Egyptian writer: "Who offends the Prophet is not the West, but we Muslims, for making Islam terrorist"

It is certainly rare to see such blunt self-criticism coming from the Arab world, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Ahmad al-Aswani had received death threats for his outspoken criticism of Islam and Muslims. He makes a lot of good points here, though the only thing I might add is that it may have been Muhammad himself who made Islam terrorist--current Muslims only follow his footsteps.

Translated from elbashayer.com, 22 December 2011:

Who Offends the Prophet?
By Ahmad al-Aswani 

I don’t believe that cartoons, books, or movies can offend any religion, or affect the faith of those who adhere to that religion with truth and conviction. 

The ones who offend the Prophet are those who slaughter and blow up innocent people throughout all the world—from New York to Madrid, in London, Bali, Riyadh, Cairo, Kabul, and Baghdad—even now, after mentioning Allah and the Prophet under the banner of Islamic jihad. Protests come out in support of all this, and internet forums sing praises to the knight Usama bin Laden, the hero of the raids of New York and Washington. 

Who offends the Prophet is a man like al-Qaradawi, who incites people to kill Jewish children in their mothers’ wombs (from an interview with Egyptian journalists in 1996), and incites people to carry out suicide operations. In the name of the religion and the Prophet, he declares jihad in Iraq, and innocent victims are killed. 

Who offends the Prophet are those who demand that the world issue a decision preventing the disrespect of religions while they practice it themselves in every prayer in their mosques, schools (madrasas), and on their television stations. They especially disrespect Christians and Jews, and curse them in every prayer (after the Islamic bloc offered a decision on this issue in the Human Rights Council in the United Nations, the Saudi Shura Council objected to this decision because insulting other religions is one of the rites of Islam, according to what was published on the Saudi site al-Arabiya). 

Who offends the Prophet is he who issues a fatwa, ruling that adults should be breastfed, and that the urine of the Prophet is blessed. It is he who allows hadiths like these to be studied in religious schools (madrasas) and colleges, such as the hadith of the fly, hadiths about holding the dhimmis (Jews and Christians) in contempt and humiliating them, hadiths about Paradise being under the shadow of swords, and thousands of other hadiths like these, whose mere existence offends the Prophet and Islam. 

Who offends the Prophet is he who teaches children in schools (madrasas), especially those called Islamic, to hate Christians because loving them is forbidden. “[They are] your enemy and your religion’s enemy,” as the veiled teacher said to the daughter of one of my friends of ten years in the schools of the Islamic conquest (a private school in Egypt) in Ma'adi (southern Cairo). When her family complained, they were told, “This is Islam.” 

Who offends the Prophet is he who believes that outward signs such as the beard, the mark on the forehead [from prostrating oneself], the hijab, the niqab, and the jilbab (Islamic robe) are duties of Islam, and declare people to be infidels and kill them because of them. 

Who offends the Prophet is he who believes that women are 'awrah [i.e. something shameful to be covered up], and are banned from prayers, like dogs and donkeys. (Or who believe) as it says in the famous hadith in Sahih Muslim, that “women are deficient in intelligence and religion.” They forget that women are mothers, sisters, sweethearts, daughters, and wives, and are equal to men. It is lamentable that the majority of Muslim women believe in the correctness of these hadiths which insult them. 

Who offends the Prophet is a man like Zaghlul al-Najar, who is called a scholar, and yet believes that natural disasters, such as hurricanes, volcanoes, and floods, are punishments from Allah for sinners. He also degrades the Gospel and the Torah, calling them made-up books. He does all this under the banner of the Prophet and in the name of Islam, and many uneducated people follow him. 

Who offends the Prophet are those who publish myths among Muslims, such as Prophetic medicine, and the interpretation of dreams. They say that following them is according to the sunnah of the noble Prophet, to publish ignorance and backwardness, and many fall prey in their demonic traps. 

Who offends the Prophet are the rulers and shaykhs of Arab nations who have transformed them into the last bastions of tyrants and dictators in the world. They turn to religious texts to justify their crimes. 

Who offends the Prophet is not the West, but we Muslims, for making Islam terrorist, a hypocrite, a hater of life, nourishing on the killing of others in the name of jihad, warring against free thought, on the pretext that these are the fundamentals of the Ummah, which stands for nothing but backwardness and rigidity.

Are Egyptians Using Democracy to Vote Against Democracy?

Many in the West have praised the "Arab Spring" as a pro-democracy movement, and are encouraged by the fact that elections in Egypt have (ostensibly) been largely free and fair. In the face of big victories by Islamist parties, some have even gone so far as to argue that the results are largely irrelevant; instead the "value lies in the integrity of the process" (1).

But what if voters use their new-found political freedom to vote for candidates who are expressly opposed to democracy and even the very electoral process they are attempting to ride to power? This is exactly what is happening with the unexpected electoral success of the Islamist Nur Party.

Most Egypt-watchers have been surprised by the electoral success of the Nur Party. Current estimates put the party's electoral gains at over 20% of the votes in the parliamentary elections, second only to the Muslim Brotherhood's (another hard-line Islamist party, which however knows better how to speak soothing words to the West) estimated 40-50%.

