Cleric misunderstands Islam, leads followers to misunderstand it as well. Happens every day. "Muslim Cleric Calls for Jihad, Coptic Christians Attacked in Egypt," by Mary Abdelmassih for AINA, August 14:
(AINA) -- On August 13 Sheikh Tobah, Imam of the village of Shimi 170 KM south of Giza, called during Muslim Friday prayers for Jihad against Christians living there. As a result the Christian Copts living in the village were assaulted over two consecutive days. Eleven Copts were hospitalized and many Coptic youths were arrested. The assaults begain a couple of hours after the Sheikhs incitement. An argument between Copt Maher Amin, who was washing his taxi, and Mohamed Ali Almstaui, a Muslim extremist from the village, escalated into violence as Mohamad assaulted Maher. The altercation was stopped by bystanders. However, after the evening break of Ramadan fast, Ahmad, the brother of the perpetrator Mohamad, who is reported to belong to an extremist organization, together with twenty other men, went to Maher's family home, breaking down the door and assaulting him and his family with batons, including his old mother and his paralyzed sister, injuring them and breaking their furniture.
Security forces came and took away the Christian victims and kept them at the station in spite of their wounds, to pressuree them into accepting "reconciliation" with their attackers. None of the Muslims were arrested.
Saad Gamal, Egyptian MP for Elsaff, phoned from Gaza, where he is on a visit, and gave orders to the police to force reconciliation on the Coptic parties.
"I was against reconciliation, because I know that the culprits know that they can assault Copts, and in the end it will boil down to Copts giving up all their rights with the reconciliation sessions," said Reverend Ezra Nageh of St. George's Church in Elsaff.
"I was told by the security authorities that for the sake of the Holy month of Ramadan, everyone ought to make peace."
The next day, after the compulsory reconciliation between the Amin family and Almstaui family, a large number of Muslims were gathered by the Almstauis and attacked again the houses of the Copts, beaten the inhabitants, and went to the fields and assaulted the Copts there also.
"Why should they not do that, when they are told that the MP will defend them," said Rev. Ezra, adding the police have yet to issue a report about the incidents, because they were afraid of the MP. "So to whom should we go for help? MP Saad Gamal hates Christians, and President Mubarak pretends that he is not present or unaware of our plight."
Ghali Tawfik, one of the Coptic victims, said "We are forced into reconciliation and in less than 24 hours, we are assaulted again."...
47 Comments
Leave a Comment
NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.
When will the non-Muslim world wake up against this on-going trend of extreme intolerant nature and brutality of Islam and stand together to defend this injustice?
'Father Zakaria Botros is in town for "the Unveiling," a three-day gathering of spiritual leaders — including Jewish and Arab leaders — to discuss God's divine purpose in the Middle East.'
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Coptic+cleric+Islam+Enemy+visits+Vancouver/3391940/story.html#ixzz0wdQFi5n7
That's about par for the course...
This is why i inwardly scream whenever I have to teach my history classes and see the garbage the approved textbooks and films spew out about Islamic "tolerance". It is also why I scream at speeches like Obama's about Islam's "contributions to human dignity" or Bish's "religion of peace".
I think I'll put together a pile of materials from various points in history to expose the vicious, violent bigotry that pretends it is the true way to submit to God and offer it to my students the next time I must teach a history class.
I am not altogether pessimistic, though. I have noticed that Muslim colleagues are plainly embarrassed by the violence against minorities going on in their home countries. Once, when I was getting my car fixed, the Iranian immigrant owner of the garage was in and made some disparaging comment about "Muslims" when he noticed I was reading a newspaper article on the old country--and it turned out that he himself was an Ithna'ashariyya Shi'ite Muslim rather than a Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, or Bahai. One Muslim colleague with whom I got into an e-mail discussion about the Bible actually expressed appreciation for the information I gave him, and said it had cleared up a lot of misunderstandings he had received over the years.
