Translating Jihad

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

2012-01-26T07:36:00.000-05:00

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

Translated from elbashayer.com, 22 December 2011:

Who Offends the Prophet?
By Ahmad al-Aswani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Egyptians Using Democracy to Vote Against Democracy?

2011-12-23T00:00:00.000-05:00

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"

2011-12-22T01:12:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Andrew Bostom and Translating Jihad for this one.

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

The English transcripts for the two clips follow:

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

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

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

2011-12-03T21:38:00.000-05:00

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

Translated from elfagr.com, 3 Dec 2011:

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

Muhammad Kamal, elfagr.com

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

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

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

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

2011-11-29T10:01:00.000-05:00

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

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

Translated from Donia al-Watan, 26 November:

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

Donia al-Watan (Gaza), 26 November 2011

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

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

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

2011-11-25T08:15:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

24 November 2011, salahsoltan.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doha (Qatar), 23 November 2011

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

Popular Sunni Shaykh Cusses Out Shia Caller on Live Egyptian TV

2011-11-22T23:49:00.000-05:00

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

Translated from a YouTube clip posted on 29 August 2011:

Caller: How are you?

Host: Hello.

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

Host: You’re the mangy d—

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

Kuwaiti Shaykh Explains and Justifies Islamic "Pleasure Marriages"

2011-11-22T12:07:00.000-05:00

(h/t Nonie Darwish)

Translated from video clip posted to YouTube, 17 July 2011

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

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

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

Subtitled video is above, transcript below:

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

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

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

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

2011-11-18T08:08:00.000-05:00

Courting the female vote, Islam-style.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi Religious Police to Crack Down on Women with Alluring Eyes

2011-11-16T21:43:00.001-05:00

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

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

Dunya al-Watan, 17 Nov 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Egyptian Candidate for President Praises bin Laden as a Martyr

2011-11-15T22:46:00.001-05:00

(h/t theegyptianrose)

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

Subtitled video is above, full transcript below:

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

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

2011-11-08T07:43:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-10-18T07:40:00.000-04:00

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

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

Translated from ikhwanonline.com, 17 October 2011:

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

By Usama 'Abd-al-Salam

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-09-27T00:18:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-08-07T23:24:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Egyptian Shaykh: "We still kill him, even if he repents!"

2011-07-13T10:07:00.000-04:00

The above clip was taken from an interview given by Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni on the Egyptian satellite television station al-Hikma on 7 July 2011. Al-Huwayni here explains that whoever insults Muhammad, even if he later repents, must be killed.

Later in the interview, al-Huwayni went on to contrast this with the case of one who insults Allah. He said that insulting Allah of course makes one an infidel, which is agreed to by all Islamic scholars, yet the one who insults Allah is not killed--he is merely called to repentance. This is because even if the whole world insults Allah, it does not matter to him--it does not hurt him.

After recounting a hadith regarding Muhammad being mocked by poetry from the Quraysh, al-Huwayni explained that Muhammad "had complete authority to waive his right (to kill those who mocked him). But the ruler does not have the authority to waive the Prophet's right." Al-Huwayni reported that Muhammad could waive this right whenever he wanted, but after his death he retained this right, meaning no one could waive the right for him. That is why those who insult the Prophet now must be killed.

He then narrated another hadith in which Abu-Bakr, the first rightly-guided caliph of Islam, became furious with someone who had mocked him. Abu-Barza offered to kill this man for Abu-Bakr. Abu-Bakr explained, however, that this right (i.e. to kill the one who mocks the ruler) was not given to anyone after Muhammad; or in other words, only Muhammad had the right to kill those who mocked him.

He said all of this in the context of the current controversy in Egypt with the Christian businessman Naguib Sawiris, a billionaire and founder of the Free Egyptians Party. Late last month Sawiris tweeted a picture of Mickey Mouse wearing a Muslim beard and jilbab, and Minnie Mouse wearing a niqab, which was considered to be mocking Islam. Al-Huwayni did not say explicitly that Sawiris should be killed for mocking Islam, but did say that all of his companies should be boycotted, even if he only owns 10% share in the company.

Subtitled video above, transcript below:

Whoever insults the Prophet (PBUH), if he later comes and apologizes, and kisses the shoes (of the ruler), and says, “I want all Muslims, every one, to return and strike me with the soles of their feet”—does the ruler have the right to accept this?

