa 750. Large swathes of the Old World—from the India in the east, to Spain in the west—were conquered and consolidated by the sword of Islam during this time, with more after (e.g., the Ottoman conquests).
By the standards of history, the reality of these conquests is unassailable, for history proper concerns itself with primary sources; and the Islamic conquests are thoroughly documented. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of primary source materials we rely on do not come from non-Muslims, who might be accused of bias. Rather, the foremost historians bequeathing to posterity thousands of pages of source materials documenting the Islamic conquests were not only Muslims themselves; they were—and still are—regarded by today’s Muslims as pious and trustworthy scholars (generically, the ulema).
Among the most authoritative books devoted to recounting the conquests are: Ibn Ishaq’s (d. 767) Sira ("Life of Muhammad"), the oldest biography of Muhammad; Waqidi’s (d. circa. 820) Maghazi ("Military Campaigns [of the Prophet]"); Baladhuri’s (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan ("Conquests of the Nations"); and Tabari’s (d.923) multi-volume Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, ("History of Prophets and Kings"), which is 40 volumes in the English translation.
Taken together, these accounts (which are primarily based on older accounts—oral and written—tracing back to Muhammad and his successors) provide what was once, and in the Muslim world still is, a famous story: that Allah had perfected religion (Islam) for all humanity; that he commanded his final prophet (Muhammad) and community (Muslims) to spread Islam to the world; and that the latter was/is to accept it either willingly or unwillingly (jihad).
It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.638), for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."
According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.
The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad’s death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam’s authority, upon Muhammad’s death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad’s successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.
The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.
The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death.
Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.
Ironically, these exceptions are now portrayed as the rule in America’s classrooms: many textbooks suggest or at least imply that most people who converted to Islam did so under no duress, but rather through peaceful contacts with merchants and traders; that they eagerly opted to convert to Islam for the religion’s intrinsic appeal, without noting the many debilitations conquered non-Muslims avoided—extra taxes, second-rate social status, enforced humiliation, etc.—by converting to Islam. In fact, in the first century, and due to these debilitations, many conquered peoples sought to convert to Islam only to be rebuffed by the caliphate, which preferred to keep them as subdued—and heavily taxed—subjects, not as Muslim equals.
Meanwhile, as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad).
The dissimulation of how Islam was spread in the early centuries contained in Western textbook’s mirrors the way the word jihad, once inextricable to the conquests, has also been recast. Whereas the word jihad has throughout the centuries simply meant armed warfare on behalf of Islam, in recent years, American students have been taught the Sufi interpretation of jihad—Sufis make up perhaps one percent of the Islamic world and are often seen as heretics with aberrant interpretations—which portrays jihad as a "spiritual-struggle" against one’s vices.
Contrast this definition of jihad with that of an early edition of the venerable Encyclopaedia of Islam. Its opening sentence simply states, "The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general.… Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam.… Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated." Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.
Likewise, the Islamic conquests narrated in the Muslim histories often mirror the doctrinal obligations laid out in Islam’s theological texts—the Koran and Hadith. Muslim historians often justify the actions of the early Islamic invaders by juxtaposing the jihad injunctions found in Islamic scriptures.
It should also be noted that, to Muslims, the Islamic conquests are seen as acts of altruism: they are referred to as futuh, which literally means "openings"—that is, the countries conquered were "opened" for the light of Islam to enter and guide its infidel inhabitants. Thus to Muslims, there is nothing to regret or apologize for concerning the conquests; they are seen as for the good of those who were conquered (i.e., the ancestors of today’s Muslims).
In closing, the fact of the Muslim conquests, by all standards of history, is indisputable. Accordingly, just as less than impressive aspects of Western and Christian history, such as the Inquisition or conquest of the Americas, are regularly taught in U.S. textbooks, so too should the Muslim conquests be taught, without apology or fear of being politically incorrect. This is especially so because it concerns history—which has a way of repeating itself when ignored, or worse, whitewashed.
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
Obama: ‘Son of Islam’?
by Raymond Ibrahim
First published by Stonegate Institute
February 27, 2012
Many in the media are indignant with Reverend Franklin Graham, head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Invited on "Morning Joe" last Tuesday to discuss Christian persecution, the hosts turned the focus to interrogating Graham on whether he thought President Barack Obama was Christian or not. Though the Reverend concluded that Obama "has said he’s a Christian, so I just have to assume that he is," he appeared skeptical, suggesting Obama’s policies disagree with Christian principles, and thus earning the full ire of much of the fourth estate.
