Tag Archives: Al Azhar University

Muslim Brotherhood: Convention to Protect Women is Anti-Islamic

Posted on by
4
Women wearing sharia-proscribed clothing.

Women wearing sharia-proscribed clothing.

By Ryan Mauro:

The Muslim Brotherhood’s official website in Arabic has published an article highlighting the comments of a senior Egyptian Islamist scholar criticizing the United Nations Violence Against Women Convention for violating Islam and promoting Westernization.

Dr. Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Mahdi, a member of Al-Azhar University’s Council of Senior Scholars and head of the Sharia Association, was reacting to the endorsement of the U.N. convention by Dr. Mervat Al-Talawi, the leader of Egypt’s National Council for Women.

Dr. Al-Mahdi said that the U.N. convention is part of a war on Islam and that women are treated better under Sharia than Western law. He claimed “that Islam has given women a place of honor, and has allowed them to take part in the country’s awakening, while in the West, the women have to search for employment and rely only on themselves. Islam, on the other hand, has given women partners or husbands to take care of them.”

In other words, women in the West are oppressed because they are allowed to work and to be self-sufficient. He also said that their roles as mothers, wives and daughters are protected under Sharia.

Al-Mahdi’s description of a woman’s place under Sharia Law is a good example of how Islamists present the issue of women’s rights. In their view, Sharia Law brings true freedom, justice and equality to women. When they use those comforting terms, they are actually talking about Sharia-based governance.

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

What Muslim Leaders Say About Islam Dispels the Myth that Jihadists are a “Fringe” Element

Posted on by
5

Ali-GomaaCitizen Warrior:

WHEN WE discover some basic facts about Islam, our first impulse is to think, “But surely it’s only a small minority of extremists!” If you’ve looked into it, and especially if you’ve read the Quran, you realize the “extremists” are following standard, mainstream Islamic doctrine. That’s a real shock when this first dawns on you.

One day when I was reading yet another popular Muslim leader giving a speech and saying something that would be considered “inflammatory rhetoric” if I said it, but that was nothing more than just plain, ordinary Islamic teachings, I thought I should start collecting a list. Here’s what I have so far (below). I’m sure I’ll add to it as I go along, and I hope you to add to it in the comments.

I thought you could send this list of quotes to those people who tell you “the terrible stuff you say about Islam” only applies to a fringe group of nutcases who have hijacked Islam and twisted and distorted peaceful Islamic teachings into something bad. You could quote chapter and verse from Islamic source books until you’re blue in the face without making a dent because they’ll think hardly any Muslims nowadays believe in that stuff.

This list should disabuse anyone of the notion that the incessant intolerance, hatred, and even violence against non-Muslims is “fringe.” This is not just a small group of “radicals.” This is Islam, plain and simple. The leaders quoted below are hugely popular,even famous mainstream leaders in the Islamic world. For each quote, I’ve provided an online source. Let’s begin:

Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he said, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs. Source

Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University (the most prominent and authoritative institute of Islamic jurisprudence in the world) also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.” Source

Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami, said non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” Source

The Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid teaches that “at first fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory.” He clearly identifies two groups Muslims are obligated to fight: “(1) they who start fighting against Muslims, and (2) they who worship gods other than Allah.” Source

The most prominent Muslim scholar of the 20th century, Sheikh Abu Ala Maududi, stated in his book, Islamic Law and Constitution, on p. 262, that the Islamic State “seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states.” Maududi added “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”Source

There is much more at Citizen Warrior. Bookmark it.

 

Al Azhar Scholar: Christian Copts Will Pay Jizya

Posted on by
2
Dr. Mahmoud Shu’ban

Dr. Mahmoud Shu’ban

By Raymond Ibrahim:

During a recent interview, Dr. Mahmoud Shu‘ban, a professor at Al Azhar University, made clear that the Copts, Egypt’s Christian minority, will pay the jizya—what is often referred to in the West as an Islamic “poll tax.” According to the Al Azhar professor, “If non-Muslims were to learn the meaning of ‘jizya,’ they would ask for it to be applied—and we will apply it, just like Islam commands us to.” His logic is that, if Christians pay the jizya, they would buy for themselves “protection,” hence why they themselves should want to pay it.