I suspect that the general level of civility, tolerance, and equity in the USA registers with more of our immigrants than we give credit for.
Now you see why I call myself a swindler over having to teach a lying history curriculum to impressionable teens...
This is why i inwardly scream whenever I have to teach my history classes and see the garbage the approved textbooks and films spew out about Islamic "tolerance".
...............
I understand your frustration, Kepha.
Bring in as much truth as you can under the circumstances. Perhaps you can at least get some of your more inquisitive students asking questions—and looking for answers in other than the meretricious textbooks you are compelled to use.
It may not have an effect right away. But perhaps when some of your students are in college, or contemplating current events years from now, they may bring to mind some of the questions their high school history teacher raised.
Good luck—and keep in mind that it would be that much worse for your students if they were being taught either by someone who unquestioningly regurgitated the material in the textbooks, or someone who didn't much care about content one way or the other.
All “scholars” of Islamic theology must become the obedient brain dead followers of Mohammedanism.
~~~~~
Am I wrong in my assessment? If you are a Muslim and disagree with statements, simply make a comment on Jihad Watch tonight and I would be happy to discuss the matter with you.
Waiting for your response.....
Is like me saying "All Nazerites must become idiot followers of Zombie Jesus" and then inviting Christians for a dialogue.
It's just provocative.
Sura 9:5 “Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.”
-----------
I think that part is convenient, situational taqiyya. They'll attack whenever they damned well want to, and they'll do it with their Allah's "blessings," of course, even if (and perhaps ESPECIALLY if) it's during the "Sacred Months."
The whole Qur'an can be denied, at any time, for the purpose of fooling questioning unbelievers, if it serves to further Islam.
Lie, cheat, steal, betray, maim, kidnap, rape, murder, blashpheme...whatever, as long as it furthers the goals of Islam, it's cool with Allah.
Nice, huh?
As stated earlier, I think that Islam is nothing more than the convoluted scam of a true mad man.
What do you think Yusef?
Please tell us your thoughts on the matter my dear Brother.
Saleem Smith
However, the aggression is still in fact unjustified and it's disheartening to see someone as well educated as a cleric distorting the message. 2:190-194 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. (190) And slay them (aggressors) wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (191) But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (192) And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. (193) The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil). (194)
Islam is dying and it's dying fast. Hang on, this is the devil's last gasp.
The testimony of a muslim sheikh (al-Qataani) on a muslim TV channel (al-Jazeera)
"We are living a tragedy sir, by Allah we are living a tragedy."
Dying Islam..الإسلام يحتضر..L'Islam Mourant(video)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/dying-islam-lislam-mourant.html
I'm just wondering why the (taqiyya) has no impact on the true believers......
Copts Are Part of the Community of Believers
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4518.htm
Q: "In Islam, do the rights of dhimmis [non-Muslims living in Muslim lands] amount to full citizenship?"
A: "Yes, and more than that. [In the past, dhimmis paid] the jizya [poll] tax in return for the protection of their person, because they did not serve in the army. But this tax was abolished [in Egypt] a long time ago, because the Copts do serve in the army and today they take part in defending the homeland. Their rights and duties are identical to our own. But justice dictates that the role of president be discharged by a member of the Muslim [community]. That's how it is all over the world: [the president is a member of the majority]."
Q: "Are [the Copts] part of the community of believers?"
A: "Yes, because they believe in Allah and in the Day of Judgment. If the Prophet, in the Covenant of Al-Madina, regarded the Jews part of the community of believers, then our Coptic maternal cousins are [certainly] worthy of [this designation]. They are the ones whom our forefather Ibrahim took for his in-laws, as did the Prophet [himself]. According to Islam, a Muslim may not marry an infidel and may not eat the food of an infidel, but he may eat the food of a Copt, and may [even] marry a Coptic woman; and she is permitted to keep her faith for the rest of her life."
