Saturday, December 31, 2016

Auld Lang Syne - Susan Boyle

Tucker to prof: Shouldn't students toughen up over election? - Fox News



Tucker Carlson tries to get professor to explain her approach to students hysterical over Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump in the election, define 'safe spaces' and the lack of intellectual diversity on college campuses

Robert Spencer interviews Robert R. Reilly, author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind

In this context I would also kindly suggest you read another learned expert on Islam, Dr. Andrew Bostom, and his critique of Robert R. Reilly`s book:

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/09/07/robert-reillys-dilettantism-and-played-out-impressionism/

Expert on Islam, Robert Spencer (RS) interviews Robert R. Reilly (RR) about his book "The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis". 

Here is the entire interview as it appears at the Jihad Watch site, with the original URL:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/robert-reilly-author-of-the-closing-of-the-muslim-mind-exclusive-jihad-watch-interview.html

RS: In your fascinating new book The Closing of the Muslim Mind, you expand in important ways on the insight Pope Benedict XVI expressed in his famous Regensburg address--that Islam, as it currently exists in all "orthodox" forms, is fundamentally at odds with reason. Surely, you don't mean that Muslims don't employ reason in their daily lives or even their political conduct. So what do you mean?
RR: I mean what the Pope meant when he spoke of the dehellenization of Islam - its loss of philosophy and reason. I mean that the premise from which many Muslims start is unreasonable in the sense that it is not subject to critical examination. It is not subject to critical examination because the principal theological school of Sunni Islam discredited reason.
In other words, a paranoid person behaves reasonably once you accept the paranoid delusion upon which he is acting. But it is his delusion that is unreasonable, not his behavior. The problem is getting him to see that his delusion does not comport with reality. In the majority of Sunni Islam today, access to realty is blocked because of the abandonment of reason. The premise on which reason was discredited is the delusion from which they are suffering. It is very hard to get them to realize this because the premise is a theological one - that God is pure will and power, not reason.
RS: In your book, you identify several turning points in the intellectual development of Islamic thought. I would like you to expand on them:
1) The rejection of free will on the part of Islamic exegetes, and their embrace of predestination--their assertion that man's actions are not in fact free, but are infallibly dictated by the divine will. How and why did this counter-intuitive position win out over the theory that man acts freely? Are the Islamic texts more weighted in favor of absolute divine sovereignty?
RR: You refer to the oldest argument within Islam, which was about predestination and free will. The advocates of free will were called Qadarites, or Qadariyya, after the Arabic word qadar, which can mean divine decree or predestination, or power. They stood for the opposite to predestination: man's free will and consequent responsibility for his actions. Man has power (qadar) over his own actions. If men were not able to control their behaviour, said the Qadarites, the moral obligation to do good and avoid evil, enjoined by the Qur'an, would be meaningless.
Contrary to this view, the Jabariyya (determinists; from jabr - blind compulsion) embraced the doctrine that divine omnipotence requires the absolute determination of man's actions by God. One of the names of God in the Qur'an is Al-Jabbar, the Compeller (59:23), whose power cannot be resisted. God alone authors man's every movement. To say otherwise ties God's hands and limits his absolute freedom. One of the exponents of this view, Jahm b. Safwan (d. 745), argued that man's actions are imputed to him only in the same way as one imputes "the bearing of fruit to the tree, flowing to the stream, motion to the stone, rising or setting to the sun - blooming and vegetating to the earth." As twentieth century Muslim thinker Fazlur Rahman summed up the dispute, "In the eyes of the orthodox, this freedom for man was bondage for God." Their theology made free will anathema. Reality was distorted to fit a deformed theology. Thus we have statements such as this from Ibn Taymiyya, the medieval thinker so in favor with Islamists today: "Creatures have no impact on God since it is God Himself who creates their acts." So freedom for God ended up meaning bondage for man.
The Qur'an offers support for both positions. It is the Hadith that weigh decisively in favor of the predestination position but, as you know, the Hadith were not codified until around the ninth century and after. The struggle between these two views was particularly intense at that time.
RS: 2) The abandonment of reason as a tool for understanding the divine nature--and indeed, the insistence that it was blasphemous to assert that Allah had any consistent, knowable "nature" at all, that might constrain his absolute, arbitrary freedom of action. What Qur'anic texts were adduced to support this radical voluntarism? What effect did this have on the development of an Islamic theology?
RR: It had a very dramatic effect on Islamic theology. It ended it. How can theology explore a God who acts for no reasons? By definition, He becomes incomprehensible. "Allah does what he wills." - Qur'an 14:27 "Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?" - Qur'an 2:106 This aspect of Allah was also remarked upon by the Islamist radical Sayyid Qutb in The Shadow of the Qur'an: "Every time the Qur'an states a definite promise or constant law, it follows it with a statement implying that the Divine will is free of all limitations and restrictions, even those based on a promise from Allah or a law of His. For His will is absolute beyond any promise of law." You may also recall the famous remark by Ibn Hazm that the Pope used in the Regensburg Lecture that "God is not bound even by his own word."
Also, God is unknowable in Sunni Islam because of God's utter transcendence. This is the doctrine of tanzih. There is nothing comparable to Him. God does not reveal Himself to man; He reveals his rules, and that is all. This is another reason why Islam reduced itself to jurisprudential matters only. The only thing that matters is knowing the law.
RS: 3) Western multiculturalists eager to praise Islamic achievements frequently cite Averroes and Avicenna as pioneering philosophers who recovered the insights of Aristotle--and served as the transmitters of the defunct Aristotelian tradition to the West. What was the fate of these philosophers within their own cultural sphere? Why were they rejected? Was "philosophy" as a discipline itself dismissed in orthodox Islamic circles?
RR: I just returned from Cordoba, Spain, where Averroes lived and worked. It was a thrill to walk the same streets as he and Maimonides had. Avicenna and Averroes represent the highest attempt to assimilate Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy into Islam - to reconcile reason and revelation in the Muslim world. Averroes did have a huge impact, but it was mostly on Europe, not Islam. If you want a date on which the Muslim mind closed, 1195 A.D. might serve as the marker. It was then that Averroes's books were burned in the city square, that he was sent into exile, and that the teaching of philosophy was banned. His works in Arabic today have been back translated from either Latin or Hebrew, the languages in which most of his books were preserved.
Reason was rejected because it is too corrupted by self-interest. But the real, deeper reason is because there is nothing for it to know. Reality is composed of a series of instantaneous miracles directly caused by God's will. Everything is directly done by God, who acts for no reasons. The catastrophic result of this view was the denial of the relationship between cause and effect in the natural world. Therefore, what may seem to be "natural laws," such as the laws of physics, gravity, etc., are really nothing more than God's customs, which He is at complete liberty to break or change at any moment. The consequences of this view were momentous. If creation exists simply as a succession of miraculous moments, it cannot be apprehended by reason. As a result, reality becomes incomprehensible. If unlimited will is the exclusive constituent of reality, there is really nothing left to reason about. In The Incoherence of the Philosophers, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111), perhaps the single most influential Muslim thinker after Mohammed, vehemently rejected Greek thought: "The source of their infidelity was their hearing terrible names such as Socrates and Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle." Al-Ghazali insisted that God is not bound by any order and that there is, therefore, no "natural" sequence of cause and effect, as in fire burning cotton or, more colorfully, as in "the purging of the bowels and the using of a purgative." Things do not act according to their own natures - they have no natures - but only according to God's will at the moment.
What was the fate of the great philosophical legacy in Islam from Averroes, Avicenna, Al-Razi, Al-Kindi, etc.? Here is a stark assessment by reformist thinker Ibrahim Al-Buleihi, a current member of the Saudi Shura Council: "What I wanted to clarify is that these [achievements] are not of our own making, and those exceptional individuals were not the product of Arab culture, but rather Greek culture. They are outside our cultural mainstream and we treated them as though they were foreign elements. Therefore we don't deserve to take pride in them since we rejected them and fought their ideas. Conversely, when Europe learned from them it benefited from a body of knowledge which was originally its own because they were an extension of Greek culture, which is the source of the whole of Western civilization."
In fact, the rejection continues to this day. Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi states that "because rational disciplines had not been institutionalized in classical Islam, the adoption of the Greek legacy had no lasting effect on Islamic civilization . . ." Indeed, "contemporary Islamic fundamentalists denounce not only cultural modernity, but even the Islamic rationalism of Averroes and Avicenna, scholars who had defined the heights of Islamic civilization."
RS: 4) You go into considerable detail in the book on how the rejection of philosophy, and the radical voluntarism asserted of the divine nature--God's freedom to make anything happen, in any way, at any given moment--impaired the development of empirical science within the Muslim world. The connections among those things might not be immediately apparent to all readers. Can you explain how that worked?
RR: The denial of natural law removed the very objective of science from the Muslim mind. Since the effort of science is to discover nature's laws, the teaching that these laws do not, in fact, exist (for theological reasons) is an obvious discouragement to the scientific enterprise. How can science proceed without cause and effect? You must say that a rock falls because God made it fall at that instant. To say gravity did it becomes a blasphemous statement. The extent of the discouragement and the paucity of scientific research this has produced is, if predictable, still astonishing. Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy has noted the major scientific contributions of Islam's Golden Age in the 9th to 13th centuries. Then he writes, "But with the end of that period, science in the Islamic world essentially collapsed. No major invention or discovery has emerged from the Muslim world for well over seven centuries now." I give the statistics from the UN on the paucity of science in the Arab Muslim world in my book.