Most Western apologists for Islam also claim that jizya money was historically paid to protect conquered dhimmis, though they often imply protection from outside enemies, non-Muslims. In fact, the jizya was/is protection money from surrounding Muslims themselves—precisely Shu‘ban’s point: pay up and maybe your churches won’t be burned and your girls routinely abducted; because you are not paying, you are not protected from such things and have no right to complain.

Read more at Jihad Watch

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Egypt, 2012: The Year In Fatwas

Posted on by
Reply

Picture-111By Raymond Ibrahim:

In previous decades in Egypt, the fatwas, or legal decrees issued by learned Muslims and based on Sharia law, revolved around questions like proper prayer, when and where women should wear the hijab, and if smoking was forbidden or permissible.

That was then.

The fatwas issued in the year 2012—the year when Islamists, spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood, assumed formal power—are, as one would expect, markedly different, that is, much less restrained.  The popular Egyptian Arabic website El-Watan News recently compiled a list of 2012’s most “notable” (a euphemism) fatwas.  I translate a summary of their findings below, augmented with additional observations:

Destruction of the Pyramids and Sphinx

In November, Sheikh Murjan Salem al-Jawhari, a Salafi leader, called for the destruction of all idols, relics, and statues in Egypt, specifically mentioning the Sphinx and the Great Pyramids.  He called on Muslims to destroy such “idols” just as they destroyed the Buddha statues in Afghanistan.  Of course, several months earlier, in July, I reported how several prominent Islamic clerics were calling on President Morsi to “destroy the Pyramids and accomplish what the Sahabi Amr bin al-As [the first Muslim invader of Egypt] could not.” Then and now, the MSM scoffed at the very idea, portraying it as a “hoax.” To date, reports from Egypt confirm that “some of the statues have already been destroyed by those belonging to the political Islamist parties.”

Marrying Minors (i.e., Pedophilia)

Dr. Yassir al-Burhami, Vice President of the Salafi Da‘wa movement, and thus an authoritative figure among Egypt’s Salafis, who are playing a prominent role in Egypt’s new parliament, opposed setting a minimum age in the new constitution concerning the marriage of minor girls, saying “they can get married at any time,” while insisting that Sharia law is clear on this matter.  Indeed, earlier, another cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, after saying that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle,” explained the fundamental criterion of when they can copulate: whenever “they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men,” which has less to do with age and more to do with individual capacity.

Permitting Lies and Hypocrisy

Dr. Yassir al-Burhami also permitted wives to “lie to their husbands”  about their whereabouts—if they were going to go and vote “yes”  on the Sharia-heavy constitution in Egypt, and if their husbands would otherwise have disapproved. The ever-expedient Salafi leader also permitted Egypt to borrow money from the IMF, rationalizing the “forbidden” interest rate away as “administrative charges.”  (Islam forbids the participation in monetary loans that charge interest, as does the IMF.)

Scrapping Camp David Accords

Sheikh Hashem Islam, member of the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, said that the peace treaty with Israel contradicts the teachings of Sharia and should be annulled, quoting the Koran: “So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds” (47:35).  He added that “Jews cannot be trusted.” The Islamic logic he and others use is that peace treaties with infidels are legitimate only when Muslims are weak and in need, whereas now that Egypt is under proper Muslim leadership, Allah will help it to defeat Israel.

Killing Anyone Protesting Islamization of Egypt

Sheikh Hashem Islam also permitted the killing of anti-Islamization protesters, portraying them as traitors committing “high treason.” The Sheikh also exempted the murderers from having to pay the restitution required by Sharia to a Muslim victim’s family.  Sheikh Wagdi Ghoneim issued a similar fatwa, proclaiming any Muslim who rejects the Sharia-heavy constitution of being an apostate who must be fought and killed.