Q: "Do you agree with [Coptic] Patriarch Shenouda that the Islamic shari'a permits the Copts to handle their marital matters according to their beliefs and customs?"
A: "Yes, I agree with him completely. His claim is completely correct."
Q: "Will Al-Azhar accept a law that sets out uniform [regulations] for building Muslim and Coptic houses of worship?"
A: "Islam guarantees the Christians and Jews [the right] to build churches and synagogues, and to ring their bells and celebrate their festivals."
Q: "Did Islam set out conditions [for implementing this principle]?"
A: "Islam did not set out any conditions. The churches will be constructed according to the needs of the Copts. That is what the Prophet promised the Christians in [the Treaty of] Najran. The decree of Sultan ['Abd Al-Majid] is not part of the Islamic [shari'a]. It is a law that was dictated by a certain reality, and is subject to change. If circumstances change, laws change as well."
Q: "Can a Muslim society be defined as one whose laws do not contradict the shari'a? Is this enough?"
A: "Ours is a Muslim society, and anyone who denies this is a sinner. Some shari'a laws are not implemented in Egypt. These are laws which, if violated, render one guilty of disobeying a religious commandment, but not of heresy. [For example], one who drinks wine dies a sinful Muslim, not an infidel. We cannot judge him in advance as one who will go to Hell, because nobody knows humans better than Allah. That is Al-Azhar's position and our middle way.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/05/koran-and-psychopathology-of-prophet.html
In other words, will they pass up a good, clear chance to strike just because of the verses?
As I understand it, no "offensive jihad" is possible due to the lack of a Caliph, but "defensive jihad" is always on the table, and seems to serve ALL purposes, not only because the world has yet to entirely belong to Allah, but also because (any given) infidel has "attacked" muslims in some real or perceived way (militarily, physical, financial, with blasphemy, with slander, by joking on JihadWatch etc.)
So, there is always the viable excuse that, due to past or current behaviour, infidels are in a perpetual "state of attack" against muslims, justifying whatever "defensive jihad" tactic muslims wish to employ at any given time.
I would think that this would fall into the category of "expediency and practicality trumping scripture for tactical purposes."
Inshallah? Or don't they dare?
There is no centralized authority (like a Pope), and from what I've seen, radical mullahs and imams willing to approve anything are a dime a dozen, so I can't see them passing up what they know to be a "good opportunity" to attack the infidels and advance Islam, even if that action is somehow "forbidden" by scripture during certain periods.
Someone with some kind of authority, somewhere, will "ok" it.
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm relatively new to the study of Islam.
Surely, not all Muslims are fanatic or fanatic enablers and sympathizers. But those that are are truly murderers, rapists, liars, and hypocrites - whether or not they are Muslim clerics, Muslim politicians, or Muslim activists.
And the so-called moderates (whether in Islamic or Western countries) that are able to, but nonetheless fail to denounce the evil behaviors of their fellow Muslims are not that much different than the Muslim fanatics whom they refuse and/or fail to condemn.
Hey, you linked that book “Understanding Muhammad: The psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet” written by Ali Sina, and I want to check that out, so thanks in advance.
If you haven't seen it yet, there's another really good e-book by Sujit Das called "Unmasking Mohammad, the Malignant Narcissist and his grand illusion Allah"
It's very good, and you can find the pdf file for it here if you want to:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=855&cpage=1
Cheers!
~El
P.S. Keep on-a postin El..always good..
One more for the gipper..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llizNKt9N-w&feature=player_embedded
I'm honestly not sure what "good opportunity" this "Muslim" saw in attacking non-aggressors who are obviously innocent by not only Western standards but by Islamic standards as well. Is not only "'forbidden' by scripture during certain periods," it is forbidden period! Women, children, the sick, and the elderly are all not to be harmed.
This perceived "'good opportunity' to attack the infidels" advanced nothing but misconceptions Islam. Find me in the scriptures of Islam (or any religion) this "category of 'expediency and practicality trumping scripture for tactical purposes.'"