RS: 5) Central to the triumph of the anti-rationalist strain in Islam was the conflict over the nature of the Qur'an, its status as either an uncreated, perfect book co-eternal with Allah--or a human manifestation of a divine truth that can be interpreted in the light of cultural factors. Can you tell the story of how these conflicting interpretations were defended, and point to the reasons why the anti-rationalist faction won out? Were the texts more on their side?
RR: Yes, part of the dispute about free will concerned the nature of the Qur'an. Was it created in time, or has it coexisted with Allah in eternity? The Qur'an does not say either way. If it had, the dispute could not have arisen in the first place. Doctrinally, the traditionalist school held that the Qur'an was not created in time; the Qur'an has forever co-existed with Allah on a tablet in heaven in Arabic, as it exists today. God, in other words, speaks Arabic. The Qur'an is outside the scope of history; it is ahistorical. The time at which it was revealed and the culture into which it was received are irrelevant. Although coeternal with God, the Qur'an is somehow, like his attributes, distinct from God's essence. The profound problem with this position, which the Mu'tazilites pointed out - that this made the Qur'an another God, and those who held this position were therefore polytheists - was dismissed by Hadith collector al-Bukhari (d. 933), who said, "The Qur'an is the speech of God uncreated, the acts of men are created, and inquiry into the matter is heresy."
Nevertheless, to the utter dismay of the traditionalists, the Mu'tazilites did inquire into the matter, and this difference between them became the most bitter and costly of their disputes. The Mu'tazilites held that the Qur'an had to have been created; otherwise, the historical events it relates would have to have been predetermined. The doctrine of Khalq al-Qur'an, the createdness of the Qur'an, means that room would be left for free human choice. And why, asked the Mu'tazilites, would commandments exist before the creation of the human beings to whom they apply?
The Mu'tazilite teaching was made state doctrine by Caliph al-Ma'mun (813-833), a great supporter of free will and Greek thought. However, three caliphs later, al-Mutawalkil (847-861) reversed the teaching and made it obligatory to hold that the Qur'an is eternal. Since then, this has become the general orthodox view. Unless it changes, Islamic reform is not going to get very far.
RS: 6) You point to the period of Mu'talizite domination in Islam as a kind of golden age of philosophical reason, intellectual innovation, and openness--followed by a very long dark age of irrationalism, mysticism, intellectual rigidity and intolerance that culminated in the 19th century with the backwardness and subjugation of the Islamic world. You suggest that the Mu'talizite precedent can be used today by Muslims who wish to "re-open" the Islamic mind. Can you point to Islamic thinkers today who are trying to do this? How are they faring?
RR: There are some extraordinarily intelligent Muslim scholars who would like to see something like a neo-Mu'tazilite movement within Islam, a restoration of the primacy of reason so that they can re-open the doors to ijtihad and develop some kind of natural law foundation for humane, political, constitutional rule. They know that the issue of the status of the Qur'an has to be reopened in order to create some latitude in interpreting the Qur'an. They point to this precedent to show that Islam was once open to this position. In fact, Indonesian scholar Harun Nasution (1919-1998) was willing to wear the neo-Mu'tazilite label openly, despite the imprecation of heresy that it carried. He explicitly called for the recognition of natural law and opposed Ash'arite occasionalism and determinism as inimical to social, economic, and political progress. He insisted on man's free will and accountability. Reformist Tunisian-born thinker Latif Lakhdar calls for a revival of "Mu'atazila and philosophical thought that subjected the holy writings on which the religion is based to interpretation by the human mind." He said "it is absurd to believe the text and deny reality." In Egypt, Nasr Abu Zaid tried this. Unfortunately, he was declared an apostate and had to flee the country with his wife, whom he would have been forced to divorce (or rather she would have been forced to divorce him). Safely in exile, he said, "One important school of Koranic scholarship, Mutazilism, held 1,000 years ago that the Koran need not be interpreted literally, and even today Iranian scholars are surprisingly open to critical scholarship and interpretations." Unfortunately, Zaid died last year. So, the model is there but it is a dangerous one to use.
How are they faring? Unfortunately, as Bassim Tibi has warned, "Those intellectually significant Muslims who . . . still hope to apply reason to Islamic reform, had better do so in their Western exile, be it Paris or London or Washington. Their ideas are discussed in Scandinavia, but not in the Islamic world." Even in Europe, such Muslims have problems and have to confront the dangers of being labeled apostates. For several years in Germany, Tibi himself required armed body guards provided by the German state to protect him from assassination. Taj Hargey, a British imam, laments that "iconoclastic thinkers, liberals, and non-conformists who dare to challenge this self-assumed religious authority in Islam by presenting a rational or alternative interpretations of their faith are invariably branded as apostates, heretics, and non-believers."
RS: 7) Critics of your book have argued that the Mu'talizite movement is almost universally vilified as rank heresy in Islamic circles--and suggested that attempts to revive it are as likely to succeed in the Muslim world as a push to revive the Arian heresy would fare at the Vatican. How do you answer that criticism? Are there real grounds for hope?
RR: My book attempts a diagnosis of the problem. Like the Regensburg Lecture, I believe the most profound woes in the Muslim world stem from its dehellenization. If this is so, then the prescription for recovery would be its re-hellenization, which is also what the Pope says. Does this mean that it is likely? No, it does not. It would require a sea-change in the Islamic world for this to happen. Unfortunately, things are headed in the opposite direction. However, the diagnosis is still valuable for understanding the nature of the problem we are facing. The correct diagnosis shows at least that most of the solutions proffered by Western governments in terms of social and economic reforms are a waste of time and resources because they do not touch upon the fundamental theological problem.
Still, outside of prayer, I think it is the only hope, and by this I don't mean only a neo-Mu'talizite movement, but also a resuscitation of the heritage of Muslim philosophy, especially Averroes. As Fatima Mernissi says so poignantly, "the fact that the rationalist, humanistic tradition was rejected by despotic politicians does not mean that it doesn't exist. Having an arm amputated is not the same as being born with an arm missing. Studies of amputees show that the amputated member remains present in the person's mind. The more our rational faculty is suppressed, the more obsessed we are by it." As a twentieth century Moroccan Muslim philosopher put it, either the future of Islam will be Aristotelian or it will not be. That is how critical this matter is.
RS: 8) What is the connection between the rejection of philosophical reason, and absolute voluntarism regarding Allah, and political/cultural supremacism, intolerance, and jihadi terror?
RR: If reason is illegitimate, how are differences to be adjudicated? Force will decide. The stronger will decide. Why does Islam use violence to affirm its theology? Because it is the theology of power, of the doctrine that "right is rule of the stronger," raised to the level of God. The primacy of the will always seeks success through force.
Benedict XVI told his audience in Regensburg that not only is violence in spreading faith unreasonable and therefore against God, but that a conception of God without reason, or above reason, leads to that very violence. This is the problem in Islam. That which is unreasonable is against God only if God is reason. This is not so in majority Sunni Islamic theology. He is pure will and power, unconstrained even by his own word. Therefore, there are no solid barriers between the statement that God is pure will and power, and the startling declaration of Abdullah Azzam, which Osama quoted in the November 2001 video, released after 9/11, that "Terrorism is an obligation in Allah's religion." This can only be true - that violence in spreading faith is an obligation - if, as Benedict XVI said, God is without reason. This is why the problem we are facing is primarily a theological one.
The Closing of the Muslim Mind tells the extraordinarily dramatic story of the struggle within Islam over the relationship between God and reason - in other words over who God is - and of the dreadful effects of embracing a conception of God without reason. The deformed theology that resulted from this produced a dysfunctional culture. It has also produced a spiritual pathology that seeks it success in death.