I bring up this question, as it was asked of me. The answer is that it is not permissible for anyone to accept this. Then what do we do with him? We kill him! But he told you that he repented. We still kill him, even if he repents!

Shaykh Safwat Hegazy: "Jerusalem Belongs to Us, and the Whole World Belongs to Us"

2011-07-08T08:12:00.008-04:00

Update 11 July 2011: Some astute observers have noted that Shaykh Hegazy said in this video clip that Jesus was crucified, which appears to be a direct contradiction of what it says in Qur'an 4:157. This point was also brought up by Muslims who commented on the original video clip on YouTube which I used to make my translation. This is a translation of what the guy who originally posted the video said in response (see here): "On 18 October 2009, [Shaykh Hegazy] had a live show in which he spoke about this dilemma. He stressed that he is a Muslim, and that no Muslim disagrees with the fact that our Lord Jesus (PBUH) was not crucified. This is the belief that we have. He clarified that he meant 'the rock upon which Jesus (PBUH) was crucified, according to their view.' We ask Allah to reconcile and guide all Muslims."

In this video, popular Egyptian Shaykh Safwat Hegazy threatens Jews and Christians, and ultimately the whole world, saying, "Jerusalem belongs to us, and the whole world belongs to us." He states the Islamic caliphate will return, and that "every land upon which Islam has set foot will return to us." He makes poignant references to Qurayza and Khaybar, which are clear threats against the Jews, and also states, "we will kill anyone who has polluted the al-Aqsa Mosque."

It is important to note that Hegazy is not some kooky, fringe shaykh with no following. He is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and has been involved with several satellite television shows, including his show "Age of Glory" on the al-Nas television network. He addressed crowds at Tahrir Square in Cairo during the revolution against Mubarak, and could be seen standing directly behind Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi when the latter led between 1-2 million Muslims in Tahrir Square in prayer after Mubarak stepped down.

This was translated from a video clip posted on YouTube 2 Oct 2009. Subtitled video is above, transcript is below:

If they destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque, we will build it again. We will liberate it. Just as the Prophet David did, we will liberate it. As the Prophet Adam built it, we will build it. As the Prophet Jacob built it, we will build it. We will cleanse the rock on which the Prophet Jacob slept. We will cleanse the rock on which the Prophet ‘Isa (Jesus) was crucified. We will cleanse the rock from which the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was taken up. We will cleanse this noble, pure rock, and we will build the al-Aqsa Mosque. So what if they raid it--the dust does not matter to us. The rocks and the buildings do not matter to us. Al-Aqsa belongs to us. Jerusalem belongs to us. Palestine belongs to us.

I say to Allenby, General Allenby, that the Crusader wars have not ended. I say unto General Gouraud that the feet of those who come near Saladin’s tomb will be cut off. I say unto them that if you are the descendants of the Crusaders, then we are the descendants of Saladin. I say to him, that in the year 1920, you said, “We have returned, Saladin.” I say to you today that you have left Damascus and Beirut, and your children and descendants will leave Jerusalem. I say unto you that we are the descendants of Saladin, we are the descendants of ‘Umar bin Khattab, we are the descendants of Khalid ibn Walid, we are the descendants of the Prophet of Allah (PBUH). We are the children of Islam, the children of prophecy, the children of ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.’

I say unto you Gouraud, we will return and we will kill anyone who has polluted the al-Aqsa Mosque. I say unto you that we will return, as the day of Qurayza from long ago. I say unto you that we will return, as the day of Khaybar from long ago. I say unto you that we will return. Jerusalem belongs to us. Al-Aqsa belongs to us. Jerusalem belongs to us, and the whole world belongs to us. Every land upon which Islam has set foot will return to us. The caliphate will return to us, on the platform of prophecy. The greatness and glory of Islam will return. Its justice will cover this land. I say unto you Gouraud, you Frenchman, that the land of Islam will return, and we will pray in Jerusalem.

Kuwaiti Female Activist Calls for Law Authorizing the Purchase of "Sweet Husbands"

2011-07-01T07:36:00.000-04:00

Kuwaiti female activist and former candidate for Kuwait's Ummah Council Salwa al-Mutairi, who recently called for a revival of the Islamic system of sex slavery, has now called for Kuwaiti women to be able to purchase "sweet husbands" who would be beautiful and obey the commands of their wives. She offered this as the solution to Kuwait's old maid problem. She even proposed setting up governmental offices to advertise and recruit men, especially white-skinned men. Kuwaiti women would then be able to choose the men they wanted out of a photo album.