The Nur Party's long-standing opposition to democracy is well-known in Egypt. See the below 2010 video from one of its leaders--popular tele-shaykh 'Abd-al-Mun'im al-Shahat--who was himself a candidate for parliament in the Alexandria region:

This is not just some embarrassing clip from long ago which was brought up in the electoral process in order to derail al-Shahat's campaign. When asked about his position on democracy and elections just a few weeks ago, al-Shahat responded that he continues to maintain the same opinion, namely that democracy is "disbelief   in Allah (kufr) and forbidden (haraam)." However, to justify his candidacy in the elections, he offered his opinion that "Egyptian-style democracy is permissible, while Western democracy is disbelief in Allah" (2).

Perhaps explaining what al-Shahat meant by 'Western democracy,' other Nur Party candidates have affirmed that "the understanding of democracy with the meaning of people ruling themselves is disbelief in Allah." They also went further, arguing that democracy was merely "Masonic-Jewish propaganda" (3). One of the candidates also praised Saudi Arabia's application of Shari'ah-law penalties, which are generally much harsher than what Egypt experienced under Mubarak.

So the question remains:  if citizens use their freedom to elect tyrants worse than the one they overthrew, can that really be counted as progress?

Source List

1) http://allafrica.com/stories/201112221145.html
2) Translated from Arabic-language article at Masrawy.com, 1 December 2011:

Representative 'Abd-al-Mun'im al-Shahat: Democracy Is Still Forbidden

'Abd-al-Mun'im al-Shahat, a spokesman for there's da'wa salafiya, announced that he still holds the opinion which he declared a short time ago, that democracy is forbidden (haraam) and disbelief (kufr). He declared at the same time that democracy is the only means for solving the political differences in order to preserve the cohesion of the society. 

After playing the video which shows al-Shahat declaring at a previous time that democracy is disbelief (kufr) and forbidden (haraam), (media personality) Dina ('Abd-al-Fatah) asked al-Shahat his opinion about this after he was about to win the election. Al-Shahat responded that he continues to hold the same opinion. 

Al-Shahat said in an interview with media personality Dina 'Abd-al-Fatah on the satellite station al-Tahrir, that all of the electoral indicators show that he is ahead of his opponents, and has gained more than 60% of the votes in the Montazah Department in Alexandria. 

The spokesman for the Salafi Call (ad-da'wa as-salafiya) does not believe that his entrance into Parliament despite his declaration that democracy is forbidden is political opportunism. He pointed out that he believes that Egyptian-style democracy is permissible, while Western democracy is disbelief in Allah. 

Al-Shahat also believes that the cause for him leading his opponents in the elections owes to his religious and political background, as well as his participation in various debates and seminars.

3) Translated from Arabic-language article at al-Masry al-Youm, 8 December 2011:

Nur Party Candidates: Democracy is 'Kufr' ... and Propaganda from the Masonic Bloc ... We Should Return to "al-Bay'a" 

A number of leaders and candidates from the Nur Party in the Department of North Giza (Egypt) stressed that the understanding of democracy with the meaning of the people ruling themselves is disbelief (kufr) in Allah. They believe that the political elite "are opposed to what the apostles followed" in relying upon the system of allegiance (al-bay'a) after the death of the Apostle, in order to choose the caliph for the Muslims. 

In an electoral meeting which they held Wednesday night in a hall attached to the Eastern Mosque in Barajil province, they described ads in the streets from the Egyptian Bloc as "Masonic-Jewish ads." Shaykh Sha'ban Darwish--a member of the Nur Party High Council--stressed the need to change the philosophy of the current liberal system which the last two presidents, Sadat and Mubarak, produced, and which failed to promote the state to an Islamic system. 

Darwish said:  "If the Salafis strike the earth, it will bring forth money. The liberals should be ashamed of themselves and remove themselves from politics through the ballot box, because they caused corruption in the land over the last 60 years. Now they want to preserve their interests and benefits, which are connected to the Americans and the West." 

Dr. 'Adil 'Azazi, who is at the head of the Nur Party list in the Department of North Giza, said:  "Leaving the ruling to the people, or what is called democracy, is disbelief (kufr) in Allah." He pointed to the need to rely upon the system of allegiance (al-bay'a) to choose the caliphs of the Muslims. 'Azazi added that Islamic laws applied in Saudi Arabia, and especially in applying the penalties of the Islamic Shari'ah, have contributed to a decrease in crime.

Muslim Brotherhood leaders quote Prophet Muhammad at al-Azhar conference: "O Muslim, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"

While the much of the West was still congratulating themselves for their role in supporting the so-called 'Arab Spring,' Muslim Brotherhood members (the soon-to-be rulers of "the new Egypt") were at al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo on 25 November calling for genocide against Jews. The call came in the form of a recitation of an authentic hadith from the Prophet Muhammad, in which he declared that Muslims should fight against the Jews "until the rocks and the trees will say, 'O slave of Allah, o Muslim, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." The occasion was the commemoration of what the International Union of Muslim Scholars named "Save al-Aqsa Friday" (for previous reporting on this day, see here).