Friday, December 30, 2016

Answering-Islam: Taqiyyah – Det är tillåtet att ljuga enligt Islam

Här först lite om sajten Answering-Islam (på engelska):

http://www.answering-islam.org/about.html

Who is (behind) "Answering Islam" ?

Many people send us emails asking who we are, what are our qualifications to speak on Islam, what is our statement of faith, etc.

Some say, that they love our site, and would like to recommend it to others, but cannot do so before they know who we are and what exactly we believe.

If you are one who seeks answers to these questions, we would like to ask you: What would you need these answers for? Why is the (usually acknowledged) quality of our material not enough for you?

We have no desire that people believe our arguments just because some respectable names of persons, organizations or churches are attached to the site. Often the question comes from Christians who want to be sure, we are evangelical Christians, before they can trust or recommend us.

We do not want Christians (or anyone else) to believe what we write is correct just because we claim to be evangelical, or because we can tout some academic titles to the names of our authors, but because the arguments are biblical, well documented, and logically sound.
The Bible praises these critical believers:

Now, the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11
The Bereans believed not because it was Paul, the honored apostle, nor because he could claim the endorsement of the Jerusalem Apostolic Council, but because they examined his arguments themselves to find whether they were scriptural and true.

Let our readers be Bereans. We want that Muslims come to faith because they become convinced of the truth of the Gospel through the soundness of the material we present, and we want our Christian brothers and sisters to develop their convictions about their own faith and about Islam for the same reasons: Because it is true.

The sad thing is, not everything that evangelical Christians write about Islam is true (not even everything they write about the Bible and the Christian faith). We would not doubt their Christian faith, but we cannot agree with their statements about Islam. We cannot recommend their writings just because they are Evangelicals, and—to remain consistent—we do not want others to believe us, just because we wear that label.

The same holds for the question of academic qualifications. Some of our authors are teaching Theology, Religious Studies or even Islamic Studies at Universities. But there are too many professors of Islamic Studies who spread false information about Islam, while some self-taught laymen have a much deeper understanding. Evaluate the quality of our writings for yourself, and do not fall into the fallacy of appeal to authority.

This all said, we are Evangelical Christians and agree without reservations with the statement of faith as given, for example, by the World Evangelical Alliance and the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization.

