Archive

Raymond Ibrahim's Blog

Egypt's 'Gassed' Dogs

This picture has appeared on several Arabic websites. Based on the caption that accompanies it, these dogs appear to be victims of the teargas the Egyptian military has been using against protesters. The caption reads: "Stray dogs passed out all over the streets from the effects of the teargas [or literally, "gas-bombs"] thrown at protesters. Despite being used to living around refuse, streets, car exhausts, etc., these dogs passed out from the lethal gas. What about humans?"

Incidentally, assuming the picture and caption are accurate, there is no great surprise that the dogs have been left like vermin on the streets: deemed najis, or unclean, dogs are outcasts in Muslim societies. As one anti-dog fatwa concludes: "We must ensure that Muslims continue to be averse to dogs, even in the midst of what the kuffaar [i.e., Western infidels] are used to do and what some Muslims have adopted of their habits."

By Raymond Ibrahim  |  Fri, February 10, 2012 7:43 PM  |  Permalink

Egyptian Presidential Candidate Says No Freedom in Islam

In a recent TV interview, Hazim Abu Ismail, a candidate for Egypt's presidency with affiliations to both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis, made clear that the hijab, or veil for women, would be enforced under his leadership. More importantly, along the way he exposed his general views—that there is little freedom under Islam. Especially telling is the military analogy he used: being a Muslim is like being a member of the military; you must obey all its dictates, including dress codes. He fails to add, however, that, whereas much military service is voluntary, in Islam, if you are simply born to Muslim parents, then you have joined Islam—whether you like it or not. Hence, all the persecution of Muslim apostates. But, as Abu Ismail puts it, "This is Islam." Translated excerpts of the interview follow:

Abu Ismail: "I have nothing to do with it!... This is Islam."

Host: You have already begun to try to impose a particular dress code for us.
Abu Ismail: I've begun to? It's the Lord of the Worlds [Allah] who said so. I have nothing to do with it!
Host: Allah left it for me to decide as a personal freedom.
Abu Ismail: Who said that? Where'd you get that from? See, that's the whole point: If you claim that Allah considers it your personal freedom, show me your reference. Nobody has ever said that—except for people who have no understanding of Sharia.
Host: There is "no coercion in religion" [Koran 2:256].
Abu Ismail: This is concerning the creed, you don't force someone to convert to Islam.
Host: So when Allah in the Koran mentions "religion," it is synonymous with "creed"?
Abu Ismail: Exactly.
Host: So when He says "today I have perfected your religion for you" [Koran 5:3], He is only talking about the "creed."
Abu Ismail: Yes; for example, when you say "no coercion to join the Military Academy," it means that you are free to join or not—but if you do join, then you are obliged to wear their uniform, to attend their classes, to attend the training with them, and to obey their leader.
Host: There is a problem here—shall I say to the unveiled woman who wants to avoid hijab that she should change her creed?
Abu Ismail: Exactly, bravo. If she is a Muslim. You see, this is the difficulty; this is Islam. Does she want to be a Muslim and not obey Allah's rules? Let them say so; that's all I ask; let them be honorable and just speak up.

A bold challenge, considering that "speaking up" about not wanting to follow "Allah's rules" in Muslim countries can get one attacked, hounded, imprisoned, and killed.

By Raymond Ibrahim  |  Wed, February 8, 2012 4:29 PM  |  Permalink

U.S. Accused of Running Over Egyptian Civilians

How many are the lies that Egypt's military regime has forwarded concerning its role in attacking and killing Egyptian demonstrators since it usurped power a year ago?

Video of Egyptian soldiers beating, kicking, and stripping female "entirely fake"?

There were, for instance, the lies concerning the Maspero massacre, where the military slaughtered Christian Copts who were protesting the constant attacks on their churches.