I provided the translations for the above video clips, which were expertly put together by Vlad Tepes. His article follows:

Two speakers from moderate, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, recite genocidal hadith at conference 

Lots of people are clinging tenaciously to the notion that Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood are somehow the horse to back as compared to perhaps, the Salafist party in Egypt. 

Here is a segment from 2 clips of speakers from the M.B. at a major conference at Al Azhar in Cairo (we remember Al Azhar as that is where Obama gave his famous outreach speech shortly after being elected and given the Nobel Peace Prize) where at least two speakers at the Azhar rally recited the canonical hadith calling for Jew annihilation. 

One was Abd al-Rahman al-Barr, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau [clip 1] 

Shaykh Muhammad Mukhtar al-Mahdi, professor at Al Azhar and head of the Islamic Law Society, did so too [clip 2] 

Thanks to Andrew Bostom and Translating Jihad for this one. 

There is much more on this, and misinterpretations of this (which is why this was translated and titled by us) at this link.

The English transcripts for the two clips follow:

Clip #1: Here is something which is extremely important. We must prepare the generations for the hour of jihad and conflict, which is not far off. The leaders of the Zionists said they are expecting a coming war. But I say you can even be certain of it, for the Prophet (PBUH) told us, "Fight against the Jews until a Jew will hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and the trees will say, 'O slave of Allah, o Muslim, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him'." 

Clip #2: It is incumbent, therefore, on the Ummah to unite its ranks, and prepare for that day of which (the Prophet) (PBUH) informed us when he said, "The hour will not come until the Muslims will fight against the Jews until the rocks and the trees will say, 'O Muslim, o slave of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, kill him'."

Egyptian Parliamentary Candidate: Jizya Is Only Half a Dinar, and It's Taken from the Rich Christians

This is from the salafi Nour Party, which apparently will be forming part of the majority coalition in the new Egyptian parliament. The votes haven't even all been counted yet, and already they're talking about implementing Islamic law to discriminate against Christians. This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, as the candidate himself expresses below--it's not like these guys just "fell from the sky." We know who they are, and all along both the salafis and the Brotherhood have been very clear on the fact that they want Islamic law. Those of us with our eyes open know what that means--an assault on individual liberty, institutionalized discrimination against Christians, Jews, and women, and hostility and war against all non-Muslim countries. And yet the Obama administration and far too many Republicans tell us that this is 'progress.' Yeah, the same kind of 'progress' we saw when the Palestinians voted Hamas into power.

Translated from elfagr.com, 3 Dec 2011:

Candidate for the Salafi Nour Party in Assiut: Jizya Is Only Half a Dinar, and It's Taken from the Rich Christians 

Muhammad Kamal, elfagr.com 

A candidate for the salafi Nour Party, Ahmad 'Umran, expressed his surprise at being asked, "Who are you, and what is your role in politics?" He responded by saying, "They act as if we just fell from the sky." 

He added, "The Copts should not forget that we were the ones who freed them from the hands of the Romans, and that jizya is only half a dinar, which is taken from the rich and given to their poor." This came during the Friday sermon at the Mosque of the Court in the city center of Abnub. 

'Umran stated that they are planning to take their future in their own hands, and put into practice the Islamic Shari'ah. They believe that they must implement it gradually. 'Umran wonders at Egyptian law, saying:  "The law which governs us in our Muslim country comes in three sections--first, statutory law, then customary law, and then the Shari'ah. So the Shari'ah comes in the last of the three sections."

Egyptian shaykh says it is forbidden for women to participate in the Olympics

Popular Egyptian Shaykh Muhammad al-'Arifi last week called on the Saudi government to ban women from participating in the Olympic games, because it is "forbidden." Al-'Arifi explained that women are permitted in Islam to play sports, just not when they might mingle with men, or any men might be watching. He also described it as a slippery slope which could lead to women taking off their hijabs or tightening their clothes.

Al-'Arifi also stated that "Prince Nawaf would not like his wife or daughter to participate, and thus he should likewise be eager to protect the reputation and virtue of his Muslim sisters." Of course there's nothing wrong with trying to protect people's virtue and reputation; however, the fact that this only applies to women and not men is telling. Women under Islam are seen as sex objects only, which is why a man's female relatives must be covered up and controlled at all times in order to protect the family's honor.

Translated from Donia al-Watan, 26 November:

Al-'Arifi Demands that Saudi Women Be Stopped from Participating in the Olympic Games Because It Is Forbidden 

Donia al-Watan (Gaza), 26 November 2011 

Shaykh Muhammad al-'Arifi, member of the Muslim Scholars' Association and a well-known preacher, directed an appeal to Prince Nawaf bin Faysal, general president for the Protection of the Youth, in which he asked him to employ all legal means to stop Saudi women from participating in the Olympic games. He stated that Prince Nawaf would not like his wife or daughter to participate, and thus he should likewise be eager to protect the reputation and virtue of his Muslim sisters. Al-'Arifi also stated that sports is a desirable thing in Islam, including for women to practice sports. In general it is permitted. However, if it leads to women mingling with men, or uncovering their nakedness, or men watching them while they are running, falling to the ground, laughing, crying, fighting with another player, riding horses, performing gymnastics, wrestling, and so forth; and if cameras are filming this is and it's being aired by stations, then there's no doubt that it is clearly forbidden (haraam). Women's participation in the worldwide Olympic games, or in foreign or domestic public tournaments, over time could leads to acceptance of her uncovering her hijab, expanding the types of clothes she wears, and also shrinking and tightening her clothes, little by little. 