May the Lord God bless you and guide you as you seek to know Him and His Truth.
Your Answering Islam team

http://www.answering-islam.org/svenska/islam/allah-och-islam/taqiyyah.html

Taqiyyah – Det är tillåtet att ljuga enligt Islam

I följande artikel ska vi titta närmare på en islamistisk doktrin som tillåter och uppmanar muslimer att ljuga. Detta koncept kallas för "taqiyyah".

Vi börjar med att läsa följande koraniska vers som säger att en muslim får ljuga om sin identitet och förneka sin tro om han utsätts för tvång:

16:106

Den som förnekar Gud efter att ha antagit tron - inte den som är utsatt för tvång, fastän hans hjärta förblir tryggt i sin övertygelse, utan den som frivilligt öppnar sig för otron - sådana [människor] ådrar sig Guds vrede och ett hårt straff väntar dem. (Mohammad Knut Bernström, Koranens budskap)

Se vad den autentiske exegeten Ibn Kathir skriver om detta i sin utläggning av verser:
Allahs vrede mot de avfallna, förutom den som tvingas till misstro

… (förutom den som tvingas medan hans hjärta är i fred med tron) Detta är ett undantag vad gäller en som säger uttalanden av misstro och verbalt håller med Mushrikin (icke-muslimer) eftersom han är tvungen att göra det på grund av den misshandel och smädelse till som han utsätts för, men hans hjärta vägrar att godta vad han säger, och han är, i verkligheten, i fred med sin tro på Allah och Hans budbärare… [vår översättning]

De två exegeterna Jalal håller med Ibn Kathir och skriver följande i sin gemensamma utläggning av versen ifråga:

Vem om än slutar att tro på Gud efter att [ha bekräftat] sin tro – förutom han som är tvingad, att säga [ett uttalande av] otro och säger det, medan hans hjärta är i vila med tron… [vår översättning] Länk

En muslim får alltså verbalt ljuga och förneka sin tro i kritiska situationer, vilket med andra ord betyder att muslimen gör "taqiyyah".

Herren Jesus Kristus däremot förbjuder Sina följare att förneka Honom även om deras liv står på spel:

Matt 10:16-18, 22, 26-28, 31-33
Jag skickar er
 som får in bland vargar. Var därför kloka som ormar och oskyldiga som duvor. Akta er för människorna. De skall utlämna er åt domstolar, och de skall piska er i sina synagogor. Och ni kommer att ställas inför ståthållare och kungar för min skull och stå som vittnen inför dem och hedningarna… Ni skall bli hatade av alla för mitt namns skull. Men den som håller ut till slutet skall bli räddad… Var alltså inte rädda för dem. Det finns ingenting gömt som inte skall komma i dagen och ingenting dolt som inte skall bli känt. Vad jag säger er i mörkret, det skall ni säga i dagsljuset, och vad jag viskar i ert öra, det skall ni ropa ut från taken. Var inte rädda för dem som kan döda kroppen men inte kan döda själen. Frukta i stället honom som kan förgöra både själ och kropp i helvetet.… Var alltså inte rädda: ni är mer värda än aldrig så många sparvar. Var och en som känns vid mig inför människorna, honom skall jag kännas vid inför min fader i himlen.Men den som förnekar mig inför människorna, honom skall jag förneka inför min fader i himlen. (Bibeln 2000)

I följande bibliska text läser vi om den första kristna martyren Stefanos som blev stenad till döds, för att han bekände sin tro, och vägrade att ljuga:

Apg 7:54-60När de hörde detta blev de så ursinniga på Stefanos att de skar tänder. Men fylld av helig ande riktade han blicken mot himlen och såg Guds härlighet och Jesus som stod på Guds högra sida, och han sade: "Jag ser himlen öppen och Människosonen stå på Guds högra sida." Då ropade de högt och höll för öronen, och alla störtade sig över honom på en gång och släpade ut honom ur staden för att stena honom. Vittnena lade sina mantlar framför fötterna på en ung man som hette Saul. Så stenade de Stefanos, som åkallade Herren och sade: "Herre Jesus, ta emot min ande." Han föll på knä och ropade högt: "Herre, ställ dem inte till svars för denna synd." Med de orden dog han. (Bibeln 2000)

Vi kristna fruktar inte döden och behöver inte förneka vår tro för att vi vet vad som väntar oss, nämligen ett evigt liv med Herren Jesus som är vår Gud och Frälsare.

Somliga muslimer brukar svara att en muslim endast får ljuga när hans liv står på spel, vilket enligt kristna fortfarande är oacceptabelt. Vi håller dock med att Islam lär ut att en muslim får ljuga när hans liv står på spel, men detta är inte hela sanningen. En muslim får också ljuga för att försvara intoleranta och hemska läror i Islam, vilket följande data får demonstrera.
Följande koraniska vers säger att en muslim inte får förena sig med icke-muslimer och ta de till vänner:

4:144O ni som tror, ni ska inte förena er med de icke troende i stället för de troende. Vill ni ge GUD ett klart bevis mot er? (Khalifa, se även: 5:51; 5:57;9:23; 60:1; 60:13)

Den autentiske exegeten Ibn Kathir konstaterar i sin utläggning att en muslim inte får förena sig med icke-muslimer och ta de till vänner:

Förbud mot att ingå Wilayah med otroende
Allah förbjuder sina troende tjänare att ta otroende till vänner i stället för de troende. Detta innefattar att vara deras vän och medhjälpare, ge de råd, vara intim med de och avslöja de troendes hemligheter framför de… [vår översättning]

Följande koraniska vers säger faktiskt att en muslim inte får förena sig och etablera vänskap med sin egen familj om de är icke-muslimer:

58:22
Du kan inte finna [sådana] människor som tror på Gud och den Yttersta dagen och som [samtidigt] söker VÄNSKAP med dem som trotsar Gud och Hans Sändebud – INTE ENS OM DET GÄLLER DERAS EGEN FADER ELLER SON ELLER BROR ELLER [ANDRA] SOM STÅR NÄRA
. Det är i deras hjärtan som Han har skrivit in tron och de som Han har stärkt med Sin ande, och dem skall Han föra till lustgårdar, vattnade av bäckar, där de skall förbli till evig tid. Gud är nöjd med dem och de är nöjda [där de njuter] Hans [gåvor]. De är Guds trogna och Guds trogna skall det sannerligen gå väl i händer! (Mohammad Knut Bernström, Koranens budskap)

Islam förbjuder alltså en muslim att förena sig med icke-muslimer och ta de till vänner, även om de är hans familj, men det finns dock ett undantag. Följande koraniska vers säger nämligen att en muslim får förena sig med icke-muslimer och ta de till vänner om han fruktar "hot" från dem:  