Obama bowing before the Saudi King, 2009.
Intrinsically trivial on many levels, this incident nevertheless brings several important points to the fore.
First, Graham was absolutely right to say that, "under Islamic law, the Muslim world sees Barack Obama as a Muslim, as a son of Islam": according to Sharia, if one’s father is Muslim, one automatically becomes Muslim. In fact, the reason behind last week’s church attack in Egypt, when thousands of Muslims tried to torch a church and kill its pastor, is that a Christian girl fled her father after he converted to Islam: she did not want to be Muslim, and was rumored to be hiding in the church. (This would not be the first time in recent months that churches were attacked on similar rumors.)
Because of this automatic passage of Islam from father to son—with the death penalty for those seeking to apostatize, the condemned Iranian pastor being just the most visible example—and because Obama attended a madrassa (a Muslim religious school) during his youth in Indonesia, many Muslims are convinced that Obama is a "secret" Muslim. In a Forbes article, "My Muslim President Obama: Why members of the faith see him as one of the flock," writer Asma Gull Hasan elaborates:
[S]ince Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, "I have to support my fellow Muslim brother," would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice. "Well, I know he’s not really Muslim," I would quickly add. But if the person I was talking to was Muslim, they would say, "yes he is." …. Most of the Muslims I know (me included) can’t seem to accept that Obama is not Muslim. Of the few Muslims I polled who said that Obama is not Muslim, even they conceded that he had ties to Islam…. The rationalistic, Western side of me knows that Obama has denied being Muslim, that his father was non-practicing, that he doesn’t attend a mosque. Many Muslims simply say back, "my father’s not a strict Muslim either, and I haven’t been to a mosque in years." Obama even told The New York Times he could recite the adhan, the Islamic call to prayer, which the vast majority of Muslims, I would guess, do not know well enough to recite. [Read the entire article, which is more eye-opening than the author probably intended.]
Another reason why many Muslims believe Obama is Muslim (a reason Ms. Hasan’s article understandably omits) is that, under the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, Muslims are permitted—in certain contexts even encouraged—to deny being Muslim, if so doing secures them or Islam an advantage. Accordingly, Islamic history is full of stories of Muslims denying and publicly cursing Islam, even pretending to be Christian, whenever it was strategic.
In other words, if an American president was a secret Muslim, and if he was lying about it, and even if he was secretly working to subvert the U.S. to Islam’s advantage —not only would that be justified by Islamic doctrines of loyalty and deception, but it would have ample precedents, stretching back to the dawn of Islam. Such as when Muhammad commanded a convert from an adversarial tribe to conceal his new Muslim identity and go back to his tribe—which he cajoled with a perfidious "You are my stock and my family, the dearest of men to me"—only to betray them to Islam’s invading armies.
Graham further upset "progressive" sensitivities by saying "All I know is under Obama, President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems to be more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries," adding that "Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama."
Yet who can deny this? Whether by expunging any reference to Islam in U.S. security documents, or enabling Muslim persecution of Christians, or ordering NASA to make Muslims "feel good" about themselves, or bowing to the anti-Christian Saudi king—the President has made his partiality for Islam very clear: Islam is undoubtedly getting a "free pass" under Obama.
What Franklin Graham’s critics fail to understand is that, when it comes to Obama’s religious identity, the Reverend probably has Jesus’ dictum in mind: "By their fruits shall ye know them"—that is, pro-Islamic actions speak louder than Christian words.
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
Militant Islamist Ideology
Reading CDR Youssef Aboul-Enein’s book, Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat, published by the Naval Institute Press (2010), one can see why U.S. leadership is far from "understanding the global threat"; why the Obama administration is supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood; and why so many U.S. politicians rose up in condemnation when one obscure pastor threatened to burn a Koran.
According to the jacket cover, Aboul-Enein is "a top adviser at the Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism" and "has advised at the highest levels of the defense department and intelligence community."
What advice does he give?
He holds that, whereas "militant Islamists" (e.g., al-Qaeda) are the enemy, "non-militant Islamists," (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood) are not: "It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary. They represent an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. They must not be confused with Islamists."
This theme, sometimes expressed in convoluted language—at one point we are urged to appreciate the "nuanced" differences "between Militant Islamists and between Militant Islamists and Islamists"—permeates the book.