He added that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a country which is distinguished throughout all the world and is special, for it is the Muslims' qiblah, and the birthplace of Islam and the Message. It belongs to all Muslims. They must see among us a faithful adherence to Islam, and respect for the teachings of the Shari'a.

The International Union of Muslim Scholars Wishes You a Happy "Save al-Aqsa Friday" (while Pushing for War with Israel)

The International Union of Muslim Scholars is headed by the highly-popular cleric, Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is also the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Point being, when these guys issue a statement, you can pretty well consider it the view of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here they warn the Israelis that any stone disturbed on al-Aqsa will be met with "heavy bloodshed"; they call for the Palestinian factions to unite against Israel; they call for the withdrawal from any peace initiatives with Israel; and they call for Muslims to revive the duty of jihad and prepare for victory against Israel.

In sum, this looks like no more or less than a call for war against Israel (translated from salahsoltan.com, 24 Nov 2011):

The International Union of Muslim Scholars Calls on All Muslims to Make Next Friday, 25-11-2011, Al-Aqsa Friday 

24 November 2011, salahsoltan.com 

The International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) calls on all Muslims to make next Friday, 25 November 2011, al-Aqsa Friday, and to stand with it physically and spiritually, and to give the Zionists a stern warning against trying to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque. (The IUMS) calls on the Arab and Islamic world to protect it. The IUMS continues to be deeply concerned for what is happening in all of the blessed land of Palestine, from the al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds (Jerusalem) to the West Bank and Gaza. (The IUMS is) especially (concerned about) Zionist attempts through all means available to target the al-Aqsa Mosque in order to demolish the Mughrabi Gate Bridge, which connects the Wailing Wall and the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque. This is in order to build an iron bridge to allow artillery, tanks, and soldiers into the courtyards of the al-Aqsa Mosque, and threaten the security of the mosque and of praying Muslims. This is part of a terrible Judaization scheme, which has grown to the point of 37 tunnels underneath the al-Aqsa Mosque at a depth of 90 meters, building 50,000 settlement units, and changing 200,000 Arab names into Hebrew names, as some authorities have frankly admitted. 

Before this imminent danger and these repeated attacks, the IUMS calls for the following: 

1 - The IUMS issues a stern warning to the Zionists against proceeding with this dangerous plan (attempting to demolish al-Aqsa), which would inflame the conflict in the region. Al-Aqsa is the first of the two qiblas (direction to which Muslims turn when praying), and the site where the Messenger (PBUH) ascended. The site is also considered sacred to our Christian brothers.
Our basis for this stern warning is the deep Islamic and Arab roots is the powerful sentiment of Muslims toward their blessed holy sites, in addition to the fact that the Arab revolutions have paved the way for unity in the Islamic Ummah, which contains more than 1 billion 700 thousand people. All of them are of one heart concerning al-Aqsa and al-Quds (Jerusalem). Let the Zionists know that every stone, even every atom of al-Aqsa (which is disturbed) will be met with heavy bloodshed. 

2 - The IUMS calls on the leaders of the Arab and Islamic Ummah to bear their responsibility for every stone in the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque through the following measures: 

A - Support the resistance with all available resources, which is the only option for ending the occupation and protecting the holy sites. 

B - Withdraw from the Arab peace initiative with the Zionist enemy, which no longer serves any benefit. 

C - Suspend all peace treaties and expel Zionist ambassadors which remain in the country. 

3 - The IUMS calls on the Ummah and its intellectuals and their parties to make Friday, 25 November 2011, "Save al-Aqsa Friday" through Friday sermons, sit-ins, prayers, and peaceful demonstrations. 

4 - The IUMS calls immediately for the union of the Palestinian resistance, to be one rank (Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.-Qur'an 61:4). (The IUMS) also calls on the entire Ummah to revive the duty of jihad in all its forms, and prepare for the hour of victory and the liberation of al-Aqsa, al-Quds (Jerusalem), and Palestine from the Zionist enemies. It is coming by the promise of Allah Almighty to the believers, saying, "And another (favour will He bestow,) which ye do love,- help from Allah and a speedy victory. So give the Glad Tidings to the Believers" (Qur'an 61:13); "And We gave (Clear) Warning to the Children of Israel in the Book, that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would they be punished)! When the first of the warnings came to pass, We sent against you Our servants given to terrible warfare: They entered the very inmost parts of your homes; and it was a warning (completely) fulfilled." Allah has spoken the truth. 

Doha (Qatar), 23 November 2011 

(Signed)
Dr. 'Ali al-Qarah Daghi, General Secretary
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, President of the IUMS

Popular Sunni Shaykh Cusses Out Shia Caller on Live Egyptian TV

Feel the love as another stellar representative of the religion of peace, popular Egyptian Shaykh Muhammad al-Zoghby, berates and curses a presumed Shi'a caller on live TV, on the Egyptian station Safa, 29 August 2011. I wasn't able to find the entire show this clip was taken from, but based on what a few Arabic forum threads said about it, Shaykh al-Zoghby had spent most of the show discussing the crimes of the Shi'a, which apparently prompted this caller.