3:28DE TROENDE skall inte ta förnekare av sanningen snarare än sina trosbröder till bundsförvanter - den som gör så skär av banden till Gud - om inte ert syfte är att med detta [skydda er] mot ett hot. Men Gud uppmanar er att inte ta lätt på Hans varningar; Gud är målet för er färd. (Mohammad Knut Bernström, Koranens budskap)

Muslimer får alltså inte ta icke-muslimer till vänner och beskyddare. Men om en muslim känner sig "hotad" då är det tillåtet för honom att begå "taqiyyah", vilket innebär att muslimen får ljuga om sin identitet, tycke och förhållningssätt till icke-muslimer. Hotet här innebär inte bara att muslimens liv står på spel, utan även att icke-muslimer börjar ana och ifrågasätta Islams hemska läror, som tillexempel den intoleranta föreskriften som förbjuder muslimer att etablera vänskap med icke-muslimer. Se vad exegeten Ibn Kathir rapporterar i sin utläggning av Koranen (3:28):

Förbud mot att stödja otroende
… Allah säger sedan,
(såvida du inte verkligen upplever en fara från dem) betyder, förutom de troende som i vissa områden eller tidpunkter fruktar för sin säkerhet från de otroende. I detta fall, är sådana troende tillåtna att visa vänskap till otroende ytligt, men aldrig i sitt inre. Till exempel, Al-Bukhari berättade att Abu Ad-Darda sa, "Vi ler i ansiktet på vissa människor fastän våra hjärtan förbannar de.'' Al-Bukhari sa att Al-Hasan sa: "Taqiyyah är tillåtet fram till uppståndelsens dag.''… [vår översättning]

Muslimer som befinner sig i ett land där Islam är en minoritet – exempelvis Sverige – får ljuga för icke-muslimer, ta de till vänner och därigenom dölja det faktum att Islam förbjuder muslimer att etablera vänskap med icke-muslimer. Notera även att Ibn Kathir åkallar Abu Ad-Darda (Muhammeds kompanjon) som säger att muslimerna brukade le i ansiktet på somliga icke-muslimer samtidigt som deras hjärtan förbannade dem. Detta koncept är tillåtet för muslimer att utöva fram till domedagen. 
Ibn Abbas, den första muslimska exegeten och Muhammeds kusin, säger följande om konceptet "taqiyyah" och versen ifråga:

… (såvida (det är) att ni garderar er mot de) skydda er själva från de, (ta det (som om det vore) säkerhet) rädda er från de genom att tala på ett vänligt sätt med dem, medan era hjärtan ogillar detta… [vår översättning] Länk

Ibn Abbas säger att en muslim kan "skydda sig" mot icke-muslimer genom att tala vänligt med de och därigenom få de att tro att han är deras vän, fastän han avskyr det. Detta visar att en muslim får ljuga för icke-muslimer i syfte att dölja Koranens intoleranta föreskrift som förbjuder honom att ta icke-muslimer till vänner.

Det finns mer. Muslimer får även ljuga och söka falsk vänskap med icke-muslimer i syfte att locka de till Islam. Se följande islamistiska hemsida – som utfärdar islamistiska juridiska utlåtanden – för bevis. En muslim frågar om det är tillåtet att vara vän med icke-muslimer. Hemsidan svarar att det inte är tillåtet och citerar koraniska verser samt andra autentiska källor. Sedan citerar hemsidan Sheikh Uthaymeen (död 2001), som anses vara en av århundradets främsta lärda muslimer. Han var även en salafi, vilket är en term som betonar de muslimer som noga följer de tre första generationerna muslimer. Han har skrivit omkring 50 böcker vad gäller islamistisk rättsvetenskap. Se vad Sheikh Uthaymeen säger om att söka vänskap med icke-muslimer:

"… Shaykh Muhammad al-Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (må Allah vara honom barmhärtig) blev tillfrågad om lagen att blanda sig med de otroende och behandla de väl i hopp om att de ska bli muslimer. Han svarade:

Muslimer är utan tvekan skyldiga att hata Allahs fiender och förkasta de, för att detta är budbärarnas handlingssätt och deras följares. Allah säger (tolkning av mening):
“Ett gott föredöme har ni verkligen i Abraham och de som följde honom, när de sade till sina landsmän: ‘Sannerligen, vi är inte ansvariga för er och för det som ni dyrkar vid sidan om Allah och vi har avvisat er, och det ska råda fiendskap och hat mellan oss och er ända till dess ni tror på Allah själv’”
[al-Mumtahanah 60:4] 

“Du (O Muhammed) kommer inte att finna människor som tror på Allah och den Sista dagen och som samtidigt söker vänskap med dem som trotsar Allah och Hans Budbärare (Muhammed), fastän det gäller deras egna fäder eller söner eller bröder eller andra som står dem nära. Det är i deras hjärtan som Han har skrivit in tron, och stärkt de med Ande (bevis, ljus och sann vägledning) från Honom.”
 [al-Mujaadilah 58:22] 

Utifrån detta är det inte tillåtet för en muslim att känna någon kärlek i sitt hjärta mot Allahs fiender som faktiskt också är hans fiender. Allah säger (tolkning av mening):

“O ni som tror! Ta inte mina fiender och era fiender (alltså otroende och avgudadyrkare) till vänskap, och visa inte dem affektion, medan de har avvisat den sanning som ni har fått del av”
[al-Mumtahanah 60:1] 

Men om en muslim behandlar de vänligt och godhetsfullt i hopp om att de ska bli muslimer och tro, då är det inget fel (med att ta de till vänner), för att det sker i syfte att öppna deras hjärtan för Islam. Men om han förtvivlar att de ska bli muslimer, då ska han behandla de följaktligen (enligt ovan). Detta är något som har diskuteras i detalj av de lärda, speciellt i boken Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah av Ibn al-Qayyim (må Allah vara honom barmhärtig)
Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 3, fråga nr. 389." [vår översättning] Länk

En muslim får inte bara ljuga när han fruktar sitt liv eller för att dölja Islams intoleranta föreskrifter, utan även i syfte att locka icke-muslimer till Islam!

Och enligt följande utlåtande från samma islamistiska hemsida får en muslim etablera vänskap med icke-muslimer om syftet är att bjuda in de till Islam, dock inte för vänskapens och nöjets skull:

"Prisad vare Allah.

