Unpopular Arab Thoughts That All Arabs Have Thought

I am so happy. Overjoyed, even. If you would like to know why, then take a look at the following article, or at least the title of the article:

“Official Saudi Fatwa of July 2000 Forbids Construction of Churches in Muslim Countries; Kuwaiti MP Concurs.” (Full Article.)

Now look at the title of a recent CNN story:

“Top Muslim clerics: Convert must die. Religious leaders urge courts to ignore West, hang Christian.”

Please do not mistake my meaning. I am not happy that Christians in Saudi and Kuwait and Afghanistan are being threatened with hangings and the extinction of church-building. I am actually heartbroken over this.

What makes me so happy, however, is that we have here declarations—straight from the horse’s mouth!—that make the cases against religious tolerance in Islam.

They have done the work for me, and even though a detractor may tell me that I, a Christian, am not as well-read as they, Moslems… no one can accuse an Imam of not having read his own scriptures!

I really am happy even to read interviews as the following one, because, while I am hurt that they hate me, at least their true feelings are on the table, and we can work from there. Whitewashing the feelings and declaring that Islam is a subjective religion of tolerance and love is very dangerous, and also cowardly.

From MEMRI (”Notes from Salib in the [ ] marks)…

“A Saudi Professor of Islamic Law at Al Imam University, Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, has recently made “anti-Christian comments” on Saudi Al-Majd TV. He “told his audience to hate anyone “who worships Christ, son of Mary” and added that “whoever says ‘I don’t hate him [i.e. a Christian]‘ is not a Muslim… Someone who denies Allah, worships Christ, son of Mary, and claims that God is one third of a trinity - do you like these things he says and does? Don’t you hate the faith of such a polytheist who says God is one third of a trinity, or who worships Christ, son of Mary?

[Christ IS God!]

More Al-Fawzan:

“Someone who permits and commits fornication - as is the case in Western countries, where fornication is permitted and not considered a problem - don’t you hate this? Whoever says ‘I don’t hate him’ is not a Muslim, my brother…”

[I hate fornication, too!]

“If this person is an infidel - even if this person is my mother or father, God forbid, or my son or daughter - I must hate him, his heresy, and his defiance of Allah and His prophet. I must hate his abominable deeds. Moreover, this hatred must be positive hatred. It should make me feel compassion for him, and should make me guide and reform him.”

It could be argued that “positive hatred” is the same as compassion, and that “positive hatred” is not the precursor to killing or torturing, although this is what Moslems generally mean when they talk of “reforms,” which we found out after the Abdel Rahman problem emerged.

For example, the aforementioned CNN story quoted “moderate” Afghani cleric Abdul Raoulf, member of the Afghan Ulaama Council, and thrice-jailed for his opposition of the Taliban (before 2001’s obliteration of that hard-line regime) as saying that “Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man [Abdel Rahman] must die.”

So this is about the Arab tendency of “family honor” and “honor killings” and “revenge” and “vindication.”

Some people thought that the Christian convert was mad, and hinted that if he was found insane, he would not be killed.

CNN goes on to quote Hamidullah, chief cleric at Hajji Yacob Mosque, as having said that “He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian. The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed.”

Aren’t the people the crazy ones, then?

The peace-loving Hamidullah went on to say that they should “Cut off his head!”
His loving feelings were made clearer when he shared that “We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there’s nothing left.”

I would like the reader to know that I am in possession of a video that showed an ex-Moslem being struck by an axe before being pulled apart, by hands and by meat hooks. It took him a long time to die.

The gruesomeness of bones cracking and skin and muscle separating wasn’t the worst part for me; after all, I have witnessed countless surgeries, and have performed my own.

But this was different. His face was the most terrifying thing. Despite my age, I still have nightmares about it to this day, and I know they will not stop until the day I am in heaven and see this tortured brother’s beautifully reconstructed resurrection body.

In the interest of staying on task, Hamidullah was of the opinion that exile was the only option for Abdel Rahman.

I agree! He lived overseas for several years, would it be so horrible to move back? Hundreds and thousands of Christians and Westerners are on his side! (Like Abdelkareem, the Egyptian blogger who was expelled from al Azhar University for his anti-Islamic article.)

The top cleric of Kabul’s largest Shia centre (Hossainia Mosque), Said Mirhossain Nasri, said that “Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country… If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can, too… We must set an example… He must be hanged.”

