"Israel Stole the Palestinian Robe, the Six-Pointed Star, and the Shekel Coin from Palestinian Heritage"

I gather most of us here in the West will find the following article ridiculous--after all, we've read the Bible, we know the history of the Jewish people in Israel.  But Arabs in the Middle East aren't taught what we're taught.  They grow up believing that Israel is just a fabrication of the West, created to give the West a foothold in the Middle East from which to eventually conquer the whole of it.  They also believe that the whole idea of a Jewish history in Israel was merely contrived to give the conniving Jews, whom the Qur'an warns are "the strongest among men in enmity toward the believers" (Qur'an 5.82), an excuse to occupy the land.  (See the original Arabic here.)

A very thoughtful anti-Semite

Al-Bouji: Israel Stole the Palestinian Robe, the Six-Pointed Star, and the Shekel Coin from Palestinian Heritage

1-1-11

Gaza: Dunya al-Watan

Dr. Muhammad Bakr al-Bouji, professor of literature and thought at al-Azhar University in Gaza, is accusing Israel of stealing Palestinian heritage, beginning with their traditional dress, and the six-pointed star, and even the shekel coin in circulation in Israel, and registering all this under its own name with UNESCO.

The professor of literature and thought at al-Azhar University in Cairo, Dr. Muhammad Bakr al-Bouji, spent a great deal of time and effort in research, study, and many hours reading and pondering before releasing the results of his research to the Palestinians and the Arab nation, which condemn Israel and expose it as "a  nation which has stolen from the heritage and history (of others) in order to make an entity and identity for itself--not its own identity and not its own history."   He said this, stressing that he is attempting, through his research, to combat, intellectually and historically, the entity supported by UNESCO "in its theft"...

Hamza al-Buhaysi from "Elaph" met with Dr. al-Bouji in his office at al-Azhar University, and had the following discussion with him:

(al-Buhaysi):  When did Israel begin to steal Palestinian heritage and literature?

(al-Bouji):  Our conversation comes 100 years too late after the Jewish action against Palestinian heritage.  However, there is a conscious awakening that began after the year 1967, when Palestinians and Arabs noticed that the Israelis had stolen almost everything from their heritage, and registered it with the international organization for human heritage "UNESCO" in the name of Israel, as Israeli heritage.  The Jews began this movement in the end of the 19th century, when they sent their European professors and researchers to Palestine to study this heritage in order to steal it.  The majority of the studies performed by orientalists in the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century supported Zionism.  The inevitable result of these studies was to say that the customs and traditions of the people in Palestine stemmed from the Torah, for they wanted to tie these customs and traditions to the Jewish existence in Palestine.

[...]

The Israel Test

Sheikh al-Awda: "The Terrorists Work in the Service of Israel and the Zionist Movement"

This is from Saudi Sheikh Salman al-Awda, a prominent member of the International Union for Muslim Scholars run by Yusuf al-Qaradawi (see the original Arabic here):

Sheikh al-Awda:  The Terrorists Work in the Service of Israel and the Zionist Movement

Riyadh - Sheikh Salman al-Awda warned against severe terrorist acts, bombings, and bloodshed, as well as against the groups that carry out these actions and hide behind Islam, carrying the banner of jihad.  He said: "These are tools in the hands of the Zionists, Israelis, Europeans, and Orientals, with the goal of damaging Islam." [...]

This speaks to the Arab paranoia and boundless hatred of Israel.  Here we have Muslim terrorists killing Westerners, and often targeting Jews to boot, being blamed on the evil Zionists.  Not only that, but what better way is there to slander one's adversary in the Muslim world than to associate him with the Jews?  It's clear here that Shaykh al-Awda's real concern is not about the innocent Jews and Christians being killed by Muslim terrorists, but rather by the backlash these acts can sometimes create against Islam.  This is made even more clear when one considers al-Awda's oft-declared support for Hamas.  This is what he said about Hamas and other Palestinian jihadist groups, which was published in an article on IslamToday.net last August (see the original Arabic here):

I believe all of the components of the Palestinian people should be respected, and there can be no stability in any region of the world without respect for all of its components.  Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and other groups are equally fundamental parts of the Palestinian people.