Att äta med en otroende är inte förbjudet om det är nödvändigt att göra det, eller om det tjänar något för lagens intresse. Men de bör inte tas som vänner, så du bör inte äta med de utan någon laglig anledning eller utan något lagligt ändamål. Du bör inte sitta och chatta med de och skratta med dem. Men om det finns en anledning att göra det, till exempel att äta med en gäst, eller att bjuda in de till Islam eller att leda de till sanningen, eller om de finns någon annan laglig anledning, då är det okey… " [vår översättning] Länk

Kan det bli värre? Ja, det finns mer. Muslimer kan nämligen även muta och erbjuda icke-muslimer pengar för att locka de till Islam. Se följande vers och notera den understrukna delen:

9:60Offergåvorna är avsedda enbart för de fattiga och de nödställda och för dem som har hand om insamlandet av dem och för att vinna hjärtan [för tron]och för att friköpa människor ur fångenskap och slaveri och [för att lätta] de skuldtyngdas [bördor] och för [kampen för] Guds sak och för vandringsmannen. Detta har Gud föreskrivit; Gud är allvetande, vis. (Mohammad Knut Bernström, Koranens budskap)

Offergåvor ska alltså spenderas för att vinna hjärtan. Här följer Ibn Kathirs utläggning av den understrukna delen som tydliggör att dessa hjärtan bland andra är icke-muslimer som ges pengar för att på så sätt lockas in i Islam:

De anställda som samlar in allmosa 
… (Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum) Det finns flera typer av Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum. Det finns de som ges allmosa för att acceptera Islam… [vår översättning]

De två exegeterna Jalal håller med Ibn Kathir i deras utläggning av versen ifråga:

Den frivilliga allmosan, allmosan som ska delas ut, är endast för de fattiga… och de vars hjärtan bör förliknas, så att de kan bli muslimer, eller så att Islam kan etableras, eller att deras like kan bli muslimer… [vår översättning] Länk

Se även följande hadith som säger att Muhammed gav hedningarna från Quraysh förmögenheter så att de skulle bli muslimer:

Sahih Muslim
Book 5, Number 2303
Anas b. Malik rapporterade att Allah under Hunain dagen tilldelade sin apostel (må frid vara över honom) rikedomar tillhörande (stammen) Hawazin (utan beväpnat möte), Allahs budbärare (må frid vara över honom) delade ut 100 kameler till vissa personer i Quraish. I samband med detta sa (de unga från Ansar): må Allah förlåta Allahs budbärare (må frid vara över honom) för att han skänker (dessa kameler) till folk i Quraish och för att han ignorerade oss, medan våra svärd fortfarande droppar blod. Anas b. Malik sa: Deras uttalande förmedlades till Allahs budbärare (må frid vara över honom) och han skickade (någon) till Ansar och samlade de under ett tält av läder. När de hade samlats, kom Allahs budbärare (må frid vara över honom) till de och sa: Vad är det för nyheter som har nått mig angående er? De kloka människorna i Ansar sa: Allahs budbärare, de klocka bland oss har inte sagt någonting, men vi har bland oss omogna personer, de sa: Må Allah förlåta Allahs budbärare (må frid vara över honom) för att han gav till Quraish och ignorerade oss (trots) att våra svärd är fläckade med deras blod. I samband med detta sa Allahs budbärare (må frid vara över honom): Jag ger (ibland materiella gåvor) till personer som nyligen befinner sig i otro, så att jag kan göra de benägna till sanningen… [vår översättning]

Herren Jesus Kristus säger följande om pengar:

Matt 6:19-20, 22
Samla inte skatter här på jorden
, där mal och mask förstör och tjuvar bryter sig in och stjäl. Samla skatter i himlen, där varken mal eller mask förstör och inga tjuvar bryter sig in och stjäl. Ty där din skatt är, där kommer också ditt hjärta att vara… Ingen kan tjäna två herrar. Antingen kommer han att hata den ene och älska den andre eller att hålla fast vid den ene och inte bry sig om den andre. Ni kan inte tjäna både Gud och mammon. (Bibeln 2000)

Islam lär alltså ut att en muslim får (1) förneka sin tro när hans liv står på spel. (2) Ljuga för icke-muslimer i syfte att dölja Koranens intoleranta föreskrifter (3) och i syfte att locka de till Islam. Muslimen får även (4) ge icke-muslimer pengar i syfte att locka de till Islam. Det tar inte slut här.
Följande hadith säger att Muhammed tillät sin lärjunge att ljuga i syfte att bedra och mörda juden Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369
Berättad av Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allahs apostel sa, "Vem är villig att döda Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf som har skadat Allah och Hans apostel?" Muhammad bin Maslama steg upp och sa, "O Allahs apostel! Skulle du vilja att jag dödar honom?" Profeten sa, "Ja," Muhammad bin Maslama sa, "Tillåt mig i sådana fall att säga en (falsk) sak (alltså i syfte att lura Kab)." Profeten sa, "DU FÅR SÄGA DET."… [vår översättning]

Muhammed lärde vidare ut att krig handlar om vilseledning, lögn och bedrägeri:
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268
Berättad av Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle sa: "Krig är vilseledning" [vår översättning]

Muhammed lärde även ut att muslimer får ljuga för varandra:

Sahih Muslim
Book 032, Number 6303
Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf rapporterade att hans moder Umm Kulthum, dotter till 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, och hon var en av de första emigranterna som förpliktade trohet till allahs budbärare (må frid vara över honom), sa att hon hörde Allahs budbärare Allahs budbärare (må frid vara över honom) säga: En lögnare är inte någon som försöker bringa försnongin mellan folk och pratar (för att förhindra tvister), eller förmedlar gott. Ibn Shihab sa att han inte hörde att undantag beviljades vad gäller att ljuga annat än i tre fall: I strid, för att bringa försoning mellan personer och mannen när han pratar med sin hustru och hustrun när hon pratar med sin man(på ett vridet sätt för att uppnå försoning). [vår översättning]

Enligt ovannämnda hadith får muslimer ljuga i krig och för varandra i syfte att skapa försoning. Det är även tillåtet för två gifta par att ljuga för varandra i syfte att skapa försoning!