So it would seem that the murder of the convert to Christianity is more about keeping a strong image and weeding out would-be fake converts than an Islam-based intolerance for conversions?

(Are Afghanis forced to stay in the country? Are they not allowed to leave and re-settle if they can afford it?)

The CNN article goes on to claim that “Afghanistan’s constitution is based on Sharia law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death.”

Which school of Sharia law, though? There are multiple schools (Shafii, Mawdoodi, Aboo Hambel, etc.), and even more interpretations.

The advent of the internet, satellite dishes, and other technologies that effectively reduce the size of the world—or the distance between people—is a veritable “Grow-a-Sheikh!” kit.

Anyone can issue fatwas these days, based on their specific needs. This reminds me very much of the “founder” of Islam…

Nasri goes on to say that “We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don’t interfere in this issue… We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us.”

Hello?? Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Amnesty International, United Nations??

I know I will sound like the father of a 17 year old girl from Aswan, but all I can say to Nasri’s plea is “If you don’t like our rules, then don’t accept our aid! Give BACK the aid that you accepted. I am not giving you an allowance so that you can take an apartment and bring boys over! We are not giving you aid so that you can turn around and kill the very people our money is supposed to be helping!”

Our friend from before, Hamidullah, seems to think that “the government would lose the support of the people if it frees Rahman, and there could be an uprising” if they free him.

So the question is, which support is more important to the Afghani government? More importantly, whose interpretation of Islam’s “religious tolerance” is the most accurate?

If you’ll remember, I brought a Saudi fatwa up at the beginning of this article, dating back to 3 July, 2000. Keep reading, for a look at the truth of Islam, un-sugarcoated, and straight from the horse’s mouth (and the birthplace of “Islam”):

“Those who claim that there is truth in what the Jews say, or in what the Christians say – whether he is one of them or not – is denying the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad’s sunna and the consensus of the Muslim nation… Allah said: ‘The only reason I sent you was to bring good tidings and warnings to all [Koran 34:28]‘; ‘Oh people, I am Allah’s Messenger to you all [Koran 7:158]‘; ‘Allah’s religion is Islam [3:19]‘; ‘Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him [3:85]‘; ‘The unbelievers from among the people of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians] and the polytheists are in hellfire and will be [there] forever. They are the worst of all creation… [98:6]‘.

“Therefore, religion necessitates the prohibition of unbelief, and this requires the prohibition of worshiping Allah in any way other than that of the Islamic shari’a. Included in this is the prohibition against building houses of worship according to the abrogated religious laws, Jewish or Christian or anything else, since these houses of worship – whether they be churches or other houses of worship – are considered heretical houses of worship, because the worship that is practiced in them is in violation of the Islamic shari’a, which abrogates all religious law that came before it. Allah says about the unbelievers and their deeds: ‘I will turn to every deed they have done and I will make them into dust in the wind [Koran 25:23].’

“The Arabian Peninsula is Islam’s sanctuary and its basis. It is forbidden to allow or permit unbelievers to penetrate it or to receive citizenship there or to buy property, not to speak of building churches for the worshipers of the cross.”

Hey, guess what? We don’t worship the cross, only the One who died on it!

“There is no place in the Arabian Peninsula for two religions, but only for one – the religion of Islam, sent by Allah through Muhammad, His Prophet and Messenger. There will not be two directions of worship there, but just one single direction – the direction of the Muslims, towards the Ka’ba in Mecca. Praise Allah who enabled the rulers of these lands to ward off these heretical houses of worship from the pure Islamic land.”

If this “allah” is the one who allowed a pure Islamic land, then I have a big problem with him.

“

Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Tamiyya [Tameyya?? As in FALAFEL???] said: ‘Whosoever thinks that churches are Allah’s houses and serve as places for His worship, or whosoever thinks that the deeds of the Jews and the Christians are worship of Allah and obedience to His Prophet, and whosoever likes this and permits it or helps them [the unbelievers] to open [houses of worship] and to perform their religion and thinks this to be proximity or obedience [to Allah] – he is an unbeliever.’ “

“He also said: ‘Whosoever thinks that visiting dhimmis [monotheist non-Muslims under Muslim rule] in their churches is proximity to Allah, he is an apostate. If he didn’t know that this was forbidden, he should be so informed, and then if he persists, he is an apostate.’ “

“We find refuge in Allah in order not to backtrack from the right path… Those who turned back on their tracks after the right path was clear to them – Satan seduced them and filled their hearts with false hopes [Koran 47:25]‘”

Then Satan and Mohammed have a lot in common.