Also note the article's and your use of the terms "radical" and "extreme." These terms are clear indicators of a minority and not mainstream thought. I wholeheartedly agree these people are a threat. They are a threat to Islam and the people they influence. Islam itself is not the threat.
(on a side note: Upon reflection, the misunderstanding leading to these attacks may not be the fault of direction from the imam. It is not reported what he specifically said in his sermon so that actions of the attackers may be due to their own misunderstanding. However, the cultural mentalities that are allowing the attackers to remain unpunished is undeniably reprehensible)
The following is just ONE linke of many:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11552056/
One might try this as well and discover what is going on in any given Muslim-majority nation.
http://www.worthynews.com/7280-algeria-mob-prevents-protestant-church-services
http://www.worthynews.com/7280-algeria-mob-prevents-protestant-church-services
After The Bama praised these muslims for the great tolerance, goodness, diversity, peace, love, flowers, and happiness that the gift of islam brought to these islamic hellholes. So what valuable lessons can we westerns (and nonmuslim easterns) learn from these great people with their great religion. Come on their has to be something valuable they are teaching us. Their gotta be some valuable lessons from these dear muslims, cause The Bama said so. How can we nonmuslims apply these valuable lessons in our western countries? Here are the valuable lessons the muslims are teaching us. Pay attention!, don't let your thoughts wander, read carefully, take it to your heart, and most important ,don't ignore these, cause The Bama approves.
lesson one: Close down and destroy the opposing religion's place of worship cause they are worshiping the wrong god.
lesson two: kidnap the opposing religion's daughters and marry them off to yourself or the correct religious men. You are doing them a favor.
lesson three: Take over the opposing religion's people's homes and lands because your own god said you can do it.
lesson four : fight the opposing religion's people in any and every way you can, cause god wants you to.
These are the most important lessons we infidals can learn from the muslims, cause The bama, dhimmis, and other ignoramouses have said so. Now march, schnel, do it.
http://perpetuaofcarthage.blogspot.com/2009/01/saudi-arabia-christian-converts-in.html
This was reported in Gulf News. Horrific, but true.
Yes it is..itself..All by its lonesome..Always was..Hopefully won't ever will be..Until it's gone..in toto..and ta ta..ciao..sayanara..hasta la vista..bon voyage..where have you been all my life and when are you going back there? Salut!
--------------------
LOL! Forgive me if I wasn't clear: I was speaking in overall generalities.
Islam didn't get to where it is today by passing up opportunities to attack unbelievers of any creed at any opportune time, especially when avenues were/are opened to them to do so, and particularly when their enemies have made it easy for them to do so.
As for finding actual categories of "expediency and practicality for tactical purposes" trumping scripture, look at the Sahih Hadith collection; if I'm not mistaken, there are plenty of "war-like" advices and examples contained in them that are not found in the Qur'an.
Certainly, one could assign to the ideology of Islam a rather esoteric prediliction for religio-militaristic activity, no? Islam is, after all, (in)famous for converting whole regions and peoples by the sword.
Islam means submit, and not the "submit comment" variety of submission.
I argue that if an army -- any army, but specifically a Muslim army (or Islamic "soldiers" -- terrorists) is to succeed in the field, they must remain, to a certain degree, flexible in their approaches to dealing with an enemy.
I doubt many exhanges like this ever came up:
Abdul: Look! The infidel forces are very weak at this moment, we should attack now!
Mohammad: But it is prayer time now, Abdul. We must do as Allah says and pray now.
Abdul: But Mohammad, see the reserves of the infidel forces rounding the hill? If we wait until after prayers, we will not be able to defeat their reinforced army!
Mohammad: That's just too bad, Abdul. We MUST stick to the scriptures to please Allah.
(And Islam has very few victories and the ideology dies out by around 700 AD because of failure to conquer anything!)
