Monday, March 4, 2013

Senior Cleric for American Muslim Group: Islamic Punishment for Apostasy Is Death

(h/t Center for Security Policy) Dr. Hatem al-Haj, a senior committee member for the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), confirmed in the below fatwa from July 2011 that the Islamic punishment for apostasy is death. A couple of things stand out to me about this fatwa.

First, this fatwa was taken down from AMJA's website as far back as October 2011, along with other fatwas on the same topic, possibly in response to an article written by my colleague Andrew Bostom exposing the rulings in that same month. (See the fatwa on archive.org, while the link on AMJA's website is broken.) So either AMJA changed their minds about the penalty for apostasy; or, more likely, they just don't want non-Muslims seeing what they really think on controversial topics. If that's the case, then what else are they not telling us?

Second, the question that leads to the fatwa is tellingly not asking what the ruling is on apostasy, but rather how to explain this ruling to others, including non-Muslims. While Dr. al-Haj confirms that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death, he also recommends that when explaining this to others, you should start with the caveat that this is something which should only be carried out in a Muslim country through the court system.

AMJA likes to hide behind that caveat, but at the same time they encourage Muslims in the United States to use the American legal system in order to establish Islamic law (see here and here). So isn't it fair to assume that Dr. al-Haj and AMJA would like to eventually make death for apostates the law of the land here in the United States as well?

See my translation of Dr. al-Haj's fatwa below (see the original Arabic on his website):
The Ruling on the Apostate, and How We (Should) Explain It to Others
23 July 2011
Question: In view of the questions which we have been receiving in the Islamic centers these days, we ask you, sirs, to please explain how to respond to these questions, which are about the ruling on the apostate and his punishment.

Answer: Praise be to Allah, and peace be upon the Apostle of Allah.

I think you should begin by explaining that this is one of those things which is entrusted to the judicial systems in Islamic countries, and not to individuals in these countries or any others. Then make clear that the courts will examine these situations and decide them based on several factors.

But the ruling in the shari'a is death for men (who commit apostasy) according to all four (mainstream) schools (of Islamic jurisprudence). It is the same punishment for women according to most of the schools, but according to the Hanafis it is only imprisonment. This is according to the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH):  "Whoever changed his religion, kill him"; and also, "It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah's apostle, except for one of the following three:  a murderer, an adulterer, and one who leaves his religion and separates himself from the community."

This firm ruling is not the only option for the imam, for he can rule otherwise, if there is benefit (in doing so). The evidence for this is the apostasy of some in the time of the Prophet (PBUH), on whom the ruling was not carried out. For (the Prophet) said the following about those who apostatized from the Muslims and joined the Quraysh:  "Whoever departed from us and went unto them, Allah has banished."

This is not something that was invented by Islam, but rather the ruling on the apostate is also in the Law of Moses (PBUH). The following is from the Book of Deuteronomy:
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again."

It is well-known that those who worshiped the calf were ordered to be killed. In the Book of Exodus 32:28, it mentioned the killing of 3,000 of the Levites for their apostasy:  "And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

In explaining this issue to non-Muslims, you need to be wise and honest. May Allah help you.

Allah Almighty knows best.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Dr. Wafa Sultan vs. Sheikh Omar Bakri: "Is there anything uglier than this shari'a on the face of the earth?"



I was out of town last week, so I didn't have time to post this video until now. This clip comes from a 2-hour debate between ex-Muslim Dr. Wafa Sultan, and Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, the former leader of Islamic terrorist groups Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun. In this clip, the two discuss the issue of human rights under Islam. Sheikh Bakri affirms here that Muslims and non-Muslims are not equal, due to the dictates of Allah, and if non-Muslims don't accept Islam, Muslims must fight against them. He also explains that the blood and property of non-Muslims are permissible for Muslims, unless the non-Muslims enter into a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact [i.e. pact of protection offered to Christians and Jews]. This is just the first of hopefully several clips that I will be producing from this enlightening debate. Thanks to Vlad Tepes for putting the video together. See also Andrew Bostom's excellent post on this story here.