(Non-intoxicating wine? Pearl-like boys? 72 Houris? Come off it, Mo! Just admit you were an unnaturally-oversexed man, and that you feared being overthrown, that you stole Jewish and Christian scriptures and couldn’t even get them right, and played on the pathetic desert desires of the only friends you had!)

Walid Al-Tabatabai, a member of the Kuwaiti parliament’s human rights committee, got in on the act, stating that “the establishment of houses of worship for non-Muslims in Kuwait is against Islamic law. This does not mean that it is forbidden for non-Muslims to perform their religious obligations. On the contrary, they should be allowed to do so, but this needs to be in accordance with the law and with the norms.”

“He added that in Kuwait today there are 20 churches, “that is, a church for every five Kuwaiti Christians, as there aren’t more than 100 of them,” whereas visiting Christians are “temporary workers who will be going back to their countries.” He emphasized that “freedom of worship and the performance of religious obligations is permitted to everyone in the world, but the issue of establishing houses of worship for other religions depends on shari’a law.””

(For the entire article visit http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD112306 .)

My Islamic friends, please consider carefully whether most imams in the world could be wrong about their own religions. They know the scriptures better than you… will you really go head-to-head with them about the validity of their interpretations?

They know what they are talking about, so if they think that a non-Moslem should be ousted or killed, then how can you challenge that? You are the errant ones (for promoting peace), not they.

Forget about the Crusades… not a Christian alive today agrees with their violence, but please remember that they were initiated to fight the waves of Christian-attacking barbarians, that some Crusaders were going into it only for their own wealth and glory (the wrong reason), AND THAT no Christian alive today—or 200 years ago even!—agrees with that campaign.

We are more mature now, and realize that God is big enough to fight His own battles, without having to resort to making humans kill (unprovoked) “in His name,” and that all we must do is follow Christ’s teachings (very effective witnessing tool!), accept His free gift of forgiveness and grace, and also have a loving relationship with Him.

We have been well-taught, by… others, who have—time and time again!—shown us how wrong it was to go around and hurt other people, simply because they refused to convert to “the one, true faith.”

J. Ahmed Salib, M.D.
salib2000@hotmail.com
ahmedsalib.wordpress.com

My take: Rachel Frank felt like an outcast from her own (Dutch) society, and has fallen into the “religion,” albeit through marriage, from a desire to join a more accepting society. I’ll give them that… they sure know how to seduce people into their snares, just like any good cult!

Dutch woman’s embrace of Islam draws stares
By MOLLY MOORE | Tuesday, March 21, 2006

BREDA, Netherlands — Rabi’a Frank sees her Dutch home town through the narrow slit of the black veil that covers her face.

The looks she receives from the townspeople are seldom kindly.

On a recent winter afternoon, the wind tugged at her ankle-length taupe skirt, olive head scarf and black, rectangular face veil as she walked to her car from an Islamic prayer meeting in downtown Breda. Two blond teen-agers on bicycles stared, their faces screwed into hostile snarls. Other passersby gawked. Some stepped off the sidewalk to avoid coming too near.
She tried to act like it didn’t offend her. But it did. She knows what they think of Muslim women like her.

“If you cover yourself, you are oppressed — that’s it,” said Frank, a lanky, 29-year-old Dutch woman who converted to Islam 11 years ago, about the time she married her Moroccan husband. “You are being brainwashed by your husband or your friends.”

Or, you’re a potential terrorist.

“Sometimes I make a joke and say, ‘Oh, you don’t have to be scared of me.’” Other times, she gets so fed up that she yanks up her hand under her robe like it’s a pistol and shouts, “Boom!”

[NOTE FROM SALIB: You see? She learned violent tendencies from them already! Yekhsaaaaara 3aleyki ya "Rabi'a" ... ]

Frank spoke on a recent winter day in her heather-colored living room in this city of 162,000 people near the Netherlands’ southern border with Belgium. “They don’t have the right to treat me different,” she said. “It’s like staring at someone in a wheelchair. It’s not polite. I’m human, even if you don’t like the way I appear.”

Deepening rift in Europe
This day-to-day struggle for acceptance on the streets of her home town is one woman’s confrontation with a deepening rift in West European societies, where the emergence of a 15 million-member Muslim minority is reshaping concepts of nation and personal identity.