So, why so harsh on al-Qa'ida and so light on Hamas?  Is it because Hamas mostly just kills Jews, or is it because some of al-Qa'ida's actions have brought negative attention to Muslims?  The sad thing is that most Western reporters will just clip al-Awda's condemnation of terrorists and tout it as "another example" of how peaceful Islam really is without putting it in its proper context, thereby missing the real meaning of his words.  But you can bet his Muslim Arab audience understands what he's really saying.

Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama's Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security

Fatwa: "The Position of a Muslim Towards One Who Slanders the Prophet and His Companions"

This is yet another fatwa authorizing the slaying of any who speaks ill of the prophet of Islam.  This comes on the heels of an attempted attack against the Danish newspaper that printed cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.  Islam's position on this issue is really quite clear, as the world is unfortunately being reminded of this act all too often.  But will the PC world we live in wake up and take notice of Islam's brazen intolerance and unacceptance of free speech?  No, instead we go on spending our blood and treasure to build up so-called "democracies" in the Middle East, and cheer when we read that their constitutions guarantee human rights, free speech, and respect for minorities, while ignoring that all that is erased by other articles in their consitutions insisting that "No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established." See the original Arabic of this fatwa here.

Fatwa No.: 145841

Title: The Position of a Muslim Towards One Who Slanders the Prophet and His Companions

Date: 28 Dec 2010

Question: What is the ruling for one who slanders the holy prophet (PBUH) and 'Umar bin al-Khattab, even when I am the only one who heard it?  What is my duty towards him?

Answer:  Slander against the prophet (PBUH) and his companions is heresy, and the one who hears it should defend the prophet (PBUH) as well as his companions -- may God be pleased with them.  You should inform this person that this act is among the most heinous of crimes, and that he must cease from doing so forthwith, and offer sincere repentance to Almighty God.  This should be done with kindness and good advice, for perhaps this was done out of ignorance, or perhaps he was influenced by the environment in which he was brought up.  Therefore if he repents to Almighty God and turns away from his evil, then it is acceptable to accompany him (once more).  However, if he persists in his wickedness and his attacks against the prophet of God (PBUH) and his companions, and does not benefit from the advice (you gave him), then your duty is to abandon him.  Almighty God hath said:  "And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together -" (Qur'an 4.140).

See also the following fatwas:  nos. 41439, 29281, and 78218.

(Islamic) scholars have stated that he who reviles the prophet is an infidel, and it is incumbent upon the sultan to kill him, as Khalil said, in brief:  "He who reviled a prophet or king, or slandered him, or cursed him, or denounced him, or defamed him, or belittled him, or misrepresented his character, or attached a deficiency to his body, or attributes, or standing, or knowledge, or renounced him, or added unto him what was not permissible for him, or attributed to him what was not worthy of his position by way of slander, or if he said (any of this) about the prophet (PBUH), and cursed and said that he wanted to pierce/prick him; he was killed, and not called to repentance."

Now as for reviling his companions, it is strictly forbidden.  This was confirmed for the ex-migrants, for the prophet (PBUH) said:  "Do not revile my companions, for even if there were one of you that was worth his price in gold, he would not be worth even half of one of them" (reported in al-Bukhari and Muslim).

[...]

Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad

"We Arabs Are Not Terrorists! ... The West Is the Terrorist!"

I was looking for an intelligent discussion on what defines terrorism, but apparently Gaza wasn't the best place to look...  Okay fine, I wasn't really expecting an intelligent discussion.  In fact, what follows is pretty much what you would expect from the angry, always-the-victim Palestinians.  This article is just one example of how Arabs and Muslims seek to excuse the murder of innocent civilians in the name of Islam, which happens every day and has been going on since the times of Muhammad, by attempting to somehow equate that with certain actions the West has undertaken.  This moral relativism is unfortunately the same line of thinking taught in institutions of higher learning throughout America.  See the original Arabic here.