Translated from Youm 7 via Maktoob, 25 June 2011:

Kuwaiti Female Activist Calls for Solving the Old Maid Problem by Purchasing "Sweet" Husbands

Kuwaiti female activist Salwa al-Mutairi, former candidate in the Ummah Council elections, called for the issuing of a new law to extend to Kuwaiti women the opportunity to purchase "sweet husbands" from Islamic countries who met a detailed specification. Al-Mutairi said to the Kuwaiti journal al-Siyasa, "We will never do away with the old maid problem in Kuwait unless we apply this proposal. We will not be able to confront the phenomenon of rising divorce rates unless we carry out this idea." She added: "Kuwaiti women are proud and have strong personalities. They prefer to be the ones in charge. This creates a clash with their Kuwaiti husbands, which causes divorce. Therefore there is no exit to this societal impasse except to purchase sweet husbands who meet a detailed specification."

Responding to a question about the meaning of the detailed specification, Salwa said: "He is courteous, tactful, humble, and of course beautiful. He performs the demands of his wife, obeys her commands and pampers her. Thus she spends the sweetest days of her life with him, far away from clashes, fights, and disputes."

She continued: "The husbands would be brought through the auspices of offices set up in Islamic countries and in Russia. The requests of Kuwaiti women would be published, on condition that the husband is Muslim, or that he converts to Islam before they get married. Then the Kuwaiti woman who wants to get married will choose her life partner from a photo album and will get to know his detailed description in order to bring him to Kuwait to marry him. He will live with her in her house after he pays her a symbolic dowry, even if it were an iron ring, as the righteous companions of the Prophet did."

She said: "My goal with this proposal is to improve the offspring in Kuwait through the recruitment of white-skinned husbands. Just as I think about softening the climate through balloons, manufactured clouds and a farm with a million trees, I also think about improving the next generation of offspring."

She added: "As long as the Kuwaiti woman is able to purchase a beautiful, courteous, and dear husband, why should she not purchase a husband, and do away with the specter of old-maidedness." She pointed out that she is prepared to perform this task if she obtains the legal authorization, and that she will visit European and Asian nations which possess large Islamic communities, to recruit husbands which meet specifications that would please Kuwaiti women.

It is worth nothing that the Kuwaiti female activist had previously called for the opening of offices for sex slaves in Kuwait, as well as the fact that her current call to purchase husbands comes with the understanding that they would become slaves.

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan: Any Muslim Who Refuses to Pray Is an Infidel, and Must Be Killed

2011-06-29T19:11:00.000-04:00

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, a member of the Saudi Council of Senior Scholars, explains in this short fatwa that any Muslim who refuses to pray has become an infidel, and therefore must be killed. This fatwa was originally published in audio format on al-Fawzan's website some time ago, but was recently published in a video on YouTube, and was later picked up by Arabic-language news sites, such as al-Arabiya.The subtitled video is above, transcript is below:

This questioner says, “Your Eminence,” he says, “I have a colleague at work who doesn’t pray. I admonished him, but he didn’t respond. I informed the one in authority over us, and told him, ‘He is afraid of being transferred. Admonish him to pray, and threaten to transfer him.’ My colleague then became angry with me. Here’s my question: Is what I did wrong? What is my duty in this situation?”

He who does not pray is not a Muslim, owing to the saying of Muhammad (PBUH): “(The difference) between worship (of Allah), and infidelity and polytheism, is failing to pray.” He also said (PBUH): “The covenant that is between us and them is prayer, and whoever neglects this has become an infidel.” There are numerous evidences in the Qur’an and Sunnah for the fact that he who fails to pray is an infidel. It is not enough for this man to be transferred, but he must be fired from the job. And if he doesn’t repent to Allah and keep his prayers, then he must be killed. He must be called on to repent, but if he doesn’t repent, then he is killed.

What you have done with him was your duty, from the counsel and admonition of Allah. If he does not accept (the admonition), and insists on abstaining from praying, then he must be killed. It is not enough for him to be transferred from his job, for merely employing him is wrong. It is not permissible for an infidel to be in charge of the doings of Muslims, because he will be an example to others.