Herren Jesus säger att satan är lögnens fader:

Joh 8:44Ni har djävulen till fader, och ni vill göra vad er fader önskar. Han har varit en mördare från första början, och han står utanför sanningen därför att någon sanning inte finns i honom. När han ljuger talar han med egna ord, ty han är en lögnare och lögnens fader. (Bibeln 2000)

Iraqi Commentators Come to Blows Discussing the Legacy of Saddam Hussein (2011)



Archival
-
Transcript:

Following are excerpts from two Iraqi commentators discussing the legacy of Saddam Hussein on Democracy TV on April 13, 2011: Iraqi commentator A: I will chop off your tongue if you talk about Saddam... Iraqi commentator B: Eat shit, I will talk about Saddam... The two commentators proceed to exchange blows Title of show: "The Democratic Club" The voices of the two commentators are heard: Iraqi commentator A: Come here, you son of a bitch... You dog... You lowlife... Iraqi commentator ...
-
Please contact us for any queries.
Disclaimer: We do not share the views expressed but are simple render them accessible to larger audeince.
The Middle East Media Research Institute is a not-for-profit press monitoring and analysis organization with headquarters in Washington, DC

MTV's "Hey, White Guys" Parody - Julie Korowski

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Philippe Karsenty Speech - Aug 21, 2016 LA Conference

Funk Roberts: Burpees - How To Do Burpees and Avoid Common Injuries

Celebrities that Hate PC Culture Compilation

'You're Getting Wrecked, Son': Tucker Carlson Debates Affirmative Action At Harvard


Daniel Greenfield Moment: Do Only Muslim Lives Matter?

http://jamieglazov.com/2016/12/23/daniel-greenfield-moment-do-only-muslim-lives-matter/



DANIEL GREENFIELD MOMENT: DO ONLY MUSLIM LIVES MATTER?

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel.
Please donate through our Pay Pal account or GoFundMe campaign to help The Glazov Gang keep going. Thank you!
This special edition of the Glazov Gang is joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the editor of Frontpage’s blog, The Point.
Daniel discussed Do Only Muslim Lives Matter?, askingWho weeps for the Christians of Aleppo?
Don’t miss it!

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Sabaton - Sparta (Official Lyrics Video)

Democrat snaps at Trey Gowdy, instantly regrets it

Trey Gowdy gets a standing ovation in congress

Howard Bloom, Frontpage Magazine: What Drives The "Lone Wolves"?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265231/what-drives-lone-wolves-howard-bloom

WHAT DRIVES THE 'LONE WOLVES'?


Where do their ideas come from?

 

If you can kill a kafir [a person who does not believe in Islam] American or European…then rely upon Allah, and kill them in any manner possible. 
--Dabiq, the magazine of the Islamic State,  Issue 12, November 18, 2015
ISIS—the Islamic State—may be losing territory in Iraq and Syria, but it has spread its influence across the world, reaching Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, Ohio State University, and now Berlin.  How?  ISIS has turned murder into a DIY phenomenon.  A phenomenon filled with what Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of the organization that morphed into ISIS, called “the ecstasy of self-sacrifice and the pleasure of Jihad.”
The “caliphate” has used the Internet to reach out to people from 15 to 35 years old, instructing them on how to be a part of something we all need—something idealistic, something bigger than ourselves, something that gives our lives meaning, something that makes us heroes in the eyes of our fellow humans and gems in the eyes of whatever God we are devoted to. 
But jihadist Islam is able to offer something more: an express ticket to paradise.  The means to that palace in the heavens with rooms “made of green emerald and red ruby” and your very own 72 maidens whose virginity is instantly restored after the sexual act? “Kill and be killed.”  And where does the imperative to “kill and be killed” come from?  From Muhammad, the one true prophet of the only god, Allah.  It comes from Muhammad’s quandary in 1625, a dilemma that Muhammad faced at the Battle of Uhud, his second military engagement.
Muhammad was utterly unlike previous prophets.  He did not call himself a prophet of peace.  He called himself “nabiyyu ‘l-malhamah,” “the Prophet of War.”  Muhammad was the only prophet to command 65 military campaigns.  He was the only prophet to personally lead 27 of these military operations.  And he was the only prophet to conquer 317 square miles a day for eight years running.  How did Muhammad get into the business of killing?
Muhammad started out as a solid citizen of Mecca, a town in the vast barrens of what is today western Saudi Arabia.  When he was 40, Muhammad was sleeping in a mountain cave where he’d  gone to meditate for Ramadan when a force grabbed him around the ribs and crushed him three times so hard that, “I thought it was death.” A voice told him to read.  It was, he eventually concluded, the angel Gabriel delivering messages directly from God.
When Muhammad went home to Mecca and started preaching his Godly communiques, his fellow Meccans regarded him as a nuisance and a threat.  They conspired to kill him while he slept.  So Muhammad fled to the town of Yathrib, 280 miles up the road.  And a handful of followers fled with him.
To support his believers and to repay the citizens of Yathrib for their hospitality, Muhammad made a decision that would change the course of history.  He turned to violence. The caravans of Mecca carried precious cargos that included “frankincense, silk, precious metals and leather” 1,893 miles from the Indian Ocean ports of Yemen in the south across the barren sands and northwest to Damascus in the neighborhood of the Mediterranean Sea.  On their way home, the caravans carried their profits.  There was a popularly accepted taboo in the Arabian desert against attacking these lifelines of income.  And that taboo was multiplied when it came to the sacred months, a period of the year too holy for war.  But Muhammad decided to break with custom and raid these long lines of camels, cash, and a handful of merchants and  slaves.  Then some of his followers went the Prophet one better.  Writes Ibn Ishaq, the members of one of Mohammed’s raiding parties “agreed to slay as many of the” caravan riders “as they could.”  And they performed this killing despite the fact that it was a holy month in which killing was normally forbidden.  
Surprisingly, Muhammad did not chastise his men for this unnecessary slaughter.  He praised it.  He transformed killing innocent men into a holy and noble deed.  How? The victims were kafirs, unbelievers.  Thus was the virtue, the exaltation, and the godliness of killing those who do not believe in Islam established.
The owners of the caravans just happened to be the leading folks back in Muhammad’s hometown of Mecca.  These town fathers decided to stop Muhammad’s raids by eradicating the raiders.  But a strange thing happened when the Meccans, highly experienced in war, rode to Yathrib and attacked.  They were defeated.  Utterly.  Many were killed.  To add insult to injury, Muhammad had the bodies of the Meccans thrown into a well.
So the Meccans planned a second assault, this time with their numbers strengthened by allies.  Muhammad knew the Meccans were coming. He donned two coats of mail and a helmet held on with an iron-chain chin strap, strapped on his sword, his bow, and his bulging arrow case, then positioned his forces with their backs to a mountain.  But there was a problem.  The mountain of Uhud had a double hump.  The Meccans could come through the pass between the two humps and attack Muhammed’s men from the rear.  So Muhammad positioned archers at the pass.
At first, Muhammad’s troops drove the Meccans from the battlefield.  Exultant with their victory, Muhammad’s warriors stooped to strip the Meccan bodies of their expensive weapons and clothes, a “gift” Muhammad in the Qur’an called “Bounty from Allah.” Plunder and its distribution would become so important to Islam that it is the subject of an entire chapter of the Qur’an, Chapter 8—Al Anfal, “The Spoils of War.”  When Muhammad’s archers saw their fellow soldiers scooping up the loot, they ran to the battlefield to pluck their share before nothing was left.  This was a mistake.  The Meccans doubled around the mountain, filed through the pass, and descended on the Muslims from behind.  What did Muhammad’s stalwart troops do?  They fled, leaving Muhammad alone on the battlefield with only one body guard. 
How could Muhammad prevent future disasters like the Battle of Uhud?  How could he make sure that his men stayed on the battlefield killing the enemy even if it meant certain death?  Muhammad (or Allah) came up with the idea of an express ticket to paradise for men who die “killing and being killed.”  Specifically, killing kafirs, unbelievers.  And Muhammad added one more vital detail.  The Muslim paradise was not like the dull and boring Christian heaven where you sat at the feet of God singing his praises day after day.  Muhammad said that, “chairs made of pearl are arranged for the martyrs and the maidens with big lustrous eyes will get down from their upstairs rooms.”   These “large-eyed maidens” will be more delicious than anything you’ve ever seen on earth.   They will be “beautiful,”  “full-breasted,”   “eternally young,” with “wide and beautiful/lovely eyes”  Muhammad put sex in paradise.
And more.  The Prophet made killing a pleasure. He said, “I wish I could be killed in the Way of Allah, then live again so that I may be killed again, then live again so that again I may be killed, then live again so that again I may be killed.”  Why?  Added Muhammad, killing unbelievers and using “great slaughter” to “thoroughly subdue the land” pleases God.
Holiness, righteousness, manners, and decency in Islam are based on the example set by Muhammad.   According to one of Muhammad’s many Islamic biographers, “Sincerely tread the footsteps of Allah’s final Messenger [Muhammad]… observe his glorious actions and attitudes, and most important of all follow them.”  
Today, hundreds of millions of Muslims model their lives on the example the prophet set during his years of peace.  They model themselves  on the tolerance and pluralism Muhammad showed in the days before his move to Yathrib and the commencement of his military campaigns.  But others model themselves on the period of the Prophet’s life in which he became addicted to the systematic use of what he called “slaughter” and “terror.”
No wonder ISIS is able to motivate Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik in San Bernardino, Omar Mateen in Orlando, Abdelhamid Abaaoud in Paris, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel in Nice, Abdul Razak Ali Artan at Ohio State, and the still-uncaught truck killer in Berlin to use trucks, knives, guns, and explosives to perform what Dabiq proudly calls “massacre.”  No wonder these young idealists value death more than you and I value life.
These warriors are following the example of Muhammad, "by whose sword Allah exalted the light of Islam."