Terrorism in Modern Times and Western Concepts

15 Dec 2010
Donia al-Watan (Gaza)

In the West's current perspective on terrorism, the criteria for classifying something as terrorist have become defective and crooked from what they were in the last two decades--the West currently defines terrorism as anything which opposes its policies, or contradicts its ideology!  The Western definition of terrorism is not confined to suicide operations, or bombings, or what they consider terrorist groups--it goes far beyond that.  The two main criteria are Western politics, and the new American policy in the Middle East.  In the West, terrorism is defined according to their own self-interest and in the language of colonialism, in which they are fluent.  Terrorism is not known as it is defined in international law, which is the infringement of mankind's rights and dignity, but instead it has come to be known as however the West desires it.  If we are going to talk about terrorism, there is no way we can ignore the terrorism which is carried out by the West in its many forms.

We have the right to speak about this because we Arabs are not terrorists!  Nor are we racists, but instead we are the owners of civilization and culture.  We were even the first in history to create a civilization, for the Sumerian civilization was the first in history.  Its influence still continues to this day, as does that of the Canaanites and ancient Egyptians, all of which are deep-rooted in our history.  We are people who love freedom and culture, and not, as the West likes to describe us, the people with exploding butts, or just a bunch of angry mobs.  Let us see what the West looks like when we discuss their colonial past, for it is more terrorist and bloody than either the Nazis or the Stalinists.  It was the Western colonialists who destroyed entire civilizations and wiped out whole peoples, and killed and displaced millions!  Throughout human history, none have committed more crimes on the rights of mankind than the West.  The colonial West applied Machiavellian principles against the rights of the people whose land they occupied.  For example, when France occupied Algeria, how many crimes did they commit, and how many of the peoples' rights did they violate?  It is enough for us to say that Algeria became the land of a million martyrs due to the crimes committed there by the French occupation.

* * *

Since the discovery of America five centuries ago, this nation has perpetrated terrorism.  No one can deny that America, the modern nation, has destroyed the civilization of the American Indians, America's original inhabitants.  And what did these new immigrants do to the rights of those Indians, the owners of land, history, and culture?  Nor can any intelligent person deny the modern American terrorism which was perpetrated over the past century on the rights of the people by American colonialism.  For example... [Goes on at length to give several examples of supposed American atrocities, including military actions in Vietnam, Panama, and of course Iraq, and quotes from such highly-regarded scholars as Noam Chomsky.]

* * *

After all the rights trampled on by the West, how do they claim the right to describe us as terrorists, and describe themselves as civilized, cultured, and democratic?  Here I have only given an outline of the information, but we should remember that Western terrorism was (also) represented by France, the UK, and Holland in the colonial age, when they were sending their soldiers to the slaughter!  There remains an ever greater condemnation for the West in regards to terrorism, which is their creation of the entity which usurps the land of Palestine, which has killed, displaced, and forced (the Palestinians) to wander for six decades.  (The West) has done nothing but support this monstrous entity, in killing and destroying the displaced Palestinian people!  Regarding the United Kingdom, it is enough to mention that it is the author of the sinister Balfour (Declaration)!  Enough to the dreaming and ignorance of what is going on around us!  We are not against having good relations with the West, but only on the condition that our good relations are built on our Arab Islamic culture and identity, and not built on the logic of power or arrogance, nor on the logic that we are terrorists and they are humanitarian!  All of us are searching for our human rights, but without taking away those rights (from others) with the executioner's whip!  God hath made us free!  We should also understand the truth that the West has long promoted terrorism against us, while we dare not say that the West is the terrorist!

Atlas Shrugged

From al-Jazeera Talk Forum: "My Beloved Brothers, Today We Have Received the Happy News About the Operation in Sweden"

A user who calls himself 'Abd-al-Jabbar posted the following elated announcement on 13 December about the attempted Islamic suicide bombing in Stockholm earlier this week.  This user considers the attempted attack a success despite being thwarted by the authorities, because it caused "pain and fear" in the infidels in the West.  The user renews the threat made against Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, which was made by the Islamic State of Iraq in 2007 and was apparently the motivating factor for this attempted attack.  It's interesting to note that al-Jazeera, which has correspondents in nearly every Western country and passes itself off as a 'moderate' and 'balanced' news outlet, has allowed this user and apparently many others like him (there were nearly 50 reponses on this thread when I checked) to make blatant calls for violence and terorrism with impugnity.  Shouldn't al-Jazeera be held responsible for controlling its own forum?