Of course, what all Islamists want is a system inherently hostile to the West, culminating in a Sharia-enforcing Caliphate; the only difference is that the nonmilitant Islamists are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion are more effective than outright violence. Simply put, both groups want the same thing, and differ only in methodology.
Contradicting his general theme, sometimes Aboul-Enein alludes to this. For instance, after stressing that the Brotherhood is a nonviolent organization, he correctly adds that "the United States must be under no illusions that the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood includes limiting the rights of women" and other anti-Western aspects.
How to explain these discrepancies? Is the Brotherhood a problem for the U.S. or not?
The book’s foreword by Admiral James Stavridis offers a clue when it states that the book is a "culmination of Commander Aboul-Enein’s essays, lectures, and myriad answers to questions." In fact, Militant Islamist Ideology reads like a hodgepodge of ideas, and the author’s contradictions are likely products of different approaches to different audiences over time.
His position on appeasing the Muslim world—a fixed feature of the current administration’s policies—is clear. Aboul-Enein recommends that, if ever an American soldier desecrates a Koran, U.S. leadership must relieve the soldier of duty, offer "unconditional apologies," and emulate the words of Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond: "I come before you [Muslims] seeking your forgiveness, in the most humble manner I look in your eyes today, and say please forgive me and my soldiers," followed by abjectly kissing a new Koran and "ceremoniously" presenting it to Muslims.
Likewise, after rightfully admonishing readers not to rely on skewed or biased accounts of Islam, he presents Islamic apologist extraordinaire Karen Armstrong—whose whitewashed writings on Islam border on fiction—as the best source on the life of Muhammad.
Then there are Aboul-Enein’s flat out wrong assertions and distortions, examples of which this review closes with:
- He asserts that "militant Islamists dismiss ijmaa [consensus] and qiyas [analogical reasoning]." In fact, none other than al-Qaeda constantly invokes ijmaa (for instance, the consensus that jihad becomes a personal duty when infidels invade the Islamic world) and justifies suicide attacks precisely through qiyas.
- He insists that the Arabic word for "terrorist" is nowhere in the Koran—without bothering to point out that Koran 8:60 commands believers "to terrorize the enemy," also known as non-Muslim "infidels."
- He writes, "when Muslims are a persecuted minority Jihad becomes a fard kifaya (an optional obligation), in which the imam authorizes annual expeditions into Dar el Harb (the Abode of War), lands considered not under Muslim dominance." This is wrong on several levels: a fard kifaya is not an "optional obligation"—an oxymoron if ever there was one—but rather a "communal obligation"; moreover, he is describing Offensive Jihad, which is designed to subjugate non-Muslims and is obligatory to wage whenever Muslims are capable—not "when Muslims are a persecuted minority."
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network
Muslim Brotherhood: Only "Drunks, Druggies and Adulterers" Reject Sharia (Yeah right! You need to get out more.)
Muslim Brotherhood: Only "Drunks, Druggies and Adulterers" Reject Sharia
by Raymond Ibrahim • Nov 15, 2011 at 2:01 pm
At a conference attended by some 5,000, Senior Muslim Brotherhood leader, Dr. Essam el-Erian, Vice President of the "Freedom and Justice" party, the Brotherhood’s political wing, declared that "No one in Egypt—not a Copt, a liberal, a leftist, no one—dares say they are against Islam and the application of Sharia: all say they want the Islamic Sharia [applied]. And when referendum time comes, whoever says ‘we do not want Sharia’ will expose their hidden intentions."
He went on to threaten Egypt’s Supreme Council of Armed Forces with "massacres" if it interfered in politics and Islam’s role in the constitution and addressed the nation’s Coptic Christians as follows: "You will never find a strong fortress for your faith and rights except in Islam and Sharia," adding, "Our Lord has commanded us to be just, and we have learned it from Islam. We do not wish to hurt anyone…"
More to the point, his Brotherhood colleague, Sheikh Sayyid Abdul Karim, asserted: "Those who do not wish to see Islam [Sharia] applied are drunks, druggies, adulterers, and brothel-owners."
While such talk is commonplace from Egypt’s self-styled Salafists, it is significant that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has mastered the art of stealth, the art of appearing "moderate"—to the point that President Obama’s intelligence chief described them as "largely secular"—is beginning to feel comfortable enough to let snippets of the truth come out.
Latest Featured Articles from the Pundicity Network