Some European governments have passed laws they say are intended to help preserve national identity. Critics argue that the measures reflect Islamophobia and fears of terrorism triggered by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent transit bombings in Madrid and London.
The Netherlands, with nearly 1 million Muslims, almost 6 percent of its population, is particularly on edge.
The 2002 assassination of an anti-immigrant politician, Pim Fortuyn, by an animal rights activist was followed by the execution-style murder in 2004 of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who had just released a controversial film seen as anti-Islamic. A young Muslim radical admitted to the killing.

Anti-immigration laws
A country with a history of tolerance is now adopting or debating some of the most restrictive anti-immigration and anti-Muslim laws in Europe. One proposed measure would ban women from wearing face veils, called niqab, in public. Another would outlaw the speaking of languages other than Dutch on the street.

Immigrants must learn some Dutch, pass a history and geography test and, to get a feel for whether they can live in this society, watch a film on Dutch culture that includes two gay men kissing and a topless woman walking on a beach.

[So they're forcing immorality on immigrants? I would not watch their Dutch porn film! If they are so tolerant, why would they ban veils? Why would they force their immorality on people? I can feel a new article coming on...]

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, said he was drafting a bill that would ban all immigration for the next five years. “Our culture is based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism,” Wilders said.

[Christianity does not allow topless walking or gay kissing!]

Like most of her Muslim convert friends, Frank said, she found that the process of fully embracing Islamic thinking and dress was gradual. But eventually the clothing became the outward statement of her identity. “I smiled at all the Muslim women I saw in the streets,” she said. “But to them, I was just a plain Dutch girl with brown hair and blue eyes. I wanted to be recognized as a Muslim woman.”

“I am a Muslim,” she said with finality. “That’s my identity.”

[This is what happens when you have low self esteem. Sad! I wonder if she'd be so happy to remain Moslem if she divorced Dr. Love? Or if her Moslem friends shunned her? It's all about fitting in. If I were Allah, I would not accept her conversion as true!]

Something very strange.. When I was writing about Amr Khaled, I remembered something.

Last time I was in Alexandria, I had the opportunity to spend the night. As I was drifting off to sleep at 4 in the morning, I heard the strains of a very odd and scary, chipmunk-like sound.

The next day, I investigated. It turned out that the keening was a cassette that was for sale. The “music” on there was a child singing the virtues of the Koran.

“Baba, Baba, Ana Farhan… Leani Badress El Koran!”

I may have gotten the words wrong, but it’s close to this. What it means is “Daddy, Daddy, I’m happy because I’m studying the Koran!”

Islamic children’s hymns? Since when???

And Amr Khaled, the Islamic Preacher… Since when are there Moslem Televangelists??

Both of these creations are Christian-made, so I find it highly interesting that the Moslems have hijacked them to their own ends. Kudos and accolades to their PR and Marketing people!

I think it is wonderful that he admits that Moslems aren’t blameless, but also tries to make the Western point of view understood.

I truly believe that 50 years of preaching by people like him would make Moslems able to live together happily with any other religion (like my friend Freesoul), and not get very mad and do the bad things and get into strifes and conflicts, and even kill the poor Afghani man who is now on trial.

There is only one problem with Khaled’s version of Islam (if you didn’t read the article below, he is said to preach it as a religion of love and tolerance). The problem is that he is dreaming.

This is not Islam. Any cleric would get mad to hear his sanitized, rhetoric-laden fake and un-Koranic version of Islam.

I would like to say, however, that if Islam was this way–empirically so, and agreed-upon by all… I will be the first to sign on!

How nice for me to have the freedom to strike my wife (gently, as though she is an errant slave or daughter) without freedom of her calling the police and pressing charges on me. (I am not being sarcastic, I have often thought that Western methods of entering into the home and preventing corporal punishment are too extreme.)

How nice for me to have four wives! (Again, I am not kidding.) It is every man’s dream to have a barn full of women to go milk whenever he wants to.

Unfortunately, one of the problems is the community property law here. I would lose my shirt in the bargain if Heather got jealous of the size of Tiffany’s new diamond earrings!

By NADIA ABOU El-MAGD
Publication Date: 03/21/06

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — Islamic televangelist Amr Khaled is young, smiling, teaches love and mercy, and is so popular he’s credited with inspiring thousands of women to take the veil.

Now he’s putting his popularity on the line by trying a new role, as a bridge between Islam and the West at a time when many are talking about a clash of civilizations.