The Muslim anger over cartoons of Muhammad is a curious phenomenon, and one that I think is widely misunderstood in the West.  You cannot understand it unless you study the life of Muhammad, who is the perfect pattern of conduct for Muslims.  Reading his history (I highly recommend Ibn Ishaq's The Life of Muhammad), you see case after case of poets and song-writers in Muhammad's day who dared mock the prophet of Islam, who all met the same fate--death (see this page from Answering Islam for a concise compilation of these events).  Those we call 'violent extremist' or even 'radical Muslims' in our day who attempt similar acts are merely those who are attempting to carry out the example of their dear prophet.  See the original Arabic of this post here.

God is the greatest!  God is the greatest!  The perpetrator of the martyrdom attack in Sweden says that the Islamic State [i.e. of Iraq] fulfilled its promise -- the men of Abu-'Umar [al-Baghdadi] have arrived.

Peace be upon you, and may the mercy and blessings of God be upon you.  My beloved brothers, today we have received the happy news about the operation in Sweden.  It has been called a failure, but the only failure was in their hearts and minds [i.e. of the infidels].  It has caused widespread pain and panic, and prompted the denunciation of political and religious leaders, while the devout Muslims rejoice. [Literally 'people of tawhid' or oneness, referring to devout Muslims who believe in one God and don't associate him with others.]

The brother who carried out this act, may God have mercy on him, left a will to all the Muslims and mujahideen in Europe and specifically in Sweden, in which he tells them that they must wake up and act, even if with only a knife, though it is already known that they possess far more than that.  He also warned the West and Sweden specifically that the operation was revenge for the crimes of the Americans and their ally Sweden, who participated with 500 infidel soldiers [i.e. in the Iraq war].

Just like our martyr brother, as we regard him, will not be forgotten, so too we remind Sweden that his act was not but the carrying out of a promise made by the Islamic State (of Iraq).  Therefore he and others in Sweden are willing to take revenge for the Muslims, remembering the crime of the dog Lars Vilks and his petty cartoons about the Prophet (PBUH) that demeaned the Islamic State (of Iraq).  The Islamic State (of Iraq) promised a monetary reward for whoever cuts off his head or slits his throat, as the leader of men in our day, Shaykh Abu-'Umar al-Baghdadi, God have mercy on him, mentioned in his audio message, which frightened Sweden at the time.  The martyr said... [Goes on to quote from al-Baghdadi and the Sweden bomber at length.] [...]

Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama's Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security

Islamic Forum Post: Saudi Arabia "Only Understands Jihad in the Path of America"

A member of the Islamic forum tw7eed.com who calls himself Abu-Hafs al-Sunni al-Sunni posted the following essay, which he attributed to Shaykh Nasir bin Hamad al-Fahd.  The essay argues that Saudi Arabia is hypocritical for supporting the former jihad in Afghanistan against the Russians, while prohibiting the current jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq against the Americans.  The essay concludes that the Saudis only recognized jihad in the path of America, and not jihad in the path of God.  This is representative of the ideological problem Saudi faces, when it espouses jihadist doctrine and exports it throughout the world, but then tries to ignore it or at least delay its enactment in certain areas in order to benefit from Western wealth.  See the original Arabic here.

When Jihad Is In the Path of America

Abu-Hafs al-Sunni al-Sunni

5 December 2010

Praise be to God and peace and prayers unto the Prophet of God.

We have heard recently of the news of the jihad and the increase in the armed resistance to the Crusaders in Mesopotamia.  On the other hand we have learned of so-called Saudi Arabia's position towards this resistance, namely to criminalize its support.  In this essay I don't intend to argue the legitimacy of that jihad and support to it, for that is for another time.  But I do want to argue the hypocrisy of [Saudi Arabia's] statement by making a simple comparison between its position on the former Afghan jihad against Russia, and the current Iraqi and Afghani jihad against the Americans:

First--

Russia had swept through Afghanistan (only) with a comprehensive military campaign, and installed a puppet government.  Meanwhile, the Americans swept through Afghanistan and Iraq with a comprehensive military campaign, and installed puppet governments therein.  Saudi Arabia did not recognize the Russian-backed government in Afghanistan, but did recognized the American-backed governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Second--

Saudi Arabia encouraged the Afghan mujahideen and supported them financially and morally, while on the other hand it criminalized the mujahideen in Iraq and banned support for them, even making support to them a crime, even if you're only praying for them!