Shaykh Muhammad Hassan: Islam Prefers a Strong, Immoral Warrior

2011-06-28T07:48:00.000-04:00

Popular Egyptian Salafi Shaykh Muhammad Hassan explains in this video clip posted on YouTube on 12 June why Islam prefers strong, immoral men over weak, righteous ones. He quotes from Imam Ahmad, Ibn Taymiyya, and the Prophet Muhammad to support his view. Subtitled video is above, transcript below (see the original Arabic clip here):

If there are two men, and one of them is stronger spiritually, while the other is stronger physically, (the latter) is more beneficial to that nation. In war, for example, the strong man offers his courage, even if he is immoral or licentious. The weak man (only) offers his impotence, even if he is faithful.

Listen to the response of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), for the Shaykh of Islam (i.e. Ibn Taymiyya) based his ruling on this fatwa from his Shaykh, the Shaykh for the Sunnis, Imam Ahmad. Imam Ahmad was asked about two men, who were leaders in a raid. One of them was a strong, immoral man. The other was a weak, righteous man. With which one would he go into battle? Imam Ahmad said: “As for the strong, immoral man, his strength benefits the Muslims, while his immorality only hurts himself. But as for the weak, righteous man, his righteousness only benefits himself, while his weakness hurts the Muslims.” Thus the Imam said he would go to battle with the strong, immoral man. I hope this answer is clear. The Prophet (peace be upon him), said the same thing in the two Sahihs (Muslim and al-Bukhari), “Allah will support this religion through an immoral man.”

Egyptian Shaykh: "Democracy Is a Bad, Backwards, and Retarded Idea"

2011-06-26T23:17:00.000-04:00

In a video clip posted to YouTube on 17 June, Egyptian Shaykh Sa'id 'Abd-al-'Azim explains that "democracy is a bad, backwards, and retarded idea," which he condemns for the freedoms it contains, which includes "the freedom to disbelieve in the Creator of Heaven and Earth." He also compared those who advocate democracy to the wicked people of Sodom. This clip was taken from an interview conducted on the Islamic satellite station al-Hafez on 4 June. Subtitled video is above, transcript is below:

Shaykh 'Abd-al-'Azim: I want to say that democracy is a bad idea. We should not feel ashamed to say it. It is a bad, backward, and retarded idea, which is taken from Greece. Democracy is spoken of like it's a modern discovery, but it's not--(interrupted)

Host: You described this beautifully in this book, saying that the people who believe in democracy are like the people of Lot, who believed in the majority. Lot's people numbered about 100,000, while the majority was only Lot and his two daughters. Wherefore the minority was better than the majority, thus everyone who believes in this democracy--(interrupted)

Shaykh 'Abd-al-'Azim: That's right. Even the freedoms--what are they? Among the freedoms inherent in the democratic system are freedom for women, freedom of ownership, freedom of homosexuality, personal freedom, freedom of conscience and expression, freedom to disbelieve in the Creator of Heaven and Earth. There's mixing (of men and women), usury--all of this is in democracy, which is why I condemn it.

Video: Kuwaiti Activist: "I Hope that Kuwait Will Enact a Law for...Sex Slaves"

2011-06-22T08:09:00.001-04:00

The above video (transcript below) was translated from a video posted on YouTube on 25 May by a female Kuwaiti activist and former candidate for Kuwaiti parliament, Salwa al-Mutairi, in which she called for a revival of the Islamic law for sex-slaves. Later she was interviewed about this by the Kuwaiti paper al-Siyasa; the translation of a story on that interview from al-Arabiya is also included below the transcript from the video. For more on this story, you can also see the excellent articles posted by Raymond Ibrahim and Nonie Darwish a couple of weeks ago (special thanks to Nonie as well for sending this in and helping out with the translation).

Transcript of video:

Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you. My name is Salwa al-Mutairi. I received a message that was a little strange. A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. The topic that he brought up is an old topic. I have been working on it for two years now.

I was working with this man, a young man, who (liked) women a lot. I was sympathetic to his situation, and also dedicated to my work. I was given the opportunity to visit Mecca, and when I did so, I brought up (this man's) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, "What is the law of sex slaves?"

The mufti said, "With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war."

"Is this forbidden by Islam?," I asked.

"Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not--she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that's it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman."