Raymond Ibrahim, Frontpage Magazine: Christian Worship is "Worse Thank Murder and Bloodshed"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265228/christian-worship-worse-murder-and-bloodshed-raymond-ibrahim

CHRISTIAN WORSHIP IS ‘WORSE THAN MURDER AND BLOODSHED’

Another Islamic teaching behind the slaughter of Christians.

 

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
For an idea on why Egypt’s Coptic Christians and their churches are constantly under attack—most recently last Sunday, when a church was bombed, killing at least 25 Christians—one need merely listen to the words and teachings of some of the nation’s Muslim preachers.
Take Dr. Ahmed al-Naqib, for instance.  He has studied at the best Islamic madrassas, including Al Azhar, authored numerous books on doctrine, received awards and decorations for his academic achievements, and regularly appears on television.  In one video he appears discussing an earlier Muslim mob attack on a church in Egypt, which the media and government always denounce as fitna, an Arabic word that means temptation or discord and which Islam commands Muslims to oppose.
Citing revered Islamic texts including the Koran, Dr. Naqib explained that the open display of shirk—the greatest sin in Islam, associating someone else with God, which the Koran accuses Christians of doing via the Trinity—“is the worst form of fitna, worse than murder and bloodshed.”
In other words, and as he went on to make perfectly clear in the remainder of the video, fitna (or discord) is not when Muslims attack Christian churches—far from it—but rather when Christians are allowed to flaunt their shirk (or “blasphemies”) in churches near Muslims.  Fighting that—even to the point of “murder and bloodshed”—is preferable.
Then there’s Dr. Yasser Burhami, the face of Egypt’s Salafi movement, who is as well credentialed and prolific as Naqib: he’s on record saying that, although a Muslim man is permitted to marry Christian or Jewish women, he must make sure he still hates them in his heart—and always shows that he hates them—because they are infidels; otherwise he risks compromising his Islam.
As for churches, Burhami once issued a fatwa forbidding Muslim taxi and bus drivers from transporting Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as “more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar.”
But it’s not just “radical” or Salafi sheikhs who make such hateful pronouncements.  Even so-called “moderate” Islamic institutions, such as Al Azhar’s Dar al-Ifta, issued a fatwa in August 2009 likening the building of a church to “a nightclub, a gambling casino, or building a barn for rearing pigs, cats or dogs.”
Such analogies are not original to the Salafis or Dar al-Ifta but rather trace back to some of Islam’s most revered doctrinaires, including Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim.  They taught that “building churches is worse than building bars and brothels, for those [churches] symbolize infidelity, whereas these [bars and brothels] represent immorality.”
One can go on and on with examples of Muslim clerics and institutions inciting—with absolute impunity—against Christians and their churches in Egypt.   Many secular and/or moderate Egyptians agree.  For instance, back in 2014, Muslim Brotherhood supporters mauled and murdered a woman after her cross identified her as a Christian.  Soon thereafter, an Egyptian op-ed titled “Find the True Killer of Mary” argued that:
Those who killed the young and vulnerable Mary Sameh George, for hanging a cross in her car, are not criminals, but rather wretches who follow those who legalized for them murder, lynching, dismemberment, and the stripping bare of young Christian girls—without ever saying [the word] “kill.”  [Islamic cleric] Yassir Burhami and his colleagues who announce their hate for Christians throughout satellite channels and in mosques—claiming that hatred of Christians is synonymous with love for God—they are the true killers who need to be tried and prosecuted.
One can say the same thing about the suicide-bombing of St. Peter’s cathedral.
In short, until such time comes that the Egyptian government removes the “radical” sheikhs and their teachings from the mosques, schools, television stations and all other positions of influence, Muslims will continue to be radicalized, churches will continue to be bombed, and Christians will continue to be killed.