Obeying President Morsi

Sheikh Ahmed Mahlawi, the leader of an Alexandrian mosque, denounced all Muslims opposed to President Morsi, pointing out that the Koran declares it to be forbidden to disobey those in authority: “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger [Muhammad] and those in authority among you” (4:59). He added that Morsi should be obeyed whether he was elected or not—as long as he enforces the laws of Allah. Indeed, according to Sharia, the Islamic ruler must always be obeyed—except whenever he fails to enforce Sharia law.

Read more at Front Page

Obama’s Favorite Islamic University Goes Zombie, Tells High School Students They Can Kill and Eat Apostates, As Long As They Don’t Cook Them

Posted on by
2
Al-Azhar University

Al-Azhar University

By

Everyone has standards. Even Islamist cannibals.

In 2009, Obama visited Cairo and in his famous speech praised Al Azhar University as “a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century.”

“It was Islam, at places like Al-Azhar,” Obama said, “that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.”

And nothing says light of civilization… like cannibalism.

“Listen also to what they teach to kids… It says, “We allowed the eating of the flesh of dead humans… under necessary conditions.”

It [Dead human flesh] must not be cooked or grilled to avoid Haram [wrongdoing].”

So he’s allowed to eat him without cooking or grilling.

“…and he can kill a murtadd (apostate) and eat him.”…

That’s right!

You mean… the killing of a human being and then grilling him/her and eating him/her?

Yes, because he’s hungry!!!

No, no, no…

Not only that…

This is being taught here at al-Azhar (religious university)?

Listen, sir!… “Al-Azhar al-Sharif (honorable al-Azhar) Azhari Colleges Section, Central Administration for Books, Libraries & Teaching Aide…”

“… for 3rd year high-school”.

This sentence was taken from page 256, from this year’s edition.

Also listen to this… “he can kill the married adulterer, the fighter, whoever gave up praying, and whoever has a punishment on him… even if the Imam did not give his permission for the killing.”

Take note… those are allowing people to go kill other people.

Despite some of the rhetoric in this video, this is probably not an invitation for Cannibal Islamist mobs to begin roaming the streets devouring the flesh of apostates. It would make for a hell of a zombie movie though.

Read the rest

Meet Al Jazeera’s Holocaust-Denying Televangelist…Is This What We Can Expect on the New Current TV?

Posted on by
7

stop al JazeeraBy

By now many have heard about Al Jazera’s recent acquisition of Current TV, Al Gore’s floundering television network that has, since its inception in 2005, displayed not only abysmal ratings but also blatant anti-Israel and anti-U.S. bias.

Ironically, The Blaze sought to purchase Current, but was rebuffed by its executives who stated that they could not in good conscience sell out to a network whose point of view was not aligned with theirs. Thus, the only reasonable step for Gore and company was to seal a multi-million dollar deal with Al Jazeera, because, according to Current co-founder Joel Hyatt, the Qatar-based network “was founded with the same goals we had for Current.”

So what, exactly, are those shared goals and values? And what might a revamped Al Jazeera-led lineup at the new (and likely not so improved) Current TV look like?

A glimpse at Al Jazeera’s highest-rated program to date might give us an inkling into what lies ahead and it is cringe-inducing (though not surprising) to say the least.

Current: Meet Muslim Brotherhood spiritual sherpa and Al Jazeera’s top performing Islamic televangelist Youssef al-Qaradawi, best known for repeatedly twisting the Holocaust into a mold that suits his Islamic agenda and for declaring that his greatest hope is simply to live long enough to “shoot dead Allah’s enemies, the Jews.” The prolific imam has also issued hundreds of fatwas on everything from homosexuality to music to the role of female suicide bombers in their noble pursuit of jihad.