Translated from a YouTube clip posted on 29 August 2011:

Caller: How are you? 

Host: Hello. 

Caller: I also want to greet that mangy dog sitting next to you. 

Host: You’re the mangy d— 

Shaykh al-Zogby: Damn you, and damn your father! I’m the one who’s Muslim. I’m the one who’s pure. You’re filthy, your father’s filthy, and your back is filthy. I know what you’re good for, you scum. If I were there I would go after you and everyone in your village who is supporting you, and force them underneath these pure shoes, you disgusting filth, because glory is ours, and humiliation is yours until the final hour.

Kuwaiti Shaykh Explains and Justifies Islamic "Pleasure Marriages"

(h/t Nonie Darwish)

Translated from video clip posted to YouTube, 17 July 2011

In the above video, Kuwaiti Shaykh Yasir al-Habib, a Shi'a, explains and justifies the Islamic practice of zawaj al-mut'a, or temporary marriage (lit. 'pleasure marriage'), which is in a sense Islamically-sanctioned prostitution. In the longer clip which I took this excerpted portion from, Shaykh al-Habib starts out by saying that Sunnis often try to embarrass Shi'a by saying that they're going to marry their sisters in a pleasure marriage.

Al-Habib responds by saying that, first of all, in Islam a brother has no authority over the actions of his sister. And secondly, he contends that Sunnis want him to deny pleasure marriage simply because some people find it repulsive, to which he counters that "the Messenger of Allah didn't find it repulsive." Then he turns the argument around, explaining that Sunnis attempt to deny pleasure marriage while accepting marriage with the intent to divorce, which is essentially the same thing.

He also brings up a hadith or saying from one of the companions of Muhammad, who said that, "We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of the dates or flour as a dower during the life time of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until Umar forbade it because of Amr Ibn Huraith" (from al-islam.org). The last point about Umar forbidding it is where most Shi'a and Sunnis disagree--the Shi'a don't accept Umar as a legitimate caliph or successor to Muhammad, while the Sunnis do.

Subtitled video is above, transcript below:

I tell him, “Come on, if you’re a man, then give me your sister in marriage, a marriage with the intent of divorcing after one night.” I could imagine something like that, now that you mention it. You know? Now, even if you find this repulsive, the Messenger of Allah didn’t find it repulsive. The Messenger of Allah approved this marriage by recognizing it. The Messenger of Allah permitted and authorized (temporary) pleasure marriages. Now even if they later put it in a written hadith that he later forbade pleasure marriages, the important thing is that it was present (during the time of the Prophet).

If the marriage was by nature considered repulsive by the Shari’ah, meaning it was not pleasing to Almighty Allah and His Messenger (PBUH), then the Prophet from the beginning would not have permitted it. Why did he permit it? I mean, it wasn’t considered contrary to the honor of Muslim women. Why did he authorize his companions to marry Muslim women for a short time, and to “enjoy them (sexually),” [Qur’an 4:24] even with a handful of dates? A handful of dates is given to any woman to enjoy her sexually, that’s it. If you say that this is adultery, then you’re accusing the Messenger (PBUH) of adultery, or that he legitimized adultery. If you say this is repulsive, you’re accusing the Messenger (PBUH) of being repulsive, or that the Messenger of Allah legitimized that which is repulsive, Allah forbid. Is it not so?

Pleasure marriage came to solve a societal problem. It doesn’t mean that it always has to be applied. However, if my sister did that, according to its rules and laws, whether she were a widow and her husband had passed away, or she were divorced, and so forth; if she needed it (for whatever reason), then this marriage would be according to the tradition (sunnah) of Allah and His Messenger (PBUH). There is no shame in this. No shame at all.

Female Candidate for Egyptian Parliament Affirms that "Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority"

Courting the female vote, Islam-style.

Translated from Gaza-based Donia al-Watan, 17 November 2011:

Female Salafi Candidate for Egyptian Parliament: "Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority" 

A female salafi candidate for Egyptian Parliament, Muna Salah, said to al-Sharq al-Awsat that women are deficient in intelligence and religion, and it is not permissible for them to be in authority or to occupy the office of the presidency. She defended her candidacy for the People's Council, saying that acting as a representative in the Council only partial authority and not complete authority, such as the presidency of the republic. She added that she seeks to apply the Islamic shari'a, including cutting off the hands of thieves, preventing the mingling of men and women, and specifying black clothes for women and white clothes for men. 

While just one of thousands of candidates in the upcoming parliamentary elections, Muna Salah--president of the Manabir al-Noor Charity Association in Egypt--continues to provoke controversy. She is one of two veiled candidates in the parliamentary elections scheduled to take place in two weeks. [...]