Third--

Saudi Arabia allowed the shaykhs and ulema to support the Afghan jihad and deliver fatwas in support of it.  Meanwhile, it has now outlawed any fatwa in support of the jihad in Iraq, and has even forced the shaykhs to issue fatwas prohibiting (the jihad) and prohibiting anyone from participating in it.

Fourth--

Saudi Arabia supported the youth going to Afghanistan for jihad, and granted them price reductions up to 75%.  On the other hand, it has criminalized the youth going to Iraq for jihad, and whosoever does this and is captured by them is cast into prison!

Fifth--

Saudi Arabia hosted the leaders of the jihad in Afghanistan and allowed them to deliver lectures in their country.  Meanwhile, it has now joined with the Crusaders to pursue the leaders of the jihad in Iraq.

The result of this quick comparison:  when the jihad in Afghanistan was against the enemies of America and worked toward American interests, then the Saudis considered it a jihad in the path of God, and permitted the shaykhs to issue fatwas in support of it, and themselves supported (the jihad) financially and morally, and whosoever among the youth participated in it, it provided them with what they needed and called them mujahideen.

However, since the current jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq is against America and her interests, it is terrorism and extremism.  Saudi Arabia pursues and kills those who participate in it, and imprisons those who support it with fatwas or money, rather than supporting it with men.  Nor does Saudi permit its shaykhs issue fatwas in support of it, but on the contrary issues fatwas to prohibit going to Iraq, and calls the actions going on there terrorism, and not jihad.

The issue is plainly evident, which is that this state [i.e. Saudi Arabia] does not understand jihad in the path of God, but only understands jihad in the path of America.  Whatever the Crusaders permit, they permit and support, and whatever they don't, they don't.  God has ordered, and even hates the unbelievers.

by Shaykh Nasir bin Hamad al-Fahd

The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America

From Gaza: Jews Have No Historic Claim to Jerusalem; Modern Israelis Are Merely "Gangs of Organized Crime, Murder, and Degenerate Racism"

Big surprise to see anti-semitism coming out of Gaza. This rewriting of history to deny any Jewish claim to Jerusalem or Palestine seems to be very common in the Arab world. It reminds me of Nonie Darwish's excellent book "Now They Call Me Infidel", where she explains that growing up in Egypt she had never heard of ancient Jewish history in Palestine.  They all grew up being taught that the Jews had no claim on Jerusalem, which is exactly the viewpoint being expressed in this article.  All of this paves the way for Islamic terrorism and murder against Israeli citizens, as well as Jews throughout the world.  See the original Arabic here.

Judaism Is Not a Distinct Nationality, But an Acquired One

From: Donia al-Watan
8 Dec 2010
By: Sa'id Sabah

Zionism is a colonial combination, for all of its actions, which did not contribute to stability in Palestine or the region, were supported by the colonialists from its creation.  Ever since the British mandate over Palestine, this holy land has witnessed nothing but treachery, deception, malice, wickedness, war, destruction, slaughter, aggression, and homelessness.

Colonial Britain in all generosity gave to Palestine a state for the Zionists, who are not connected to the Jewish religion in anyway, for the religion of the children of Israel not to blame for those traitors, who are far removed from the ancient Israeli race which lived for a short time on a part of this blessed land.

Palestine was not a special nation for the Jews in ancient times, for when they founded their nation, this land was already inhabited by Arab tribes, from whom the Palestinians and their neighbors descended. The Arab-ness of Palestine is not debated, for the Canaanite-Arab
people who dwelt in this land before the existence of the Jews were an extension of the Arab tribes who (still) haven't left Palestine.

It is well-known from what is written in both ancient and modern history that when the Jews set foot on Palestine, they took power over parts of it by military force.  They dwelt there for no more than 7 decades, or 70 years, before they were torn to shreds throughout the land after the fall of their kingdom and temples.  Thus Judaism spent only a brief period (in Palestine), and produced nothing of note.  It was Christianity, which appeared after Judaism, that stayed until the dawn of Islam.