In the process, Khaled is telling the faithful something they’re not used to hearing from clerics — that Muslims aren’t blameless in the tensions, that the West is not always bad and that dialogue is better than confrontation.

“A young Muslim goes to Europe with a forged visa, takes unemployment insurance there, then goes on TV and says, ‘We’re going to expel you from Britain, take your land, money and women,’” Khaled said recently on his weekly program on the Saudi satellite TV channel Iqraa, trying to explain the mistrust of Muslims in Europe. “It’s a rare example, but it exists.”

The 38-year-old Egyptian raised a storm of controversy when he attended a March 9 conference of European and Muslim leaders in Denmark, which has been the focus of anger across the Islamic world over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad first published in a Danish paper.

Some in the Arab world saw his attendance as a surrender and branded him a traitor and an opportunist.

This week, Khaled is headed to a gathering of Islamic clerics in Bahrain that begins Wednesday, aimed at considering the next step in the response to the prophet cartoons.

Many Muslims saw the caricatures — one of which depicted Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb — as an intentional insult and reacted with a wave of protests. In the West, the outrage was seen as an attack on freedom of speech and only deepened anti-Muslim sentiment.

For Khaled, the controversy underlined the need for a new approach by Muslims, one of reform and dialogue with the rest of the world.

“For the past three years, with youth across the Islamic world, we’ve been working for a faith-based renaissance in this region, which will not take place by clashes but by coexistence,” he said.

Khaled is not the only Muslim religious leader promoting dialogue. But he has become one of the most outspoken. And he brings the fan base of a pop star: young people, women and members of the middle and well-to-do classes.

He built his popularity over more than 10 years of preaching in a style far from traditional clerics in their beards and robes, whose sermons often emphasize the demands of Islam and the threat of damnation and hellfire.

By contrast, Khaled is known for his stylish suits and broad smile. In his sermons, he avoids politics and stresses God’s mercy, seeking to show how one can be a good Muslim while still enjoying the activities of modern life.

That message instantly appealed to the young — particularly the well-off, looking for a version of Islam that suited their lifestyles. Educated as an accountant, Khaled began preaching as a hobby in social clubs, but then vaulted to television. Thousands packed mosques where he preached.

The Egyptian government, apparently nervous over his popularity, pushed Khaled out in 2002, banning him from giving sermons at Egyptian mosques.

He moved to London with his wife and son to pursue a doctorate in Islamic studies. His thesis: “Islam and coexisting with the other.”

The time in London “has resulted in a mixture of maturity and seeing the other better and readiness to coexist,” he said. “It also made clear the common values as well as the differences that can’t be overcome.”

This blog is dedicated to the interview of the big singer Sha’ban Abdel Raheem, whose recent hit was banned in Egypt because it had tough lyrics. Here they are.

“We are completely fed up.

But there are no solutions.

Humiliation has reached even the religion and the Prophet.

Allah’s messenger, Muhammad the Imam of Prophets.

They want to distort his image - those despicable fools.

No religion can be held responsible for the man who humiliated the Prophet.

These are crazy people, and their top guy is an idiot.

Denmark? They are nothing but pagans.

Who are they to say anything about the Prophet?

Our Islam is innocent of them, and what they say is all lies.

Our Islam is a religion of love, not of injustice and terrorism.

When you all meet in Hell, the flames will burn your faces.

I will speak and won’t be silent, and others will say along with me:

We want a total boycott, and even that is not enough.”

Interviewer: Sha’ban Abd Al-Rahim, this song was banned on many channels. It was banned.

Sha’ban ‘Abd Al-Rahim: I never heard that.

Interviewer: It was. Some say this was because it curses other people, who may think we are cursing them. So those channels said: We’d better not show it.

Sha’ban ‘Abd Al-Rahim: Well, why shouldn’t we curse them just like they curse us?

(An eye for an eye, O “Servant of the Merciful One”…? “Rahim” is “merciful.”)

This part was just funny.

Interviewer: Sha’aban, we sometimes watch the news and don’t understand, and feel that we need someone to explain it to us. Who explains it to you? For example, if there is a conflict between two countries, or what happened between Syria and Lebanon… Who do you consult, and who explains it to you? We all sometimes need someone to provide explanations.

Sha’aban ‘Abd Al-Rahim: Why, is the news in English? The news is in plain language and it’s very clear - People beat up other people, and people act unjustly. Anyone can understand this.

Read The Full Transcript Here