Subtitled video is above, transcript is below (see original video here):
Host: Sheikh Omar, what are human rights under the shari’a? Can you explain this for us? 
Omar Bakri: The shari’a has defined human rights for Muslims and for non-Muslims. The non-Muslim has chosen to not accept the judgments of Allah. Therefore, yes, his rights differ from those of a Muslim. I say that they are not equal. The other party might disagree with me, that’s fine. That’s her opinion. But Islam gave rights to man, in order to satisfy his needs and take care of his affairs. Muslims and non-Muslims who have previously made a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact, are equal when it comes to citizenship. In other words, they are the same. The Islamic state and the Islamic shari’a, when governed thereby, guarantee their political needs, such as shelter, food, clothing, security, education, and health care, for they are under the care of the Islamic state. However, this equality does not mean that you are exactly like us. Yes, a non-Muslim under the Islamic shari’a cannot have any rights except those which Allah has legislated for him. Allah has legislated that he may have his belief, religion, clothes, and everything which is needed by all citizens, Muslim or non-Muslim. Now the Muslim has greater rights and respect because he is Muslim, for Islam is above others, and never below, so the Muslim is above others, and never below. [...] 
Omar Bakri: I don’t believe in the equality of man, because men are not equal in the view of Allah. He commanded us to not make them equal. For example, I have the right to marry a Christian or Jewish girl, but it is not permissible for a Jewish man to marry a Muslim girl. This is correct. I am not calling for equality. When I go to Britain or Europe, I have the same right--my blood and property are inviolable. In exchange, their blood and property are also inviolable through this peace treaty. Their blood and property have no protection except through a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact. Thus Allah has commanded--you can either accept it or reject it. 
Wafa Sultan: So when you travel to a Western land you consider it the land of Allah, and you want your beliefs to apply there? 
Omar Bakri: Yes. 
Wafa Sultan: You want to dictate to the native inhabitants of the country what they can do? 
Omar Bakri: I invite them, and if they accept the command of Allah, then they may do so. If they don’t accept, and kick me out of the country, then we will fight against them. The relationship between us is either a pact of belief in Allah, or a peace treaty, or war. The general rule is that the blood and property of non-Muslims are permissible for us. Their blood and property are not inviolable. It is in their interest to have a peace treaty or dhimmi pact with me. It is in your interest, you who say that you do not believe in Islam, to accept that there be a peace treaty or dhimmi pact between us. The dhimmi pact falls under the Islamic shari’a, but the peace treaty does not subject you to the shari’a. That’s the way it is. Either you accept it, or we live in a state of war. The general rule is that the blood and property of infidels are permissible for Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad even said, “I was sent to fight against the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and I am the apostle of Allah.” Therefore if he said, “Their blood and property are inviolable from me,” then their blood and property would be inviolable if they believed in Islam or accepted a peace treaty. It is either through faith or a peace treaty that man lives with his neighbor. But a Muslim coexists with an infidel either through a peace treaty, a dhimmi pact, or a state of war. This is the basic relationship between a Muslim and an infidel. 
Host: Thank you, Sheikh Omar. You went over your time, but it helped us gain a complete understanding of the topic. Dr. Wafa, what do you think about what Sheikh Omar Bakri said? 
Wafa Sultan: I think that Sheikh Omar Bakri’s response should be recorded here. He was clear and frank, and explained the doctrine of Islam to the point that there is nothing left for me to reveal of that repulsive truth. Muslims here in America boast that the human rights recognized worldwide are the same as the rights under Islam. They boast that men’s rights are the same as women’s rights. They boast that Muslims’ rights are the same as non-Muslims’ rights. They boast that the shari’a can coexist with the American constitution. Therefore we should record Sheikh Omar Bakri’s response, for he did not dissemble, but instead manifested the truth of his religion in all its ugliness and hideousness. Under the shari’a he is required to fight against others until they believe what he believes. Is there anything uglier than this shari’a on the face of the earth? Is there anything uglier than that this should be imposed upon me by force, by arms? When we tell Americans here that Islam was spread by the sword, Muslims scream that this is not true, that it was spread by tolerance and the free word. But I want to stress what Sheikh Omar Bakri said, for he is a true Muslim, and has revealed to us the truth of Islam without equivocation. All the world should take note of the danger of this doctrine and fight against it will all their strength, for we cannot accept that any man on the face of the earth should force us to believe in his god.

Friday, April 27, 2012

AMJA Senior Committee Member: Female Genital Mutilation Is 'an Honor' per Islam

Dr. Hatem al-Haj, addressing
Islamic Institute of Orange County,
June 2009 (link)
[Update, 23 May: Apparently a petition against Dr. al-Haj was started by a Jihad Watch reader after this translation was published on Jihad Watch, and the Mayo Clinic responded by firing Dr. al-Haj. Dr. al-Haj since published a clarification of his position on female circumcision, in which he claimed that he has "always condemned female genital mutilation." He said instead that he only supports "a subtype of Female Genital Cutting FGC, a harmless procedure called the ritual nick." However, according to the World Health Organization and U.S. federal law, any type of female circumcision is considered female genital mutilation. That is why I referred to it as such in this post. He also complained that my translation was excerpted and left out a lot of what he said on the topic. In my translation I was mainly concerned with Dr. al-Haj's explanation of the ruling of Islamic law on female circumcision/FGM, which is why I translated only the portion of the paper that dealt with that specifically. He is of course welcome to produce his own English-language version of the entire paper if he would like to make it available to the English-speaking audience.

Unfortunately for Dr. al-Haj, his position on FGM may not be the only one that is problematic for him as a pediatrician practicing in the United States. He also produced an Arabic-language post on child marriage entitled, "Yes, He (PBUH) Married Her at Age Nine, and There Is Nothing Wrong with That," which I hope to have time to translate soon.]

A couple of weeks ago I posted a translation of a paper by Association of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) senior committee member Dr. Hatem al-Haj, PhD, MD, in which he warned American Muslims against working in law enforcement in our 'infidel' nation (see here for more details). Now in my latest translation, Dr. al-Haj explains why female circumcision is recommended and even 'an honor' for women. This is the same practice which is popularly known as female genital mutilation (FGM) due to the pain it causes women. The World Health Organization (WHO) asserts that "the procedure has no health benefits for women," and causes a range of health problems including "severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility as well as complications in childbirth."

Yet Dr. al-Haj, a medical doctor and fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, ignores FGM's detrimental effects on women's health, and instead argues that it is 'an honor' for women. He justifies this position by referring repeatedly to the words of classical Islamic scholars from the four schools of mainstream Sunni Islamic thought, all of which attest to FGM's legitimacy under Islam. He also refers to the words of the Prophet Muhammad himself, who reportedly counselled people in his day on how to perform FGM in a way that would be "more beautiful to behold and better for [the woman's] husband."

Thanks again to the Center for Security Policy for their assistance and expertise on AMJA.

Below is my excerpted translation of the 41-page Arabic-language paper by Dr. Hatem al-Haj entitled "Circumcision of Girls: Jurisprudence and Medicine" (see the original here and here):
The ruling on circumcision: Scholars have differed on the ruling on circumcision. They have agreed on its legitimacy for both sexes, but beyond that they have differed. Some--most famously the Shafi’ites--believe that it is obligatory for both sexes. Some believe it is obligatory for men only, and some believe it is recommended for both. At the very least it can be said that for women it is an honor, and for men it is sunnah [i.e. it is in accord with the tradition of Muhammad].