In light of Hyatt’s disturbing statement concerning his network’s shared goals with Al Jazeera, it is perhaps prudent to review the latter’s star talent, who has graced the homes of some 60 million viewers for the past 15 years with his weekly program ”Shariah and Life.”

 Qaradawi 3Qaradawi’s Anti-Semitism

Returning to Qaradawi’s long-harbored desire to live long enough so that Allah might grant him the singular opportunity of personally slaying Jewish people, the imam stated during a televised speech:

“I’d like to say that the only thing I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Allah’s mercy and blessings upon you.”

According to Qaradawi, for their inherent ”evil,” Allah imposed upon the Jews a series of “punishments,” the last one led by Adolf Hitler “by means of all the things he did to them.”

“He [Hitler] managed to put them in their place.”

“This [the Holocaust] was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers,” Qaradawi stated proudly during a televised broadcast in 2009.

The imam openly praised the fuhrer for teaching the Jews “a divine lesson” while in the same breath minimizing the Holocaust by saying that the Jewish people have “exaggerated the issue.”

So, the imam uses the Shoah in a way that suits him, in a way that furthers his agenda, while at the same time denying the true extent of the carnage lest he engender any “undue” sympathy for the Jewish people.

Anti-Semitic diatribes such as the one featured above are just a small taste of what Qaradawi has offered on his weekly Sunday broadcasts.

So who is Qaradawi?

According to lore, Qaradawi is no ordinary imam or mufti, having allegedly memorized the entire Quran by age 10. He was born in Egypt in 1926, graduated from Al Azhar University in Cairo and by 1942 joined the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of all major militant Islamic groups including Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.

The imam was arrested several times for the activities he carried out while with the Brotherhood and subsequently fled to Qatar in 1961, where he still resides. He has become the preeminent Muslim (or at least Sunni) “authority” on all things Islam, covering a range of topics from “mother’s milk banks” to the right of every Palestinian woman to offer herself up as a suicide-bombing martyr.

Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood

Qaradawi’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood stem back to his days as a student at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, where he met Brotherhood-founder (and not coincidentally, Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna. Banna was perhaps the first to offer Qaradawi a glimpse into alternative views on the handling of societies ills and “perversions.”

Despite living in exile in Qatar — something that is more than likely to change now that his progeny,

Mohammed Morsi is at the helm in Egypt — Qaradawi has the Brotherhood leader’s ear, acting as his key spiritual adviser. While the imam turned down an official position with the Brotherhood, allegedly because he felt his true calling was to evangelize Islam, he still greatly influences the grandfather of all jihadist groups to this day, and in no small way.

Consider that as recently as 2010 Morsi viciously referred to Israeli Jews as “blood-suckers” and  ”descendants of apes and pigs,” invoking age-old anti-Semitic slurs. Here, we see Hitler’s influence via al Banna and later, Qaradawi, weaving its web of hate and vitriol over today’s Islamic leaders.

Morsi called on Muslims “outside Palestine” to “support the resistance fighters and besiege the Zionist wherever they are.”

“None of the Arab or Muslim peoples and regimes should have dealings with them,” the Egyptian president went on to state. “Pressure should be exerted upon them. They must not be given any opportunity, and must not stand on any Arab or Islamic land. They must be driven out of our countries.”

So how does Qaradawi’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood relate to Al Jazeera and now by default, Current TV? According to David Reaboi, vice president for strategic communications at the Center for Security Policy, both network’s programing have shown some rather specific parallels concerning the Muslim Brotherhood from as early as the onset of the Arab Spring. In a statement to TheBlaze, Reaboi, noted that both Current and Al Jazeera, “presented the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover in Egypt as a democratic revolution.”

“Both networks pushed provably false narratives about the future of Egypt’s ‘democracy,’ it’s ideological makeup, and demonized those that correctly assessed the situation,” he continued.