This lady may sound crazy to you, but keep in mind that she's quoting directly from Muhammad himself, as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." -Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

Saudi Religious Police to Crack Down on Women with Alluring Eyes

The below translation comes from an article published today in Gaza-based Dunya al-Watan, and is also being reported in other major media outlets throughout the Arab world:

Saudi Religious Police Pledge to Pursue Women with Eyes that Provoke Fitna 

Dunya al-Watan, 17 Nov 2011 

The Council for Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil (the religious police) in Saudi Arabia confirmed Wednesday that it will force women cover up their eyes, especially those which "provoke fitna." 

The media spokesman for the Council for Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil, Shaykh Mutliq al-Nabit, said in Ha'il (north) that "The men of the council will intervene to compel women to cover up their eyes, especially those which provoke fitna." 

Arab media outlets picked up a short video clip on YouTube, which states that, "The Council for Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil in Saudi Arabia pledges to take the necessary actions against any girl or woman who has eyes which provoke fitna." 

Shaykh Mutliq al-Nabit said, "The Council will compel the owner of those eyes to cover them up," pointing out that the Council "has the right to do that." A Saudi citizen entered the hospital at the end of last year after suffering stab wounds in his hand and back after a fight with one of the members of the Council in the Barzan market of Ha'il, after a demand from one of the members of the Council that he cover up the eyes of his wife who was with him at the time. 

The District Court in Ha'il issued a ruling which justified the member of the Council and condemned the husband and a man who was with him for assault (behaving arrogantly towards another). The first was condemned to 8 months in prison and 300 lashes dispersed over 6 sessions. The second was condemned to 18 months in prison and 700 lashes dispersed over 10 sessions.

Egyptian Candidate for President Praises bin Laden as a Martyr

(h/t theegyptianrose)

According to the Weekly Standard, the man featured in the clip above, Egyptian candidate for president Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, "may well follow Mubarak as Egypt's first Islamist president." If so then this video clip--which was posted on YouTube on 4 August, and later reported on in several Arab media outlets--might give us a frightening glimpse into what kind of partner in the War on Terror the new Egyptian regime will be.

Subtitled video is above, full transcript below:

And Usama bin Laden—may Allah be pleased with him—may Allah take great mercy upon him. I ask Allah to accept him with the righteous and the martyrs, O Lord. Do not imagine that a martyr is only someone with whom you've always agreed throughout your life. If you had a different point of view from him, and then he was killed, this would not negate his martyrdom. Now this man (i.e. bin Laden) had religion wealth, and he was able to spend millions in the path of Allah, and speak the word of truth with power. However, he preferred to sacrifice his flesh, his offspring, his family, and his wealth, and go to the front lines to work in the path of Allah. The most glorious among us are always the martyrs. May Allah have mercy on him. The testimony which he obtained was a great fortune. I suppose that he—and Allah is his judge now—is among those of whom it is said, “If only my people knew,” Allah-willing. May Allah take great mercy upon him, and I ask Almighty Allah that the Muslims may soon be able to avenge him, as well as all of the martyrs of Islam, such as ‘Abdallah ‘Azam, Ahmad Yasin, and others, O Lord.

Shaykh al-Huwayni: The Penalty for Apostasy Is Death; Only "Boozers and Druggies" Say Otherwise

How many times have we heard Western so-called 'experts' on Islam as well as politicians cite the Qur'anic verse "there is no compulsion in religion" as an example of Islamic tolerance. According to Egyptian Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni, all of those people might be "boozers and druggies," because despite that verse, "Islam is a religion which has limitations and rulings." One of those, upon which all scholars are in agreement, is that any Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed.

This is taken from a video clip posted on YouTube in May 2009. The subtitled video is above, and the English transcript is below (thanks to Nonie Darwish for her help on this one):

"They say that freedom of conscience should be provided to every human being.... because Allah Almighty says, 'There is no compulsion in religion'." So it is like a druggie interpreting the Qur'an. 

"There is no compulsion in religion?" True. "Whoever will may believe, and whoever will may disbelieve?" True. However, this is on the condition that you do not enter the Islamic faith. You are free. No one is compelled to believe in, or convert to, Islam. You're Christian? Be a Christian. You're Jewish? Be a Jew. You're in any other religion? Be whatever you like. 

But you should know that Islam is a religion that has limitations and rulings. One of its established rulings, upon which all scholars unanimously agree, is that whoever enters Islam voluntarily, not forcibly--it is not permissible for him to apostatize from Islam. If he does that, the ruling upon him is death. You still want to enter the faith with this punishment? Fine. You don't want to enter? Fine? We don't need a curse. We don't want you either. This is the ruling in Islam. "There is no compulsion in religion"? Ah. 

If your Lord willed it, everyone on earth would believe. Then will you yet compel people to become believers? I don't know anyone who has been compelled to enter into Islam. The offer was left to the early Muslims. They were courageous peoples. They were distinguished by the strength of their hearts, of their will, and their firmness in making decisions. Islam was offered to them, and they believed. 

We don't know of anyone who has been killed simply for being an infidel. Nor is it permissible for anyone to kill someone simply because he is an infidel. Islam is a religion which was established on persuasion. No one is ever compelled to enter Islam. However, if he enters Islam, there are rulings. There are those who want to have freedom to reject Islam (kufr). If a Muslim disbelieves, there is a penalty. 