There are many hadiths on circumcision, some of which will be presented here along with the commentary of some scholars:

From Abi-Hurayra, who attributed it to the Prophet: “Five (acts of) al-fitrah [Islamic law or way of nature] are circumcision, shaving pubic hair, plucking armpit hair, trimming fingernails, and clipping the mustache.” Also from Abi-Hurayra: “The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Abraham was circumcised when he was 80 years old’.”’ Allah said: “So We have taught thee the inspired (Message), Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith” [Qur’an 16:123]. Also recorded in a hadith is the saying of (Muhammad) to a man who converted to Islam: “Remove your infidel hair and be circumcised.”

Muhammad also said regarding circumcision: “If you touch the two circumcisions, you must wash.” Here is evidence that women were circumcised, and therefore any of the hadiths on circumcision which do not specify men or women, can be assumed to apply to both.

From Sa’id bin Jabir: “Ibn ‘Abbas was asked, “How old were you when the Prophet (PBUH) died?" He replied, "At that time I had been circumcised. People (in those days) did not circumcise men until they reached puberty.” From the hadith of Umm ‘Atiyah--who used to circumcise girls--the Messenger of Allah said to her, “Reduce it, but do not remove too much, because it is more beautiful to behold and better for her husband.” This is the most explicit evidence in the hadiths of Muhammad for female circumcision being legitimate and even recommended. From Ibn ‘Abbas, attributing it to the Prophet: “Circumcision is sunnah for men and an honor for women.” This was narrated by al-Bayhaqi, and its attribution is weak.

Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Abi-Barza: “We asked the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) about an uncircumcised man making pilgrimage to the Ka’aba. He replied, ‘No, not until he’s circumcised’.” This was considered a weak hadith by Ibn al-Mundhir and others.

There’s no doubt that among these hadiths there are those which are sound but do not explicitly command or urge women to become circumcised. There are also those which are met with disagreement by scholars, and these hadiths are more explicit in confirming the legitimacy of female circumcision. But the hadiths on the laws of al-fitrah which mention circumcision--and these are sound--do not mean that it is done on men only and not women. It is certain that circumcision includes both men and women, as is clearly stated in the hadith about touching the two circumcisions.

Below are words from scholars on the ruling on circumcision:

The Hanafis: Al-Zayla’i said: “The general ruling is that circumcision is sunnah, and is one of the trademarks of Islam. In fact, if the people of Egypt or some land decided to abandon its practice, the Imam would make war against them, for it cannot be abandoned except by necessity... Female circumcision is not sunnah, but it is an honor for men because it is more pleasing during sex” [ellipses in original].

The Malikites: From al-Kharshi’s brief summary of Khalil: “Its ruling (i.e. circumcision) is that it is sunnah for men, and it cuts off the foreskin. It is recommended for women, and is called khifad [reduction].”

The Shafi’ites: From [Asna al-Mutalib]: “Circumcision is obligatory (at puberty). The reasoning for this is the saying of the Almighty: “So We have taught thee the inspired (Message), Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith” [Qur’an 16:123]. In Abraham’s religion, circumcision was present. Also in the two Sahihs: “He was circumcised when he was eighty years old.” In Sahih Ibn Hibban, and in al-Hakim it was said 120 years, and it was also said 70 years. Also it was narrated by Abu-Dawud: “(The Prophet) (PBUH) ordered a man who converted to Islam to be circumcised.” They said that since he cut off a member which could not be replaced, it had to be obligatory like cutting off the hand. Since the man was injured during the process, he feared it. If it were not obligatory for him, then it would not have been permissible. This is unlike the circumcision of little boys, crazy people, and those who cannot endure it, because the first are too young to be required to do anything, and the last are harmed by it.” Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmu’: “Circumcision is obligatory for our men and women. This was stated by many of the salaf, as al-Khatabi relates. Ahmad was one of those who said it was obligatory. Malik and Abu-Hanifa said that it was sunnah for everyone. This was related by al-Rafi’i. He also related that (circumcision) is obligatory for men and sunnah for women. These were the two approaches of Shadhan, and of the sound and famous school of thought which was penned by al-Shafi’i, in which the multitude of scholars declared that circumcision is obligatory for men and women.”

The Hanbalis: From Ibn Muflih’s Furu’ [body of rules and regulations for man’s behavior]: “(According to Ahmad), circumcision is obligatory on all but women, for whom it is recommended. Our Shaykh said, ‘It is obligatory because cleanliness and prayer are obligatory’.” Ibn Qudama said: “Circumcision is a duty for men, and for women it is an honor, but it is not obligatory. This has been stated by many scholars.” Ahmad said: “The man is more difficult, because if the man is not circumcised, then the skin dangles over the [penis] and cannot be cleaned. But the woman is easier.”

The al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhia (“The Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence”) summarizes scholars’ opinions on circumcision as follows:

“The ruling on circumcision: Scholars differ on circumcision as follows: First, the Hanafis and Malikites--and very rarely the Shafi’ites--hold to the opinion of what Ahmad said, that circumcision is sunnah for men but not a duty. It is one of the acts of al-fitrah, and one of the rituals of Islam. If the people of a particular land decided together to abandon its practice, the Imam would make war against them, just like if they abandoned the call to prayer. This also represents what the Malikites think about circumcision of women. Hanafis and Hanbalis consider female circumcision to be an honor and not sunnah. It is said by some Hanafis that it is also sunnah for [women], and some say that it is recommended. … Second, the Shafi’ites and Hanbalis, as is also stated by Sahnoun from the Malikites, believe that circumcision is a duty for both men and women. … Third, this is written by Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni, that circumcision is a duty for men, and for women it is an honor but not a duty” [ellipses in original].