“Qaradawi’s role in mobilizing public and nation-state support for the Islamic ascendancy, from Tunisia through Egypt, Libya, Syria and beyond, cannot be overstated. When Qaradawi declared Gadhafi and Assad ‘unIslamic,’ it was not just his estimated 60 million viewers that got the message.”

Reaboi added that Qaradawi’s fatwa indeed helped inform the Obama administration in its calculation about views from the “Arab Street” on such issues. Thus, the imam’s influence is indeed far-reaching and has the power to effect change in a negative way.

Read more at the Blaze

Related articles

Quenching “Sharia Thirst” on the Nile

Posted on by
3

Sharia-Supporters-in-Egypt

Will their “Sharia thirst” indeed be fully quenched?

by Andrew Bostom:

Three days before the first round of voting began for Egypt’s constitutional referendum on December 15, 2012, Hesham Darwish, from Cairo’s Hadayeq al-Qobba district, summarized the views of those who planned to vote “yes,” and affirm the charter:

People are thirsty for Sharia. [emphasis added] We do not support the president for who he is, but rather for the Islamic project he promises.

Yesterday (12/22/12), during the second round of voting, Hesham Darwish’s mindset held sway overwhelmingly in two Upper Egypt governorates on both sides of the Nile. Eighty-three percent (83.2%; 763,729/918,034) voted “yes” in Minya approximately 150 miles south of Cairo on the western bank of the Nile River, which flows north through the city), while in Qena, situated on the east bank of the Nile, some 300 miles south of Cairo, 84.7% (307,839/363,518 ) affirmed the charter, according to unofficial final tallies published by Al-Ahram. (See full results tabulated below)

When pooled with the first round of voting, a total of 64.0% (10,543,893/16,472,241), including 67.5% (162,231/240,224) of Egyptian expatriates, approved Egypt’s recently drafted, more Sharia-compliant constitution.

The referendum’s final results validate remarkably consistent polling data of Egyptian attitudes towards the Sharia chronicled since at least early 2007, through an Egyptian Vote Compass self-administered survey whose results were revealed just a week prior to voting began on 12/15/12.

Within a few days of their publication in April, 2007, I highlighted data from Egypt indicating that 74% of Egyptians favored “strict” application of the Sharia in general. As recently as December 2010, Pew polling data revealed that 84% of Egyptian Muslims rejected freedom of conscience in the most ugly terms claiming apostates should be killed (i.e., that percentage would likely be well over 90% if less draconian punishments, such as imprisonment and beating till recantation were queried), 82% favor stoning adulterers to death, and 77% approved of mutilating punishments for theft. Summarizing these findings, and other overall survey trends, pollster Douglas Schoen in an essay published February 10, 2011, cited additional composite data indicating that at least 60% of Egyptians held “fundamentalist” Islamic views, while only 20% could be classified as “secular” in their orientation. Finally, Dutch Political Scientist André Krouwel, working with an academic team of Egyptian political scientists at Vote Compass Egypt, who applied an interactive electoral literacy application, predicted in an interview published 12/8/12,

About 70 per cent of the population will vote in favor of the constitution

It is also apparent that Egyptians have voted en masse for a charter, which, relative to the 1971 constitution, more openly advances Sharia supremacism in its revised language, and by assigning an oversight role to the bastion of mainstream obscurantist Sunni Islamic religious education, Al-Azhar University.

Comparing the suspended 1971 Constitution, with the current draft charter, several features, consistent with the more pronounced influence of Sharia, are immediately apparent:

  • Egypt is now identified “as part of the Arabic and Islamic nations (Umma)”
  • Article 2 from 1971, remains intact, stating, “Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Sharia are the main source of legislation.”; however, the complementary Article 219, adds the specific statement, “The principles of Sharia include general evidence and foundations, rules and jurisprudence as well as sources accepted by doctrines of Sunni Islam and the majority of Muslim scholars.” Moreover, whereas no mention of al-Azhar University or its Muslim legists was included in the 1971 constitution, the current draft states plainly, “Al-Azhar is an independent and a comprehensive entity. It takes the task of preaching Islam in Egypt and in the whole world. Scholars of al-Azhar should be consulted in all matters related to Sharia.” [emphasis added]
  • Article 44—consistent with Sharia blasphemy law—warns: “Insulting prophets and messengers is forbidden.”