Despite all the video evidence that the military ran armored-vehicles over Copts [apparently now removed by YouTube], the military regime insisted that it would "never, never" run over civilians; that the very idea was "impossible, impossible!" It even showed a video of a military-vehicle running amuck, claiming it was hijacked by Coptic protesters (it was later revealed that an Egyptian soldier was, in fact, inside driving).

More recently, Mohamad Tantawi, the head of the military—and de facto head of Egypt—said that the widely circulated video of soldiers beating, stripping, and kicking a female protester is "entirely fake"—a ludicrous assertion, even if Jimmy Carter supports it.

Who is the latest victim to be scapegoated for the military's crimes against its own citizenry? None other than the U.S.A.

Ongoing accusations that American officials were involved in killing Egyptian civilians have prompted the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to deny it through a January 27 press release:

As we have stated in previous press releases, there is absolutely no truth to reports that U.S. embassy employees or diplomats were involved in hit-and-run incidents using U.S. diplomatic vehicles, injuring or killing protestors in January 2011 in Cairo. There is also no truth to statements alleging that the keys inside U.S. diplomatic vehicles are coded and can only be used by U.S. Embassy employees. On January 28, 2011, however, a number of our U.S. Embassy vehicles were stolen. After these vehicles were stolen, we heard reports of their use in violent and criminal acts. If true, we deplore these acts and the perpetrators. Egyptian authorities have conducted an investigation that has led to the recovery of some of these stolen vehicles.

Image of U.S. embassy vehicle running over Egyptian protesters, Jan. 2011.

Who is behind these accusations? The military? As mentioned, it did make similar accusations against Coptic protesters, saying they hijacked and manned the military-vehicles that ran over fellow Copts at Maspero—only to be exposed as lying by Al Dalil.

While it is not altogether clear who is behind these accusations—this report indicates a lawyer of a former Egyptian official being tried, while older reports mention "communiqués"—it is, of course, the military regime that stands to gain by this latest case of blaming the other.

By Raymond Ibrahim  |  Thu, February 2, 2012 1:29 AM  |  Permalink

Muslim Persecution of Christians: Context and Continuity

I recently spoke at a conference sponsored by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), held at the Sheraton hotel in Framingham, Massachusetts. Titled "The Persecuted Church: Christian Believers in Peril in the Middle East," Part 1 of my talk, "Context and Continuity," follows. Click for Part 2 and Part 3.

By  |  Tue, January 31, 2012 3:29 PM  |  Permalink

Distorting Reality to Justify Jihad

Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum recently declared the legitimacy of offensive jihad for the world to hear: "When we declare Jihad against Germany, for instance, it is declared against the German state, for refusing to allow Islam to spread to the people of Germany. We give them a choice: Either to convert to Islam, or to pay the jizya and submit to the laws of Islam."

Sheikh Quddum gets it only half right.

Otherwise, war is the third choice.

All well and good; the Sheikh is merely quoting standard jihadi doctrine.

But he did say something that revealed how utterly deluded he is, how he cannot comprehend the full significance of what he himself is preaching. After agreeing that there is a "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam, he said:

If not for Jihad, Islam would not have reached us and all the other places. Within a quarter of a century, Islam reached most of the ancient world by means of Jihad. The common people want Islam. Anyone who doesn't can stick to his own religion. Here in the Levant, most of our forefathers were not Muslims, but they converted to Islam because of its goodness and justice.

So, after telling us that Islam does teach jihad—that is, offensive war to spread Islamic hegemony; after telling us that "Islam reached most of the ancient world by means of jihad"; after telling us that those who do not wish to convert to Islam must pay jizya—which, as he well knows, involves much more than merely paying a tax, involves being a second-class dhimmi, whose worth is at best half that of a Muslim (he even alluded to this when he said "pay the jizya and submit to the laws of Islam")—after all this straightforward and honest talk, he resorts to fantasy by adding

The common people want Islam. Anyone who doesn't can stick to his own religion. Here in the Levant, most of our forefathers were not Muslims [most were Christian during Islam's invasion], but they converted to Islam because of its goodness and justice.