Assessment

It appears that for male circumcision the most correct view is that it is obligatory, owing to the saying of Muhammad to the man who converted to Islam: “Remove your infidel hair and be circumcised.” This was obligatory--there was no alternative.

Regarding women, perhaps the most correct view is that it is recommended, however there is consensus that it is (at least) legitimate. Muhammad also endorsed it, as was narrated in the hadith of Umm ‘Atiyah, who used to circumcise girls. He said to her: “Reduce it, but do not remove too much, because it is more beautiful to behold and better for her husband.” He also said, “If you touch the two circumcisions, you must wash.” This shows that female circumcision was prevalent during his day, and he did not repudiate it. Nor did he stipulate anything else regarding female circumcision.

Perhaps the saying that it is (only) recommended is due to the pain women must go through to carry out the acts of al-fitrah, such as circumcision, as stated in the sound hadith. But as we mentioned, this is not evidence of it being confined only to men. The term circumcision was used for both men and women during Muhammad’s time. But it is clear that performing circumcision must be preferable to not performing it, especially when one considers that circumcision includes both pain and revealing one’s nakedness. Thus if there was no benefit to it, the Messenger of Allah would not have agreed to it. However there is still no evidence for making it obligatory. The fact that the Messenger of Allah agreed to it despite the pain and discovering one’s nakedness is not evidence for making it obligatory. Instead, this is evidence for preferring the action over not doing it, as we stated. (Muhammad’s) command to Umm ‘Atiyah is not a command to all women to (be circumcised), but rather he was regulating its practice. He was not telling her not to do it, he was telling her not to go too far and injure the women.

His command to the man who converted to Islam does not apply to women. Even though the principle is that “women are men’s sisters”, and women are often included when addressing men and vice versa, that only applies when there is no reason to differentiate between them. Here the issue is different for men and women. The man’s foreskin could trap urine at the end of it and affect his cleanliness. The issue is not the same for women. Therefore it is appropriate for this to be stressed more for men, and this is apparent in the words of scholars and the works of the ummah.

I have summed up the words of Muhammad and of scholars to show that circumcision is legitimate, and that the principal issue in the study is the limits of circumcision.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Video: Moroccan Jihadi Preacher Calls on All Muslims to Leave France, Compares Europe to a Toilet



As seen in the subtitled video above, Moroccan Islamic preacher Shaykh 'Umar al-Hadushi (variant: Omar al-Haddouchi) urges all Muslims to leave France in a video released just over a week ago, citing as reasons for doing so France's banning of hijabs and restrictions on the call to prayer. Al-Hadushi further explains that Islam is to be exalted above all, and never to be lower than anything else. Al-Hadushi additionally compared non-Muslim countries to a toilet, where you go to take care of business and then you leave.

Al-Hadushi provides several conditions which must be present for a Muslim to reside in a non-Muslim country, the most important of which is that he must be in a position to influence those around him, but he is not to be influenced by others.

It is important to note that while al-Hadushi will probably be ignored by the mainstream media or marginalized as some crazy jihadi preacher, the attitudes and beliefs underlying his opinions are really no different than those expressed by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) in the two papers translated here over the past few weeks (see here and here). AMJA essentially repeats the same idea that Muslims are not here in America to be influenced by others or to become part of the melting pot society, but rather are here to try to move others toward Islam and establish their law as supreme. That is their only purpose.

Thanks to Vlad Tepes for adding the subtitles into the video for me and publishing it (see his post on this here).

Below is my excerpted translation of the original 14-minute video, which was used to subtitle the video above (original Arabic video here):
I say unto my brothers in France, I love you as you have loved me. I also give unto you my counsel, which is primarily for myself. [...] 
I say unto you, then, that you must leave. You must leave the land of the polytheists. The Prophet (PBUH) has said: “Do not gaze into their fire.” He also said, “None of us reside with the polytheists.” 
He once found a woman who had been slain, and he said, “I have nothing to do with any Muslim living among the polytheists.” Therefore we should not increase the numbers of the polytheists. The Prophet (PBUH) said in the two Sahihs also in the hadith of A’isha, “An army will invade the Ka’aba, and when the invaders reach al-Bayda’ the ground will sink and swallow the whole army.” I said, "O Allah's Apostle! How will they sink into the ground while amongst them will be their markets and the people not belonging to them?" The Prophet replied, "All of those people will sink but they will be resurrected and judged according to their intentions." Islamic scholars say that the benefit of this hadith is that it forbids increasing the numbers of the polytheists. 
Therefore if a Muslim is unable to declare and openly observe the rituals of his religion in a certain country, then he must emigrate from that country. This emigration does not cease until the Day of Resurrection. There are different types of emigration, for the Prophet (PBUH) said, “There is no emigration after the conquest--only jihad and good intentions.” In other words, from Mecca to Medina, because Mecca was conquered and became the house of Islam. But there still remains another emigration which does not cease, like jihad does not cease until the Day of Resurrection. 
Therefore, you can emigrate from a country which insults the Islamic scholars. Emigrate from a country in which the shari’a cannot be applied. Emigrate from a country which bans the hijab, or the call to prayer. The very first ritual which should be witnessed by the people is that of the call to prayer. But France bans the call to prayer, and now bans the hijab. Therefore you must now flee from that country. 
Some scholars even say if a man travels to the land of the polytheists for trade, or work, if he had to travel there, the following conditions must be present. First, he must possess sound doctrine. He must be armed with sound doctrine. Second, he must be able to outwardly observe the rituals of his religion. Third, he must not be performing humiliating work, such as a garbage collector or sweeper, for this is never permissible. This is something polytheists should do, for Islam should always be above, never below. 
The most important condition which scholars have imposed, is that Muslims should influence others, and not be influenced by others. This is in the situation that he is compelled to go there for work or study, something which is not present in Muslim lands. If he is armed with sound doctrine, he can influence the polytheists, and he cannot be influenced. I mean, no one can influence him to become a Christian, Allah forbid, or worse. [...] 
I also say unto you that living among the polytheists is like what a man does in the toilet. He goes in to take care of his business then leaves. Does anybody live in the toilet? The answer is no. [...] It's the same with the lands of the polytheists. [...]