Accordingly, the constitution was praised by Muslim Brotherhood “Spiritual Adviser”, and renowned Sharia supremacist, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who noted it contained, “principles and values needed by Egyptians.” Qaradawi added, “Even if it contains shortcomings, they could be addressed later,”—perhaps alluding to his avowed stratagem of applying the more draconian aspects of Sharia, such as hadd punishments, gradually, during a “transitional” accommodation period.

Qaradawi’s stratagem for applying Sharia in all its liberty-crushing, totalitarian manifestations—a sine qua non of the Muslim Brotherhood first articulated by its founder, Hassan al-Banna, and reiterated (on May 15, 2012) by recently elected Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammad Morsi—could be facilitated by the “Scholars of al-Azhar,” whom the constitution declares, “should be consulted in all matters related to Sharia.”

Since its founding in 973 A.D., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented a pinnacle of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Unfortunately, during that same millennium, through the present era, Al Azhar and its leading clerics have represented and espoused the unreformed, unrepentant jihad bellicosity and infidel hatred at the core of mainstream Islam. The irrefragable truth of Al Azhar’s persistent Medieval obscurantism (i.e., from any rational non-Muslim, if not Islamic perspective), can be readily gleaned from a sampling of fatwas (Islamic religious rulings) and statements issued during 1739, till now. Moreover, the late (d. March, 2010) Al-Azhar Grand Imam Sheikh Tantawi’s own virulently Jew-hating writings, statements, and career trajectory—being rewarded for this public, “scholarly,” legacy of hatred—represents the apotheosis of these ugly realities.

Read more

Andrew G.  Bostom is the author of The  Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The  Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ”  (Prometheus, November, 2008)

You can contact Dr. Bostom at info[@]andrewbostom.org

Related articles

Egypt’s Highest Islamic Authority Throws Morsi Under the Bus

Posted on by
3

anti-morsi-protestBy Daniel Greenfield

This is significant because it means the chief Islamic authority in Egypt is no longer all that confident of a Thousand Year Caliphate under the Muslim Brotherhood or that Morsi will even stay in power. If Al Azhar really thought Morsi was a sure bet, they wouldn’t be hedging their bets now for fear that Morsi will be overthrown.

Morsi’s Islamist constitution turns Al Azhar into a virtual supreme court, but Al Azhar is now no longer certain that it will ever reap those spoils.

Egypt’s top Islamic body on Thursday called on President Mohammed Mursi to suspend a decree in which he claimed sweeping powers and demanded an unconditional dialogue between the president and his opponents.

The Al-Azhar institution said Mursi should “suspend the latest decree and stop using it,” in a statement a day after deadly protests between Mursi supporters and opponents, AFP reported.

That comes as Morsi has been forced to call in the Egyptian army to protect the presidential palace. Being forced to use the army is a sign of weakness and reverses some of the Muslim Brotherhood’s victories over the military. It reminds Morsi that his activists are not enough to stay in power. He needs the military and that gives the military power over him and over Egypt.

No, It’s Not the Same Sharia Provision as in the Old Egyptian Constitution

Posted on by
1

sharia rules egyptPJ Media:

By Andrew McCarthy

I’ve now been in a few debates about Egypt’s new draft constitution, which will be put to a vote next week — in fact, I debated Abbas Barzegar, an assistant professor of Islam at Georgia State University, on Sean Hannity’s radio show on Monday. As one would easily predict, it has become a key talking point of the constitution’s Islamist supporters that, in so far as concerns sharia (Islam’s societal framework and legal code), the new constitution marks no change. The new draft simply repeats, it is said, the old Sadat/Mubarak-era constitution’s stipulation that the “principles of sharia” govern.