Of course, I also asked religious experts in Kuwait (about this issue), and they told me about the problem with the passionate man, or even the man who is committed to his religion. For every good man in our religion, the only solution for him--when forbidden women come around, if he's tempted to sin, then the solution to this issue is for him to purchase sex slaves. I hope that Kuwait will enact the law for this category, this category of people--the sex slaves.

I have also seen a situation in Kuwait, where a woman was abandoned by her family and so forth. She was given a home in Kuwait, where she cooked, and took care of the house, and helped out, and so forth. She was very much in a situation where she was like a slave. It is better to follow the shari'a like this than to go about doing that which is forbidden. Thankfully this house took her in, because her family abandoned her, and failed to shelter her.

I hope that a law will be enacted for this category, and they will open the door for this, just as they have opened the door for servants (to come into the country). They should open the door for sex slaves, by enacting a sound law, so that our children don't waste away in the abyss of adultery and moral depravity. Allah-willing, this will work out. I believe, look, the (sex slaves could come from) a country like Chechnya, where there is a war between an (Islamic) state and another state. Certainly there are prisoners. These prisoners could be purchased. They could be purchased and sold to the merchants in Kuwait. This is better than (the merchants) committing that which is forbidden. There is nothing wrong with this.

Harun al-Rashid had many more sex slaves than this. When he died he had 2,000 sex slaves. But he only had one wife. This was not forbidden. Our shari'a permits such a thing as this. Praise be to Allah, here in Kuwait there are many merchants who are committed (to Islam). I hope the best for Kuwait, Allah-willing.

Article translated from al-Arabiya, 4 June 2011:

A female activist and former candidate for the Kuwaiti People's Assembly, Salwa al-Mutairi, called for "the enactment of a law for sex-slaves, to protect men from corruption, and to prevent children from falling into the abyss of adultery."

Al-Mutairi said to the Kuwaiti journal "al-Siyasa, on Saturday, 4 June 2011, that "Many Kuwaitis resort to becoming (too) close with women, and forgetting their religion, and taking mistresses for themselves without marrying them. This leads to sin, the spread of disease, and children being born out of wedlock. This issue needs to be dealt with in a way that does not contradict the religion (of Islam), and in which men's desires are provided for. This is something which cannot be accomplished except by resurrecting the system of sex slaves, and putting legal controls on its use."

She added that, "The female sex-slaves existed for the policy, because the religion (of Islam) permitted their possession, on condition that they were prisoners from raids carried out by Islamic countries against non-Muslim countries." She suggested that the sex slaves be taken from Russian prisoners held in Chechnya, or from Russia or other countries.

According to the former candidate, the law should be put in place quickly to establish an organization to bring the sex slaves and take ownership of them, in order to preserve the rights of both parties. Wherefore, she suggests that, "The one who desires to own the sex slave, should pay a price of 2,500 dinars. He should pay to the offices which bring the sex slaves, which will quickly establish offices which employ workers, 500 dinars. Two thousand dinars would be placed in an account for the sex slave, which she would not be able to access until 5 years after entering the care of her owner."

Al-Mutairi also proposes that, "A monthly salary be set at 50 dinars, to be withdrawn monthly from the account of the sex slave's owner. Knowing that any citizen can own whatever sex slave he wants, this is done aiming to get rid of any motive for jealousy between (the sex slaves). It also would not be permitted to bring any sex slave under the age of 15, or over the age of 25. In the proposed law, these sex slaves would be termed "girlfriends of the house." They should be treated with justice, and their rights to salary, care, and to pursue education, if they desire, should be maintained."

Al-Mutairi recorded her position on sex slaves in a video which was broadcast on the internet. To support the truth of her position, she cited the fact that Harun al-Rashid was married to one woman but had 2,000 sex slaves.

Kuwaiti Lawmaker Proposes $15,000 Reward for Men Who Marry a Second Wife

2011-06-14T07:15:00.000-04:00

Interesting that this is coming out at the same time that a former Kuwaiti candidate for parliament is calling for a revival of the old Qur'anic system of taking sex slaves from infidel raids, and selling them in Kuwaiti markets to help satisfy the Kuwaiti man's sexual appetite (stay tuned here for more on that story.) This is translated from Khaberni, 11 June 2011:

Faysal al-Duwaysan intends to offer a proposal in the Representative Legislative Institution in the Umma's Council (Parliament), which would grant a reward of up to $15,000 to the Kuwaiti man who marries a second wife. This would carry with it the stipulation that the women be over 40, widowed, or divorced.