Really, now? Does it not occur to the Sheikh that his ancestors, when confronted by Islamic jihad and forced to decide between either joining the "winning team" or becoming second-class dhimmis, treated contemptuously, abused, and persecuted—as they still are to this very day—does it not occur to him that maybe that's why many of his ancestors converted, and not because of Islam's "goodness and justice"?

Does it not occur to him that Islam's own apostasy law—Islam being the only religion that ensures people remain in its fold by threatening to kill them should they wish to convert to another religion—is a clear substitute for natural appeal?

Of course, Sheikh Quddum's contradictions are but the latest example of how Muslim sheikhs totally distort history to justify jihad. They have no problem being honest about Islam's history and doctrines of violence; but they must always frame the jihad as a "good thing" which "liberates" people.

Thus, in the bizarro world of the sheikhs, apparently treating people as second-class citizens if they don't convert to Islam, and threatening those born into the religion with death if they try to leave it, is proof that "the common people want Islam"—that they "converted to Islam because of its goodness and justice."

[For more, see this article by Egyptian liberal Khaled Montaser, which exposes the deep set "inferiority complex" infecting the Muslim world regarding the issue of conversion.]

By Raymond Ibrahim  |  Thu, December 22, 2011 5:34 PM  |  Permalink

Muslim Brotherhood Calls for a "United Arab States" with Jerusalem as its Capital

Time and time again, we see how Western concepts, when articulated through an Islamic framework, lead to results antithetical to the West.  For instance, "democracy" and "elections"—which in the West suggest "freedom," "human rights," "liberty," etc.—are today being used to bring Sharia law, the antithesis of Western law, to power.

Safwat Hegazy

In this recent video, the Muslim Brotherhood's Dr. Safwat Hegazy, a popular preacher, talks about how he yearns to see Arab nations become "like the United States"—for them to unify into the "United Arab States."  While that may sound like an admirable (or at least neutral) goal, bear in mind what he is alluding to: the resurrection of a caliphate—which by nature exists to expand, including through jihad.

Moreover, Hegazy made clear that his interest in seeing the "United Arab States" has less to do with Arab solidarity (nationalism) and more to do with Islamic allegiance (religion).  As he gushed about how wonderful it would be for Arab nations to unite into one bloc, the secular and skeptical host interviewing him reluctantly agreed, "so long as the capital is Cairo," that is, so long as Egypt's integrity remains.  To this, Hegazy replied: "No, I say the capital is Jerusalem, Allah willing."

Thus, just as that sacrosanct word "democracy" is being used to establish fascist rule in the Muslim world, so too is the notion of a "United Arab States" fraught with problems—from the elimination of Israel to the establishment of an expansionist caliphate on its remains.

By Raymond Ibrahim  |  Tue, December 20, 2011 1:22 PM  |  Permalink

Muslim Cleric: "Face of a woman like her vagina"

And here's his face.

This from popular Egyptian preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini–who earlier said that Islam teaches Muslims to plunder, rape, and enslave infidels. A leader of Egypt's Salafi movement, which came in second only to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt's recent elections, Huwaini's comments are a reminder of what's in store for the nation.

"Face of a woman like her vagina," from Elaph, December 13:

Famous Salafi preacher Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huwainia likened the face of a woman to her vagina during a talk in front of a group of people on the necessity for women to wear the niqab [veil]. The sheikh's words provoked anger among women and Muslims in Egypt, even as his supporters defended him…

By Raymond Ibrahim  |  Wed, December 14, 2011 3:04 PM  |  Permalink

Is "Democratic" Egypt Progressing or Regressing?

As elections in Egypt continue, Western politicians and Western media assure us of one thing: that Egyptians can finally vote is great "progress."

But is the mere right and act of voting a valid sign of "progress"? No, at root, democracy is a mode of governance that simply empowers the people. True "progress" is gauged by what these people do with their empowerment—the civilization they create, the codes they institute.

