September 25, 2004

UNISLAMIC:

Why This Is A Crime Against Islam (Ayman Gomaa, of Al Akhbar in Cairo, 9/26/04, Sunday Herald)

Moderate Muslims are united in believing that the taking and killing of hostages is forbidden by the teachings of Islam.

Almost 150 foreigners have been seized in Iraq since April, in the name of Islam and under the pretext of a jihad (holy war) against infidels.

But the majority in the Islamic world describes such operations as a “grave crime which contradicts Islam and its teachings”. In fact, such teachings also forbid Muslims to kill unarmed soldiers in wartime.

Some radical Muslim clerics have scoured Islam’s sacred texts for justifications of violence and found them, but they remain a small yet very vocal minority within Islam. Safwat Hegazy, one of the most popular sheikhs in the Arab world, says: ‘‘Prior to the rise of this minority no-one ever spoke about the taking and maltreatment of hostages.

‘‘Unfortunately, some of the western media rarely give a balanced presentation of Islamic thought; they tend to over-emphasise the extreme radical fundamentalist element and largely ignore moderates within Islam.

"It should be clear that Islam maintains the protection of life and does not sanction any violation against it, irrespective of the people’s religion, race or sect.’’


It is perhaps safe to assume that the Islamophobes who say no Muslims ever denounces these acts don't read Al Akhbar.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 25, 2004 8:25 PM
Comments

As a matter of fact, I do read this sort of thing.

And, just as with the solemn statements that Islam does not permit slavery, I recognize that it's a sham.

Maybe imams across the Koran Belt condemn hostage-killing -- though you'd have a hard time tracing that doctrine very far back -- but that Muslims kill prisoners, even if, forsooth!, it's a Muslim sin, is a fact.

The hundred thousand skulls of Samarkand were not heaped up by Christians but by the devoutest of Muslims.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 25, 2004 10:03 PM

"Words are cheap; deeds precious."

One guy saying this is a start. When there are a few hundreds or thousands saying it, let me know.

Posted by: ray at September 25, 2004 10:56 PM

Tamerlane wasn't a devout Muslim.

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 12:13 AM

"Prior to the rise of this minority no-one ever spoke about the taking and maltreatment of hostages."

Heh.

Ask a Marine where the line "to the shores of Tripoli" came from.

Posted by: Jason Johnson at September 26, 2004 2:44 AM

"Prior to the rise of this minority no-one ever spoke about the taking and maltreatment of hostages."

Heh.

Ask a Marine where the line "to the shores of Tripoli" came from.

Posted by: Jason Johnson at September 26, 2004 2:45 AM

Islamic teaching holds that a captive taken in war may justly be: 1) released, 2) ransomed, 3) enslaved, or 4) killed outright. If the Muslims regard themselves as at war, the taking and killing of hostages, whether armed or not, is entirely in accord with both the Qur'an and with many centuries of Islamic "thought." It's also squarely consistent with the behavior of Muhammad, the "perfect man" whom Muslims are urged to emulate.

Spencer, Emerson, and Trifkovic are all quite clear on this. I'd trust any one of them well beyond any Imam, whatever sect he might come from -- for it is also a tenet of Islam that a Muslim is required to side with his brothers in the ummah against any "infidels," regardless of the merits of the controversy, and that for a Muslim to deceive or defraud the "infidels" is no sin, provided only that some good accrues to Islam or Muslims in so doing.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at September 26, 2004 7:17 AM

Articles like this offer hope, but they also underscore how far there is to go. I get the impression that billions of Muslims are just sitting back waiting for the mullahs and Imams to work out their differences and then they will back whoever wins. Very little revulsion from below.

We hear a lot about asymmetrical warfare, but if you juxtapose the Islamists with the progressive elites and the Western MSM, there are a lot of symmetries. Both sides marched in apoplectic rage over Abu Ghraib and innocent deaths in Fallujah, but are discrete, resigned and mournful about the beheadings. Both think pictures of the first should be broadcast endlessly to American homes, but that the second should be censored so as not to upset or inflame. Both think the first are completely without justification and can only be responded to punitively but that the second have root causes that must be addressed politically and diplomatically.

Posted by: Peter B at September 26, 2004 7:32 AM

Francis:

They don't.

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 7:49 AM

Peter:

Then why when anyone asks do they denounce it?

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 7:50 AM

Orrin:

Weren't you the one who drew attention recently to the ubiquitous "but..." that accompanies so many of their denunciations?

Seriously, I assume many are sincere and many are just trying to bargain. I would like to believe the former outnumber the latter significantly. The jury is still out, especially as so many of the former seem to be petrified of the latter, with good reason. But this question will be settled by actions, not words.

Posted by: Peter B at September 26, 2004 8:47 AM

They're entitled to a "but"

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 8:55 AM

One or an infinite number?