What I mean is: the rules are flexible in war, and Islam says it's at war with the west. And to that end, I just don't believe that some verse in the Qur'an or some Islamic tradition is going to trump the operational expediency of Muslim terror-operatives who might see an opening in enemy defenses, and who know that it's a good time to attack, Holy Month, some other tradition, or not.
Remember the old adage "Can't see the forest for the trees?"
Well, the update might be "can't see the attackers for the verses."
That is, if one spends too much time searching scripture while ignoring the obvious.
I grew up in a family with a rather strong military tradition, so I tend to look at Islam as a global military "force" that must not be treated so much like "just a religion" that its beligerent tendencies are unwisely disregarded.
This is a militaristic-religion/political ideology with a very long history of bloodshed and conquest.
We would all do well to NEVER lose sight of that fact.
-The End-
Oicruock is like so many seemingly at least, rational and reasonable Muslims. You gave him/ her a very apposite, relevant, valid answer.
We know Islam I (highest guiding texts of Islam) + II, the interpretations of it by the most reputable schools of thought in Sunni and Shia Islam; I know about El Azhar in Cairo, Hanifi, Malike, Hanbali out of the top of my head.
These can be and are studied and explained, especially by many ex-Muslims. And that alone puts the burden of proof more on people like Oicruock and Islam-apologists.
And yes, it's almost certain that conquering the world is a winning excuse for postponing living up to doctrinal niceties, when there is a time-window to profit from opportunities. So, bottom line; how can you trust people whose goal it is to let the whole world submit to Islam?
But there is also Islam-III, the interpretation and implementation of Islam-I + II. And yes, it's much about this, because if the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, and especially those in democratic countries, would interpret and implement Islam I-II highly symbolically only, like perhaps Oicruock is trying to say, then Democracy would be safe and meeting no Islamic obstacles in Islamic countries.
But mankind can be seen as 1 block or divided into some 6,5 billion individuals. In between we can divide mankind in nations, as we are now prone to do. But we can also divide mankind in relious affiliations, including atheists, for argument's sake. We can even divide mankind into Muslim-theocracy-loyalists, democracy-loyalists of all sorts and neutrals, who don't care.
And in my view it is still OK if both theocracy-loyalists and Democracy-loyalists both desire to conquer all mankind, provided they do it with peaceful, democratic means, instead of doing it with violent, deceitful, propagandistic-lying and censuring means. With equal rules in a fair game let the best system win!
But do the Muslims really want to play such a fair game with equal rules for all??? Like the infidels in their countries really do? It often seems to me that in their own Islamic countries, they want to play a soccer-game with 11 against 7, a chess-game with the opposite party without the Queen and rooks, or a boxing-match with the opposite party with a hand tied behind this back.
This happens in many places, and it happens frequently, and there are many types of Jihad....
wake up world....pay attention to the Muslims and watch how they treat Non Muslim once Islam has control....you have but to look at those places where Islam has control...view your possible future....is this what you want for your children?..
And no wonder: whenever the Egyptians score a goal the entire squad gather in perfect circle, drop down and render thanks. A Copt would be the odd man out.
Most of Islam is not from Allah/God, but from Muhammad and his master, the Devil/Satan.
The only part of Islam that is from Allah/God is that Allah/God is the creator of the universe, and he is merciful and the only true God. This is the only thing that's true about Islam.
But all the violence that are commanded in Islam are not from Allah/God, but from the Devil/Satan through his servant Muhammad - the self-adoring murderer, rapist, liar, hypocrite and pervert.
An enormous amount of dialogue, debate, argument, and passion happened before these changes occurred. But they occurred without destroying Christianity. The umbrella of Christianity is big enough and tolerant enough to shelter all these varieties of the same basic faith: we have agreed dissent is acceptable. For example, we Catholics challenge the Pope's edicts, and we know we will not be expelled from our religion.