The Public Council for Citizens' Information in Kuwait revealed the existence of more than 30,000 Kuwaiti women who have not married, and have entered into the segment of society in which they're known as "old maids." According to these statistics, this includes women from age 25 through 65 and older, considering that women finish their college education around age 23.

Al-Duwaysan confirmed to the Emirati (UAE) paper "al-Bayan" on Saturday his intention to push for adoption of the proposal, saying: "This is the best solution to curb the "old maid" problem, and eliminate many of the societal problems which began to appear in society as a result of the aggravation of this phenomenon."

The deputy said: "The high rates (of "old maids") make it imperative on everybody--including governmental and even non-governmental institutions--to move to confront the phenomenon which has become a threat. Especially since the numbers indicate there are tens of thousands of unmarried women, alongside a comparable number of men who resort to taking a non-Kuwaiti woman as a second wife. This indicates that marriage to foreign women is the most serious factor in the spread of the "old maid" phenomenon."

Al-Duwaysan stated that the aim of the proposal is to contribute, from the side of the Legislative Institution, to solving the society's problems. He stressed that this continues his serious efforts to put forth appropriate solutions which are compatible with the religion, customs, and traditions of Kuwaiti society.

Video: Shaykh al-Huwayni: "When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her"

2011-06-11T09:41:00.000-04:00

After Egyptian Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni's controversial comments about jihad and slavery (see here) were published on YouTube, Facebook, and also in Egyptian press, he was given the opportunity to respond in a telephone interview aired on the Islamic satellite television station al-Hikma on 22 May 2011. In his approximately 20-minute response, he contended that his words in that clip were taken out of context--he was talking within the larget topic of offensive jihad. In this interview he explained the meaning of offensive jihad, and established through sources in the Qur'an and sayings of Muhammad that both offensive jihad and the taking of spoils of war, namely slaves and "sex-slaves," are legitimate under Islam.

I condensed the 20-minute interview down to about 8 and a half minutes; the subtitled video is above, and the transcript is below:

[...] It is clear that offensive jihad, which I was talking about in that interview, that its purpose is to call people to Islam, and it is not permissible for anyone to hide the divine guidance from the people, under any name. They rejected Islam and the jizya, that's it. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "If they refuse, then seek Allah's aid and fight them." If fighting occurs, there is going to be a winner and a loser. If the army of the Muslims is victorious, it will take spoils. Taking spoils is a fixed ruling in the Qur'an. Allah permitted it at the day of the Battle of Badr, as it is (recorded) in Surat al-Anfal. Allah Almighty said: "And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things" [Qur'an 8:41].

This (position) on spoils is clear. There is also the saying in the two Sahihs [Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim] from Abi-Hurayra, the first of which is, "One among the prophets (PBUH) raided..." In the other hadith from Yush'a bin Nun, the Prophet (PBUH) said, "When Allah saw our weakness, he made it permissible for us," meaning spoils. The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Spoils were not permitted for any masters besides you." Allah Almighty forbade (the taking of) spoils for all nations before us. He permitted it on the day of the Battle of Badr, as agreed to by all scholars. Not a single Muslim scholar has a problem with this.

'Spoils' refers to what? It refers to people and wealth. The people are those who are taken prisoner. I want to say that it is not at all permissible to take prisoners from among Muslims, even if they are heretics, because the rule for Muslims is that they are free, and not prisoners. Jihad, as I stated in the beginning, is between Muslims and non-Muslims, from among the infidels. But if two Muslims fought each other, like from Iraq and Iran for example; if Iraq invaded Iran to occupy it, it would not be permissible for an Iraqi man to take a Shi'ite woman captive, because she is Muslim, even though she's a heretic. Likewise if Iran invaded Iraq, it would not be permissible for one of their men to take a Muslim woman captive, because she is free.

Therefore jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. That between Muslims and Muslims is called oppression, or fighting: "If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel..." [Qur'an 49:9]. They are called 'believers,' and this name is not taken from them, even though they are fighting. "If one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses..." Here they are called transgressors, but the name of believers is still not taken away from them. In the verse directly following this one, Allah Almighty says: "The believers are but a single brotherhood..." They were brothers, even though a party of them transgressed against the other, and some of them fought each other. But the name of believers was not taken from them.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur'an by the name milk al-yamin, "that which your right hands possess" [Qur'an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur'an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn't need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them.