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Mainstream American Muslim Group Warns Muslims Against Working in Law Enforcement, Becoming "Pleased with a Legal System That Does Not Come from Allah"

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) cautioned American Muslims in a 22-page Arabic-language paper in 2008 against working in law enforcement in countries which do not rule by Allah's dictates. One of their main concerns was that such work might cause Muslims to gain love and respect for secular laws:
...there are many evils which result from working in law enforcement, the greatest of which is compelling people to obey rulings which do not come from Allah. It could also cause reverence and love for these rulings to enter the heart of the police officer, and perhaps spread to the hearts of his family members and other Muslims who see him at the mosque or even Muslims in general. They could lose conviction of governance by Allah, and become pleased with a legal system that does not come from Allah. (italics added)
AMJA provided some allowances for Muslims to work in certain law enforcement professions, fearing that a lack of Muslim representation in this sector could bring negative effects for the Muslim community. They also reasoned that Muslims working as police officers might be able to use their positions to help the Muslim community, such as helping out with traffic near their mosques and protecting their mosques. Still, there was concern that some of these might be required to enforce laws contrary to the shari'a, such as "arrest[ing] a Muslim man whose wife said he 'raped' her."

The AMJA paper specifically forbade Muslims from working for the FBI or in national security positions, due to their alleged arbitrary targeting of certain Muslims for "their political beliefs, charity work, or some of their convictions under the shari'a"--an apparent reference to counterterrorism investigations against Muslim suspects.

The paper also made clear that Muslims are to seek justice not in secular courts, but in Islamic courts which are compliant with their shari'a:  "It is not permissible to pursue justice in the man-made (i.e. non-Islamic) judiciary, except where there is an absence of a shari'a-compliant substitute capable of restoring one's rights and working out one's grievances" (see my translation of another AMJA paper on working in the judiciary here).

Throughout the paper it is made clear that the duty of Muslims is not to uphold and respect the laws of the land in which they reside, but rather to do everything in their power to make the laws of Allah--the shari'a--supreme:
[Muslims are] to seek through legal means which exist in the countries in which they reside to make it possible for themselves to seek legal recourse in their shar'ia, and (not only) for personal affairs.
The duty to make Islam supreme comes above all, even preserving one's life:
We must remember that preserving the religion comes before preserving one’s self, mind, wealth, honor, or offspring. [...] But if saving [the individual's] life destroys Islam, then saving Islam comes first, even if it means the individual is destroyed. This is the case with jihad against the infidels, and the killing of apostates, and so forth.
It is worth stressing once again that AMJA--whose stated purpose is to "clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America"--is a mainstream American Muslim organization. Their membership list contains a large number of highly-influential American imams and Muslim leaders, including Muhammad al-Majid of the Adam Center in Virginia; Hussein Hamed Hassan, director of the financial consultancy firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other large American banking institutions; Zulfiqar Ali Shah, former president of Islamic Circle of North America and current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America; and the author of this paper, Dr. Hatem al-Haj, MD, PhD, a fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, and founder and president of "Building Blocks of Islam."