But some say "There is no compulsion in religion." He doesn't pray? "There is no compulsion in religion." He doesn't pay alms, or perform the hajj, or fast? "There is no compulsion in religion!" What Muslim scholar has ever approved this? No one ever has, and no one ever should speak this nonsense. The only ones who advocate this are druggies and boozers. At a time when people are reaffirming the Islamic doctrine in every corner on earth, such advocates want to get rid of Islam.

Shaykh of al-Azhar: "The Western understanding of human rights is against that which is sacred to us"

The Shaykh of al-Azhar, the Grand Imam Dr. Ahmad al-Tayib, by many considered to be the foremost authority in Sunni Islam, issued a statement yesterday condemning attempts to bring Western notions of human rights and freedom to the Middle East. Dr. al-Tayib explained that "the Western understanding of human rights is against that which is sacred to us," and that "opening the door for human rights from a purely Western understanding would destroy our homes and clash with our beliefs."

Of course, if one of us infidels says that Islam is incompatible with the Western understanding of human rights, we're quickly branded Islamophobes. But here you have the Grand Imam of al-Azhar saying essentially the same thing. So I guess either he's just a big Islamophobe himself, or Islam really does conflict with human rights. My bet's on the latter...

Translated from ikhwanonline.com, 17 October 2011:

Shaykh of al-Azhar: "The Western understanding of human rights is against that which is sacred to us" 

By Usama 'Abd-al-Salam 

The Grand Imam Dr. Ahmad al-Tayib, the Shaykh of al-Azhar, stressed that opening the door for human rights from a purely Western understanding would destroy our homes and clash with our beliefs and with that which is sacred to us. He relates this to the maxim, "He built a palace and destroyed an Egypt," saying, "Not everything which is a right for the Western man is a right for the Arab or Muslim man."

He added during his reception of Dr. Butrous Butrous Ghali, president of the National Council for Human Rights, today at noon, that human rights should not clash with that which is sacred to us, because many of those who brag about defending human rights have taken them as part of a booming trade under the auspices of globalization.

The Shaykh of al-Azhar called for the encouragement of all efforts to resist globalization, because it is crystal clear that America is currently suffering in every place and in every realm. This confirms that the culture of New York should not direct us in the East. We have a culture, values, and history which protect us from dissipating and melting away. 

[...] (Goes on to talk about situation in Yemen) 

The Grand Imam called for the protection of Arab and Islamic civilization, which is based on morals and religious values. He added that the civilization of the Ummah is led by faith and values, contrary to Western civilization, which is led by the interests of personal freedom. We need to breathe new life into the East, in every meaning of the word--in culture, economics, society, and so on. This will not happen except through hard, continuous, and independent work.

‫Muslim Brotherhood Leader: "Every Israeli who enters Egypt--tourist or not--should be killed"

[Update, 28 Sep: A small correction in the transcript--at the end of the first line it should read, "to carry their coffins with their own hands."]

Last month Dr. Salah Sultan, a member of Yusuf al-Qaradawi's International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, declared on al-Jazeera that the IUMS would restore the fatwa they issued in 1994, which stated that "every Zionist who enters Egypt--tourist or not--should be killed."

Despite the importance of this fatwa for Egyptian-Israeli relations, this unfortunately received little attention in Western press. MEMRI did publish a short excerpt of the statements (see here), but I believe there is more in Salah's comments that we should be aware of, especially that this is not about mere retaliation for Israelis supposedly killing Egyptian officers, but rather it is about the desire to destroy Israel altogether.

The subtitled video is above, transcript is below (see the original Arabic here):

If they are not able to protect our children then we, the International Union of Muslim Scholars, will mobilize the Egyptian people, as well as the Arab and Islamic people, to carry their burdens with their own hands. A new revolution will be launched to uproot the Zionist entity. We consider that to be in fulfillment of a warning from Allah Almighty: “When the first of the warnings came to pass, We sent against you Our servants given to terrible warfare: They entered the very inmost parts of your homes; and it was a warning (completely) fulfilled” [Qur’an 17:5]. 

As long as they remain in Egypt, and kill our children, we will bring back the fatwa which we declared (previously) in the Cairo Conference of 1994 after the killing of 60 people who were worshiping in the al-Ibrahimi Mosque. Also the number of Egyptians killed from the (Cairo) agreement until now, exceeds 140 slain, all who were killed at the hands of the Zionists. In response to this, I said at that day, that every Zionist who enters Egypt—tourist or not—should be killed. We don’t kill tourists from any (other) country. We declare that the fatwa is specifically for those Zionists who destroyed our land and country, killed our children, and shed our blood upon our land. The incident of the killing of those officers will not be forgotten, because it was after the revolution. 

Ka'b Ibn-Asad al-Qurazi was the one who said, to those Jews from Bani Qurayza, "O people! Do you still not understand?" We say to Netanyahu and the Zionists, "Do you still not understand?" Allah-willing, we want us, the children of Egypt and of the blessed revolution, which was led by those youth, giving thanks night and day, who led this divine, popular, and civilized revolution. I say that we should have a project to liberate Palestine--a fundamental, essential project, which every current, school, and personality should converge around, linked together. 