This is an absurd claim. Of course, that won’t stop them from trying to make it fly … or stop the Western media, in the throes of spring fever, from repeating their assertions.

The new constitution’s provisions have been well summarized by Professor Rubin, whose post — which addresses this subject in addition to several other important ones — I highly recommend. I want to begin by stepping outside the substance of the constitution, though. Note that the non-Islamist factions resigned from the constituent assembly (the body tasked with drafting the new constitution) in explicit protest over its transparent Islamist character. Does anyone really think this would have happened if the new constitution were not a sharp turn toward Islamic supremacism and its attendant oppression of women, religious minorities, homosexuals, and other non-Islamists?

Now, back to substance. Yes, article 2 of the draft repeats the former constitution’s command that “Principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation.” This repetition leads Islamists and their apologists to contend that adherence to sharia won’t be any more strict under Islamist rule than it was during Mubarak’s reign — notwithstanding that right now, even before the new constitution has been formally adopted, there is already far more sharia governance (and oppression) than there was before the old regime fell.

In reality, the new constitution’s repetition of article 2  is just the beginning of the discussion, not, as the Muslim Brotherhood’s apologists would have it, the end. From the premise of sharia principles as the core, the new constitution proceeds with three radical innovations.

First is the way the new constitution fleshes out what is meant by “principles.” The term will be governed by the four classical schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence. These four schools consider virtually all questions to have been settled a millennium ago. This means Islamic reformers and modernizers will be foreclosed from effecting any softening of classical sharia’s adhesive provisions. To be sure, the Brotherhood may not reinstate the stoning of adulterers and other cruel hudud penalties tomorrow. But that will be based on a political calculation — as my friend David Goldman has observed, Egypt is a financial basket case and can’t afford to give irrevocable offense to its Western white knights (assuming they are still capable of being offended by anything Islamists do). The point is that there will be no legal retreat on classical sharia, and gradually it will become ever more repressive.

That is also the guaranteed outcome of the second innovation: The new constitution appoints al-Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning, as the final arbiter of what sharia means. This thrusts the scholars of that institution (whose alumni include Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik of World Trade Center bombing fame, and Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s top jurist) into the full range of Egyptian life and affairs, since there is no aspect of human endeavor that sharia would not control.

Finally, there is Article 81, which follows the disingenuous scheme Islamists have previously adopted in the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (also known as the “Cairo Declaration“) and in the constitutions of such other new “Islamic democracies” as Afghanistan and Iraq. That is, after a few soothing lines about how individual “rights and freedoms” are sacrosanct, not “subject to disruption or detraction,” the constitution goes on to say: “Such rights and freedoms shall be practiced in a manner not conflicting with the principles pertaining to State and society included in Part I of this Constitution.” And what are those “principles” in the “State and Society” section of the draft? Why, they are the ones that say principles of sharia govern all legislation — again, “principles” as construed by al-Azhar, using the ancient interpretations of the four classical Sunni schools of jurisprudence. Bottom line: Egyptians have only the rights and freedoms permitted under sharia.

When all the verbal camouflage is swept away, the new constitution delivers on what Mohamed Morsi, during the Egyptian presidential campaign, promised he would deliver: “The sharia, then the sharia, and finally the sharia.” As the now-dictator elaborated at the rally on the eve of the election (in a speech translated by MEMRI):

This nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through the Islamic sharia. I take an oath before Allah and before you all that regardless of the actual text [of the constitution]. … Allah willing, the text will truly reflect [the sharia], as will be agreed upon by the Egyptian people, by the Islamic scholars, and by legal and constitutional experts…. Rejoice and rest assured that this people will not accept a text that does not reflect the true meaning of the Islamic sharia as a text to be implemented and as a platform. The people will not agree to anything else.