A longer list of some of their prominent American members follows:
  • Hussein Hamad Hassan (Chairman of the Board at AMJA), Director of Dar al-Sharia Legal and Financial Consultancy (Dubai) (firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and others);
  • Mohammad AlMajid, Imam of Adam Center (Virginia);
  • Mohammad Naeem AlSael, University of Texas, American Open University (AOU) (Virginia);
  • Waleed Basyouni, North American Imam Federation (NAIF) (Arizona), Texas Dawah Convention, AlMaghrib Institute (Texas);
  • Ahmad Al Soway'ey Shleibak, Professor at AOU;
  • Al Sayed Abd Al Halim Muhammad Hussein, President of Al-Eman Islamic Association of New York;
  • Hatem AlHaj, Sharia Academy of America (Florida), Albert Lea Medical Center (Minnesota), NAIF, Islamic Jurisprudence Council of Minnesota;
  • Abdel Azim AlSiddiq, Professor at Islamic American University (IAU), Imam/Director of Aqsa Islamic Society;
  • Deya-ud-Deen Eberle, Lecturer at AOU;
  • Ahmad Al Sherbiny Nabhan, Professor at AOU;
  • Ahmad Abd Al-Khaliq, Imam of the Islamic Center in New Jersey;
  • Gamal Helmy, Chairman of Religious Affairs in the Muslim Association of Virginia (MAV);
  • Gamal Zarbozo, Islamic writer and researcher in Denver, Colorado;
  • Haitham Abu Ridwan Barazanji, Imam of the Islamic Center in San Pitt, Tampa, FL;
  • Ibrahim Dremali, Imam of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, Florida;
  • Ibrahim Zidan, Imam of Al-Huda Islamic Center (New York);
  • Mohammad Faqih, Khateeb and Lecturer in Columbus, Ohio;
  • Mostafa Tolbah, Imam of Islamic Center in Detroit, Michigan;
  • Muhammad Abo Al Yosr Al Beyanony, Imam of Islamic Center in Raleigh, North Carolina;
  • Muhammad Sayed Adly, President of Imams and Duat Association of South and North Carolina, Imam of Masjid Al-Muslimeen in Columbia, South Carolina;
  • Muhammad Muhammad Musa, Imam of Islamic Center in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan;
  • Mukhtar Kartus, Member of Board of Trustees and Daia in Islamic Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan;
  • Mustafa Shahin, Lecturer at IAU;
  • Mustafa Balkhir, MA student at AOU;
  • Mustafa Al-Turk, Chairman of Islamic Organization, Michigan;
  • Omar Shahin, President of Executive Committee of NAIF, Lecturer at AOU;
  • Sadeq Muhammad Al Hassan, Director of Masjid Annur, Sacramento, California;
  • Samy Muhammad Masaud, Imam of Aleman Mosque in New York City;
  • Tho Al Fokkar Ali Shah (variant: Zulfiqar Ali Shah), President (Former) of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Executive Director of Fiqh Council of North America, Religious Director of Islamic Society of Milwaukee;
  • Yassir Fazaqa, Imam of Islamic Center of Orange County, California;
  • Waleed Al-Maneese, Dar-al-Farooq Islamic Center (Minnesota), Vice President of Islamic University of Minnesota, AOU, NAIF;
  • Muwaffak Al Ghaylany, Islamic Center in Grand Blank City (Minnesota), Shari`a Academy in America (Florida), NAIF;
  • Main Al-Qudah,  MAS Katy Center (Texas), AOU, Islamic American University (Minnesota), Al-Yarmook University (Iraq);
  • Salah Alsawy, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences (Virginia), AOU, Sharia Academy (Florida), Al-Azhar University (Egypt), Umm Al Qura University (Saudi Arabia); and
  • Muhammad Adam Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.
Sincere thanks to the Center for Security Policy for their assistance in discovering this document and facilitating its translation and production.

Translating Jihad's full translation of the AMJA paper follows (see the original Arabic-language paper here):
Title Page:

Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America

The role of professions and jobs in the West which are intermixed with that which is forbidden:  What is permissible and what is forbidden

Fifth meeting

April 2008

Title of the study:  Working in Law Enforcement in Non-Islamic Countries

Prepared by Dr. Hatim al-Haj
Member of the Permanent Fatwa Council of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America
Member of the faculty of the Shar’ia Academy

Page 2:

Eighth Resolution: Working in the Judiciary and Everything Else Which Falls Under It Outside the Lands of Islam

Allah sent his Apostle and revealed His book so that the people could be established in equity. Their path to that equity is to settle their differences through His laws, executing them in absolute justice and rejecting all the whims of men which conflict with them. It is not permissible to pursue justice in the man-made (i.e. non-Islamic) judiciary, except where there is an absence of a shari’a-compliant substitute capable of restoring one’s rights and working out one’s grievances. (This is also on the condition that) the individual’s demands before the judiciary are legitimate, and he does not take from its rulings anything except that which agrees with the shar'ia. If it is decreed that he should receive that which he has no right to (per the shari’a), he must not take it, for the ruling of the judge cannot make permissible that which is forbidden, nor make forbidden that which is permissible. The judge discovers (law) but does not create it.

Islamic communities must settle their disputes in righteousness, under the framework of the arbitration of the shar'ia. (They are also) to seek through legal means which exist in the countries in which they reside to make it possible for themselves to seek legal recourse in their shar'ia, and (not only) for personal affairs.

Working as an attorney is legitimate as long as the attorney is convinced of the justice and legitimacy of that which he who granted him power of attorney asks him to do.

Page 3:

The Study

Introduction

In the name of Allah and praise be to Allah. We praise him and seek his aid and forgiveness, and seek refuge in him from the sins of our souls. He who is guided by Allah is not misled, and he who is misled has no guidance for him. I testify that there is no god but Allah. I testify that Muhammad is his slave and messenger. He received his message from Allah, and he fulfilled that message. He declared to us the laws of our religion in all aspects of life, so that the People of the Book envied us for his declaration. May Allah grant peace and blessings to him, his family, his companions, and all those who follow his religion until the day of judgment. Amen.

A third of Muslims in our day live as minorities in non-Islamic countries, while two-thirds--or most of them--live under non-Islamic regimes, even though they live in Muslim countries.

Both of these groups are subject to man-made laws, which don't agree--or some of what is in them doesn't agree--with the Islamic shar'ia.

The stages of working with these laws begins with legislation, which is the work of the members of parliament or congress. Then there's the stage of ruling by their laws, which is the job of judges. Then there's the stage of executing and enforcing these laws, which is the job of the police.

These police execute that which is incumbent upon them, and don't have the freedom of the judge--which is relative freedom--as it was in the early history of Islam. So here the Muslim must ask himself if it is permissible for him to work as a police officer under these regimes or even those non-Islamic countries!

In my study I will specifically deal with the issue of working as a police officer in non-Islamic countries. I will divide the study into an introduction, in which I will mention the current situation for Muslim communities in non-Islamic countries. I will also describe the work of law enforcement in Western countries, especially in the United States. Then I will lay out the pros and cons of participating in this work. Then I will mention the general ruling on referring judgment to law other than the shari’a of Allah. Finally I will present evidence for making it permissible or forbidden, and I will follow this with an assessment and a recommendation.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America Cautions Muslims Against Participating in American Legal System; Urges Them to “Hate It in Their Hearts”

[Update 14-Mar-2012:  Added the names of additional prominent Muslim leaders in the United States who are affiliated with AMJA, including Muhammad al-Majid of the Adam Center in Virginia, Hussein Hamed Hassan, director of financial consultancy firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other large American banking institutions, and Zulfiqar Ali Shah, former president of Islamic Circle of North America and current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America. Updates to post are in italics below.]