This is not the case in Islam. In Islam, challenge to, disagreement with, or contradiction of Mohammed or the Qur'an is blasphemy, an outrage, intolerable. These actions are justification for attack and destruction. It is part of the grand plan for Islam that it MUST NOT change or develop or evolve: it is meant to stay exactly the same. No dialogue is sought, encouraged, nurtured, tolerated. The religious mind and soul are to be constrained and controlled, not freed to interact with their religion to move forward and upward.
In Islam, even religious dialogue with the self is outlawed. The danger of questions arising is too great to risk, so it is prohibited before it can happen. In that environment, what possible sincere dialogue can happen with the outside world of other religions - especially religions against which Islam has set itself in the past?
Copts Are Part of the Community of Believers
Q: "In Islam, do the rights of dhimmis [non-Muslims living in Muslim lands] amount to full citizenship?"
A: "Yes, and more than that. [In the past, dhimmis paid] the jizya [poll] tax in return for the protection of their person, because they did not serve in the army. But this tax was abolished [in Egypt] a long time ago, because the Copts do serve in the army and today they take part in defending the homeland. Their rights and duties are identical to our own. But justice dictates that the role of president be discharged by a member of the Muslim [community]. That's how it is all over the world: [the president is a member of the majority]."
Q: "Are [the Copts] part of the community of believers?"
A: "Yes, because they believe in Allah and in the Day of Judgment. If the Prophet, in the Covenant of Al-Madina, regarded the Jews part of the community of believers, then our Coptic maternal cousins are [certainly] worthy of [this designation]. They are the ones whom our forefather Ibrahim took for his in-laws, as did the Prophet [himself]. According to Islam, a Muslim may not marry an infidel and may not eat the food of an infidel, but he may eat the food of a Copt, and may [even] marry a Coptic woman; and she is permitted to keep her faith for the rest of her life."
Q: "Do you agree with [Coptic] Patriarch Shenouda that the Islamic shari'a permits the Copts to handle their marital matters according to their beliefs and customs?"
A: "Yes, I agree with him completely. His claim is completely correct."
Q: "Will Al-Azhar accept a law that sets out uniform [regulations] for building Muslim and Coptic houses of worship?"
A: "Islam guarantees the Christians and Jews [the right] to build churches and synagogues, and to ring their bells and celebrate their festivals."
Q: "Did Islam set out conditions [for implementing this principle]?"
A: "Islam did not set out any conditions. The churches will be constructed according to the needs of the Copts. That is what the Prophet promised the Christians in [the Treaty of] Najran. The decree of Sultan ['Abd Al-Majid] is not part of the Islamic [shari'a]. It is a law that was dictated by a certain reality, and is subject to change. If circumstances change, laws change as well."
-Excerpt from interview with Al-Azhar Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Al-Tayyeb
Think Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Al-Tayyeb has given this Cleric a jingle? Will his words of outrage against this Misunderstander of Islam be hitting the wires anytime soon?
Keep your fingers crossed...
The word is African-American slang for a person who can't dress right or a misfit. It arose because people from the Deep South (Ala"bama", for instance) arrived in northern cities and could be singled out because they dressed and acted like country folk. At the African-American majority school where I teach, there is a "Bama Day" in which students are allowed to dress in outlandish ways (as long as they don't violate basic rules of decency), which is how I learned this term.
Hence, while I can't argue with the substance of your post, it did give me cause for a little chuckle.
----
I thought that all in Mo's Family were to revere the Prophets of Islam, and Jesus, deified Mo's followers give him another name, is supposed to come at the end of days.
Yusek, seems you blasphemed a tad there? What does Shar'ia Law say your punishment should be? I'd go and have an honest discussion with your local holy roller and what is it, witness four times? Confess, redress, get working on that personal Jihad before it's to late for you. See what happens when you chat it up with the indifels, least you become like them.
The reason I use "The Bama", is because one of these lady commentators uses it, maybe Monica Crawly or the Laura Inghram. She says it often and in a sarcastic tone. I love it.