The apologists who don’t see that as a change from Mubarak days are the same ones telling you that Morsi is a “moderate” and that the Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization.

Watch Abbas Barzegar try to pedal the same lie that Morsi’s constituion is no different than the Mubarak era as regards sharia. It is very important to the Muslim Brotherhood in the US that we do not see sharia as a threat. Brigitte and Hannity are having none of it!

7 of Top 10 ‘World’s Most Influential Muslims’ Are Islamists

Posted on by
2
Saudi King Abdullah, Turksih Prime Minister Erdogan and Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei (left to right)

Saudi King Abdullah, Turksih Prime Minister Erdogan and Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei (left to right)

by: Ryan Mauro

The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre has released this year’s list of the 500 “world’s most influential Muslims” and of the top 10, seven are Islamists. The unfortunate reality is that Islamism is indeed mainstream thought in the Muslim world and non-Muslims have a lot of ground to make up in the struggle over the direction of the Muslim world.

The most influential Muslim is Saudi King Abdullah. He is hailed as a reformer but that is by Saudi standards. Under his rule, Sharia is still the law of the land in an especially puritanical form. By setting this example and teaching that this is Allah’s vision for governance, Saudi King Abdullah is still promoting the Islamist ideology. He is in his late 80s and he just underwent major back surgery, prompting some to worry about what the future holds for his country.

In second place is Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. He has sharply moved the secular, pro-Western country of Turkey in an Islamist direction, expertly using the doctrine of “gradualism.” The rate of his implementation of the Islamist agenda has sped up as the strength of his political party has increased. The former ally of Israel is now an adversary, with Erdogan stating that Hamas isn’t a terrorist organization but a “resistance” group.

He has remained popular since becoming the Tukish prime minister in 2003, defying the pattern of Islamists losing popularity once they come to power. However, a new poll shows a dip in his support. Erdogan’s government occupies two spots in the top 50, with President Gul taking 24th place.

The Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie, who essentially declared jihad on the U.S. and pro-Western Arab governments in 2010, is in fourth place. This makes the Muslim Brotherhood the strongest international movement in the Islamic world.

It’s interesting to see that Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is in 11th place, even though his name recognition is so high. This is because Morsi is a product of the movement that Badie leads. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior Brotherhood cleric known for his vitriolic preaching, took 16th place. Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas, a branch of the Brotherhood, is in 48th place.

Fifth place went to the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani. He does not preside over an Islamic state, but his government is subsidizing the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood while enjoying the status of a U.S. ally.  His country is home to Sheikh Qaradawi and Al-Jazeera. A 2009 State Department memo said that Qatar’s counter-terrorism cooperation is “considered the worst in the region.”

Following Qatar is Iran, specifically Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Not much needs to be said about the threat posed by his influence. Notably, Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s name does not appear in the top ten. That’s because Khamenei holds the real power. The Iran-backed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is in 28th place.

In eight place is Sheikh Ahmad Muhammad Al-Tayyeb, president of Al-Azhar University in Egypt. This is the most powerful Sunni religious institution, which endorsed Umdat al-Salik’s Reliance of the Traveler that teaches Muslims the ins and outs of Sharia Law. Al-Tayyeb calls for international laws against “defamation” of religion, a nicer sounding way of outlawing criticism of Islam. The draft constitution of Egypt approved by the Islamists requires that the government consult with Al-Azhar scholars on “matters related to Sharia.”

Finishing off the top ten is Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish Islamist who lives in Pennsylvania. His charter school network in America, the largest in the country, is under FBI investigation. His influence has been instrumental in spreading Islamism in Turkey. Although his preaching is on the less extreme end of Islamism, he has made multiple worrisome statements.

For example, in 1999, he preached in favor of “gradualism” in Turkey. He said, “You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey.” He told the audience to “discard the thoughts and feelings I expressed here,” because he is “trusting your loyalty and secrecy.”

Read more at Radical Islam