Below is my translation of an Arabic-language paper published by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) in 2007, and presented at their 2008 careers conference in Houston, which provides guidelines for American Muslims on what they can and cannot do vis-à-vis infidel legal systems. The paper makes clear that according to Islam, the only legitimate law is that which comes from Allah, and in fact authority to make laws rests with Allah alone. This renders every other legal system—including the American system—illegitimate.

Since the fact nevertheless remains that many Muslims do live under such ‘infidel’ legal systems, the paper provides guidelines for how they should act under these systems, specifically addressing issues such as Muslims studying man-made law (i.e. non-Islamic law), Muslims governing under infidel legal systems, Muslims working as judges or lawyers or prosecuting cases in infidel courts, and Muslims granting powers of attorney to non-Muslims in disputes. Throughout the paper it is made abundantly clear that Muslims should view the American and other non-Muslim legal systems as infidel systems, and that they are only to participate in them in specific circumstances in order to benefit Islam and Muslims generally. They are specifically instructed to feel hatred in their hearts toward such infidel legal systems, and to do everything within their power to make the Islamic Shari’a supreme, even if that means engaging in deception in certain cases.

It is important to note that AMJA--whose stated purpose is to "clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America"--is not just a fringe organization with no influence. The Islamic scholars involved with this group occupy influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. Below is a list of some of their prominent members and experts, along with the names of universities and other organizations with which they're affiliated, as accessed from AMJA's website (Arabic name spellings as listed by AMJA):
  • Hussein Hamad Hassan (Chairman of the Board at AMJA), Director of Dar al-Sharia Legal and Financial Consultancy (Dubai) (firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and others);
  • Mohammad AlMajid, Imam of Adam Center (Virginia);
  • Mohammad Naeem AlSael, University of Texas, American Open University (AOU) (Virginia);
  • Waleed Basyouni, North American Imam Federation (NAIF) (Arizona), Texas Dawah Convention, AlMaghrib Institute (Texas);
  • Ahmad Al Soway'ey Shleibak, Professor at AOU;
  • Al Sayed Abd Al Halim Muhammad Hussein, President of Al-Eman Islamic Association of New York;
  • Hatem AlHaj, Sharia Academy of America (Florida), Albert Lea Medical Center (Minnesota), NAIF, Islamic Jurisprudence Council of Minnesota;
  • Abdel Azim AlSiddiq, Professor at Islamic American University (IAU), Imam/Director of Aqsa Islamic Society;
  • Deya-ud-Deen Eberle, Lecturer at AOU;
  • Ahmad Al Sherbiny Nabhan, Professor at AOU;
  • Ahmad Abd Al-Khaliq, Imam of the Islamic Center in New Jersey;
  • Gamal Helmy, Chairman of Religious Affairs in the Muslim Association of Virginia (MAV);
  • Gamal Zarbozo, Islamic writer and researcher in Denver, Colorado;
  • Haitham Abu Ridwan Barazanji, Imam of the Islamic Center in San Pitt, Tampa, FL;
  • Ibrahim Dremali, Imam of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, Florida;
  • Ibrahim Zidan, Imam of Al-Huda Islamic Center (New York);
  • Mohammad Faqih, Khateeb and Lecturer in Columbus, Ohio;
  • Mostafa Tolbah, Imam of Islamic Center in Detroit, Michigan;
  • Muhammad Abo Al Yosr Al Beyanony, Imam of Islamic Center in Raleigh, North Carolina;
  • Muhammad Sayed Adly, President of Imams and Duat Association of South and North Carolina, Imam of Masjid Al-Muslimeen in Columbia, South Carolina;
  • Muhammad Muhammad Musa, Imam of Islamic Center in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan;
  • Mukhtar Kartus, Member of Board of Trustees and Daia in Islamic Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan;
  • Mustafa Shahin, Lecturer at IAU;
  • Mustafa Balkhir, MA student at AOU;
  • Mustafa Al-Turk, Chairman of Islamic Organization, Michigan;
  • Omar Shahin, President of Executive Committee of NAIF, Lecturer at AOU;
  • Sadeq Muhammad Al Hassan, Director of Masjid Annur, Sacramento, California;
  • Samy Muhammad Masaud, Imam of Aleman Mosque in New York City;
  • Tho Al Fokkar Ali Shah (variant: Zulfiqar Ali Shah), President (Former) of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Executive Director of Fiqh Council of North America, Religious Director of Islamic Society of Milwaukee;
  • Yassir Fazaqa, Imam of Islamic Center of Orange County, California;
  • Waleed Al-Maneese, Dar-al-Farooq Islamic Center (Minnesota), Vice President of Islamic University of Minnesota, AOU, NAIF;
  • Muwaffak Al Ghaylany, Islamic Center in Grand Blank City (Minnesota), Shari`a Academy in America (Florida), NAIF;
  • Main Al-Qudah,  MAS Katy Center (Texas), AOU, Islamic American University (Minnesota), Al-Yarmook University (Iraq);
  • Salah Alsawy, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences (Virginia), AOU, Sharia Academy (Florida), Al-Azhar University (Egypt), Umm Al Qura University (Saudi Arabia); and
  • Muhammad Adam Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.
Credit goes to the Center for Security Policy for discovering this paper and bringing it to me for translation, and providing the background information to give it context.