Consider this picture: on the right is a painting of an Egyptian woman, as women appeared some three thousand years before the invasion of Islam, when Egypt was among the first of civilizations; on the left is a typical Egyptian woman of today, a product of Arab-Islamic civilization.

Far from "romanticizing" the past, these juxtaposed portraits make a valid point. As many historians agree, ancient Egyptian women were "liberated" by antiquity's standards. Today, on the other hand, nearly 5,000 years later, not only are Muslim women in Egypt increasingly kept "under wraps," but, indoctrinated by the words of their prophet, some maintain that "women are deficient in intelligence."

So, euphemisms and semantics aside—"democracy," 'elections," "voting"—is Egypt progressing or regressing in time?

In fact, with each passing decade it has been regressing, bit by bit; and now that the people have spoken—empowering the Muslim Brotherhood and their Salafi henchmen—Egypt prepares to plummet headlong into a new dark age of primitivism.

By Raymond Ibrahim  |  Thu, December 1, 2011 4:51 PM  |  Permalink

Muslim Sheikh Prays for Evil

Soon after publishing "Muslim Prayers of Hate"—which linked to an Arabic video containing various Muslim clerics invoking Allah to strike their enemies with pain and disease, including cancer—YouTube removed the video. Researching the web in connection to another article (dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood's assertion that all who reject Sharia law are "drunks, druggies, and adulterers"), I came upon a "related video" of none other than Sheikh Abdullah Nihari—the most animated of all the clerics in the original video removed by YouTube.

This version (above) also provides more context: apparently Nihari's rage is directed at those "Westernizing" Muslim authorities who, while limiting Quran/Islamic studies, do little to prevent the spread of "alcohol, drugs, and adultery." At the 00:36 mark, he issues his "prayer," as follows:

Lord, Lord, we condemn them before you!! Freeze the blood in their veins!! Strike them with evil, or at the very least freeze the blood in their veins—until they pray for death, but do not receive it!! O lord! O lord! O lord!...

(Read the article and see how other high profile Muslim leaders "pray"—including formal Mecca prayers supplicating Allah to make the lives of Christians and Jews "hostage to misery; drape them with endless despair, unrelenting pain and unremitting ailment; fill their lives with sorrow and pain and end their lives in humiliation and oppression.")

At any rate, one need not understand Arabic to appreciate the intensity of the hate in these "prayers": watch the video from 00:36 on (before it, too, is taken down) and see the gesticulating Sheikh Nihari issue his curse—all while striking the floor with a stick, hurling a picture, and pounding on the wall.

By Raymond Ibrahim  |  Wed, November 30, 2011 1:28 AM  |  Permalink

Egypt: Female Political Candidate Says 'Women Deficient in Intelligence'

According to the Arabic newsite Donia Alwatan, a female, Salafi candidate running for Egypt's parliament, Mona Salah (pictured), asserts that "women are deficient in intelligence and religion," and that, in agreement with Sharia, it is impermissible for them to take over the presidency.

Female political candidate says females are unintelligent: Not the best way to win the confidence of voters.

She is, of course, only quoting the words of her prophet Muhammad, as recorded in a canonical hadith. After being asked why he said most of the inhabitants of hell are women, he replied:

You [women] 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.

Despite this unflattering depiction of her gender, Mona Salah defended her candidacy by pointing out that a position in the people's council invests her only with "partial" authority, not "absolute" authority, as in the case of the presidency, which requires a male.

Yet, even a position with "partial" authority would not seem to get around Muhammad's point that even "a cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you [women]." Perhaps that is why Salah was quick to assure potential voters that "she would strive to apply the Islamic Sharia, cutting the hands of thieves, preventing the intermingling of sexes, and having women dress in black garments, men in white."

By Raymond Ibrahim  |  Wed, November 23, 2011 3:52 PM  |  Permalink