* * *

The Jews had lived in Palestine as citizens, just like the Muslims and Christians, in safety and security.  The Jewish historian Obadiah recorded that al-Quds [Jerusalem] did not contain in the 15th century more than 70 Jewish families.  The Commission of Royal Investigation in Palestine in its report to the British Parliament also noted that the total number of Jews in Palestine in 1845 did not reach 12,000.

* * *

Does the Arab nation accept Palestine, the heart of the vibrant nation, becoming a fertile ground for a cheap swap between right and wrong?

The acceptance of this means that gangs of organized crime, murder, and degenerate racism, from various races and ethnicities, who speak the varied languages of their native countries, have become a single religious, racist nation, at the expense of the Palestinian people.  [...]

DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century

Saudi Shaykh Issues Fatwa Supporting the Doctrine of "Offensive Jihad" Against the Infidels

Saudi Shaykh 'Abd-al-Rahman bin Nasir al-Barrak blasted Dr. Salman al-'Awda for his recent comments on al-Jazeera, in which the latter only accepted defensive jihad in our day, and claimed that Muhammad's offensive battles were permitted because they were done at a time when there were no international agreements.  Al-Barrak cited a couple of verses from the Qur'an, notably the 'verse of the sword,' and a saying of the Prophet to attack al-'Awda's statements, and asked:  "How can Dr. [al-‘Awda] claim that these texts are about defensive jihad?!" He also blasted Dr. al-'Awda for essentially subjugating the Islamic law of jihad under international agreements. This is the same Shaykh al-Barrak who gained some notoriety in the West earlier this year for issuing a fatwa calling for those who mix males and females in public places, such as schools and workplaces, to be put to death.  See the original Arabic here.  The excerpted English transcript follows:

I was made aware of the false comments of Dr. Salman bin Fahd al-‘Awda, may God guide him, which he spoke on a satellite television station regarding jihad in Islam:

1. (He spoke of) what he termed “defensive jihad” and “offensive jihad.” He accepts defensive jihad but not offensive, which is the initial jihad (against) the infidels. His contradiction of the sayings of the Almighty, such as the following, is not a secret: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the polytheists wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” [Qur’an 9:5]. He also contradicts the saying of the Prophet (PBUH): “I have been commanded to fight against the people until they testify that there is no god but God.” Also the saying of the Almighty: “Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” [Qur’an 9:29]. How can Dr. [al-‘Awda] claim that these texts are about defensive jihad?! It is known that this type of jihad is the one that the orientalist and other enemies of Islam have taken away from Islam in order to destroy it. This has caused some of the ignorant or apologists of Islam to restrict the aim of jihad in Islam to being purely defensive, for defense against the enemy does not offend anyone.

2. He alleged that the combat and wars during the life of the Prophet (PBUH) happened at a time when there were no international treaties, as he said: [quotes Dr. al-‘Awda]. The meaning of this is that there is no place for war in this age of international treaties and agreements, which he expressed by saying: [quotes Dr. al-‘Awda]. The true meaning of these words is that international treaties, which have been put into place by the infidels, including international law, which forbids aggression--or so they claim, and under their criteria jihad is considered aggression. This claim that Islam accepts what is decreed by these treaties and pacts is slander against Islam. This claim disables jihad in the path of God to establish the word of God, subjugating it under international law—or is this not their meaning?  For Islam makes jihad a requirement, and international agreements prohibit jihad for Muslims!

The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia: Qur'an Is "Dominant" Over the Bible; "We Don't Need...Any Other Book"

This flies in the face of what Muslim soothsayers and their apologists in the West are always telling us about a shared faith and values among the three great religions, who all revere the stories of the ancient prophets told in the Bible.  The truth is, Muslims do believe in those old prophets, but they believe the Bible has been perverted by Jews and Christians.  The Grand Mufti's comment about the Qur'an being the only book Muslims need also struck me.  Could this be an explanation for why relatively few non-Islamic books are published in the Arab world, and very few books are translated from other languages into Arabic?  Does this partly explain why nothing like the Renaissance ever happened in the Muslim world?  If the Qur'an is all you need, then why waste time reading anything else?  See the original Arabic here.

Question:  Is it permissible to use the stories of the prophets in the Gospels and in the Torah and other Israeli scriptures?