(Note about the translation:  This is a gist, and not a verbatim translation, of the 47-page Arabic-language paper produced by AMJA. Certain sections of the paper are gisted in more detail than others simply due to Translating Jihad’s assessment of their relative significance. All Qur’an quotes included in the translation are taken from Yusuf ‘Ali’s English translation of the Qur’an, accessed from quran.com. Page numbers included below are taken from the original Arabic-language paper, which can be seen here.)

The gisted translation follows:
Page 1 (Title Page): 
Published By: Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) 
Title: “Judicial Work Outside the Lands of Islam—What Is Permitted and What Is Forbidden” 
By: Dr. Walid bin Idris bin ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz al-Manisi, Member of the Permanent Fatwa Committee for AMJA; Member of the Faculty of American Open University; Imam and Speaker at the Dar al-Faruq Islamic Center in Minneapolis 
Date: November 2007 
Page 2 (Introduction): 
Millions of Muslims have had to live outside the lands of Islam, or have been forced to do so, and many of them are persecuted in their religion. Muslims are permitted to reside in Dar al-Kuffar (i.e. The Land of the Infidels) under two conditions: 

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

U.S. Government Allegedly in Talks to Release 50 Egyptian Prisoners Including Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd-al-Rahman

This was tipped to me this morning by my good friend Andrew Bostom. JihadWatch also has a partial translation of it here.

Translated from al-Arabiya, 28 Feb 2012:
‘Umar ‘Abd-al-Rahman at Forefront of Egyptian-American Prisoner Exchange Deal

In exchange for the release of 19 Americans accused in the case of foreign funding of civil society organizations

alArabiya.net

The Egyptian government began taking steps to respond with the American offer to release 50 Egyptians being held in American prisons--including Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd-al-Rahman—in exchange for the release of 19 Americans accused in the case of foreign funding of civil society organizations. This is according to what was confirmed by Major General Muhammad Hani Zahir, an expert in military studies and international counterterrorism.

Zahir in comments to the newspaper 'al-Masriyun' said it was necessary for Egypt to exploit America's weak position, especially after condemning its citizens in cases affecting Egyptian sovereignty over its territory. He added that Egypt should not permit this exchange to take place unless the American administration agrees to release more than 500 Egyptians being held in American prisons, of whom the Egyptian foreign ministry knows nothing.

He added that the Egyptian foreign ministry asked the Egyptian embassy in Washington to take inventory of the number of Egyptians imprisoned in the United States. He also stated that the Egyptian consulate began taking steps to inventory the numbers of Egyptians imprisoned and being held up in investigations in various cases in the United States. He also added that among those imprisoned and whose files the consulate has studied is Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd-al-Rahman, the mufti of al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya, and who is currently imprisoned in America.

Zahir closed his remarks by saying: "In my character as an international expert on counterterrorism, corruption, and money laundering, I ask the Egyptian government to direct to the Americans accused in the case of unlawful foreign funding of unlawful civil society organizations the accusation of "supporting and funding terrorism" within Egypt. This is because all of the physical and solid evidence confirms their involvement in supporting terrorism in Egypt. This is what verily happened in Muhammad Mahmoud Street, Shaykh Rihan Street, and Mansur Street, and in the events of the Ministers' Council. If this accusation is directed against them, they will be condemned to death by hanging, or to do hard labor for life. This will force the American administration to carry out all the Egyptian requests, at the forefront the release of all Egyptians being held in American prisons and the amendment of the terms of American aid, to where they give cash like they do to the Israelis, rather than giving commodities which don't provide any benefit to Egypt to the degree that it diminishes Egyptian sovereignty."

Friday, February 24, 2012

Saudi Study: Nearly a Quarter of Children Raped; Up to 46% of Students Suffer from Homosexuality



Video translated from clip posted on YouTube in December 2008. Clip originally aired on the Arabic-language satellite station 'al-Hurra', on the program 'Misawa'. Subtitled video is above, full transcript below (thanks to Nonie Darwish for finding the video):
Guest - More than 23% of children in Saudi society have been raped. 
Host – So about a quarter of Saudi children have been-- 
Guest - About a quarter of Saudi children have been raped. Sixty-two percent of those people— 
Host – Those children. 
Guest - No, I’m sorry, the study was directed at university students. Twenty-three percent had been raped during their childhood. For 62% of those, the rape was never reported. This was because it was one of the victim’s relatives. In the study, it was mentioned that more than 16% of the rapists were relatives, specifically 5% were siblings, 2% were teachers, and 1% were parents. In another study, which was conducted by Dr. In’am (al-Rabu’i), who is the president of children’s studies at the Armed Forces Hospital in Jeddah, she mentioned, or warned, that in the coming years we will suffer as a society from extremely widespread cases of homosexuality. The reason for this is the increase in the cases of sexual assault of children (brought) to the hospital, as well as the societal violence inflicted on children. She also mentioned that the hospital had on average three sexual assault cases per week. 
Host – How large of an area did the study cover? 
Guest - I don’t know, this is just what she mentioned on behalf of the Saudi nation. It was published on behalf of the nation, and can be considered very reliable. In addition to that, there is a study from the Office of Societal Supervision, which is also very serious. This study reported that 46% of students in the city of Riyadh suffer from homosexuality. Twenty-five percent of students in Jeddah suffer from homosexuality. We must be aware of this in order to combat these numbers quickly. The society has become fragmented. When we have a percentage of students—children or teenagers—who are gay, this is a catastrophe, a true catastrophe. I mean, we don’t have a strong society. We should really look at this more seriously. 
Host – This is a new thing in Saudi Arabia for newspapers to write articles on this subject. The studies which you mentioned, are they saying this is something new? 
Guest - No, it’s not new.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

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.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

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'."

Saturday, December 3, 2011

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."



Tuesday, November 29, 2011

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.

Friday, November 25, 2011

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

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

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.