Posted by: Peter B at September 26, 2004 9:18 AM

As many as we all used for Abu Ghraib.

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 9:33 AM

Al Akhbar is very well, but as the "Muslim refusnik" Irshad Mamji points out, most Moslems prefer to remain silent when outrages are continually committed in the name of Islam; whereas Christians and Jews are ready to denounce anyone who uses their religion to bolster terrorism. When 9-11 occurred, only one prominent imam berated the perpetrators as abhorrent to Islam; and he, significantly, was from Turkey, a secularist Moslem country. The Arab religious leaders were either silent or openly supportive of the murderers and, as we all know, the Palestinians danced in the streets with joy after the Twin Towers fell.

Posted by: Josh Silverman at September 26, 2004 2:26 PM

oj-

Islam is characterized as one of the three great world religions, usually by western types who look at the numbers and simply assume the truth of that statement. Until 9/11,I was one of them, assuming,for instance that the Palestinian claims to Jerusalem must have some merit. Once honestly reviewed and researched it becomes obvious that the claim is nonsense mainly based on legend and patently false superstition. Like all cultish metaphysical belief systems, Islam is incapable of truthful dialogue with what it sees as irreconcilable with itself. There is no education or missionary action, only acceptance,sub-human status or death. Sorry to offend but that is what their books say and how they operate. If Wahabism is not a viscious,xenophobic and twisted cult than the words have no meaning.

Posted by: at September 26, 2004 2:35 PM

How does any of that make Islam not one of the three great religions?

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 3:42 PM

Josh:

No one denounces terror when the terrorists are in control.

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 3:46 PM

Do you guys really want to get into a discussion about what Judaism and Christianity would allow, if one got serious about looking for it? This is what a reformation will look like, and Islam is well into their reformation. The so-called fundamentalists are as much a reaction against reformed Islam as against the west. As any number of people have pointed out, one very good way of understanding the current war is as an Islamic civil war in which dead Jews and Crusaders are counters.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 26, 2004 5:41 PM

You're wrong about Tamerlane, Orrin, but I can offer plenty of other examples.

Jason offered one.

During the peak of the Spanish empire you admire so much, the shores of Spain on the Mediterranean had to be evacuated to a depth of 10 miles because the feeble Spanish monarchy could not even defend its own shores, and two orders of Christian monks had to be set up whose sole purpose was to ransom Christian captives from the Moors.

Those not redeemed were enslaved or murdered.

The imams can say anything that seems politic to them in 2004, but they're lying. 1,400 years of consistent performance proves it.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 26, 2004 6:06 PM

http://www.kniff.de/cgi-bin/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/http/www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/476174.html

In the Muslim world, writes Marozzi, Tamerlane was admired as a mighty conqueror and disseminator of Islam, although some say he practiced Shamanism. In fact, Tamerlane cared little for any religion unless it served his aims: conquest and power. He was as cruel as his predecessor, Genghis Khan, but unlike him, he did not just destroy - he also built. The fabulous mosques and madrassas of Samarkand, the gardens and the palaces, each of them gems, reveal a great appreciation of art and architectural beauty that was totally foreign to Genghis Khan. Tamerlane's achievements in the 14th and 15th centuries had no equal, says Marozzi, citing as proof the awe of the Spanish ambassador at the splendor of Tamerlane's court and the sophistication of his armies.

Posted by: oj at September 26, 2004 7:50 PM

"Both think the first are completely without justification and can only be responded to punitively but that the second have root causes that must be addressed politically and diplomatically."

Anyone who has viewed the videos (I have) could never chalk it up to "root causes". It is sadism of the vilest sort. Why any civilized person would run interference for barbarians of this sort is beyond me.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at September 27, 2004 12:01 PM

We're going to execute Saddam the same way.

Posted by: oj at September 27, 2004 12:07 PM

Devout Muslims build mosques. Thanks for making my point.

For those who do not know, the hundred thousand skulls of Samarkand (and more in other places) were announced to be a cleansing of decayed Islam.

He was a devout, reformist Muslim.

You begin to get an idea of which direction Muslims want to be going in when they call for 'reform'

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 28, 2004 1:15 AM

No, imperialists build.

Posted by: oj at September 28, 2004 7:21 AM

Islam is an imperial religion if there ever was one.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 28, 2004 2:23 PM

Ah, a truth at last.

Posted by: oj at September 28, 2004 4:01 PM

Tell that to George. He still doesn't get it.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 29, 2004 5:58 PM

Sure he does, he's out imperialing them.

Posted by: oj at September 29, 2004 6:38 PM

Ayman Gomaa
good writer

Posted by: shady at October 13, 2004 3:34 PM
« THE UNDEAD CICERO: | Main | RENOUNCING THE LANGUAGE OF HATE: »