I believe that the one who spoke best on the issue of confronting the Zionist entity, in all of the Islamic Maghrib--in Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco--I used to believe it was Dr. Abu-Zayd al-Muqri Idrisi. I met him in several conferences in Europe, America, and various other countries. He was stronger than any other person on this issue. However, when I heard a communist lawyer (speak) on this topic, he was stronger than all the others. This issue, the issue of Palestine, is an issue which everyone should rally around. 

I want to remind you that the Arab League, when the decision was issued to partition (Palestine), and the problem was much smaller than where we are now--the decision of the Arab League was to raise up armed units in member Arab nations in order to resist the Zionist project. Did you know that? Did you know that the University of Cairo, under the leadership of Dr. 'Abd-al-Wahhab Muru, took the decision to halt studies in the university and take up arms? This was in the University of Cairo, the University of Ayn-Shams, and other universities. 

Why is it that every child, every woman, is armed with all manner of weapons for defense, while we live like tame sheep, waiting to be attacked in our homes, for our land to be occupied, our goods plundered, our wealth squandered, and our gas and other resources given away, while we stand by and watch? I say that this is the primary mission of the Military Council. If it will not fulfill it now, then Allah-permitting, the will of the people will be done. I want to mention while we are in the Night of Power, or we consider it such, that there are 10 policy shifts we should move to in order to start a project to liberate Palestine, the captives, the al-Aqsa Mosque, and Jerusalem. [Here he goes on to name the 10 shifts, which are mostly slogans about unity and firmness against the enemy.]

Shaykh Muhammad Hassan: There is no compulsion in religion, but...

Egyptian Shaykh Muhammad Hassan, who is one of the most popular and well-known Islamic clerics in Egypt and even throughout the Islamic world (there is even a campaign in Egypt to try to get him to run for president), emphasizes in this video that apostates from Islam must be killed. He argues, interestingly, that this does not conflict with the principle of no compulsion in religion, because no one is forced to enter Islam (or so he says). However, after they choose to enter Islam, they cannot be allowed to leave it. He contends that this is akin to treason, and every country in the world punishes treason by death. This is a very common argument from Islamic clerics and others who try to defend the killing of apostates, and take on the impossible task of reconciling this with the Western ideas of freedom of religion and conscience.

This video was originally aired on the Egyptian satellite station al-Nas, on Muhammad Hassan's program entitled "Ahadith an-nihaya," (Sayings of the End). I don't know the original air date that this clip was taken from, but it appears to have been some time in 2008. The YouTube clip I pulled it from was posted 28 July 2010. My English transcript follows:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “It is not permissible (to shed) the blood of a Muslim who witnesses that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except for one of the following three conditions: (First), the life for the life…” This means the killer is killed. But you are not the one who kills him, and neither am I the one who kills him. But the competent legal authority is the one who is responsible for this. Otherwise, Muslim society would descend into chaos, with everyone killing whomever he wanted whenever he wanted. No—blood is sacred; blood is sacred. “It is not permissible (to shed) the blood of a Muslim who witnesses that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except under three conditions: (First), the life for the life…” The Almighty said: “In the law of equality there is (saving of) life to you, o ye men of understanding” (Qur’an 2:179). “In the law of equality there is (saving of) life to you, o ye men of understanding.” “The life for the life”—the killer is killed. The punishment of Almighty Allah is carried out upon him. 

“(Second), the married person who commits adultery”—I will return to him (later) Allah-willing, in another of the signs. 

“(Third), the one who abandons his religion, and separates himself from the community.” The hadith is in both of the Sahihs (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim). “The one who abandons his religion, and separates himself from the community.” Islam does not compel anyone to enter it. This (concept) needs to be firmly established. Islam does not compel anyone to enter it. No. There is no compulsion in religion. But rather we preach (Islam) in truth, mercy, propriety, and humility. Whoever says after the preaching—whoever says after (receiving) the preaching and the call (to Islam), “No, I will not enter this religion.” We say to him, “There is no compulsion in religion.” Truth stands out clear from error. We recite the saying of Almighty Allah, “Let him who will believe, and let him who will disbelieve” (Qur’an 18:29). We recite the saying of Allah Almighty, “You have your religion and I have my religion” (Qur’an 109:6). Beautiful. This is after the preaching and the call (to Islam). 

But if he enters Islam of his own free will and choice, he does not have the right to leave the religion of Allah whenever he wants, to shake the foundations of Muslim society. No, he does not have the right. Absolutely not. But he does have the right, after having (Islam) preached to him, to say, “I will enter” or “I will not enter this religion.” But to enter it just to leave it whenever he wants? No. This is something which is unacceptable in the religion of Almighty Allah. Show me a constitution anywhere on earth which grants this for its citizens. But rather whoever comes out against the constitution of any nation is accused of treason. Everyone familiar with treason knows that the penalty is death. So what do you think about the one who betrays the religion of Allah Almighty, the one who betrays Allah and His Messenger? “O ye who believe! Do not betray Allah and His Messenger, nor knowingly betray your trusts” (Qur’an 8:27).

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't