These are called slaves. The Prophet (PBUH) talked about them in the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari in his Book of Jihad: "Allah is delighted at a people who enter the Garden in chains." Also as narrated by Abu-Dawud: "They are led to the Garden in chains." Naturally, many people might not understand someone being jerked along in chains in order to enter the Garden. This is because all people, even the worst of the unbelievers, say the garden is for them and no others. They run to the Garden without anybody pulling them in chains.

The meaning of the hadith is this: these slaves were in a religion other than Islam. However, when they were conquered, and defeated, and taken prisoner, they came to live in the land of Islam. Then when they witnessed the justice, compassion, and mercy of Islam, they became Muslims. These did not convert to Islam except in the chains of war. If they had not been chained, bound, and had their freedom taken from them, they would not have converted to Islam. Therefore this hadith is referring to these slaves.

I am very shocked and surprised at those who say that we permit slavery. We don't call people to become slaves. In fact, there are vows to free the necks (i.e. slaves). The same Islam which permits us to take slaves, also urges us to free their necks.

[...]

I am very shocked, for example, by a country like the United States or others like it which occupy the inhabitants of the earth. It doesn't enslave individuals, but rather it enslaves entire countries. What is being done in Afghanistan? What is being done in Iraq? What is being done with regards to dividing up Sudan? Those who are in Chechnya, or Eritrea, or any Muslim country are being burned, and taken and thrown in prisons and in Guantanamo and so forth. They say that this is a war against terrorism. This action is the same as slavery, but it is injustice and agression. But Islam in the case of Chosroes was not like that.

I have entered into the well-known conditions and restrictions (on offensive jihad), of which I mentioned only a few, because it is a long topic. I know that I am in an interview, and perhaps I have carried on too long for your guests. But I will close Allah-willing, and I won't go on more than a couple of minutes. I say that this is requisite with the justice, mercy, and care of Islam for the slaves. Yet they still come and blame us for this supposed blemish, while they are guilty of the same thing many times over. They are tyrants and oppressors who attack the lands of the Muslims especially, more than they do any others. Now when I say spoils, it does not refer only to money, but it also means slaves.

When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards. Now, the country that I entered and took captive its men and women--does it not also have money, gold, and silver? Is that not money? When I say that jihad--offensive jihad--with the well-known conditions that I already mentioned from the hadith of the Prophet (PBUH), from the hadith of Burayda in Sahih Muslim, the coffers of the Muslims were full. Would someone who is pious and intelligent--would he say that this is a type of poverty? Or that it is a type of wealth? No--this will fill the coffers of the Muslims with riches and wealth, but as we said, with the recognized conditions. [...]

Video: Egyptian Shaykh Incites Muslims to Burn Down Churches

2011-06-08T21:39:00.000-04:00

This video shows Shaykh Ashraf Yusuf Hassan in the middle of a mob of Muslims, calling on them to burn down churches in the Cairo district of Imbaba. The original Arabic-language video was posted on YouTube on 9 May, just two days after the church was burned down. Twelve were killed and 52 wounded in just the latest round of violence against Egypt's Coptic Christian minority. Apparently 48 Muslims and Christians have been arrested in connection with this incident, yet reportedly the man in this video continues to go free. The subtitled video is above, and the transcript follows (thanks to Nonie Darwish for sending this in and helping out with the translation):

We heard there was a sister being held hostage in a church, as usually happens. The churches have now become gangs, a mafia, unfortunately, (taking hostage) any woman who converts to Islam. The terrorist church is headed by the filthy dog Shenouda. These words need to be broadcast. Take note of this terrorism. We went to solve the problem. We went and took with us a group of shaykhs, to enter inside the church in order to solve the problem, but not a single priest or anyone else moved (to let us in). I told one of them: We came to solve the problem. He told me: No--if you want to solve the problem, we will start a fire. That's how it was. This one threw on that, and the other threw back. They had fire and guns. We are always saying that the churches are full of guns. The Muslim throws bottles and stones, while the Christians have fire. Listen, all of you Muslims. All of the Christians have guns, and we are ignorant (of this). We, as Muslims, are stupid. Listen to me--all the firing is coming from the Christian dogs, from the side of the church. The poor Muslim is going with a rock. We would not be men, if we did not burn down the churches in Embaba.

The Global Mufti: The Phenomenon of Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Columbia/Hurst)