Answer:  Almighty God said:  "These are the verses of the perspicuous book. We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom. We do relate unto thee the most beautiful of stories, in that we reveal to thee this portion of the Qur'an. Before this, thou too was among those who knew it not" [Qur'an 12:1-3].  He (also) said: "Such are some of the stories of the unseen, which we have revealed unto thee: before this, neither thou nor thy people knew them" [Qur'an 11:49].  The stories in the Qur'an are more valuable than any others--we don't need the Torah, or Gospels, or any other book.  We believe that truth was sent down to the prophets, but God has enriched us more with the Qur'an and its stories than with all the (other) books.  This Qur'an is the true account:  "This is the true account; there is no god but God" [Qur'an 3:62].  We should take the stories and understanding from this great book.  Regarding the previous books, their role has ended, and there is no longer any place for them.  Almighty God has gathered all of their meaning into the Qur'an.  The Qur'an has become dominant over them, and a substitute for all of them.  The Qur'an with its stories and knowledge are sufficient for us.

Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism

Al-Qaradawi Refuses Dialogue with Jews, Announces He Has "Cut Off the Pope"

On Yusuf al-Qaradawi's 28 November "Shari'a and Life" program on al-Jazeera, he fielded a question from a Muslim woman about dialogue with other religions.  I found his answer to be very revealing.  He says that he has participated in various Islamic-Christian dialogues in Qatar, until the Qataris announced that they would be inviting Jews to the next conference.  After this, al-Qaradawi announced that he would never attend any of these conferences while Jews were there, due to the situation in Israel and cites a verse from the Qur'an (29:46) to justify his position.  He also says that he refuses to sit down with the Pope until the Pope recants his "hostile" statements against Islam (I believe he's referring to when the Pope said that Islam spread by the sword).  This is the true tolerance of Islam--they won't speak with any other religion if they say anything bad about Islam.  Link to original Arabic.  English transcript below:

'Uthman 'Uthman:  Welcome back, our esteemed viewers, to this week's episode of "Shari'a and Life," where we are answering your questions and inquiries, as always with our revered shaykh, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  Sir, let's begin with Sister 'A'isha al-Mohannadi, who asked about dialogue with other religions--do you think it is futile to speak with those who occupy our land and spread corruption within it?

Yusuf al-Qaradawi:  I have participated in a dialogue sponsored by Qatar various times.  The first time I participated in it, I was in the hospital having an operation done, a few days before the Iraq war.  A statement was taken from me while I was on my hospital bed, which they broadcast in the opening session (of the dialogue).  The second time I also delivered a speech in the opening (of the dialogue).  His Highness the Emir Shaykh Hamad bin Khalifa, may God preserve him, was at the top of this opening session.  The third time I attended it Shaykh 'Abdallah bin Khalifa was prime minister, and declared in this meeting that the next time we would invite the Jews to participate.  The dialogue was initially Islamic-Christian, and we were participating in it as I had participated in various Islamic-Christian dialogues in Europe and in the East.  But when they said that we would speak with the Jews, I declared that I would no longer participate in this conference, because Almighty God forbade us from that when he said:  "And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them..." [Qur'an 29:46].  We will not sit down and speak with those who commit injustice against us, for what would we discuss with them?  There is currently no injustice being perpetrated against us like that which is being perpetrated by the Jews who unlawfully seized our land and displaced its people, and have settled therein, while they continue to torture us and mock our Islamic nation, our holy sites, our people, our blood, our wealth, our rites, and our sanctity.  How can we meet with the Jews on a unified platform?  After that we went to Rome and talked with the Christians, including those close to the Vatican.  When the Pope showed hostility (towards us) in his lecture on Islam in Germany, the World Union of Muslim Scholars stopped the dialogue with the Vatican until the Pope apologizes for what he said and changes his position.  He has not done this until now, therefore we have cut off the Pope.  We can talk with other religions, such as the eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism and others, and actually the Union [i.e. the World Union of Muslim Scholars] attended a very large conference in India, which was attended by representatives from the Union--our brother Dr. 'Ali al-Qardaghi, Shaykh 'Abd al-Rahman al-Mahmud, and Professor al-Sirafi, and various brothers from India and from other eastern countries.  We met with these eastern religions, however there is no point in having dialogues with those (other) people [i.e. the Jews].

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims