The "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights" Under Shari'a…

Dare to compare: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the garbage from the Islamic usurpers who seek to replace it: “Human Rights” under shari’a  would reduce the whole concept to worthless drivel…

Related: Rifqa Bary Death Threat: Exhibit A, The Document: FATWA (Death Penalty) for Apostasy

iran_execution-thumb-510x446

Apostasy and the Islamic Nations

By Andrew G. Bostom

The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”, was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of theOrganization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Now a 57 state collective which includes every Islamic nation on earth, the OIC, currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim umma (or global community of individual Muslims), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations (UN).

The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism, (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation ever brought forth to men…you believe in Allah“), and states,

“Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation…”


The preamble continues,

“Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible  —  and the Ummah collectively responsible  —  for their safeguard.”

In its concluding articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains, [article 24], “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’a”; and [article 25] “The Islamic Shari’a is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.”

These statements capture the indelible influence of the Islamic religious law Shari’a — the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on “divine revelation,” which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions the gross inequalities inherent in the Shari’a, and its Western human rights counterparts (the US Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, and stress the absolute equality of all human beings.

Enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights is the guarantee that laws may not be made that interfere with religion “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”. Absent the right to freedom of thought, or conscience, other rights such as the right to freedom of speech are rendered meaningless. US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo reasoned elegantly inPalko v. Connecticut (1937) that,

“Freedom of thought… is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal.”

This principle of freedom of conscience is also upheld in article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which further makes explicit the fundamental right to changeone’s religion,

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The gravely negative implications of the OIC’s Shari’a-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims:

“Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature.  It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.”

Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called “apostates” from Islam:


“[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’a.”
“[22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’a.
[22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’a.
[22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.”

Punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted in Islam’s foundational texts — both the Koran (verses such as 2:217 , 4:89, and their classical exegesis by renowned Koranic commentators such as Qurtubi, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir, and Suyuti) and the hadith (i.e., collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as compiled by pious Muslim transmitters), as well as the sacred Islamic Law (the Shari’a). For example, Muhammad is reported to have said “Kill him who changes his religion,” in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali,  Hanafi, and Shafi’i), as well as Shi’ite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy:

“An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din [religion]’…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution.”

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, ‘Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states:

“Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”

This doctrinal and historical legitimacy of Shari’a-mandated killing of apostates from Islam is affirmed by Heffening in his scholarly review for the authoritative, mainstream academic reference work, the Encyclopedia of Islam:

“In Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) , there is unanimity that the male apostate must be put to death…A woman, on the other hand, is imprisoned…until she again adopts Islam, ..[or] she also is put to death.” [Heffening, W. “Murtadd.” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs.]

As noted by historian David Littman, writing in early 1999, Adama Dieng, then a prominent Muslim Senegalese jurist, alerted the international community to the Cairo Declaration’sprofoundly dangerous impact. Dieng, speaking for the International Commission of Jurists and the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights at the Commission on Human Rights in February, 1992, decried the Cairo Declaration, which under the rubric of Shari’a, deliberately restricted certain fundamental freedoms and rights – most notably, freedom of conscience. He also argued that the Cairo Declaration introduced “in the name of defense of human rights,” unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, while sanctioning the legitimacy of heinous practices — Shari’a-compliant punishments (from corporal punishments, to mutilation, and stoning) — “which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.”

Pew Survey data published just this past August 13, 2009 reflect, starkly, the depth  and prevalence of popular support among the Muslim masses for these hideous views — sanctioned by their theo-political Islamic leadership within the OIC — and antithetical to our foundational Western freedoms. Specifically, the Pew findings reveal that among Pakistani Muslims, there is

“…broad support for harsh punishments: 78% favor death for [apostates] those who leave Islam; 80% favor whippings and cutting off hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and 83% favor stoning adulterers.”

These hard data provide a clear, irrefragable global context for any rational, objective consideration of the ongoing plight of apostates from Islam, such as 17 year-old Rifqa Bary.

Shame on all those in our government, law enforcement, and chattering classes who willfully ignore this context.

13 Comments on “Apostasy and the Islamic Nations

19 thoughts on “The "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights" Under Shari'a…”

  1. Andrew Bostom, who activelly become the news and thus impartial in the Rafiqa Bary case, yet again is doing a piss-poor effort in trying to be logical.

    The above justification for condemning the Cairo Protocol (that places responsibility in Muslim countries to follow in parallel the UN Human Rights Charter, is that the US Bill of Rights does not accept the link between religion and government.

    Though “In God We Trust” and most schools and swearing in at courts all have a “So help me God”, Bostom wishes to link the American way of doing things with some international norm or standard. It simply does not stick, is unworkable and just a continuence of the very arrogant if not bigoted Americana-chauvenism that thankfully was killed off by sensible US voters last November.

  2. There is no doubt that Apostacy is a serious subject within Islam and debated constantly, not that Bostom, the quasi-would-be academic Spencer or the strange and absurd Gellar may try and deny.

    Yes there are many Muslim countries that will either execute or put a blind-eye to the murder of apostates. The Qur’an does not demand nor support it but it certainly does say that apostacy is a very dangerous and bad thing and certainly there is an emphasis in the Qur’an to the importance of family and community unity, often at the cost of some individuality – if it came down to a serious situation and a choice.

    Most Muslim countries though have a law in place (remembering that Shari’a Law is not in the majority of countries) that deals with apostacy and public attacking of Islam, with the most serious being an apostate using his “ex Muslim status” to attack Islam. Though changing, it is still a serious charge with stiff prison penalties, but if made public. The fact is there are many Muslims that are not really believers and they go on with their lives, they do not go to the Mosque, do not care about religion and that is fine – but is it? Everyone has families and that is the point in Islam, that one may chose not to believe, but if it hurts his family it is considered important. The family comes first. Also in the majority of Muslim countries, the family is everything and being a loner or “I live by myself” is not either common nor popular. Many Muslims that return from living the west usually say that their reasons for coming back was that they hated being alone and away from their family and strong family values.

    The punative laws that include death are becoming less and less for apostacy, as western habits infiltrate cities in Muslim countries, the more loners and families that jointly do not care about religion grows, the more apostacy will happen and nothing will be done about it, but with a gulf between the cities that allow it and the rural communities whom are the last to grasp it. There will be more and more examples of it.

    The last issue is of course Muslims living in the west, and how the clash of culture and values breaks-up that all-important family value. The Bari case is both unique and common. It is common to see a young girl growing up in the west but with a family obviously still steeped in the strong traditons and family value structure from back home and when she steps out of it – probably due to peer pressure – the problem starts.

    It is also unique in that agenda based and evangelical groups have been involved. She may or may not have chosen, but certainly a religous group activelly prosthelitized and then made more of it and then Bostom and Gellar and their agenda-based hate groups capitalised and made more of it, as Michael Kruse correctly said, involving themselves to the point of becoming a part of the story.

    1. Solker sez:

      There is no doubt that Apostacy is a serious subject within Islam and debated constantly,kills people, not that Solkar, the quasi-would-be academic Spencer or the strange and absurd Gellar may try to deny and deceive us with… sugarcoated Islamo BS-propaganda…

      see, fixed it for you!

  3. Here are just a few views of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by leading Islamic religious authorities:
    — 1981 – Iranian rep to UN: “UDHR is a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition” which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.

    — AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI: “What they call human rights is nothing but a collection of corrupt rules worked out by the Zionists to destroy all true religions.”

    — AYATOLLAH MOUSSAVE-KHOMENEHI: When we want to find out what is right and what is wrong we do not go to the United Nations; we go to the Holy Koran…”

    — MUHAMMED NACERI, member of Morocco Council of Religious Scholars:
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was for complete equality for man and women. For us, women are equal to men in law, but they are not the same as men, and they can’t be allowed to wander around freely in the streets like some kind of animal.”

    — Iranian Supreme Leader and former Iranian president, ALI KHAMENEI, said: “When we want to find out what is right and what is wrong we do not go to the United Nations; we go to the Holy Koran. For us, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nothing but a collection of mumbo-jumbo by disciples of Satan.”

    — ABUL MAUDUDI — perhaps the most widely read, respected and influential Islamic writer of the 20th Century, said: “When we speak of human rights in Islam, we mean those rights granted by God. “

  4. In God we trust & the free world has a different meaning that in the Islamic world.

    The difference is this, The free world, You believe in God & you do not need to obey your rulers. You do what is right by god & no one should tell you other wise. If the ruler is bad, change it, If the law is bad, amend it.

    A very good example is the Texas Education System, I am personally connected with the people there & they have the most amazing concept of education, beats any other education system in the world. The second that came close is Ethiopia.

    In the Islamic world, Muslims have no choice but to submit to Allah by the definition of the Rulers. This makes them inflexible to speak up & stand for what they believe in even if they are right.

    There are many meets among muslims to discuss the authenticity of the koran & the sharia laws over the pass 1000 years. And every meetup decision was overrun by the elders that are the rulers or connected to them directly.

    How is it possible to correct a mistake that was made or to undo a lie? This problem will plague the islamic nation making the rulers rich & greedy while diminishing the intellectuals and making the majority poor & followers.

    The Universal Human rights declaration has a double meaning. And the English translation is totally wrong. Please re read it in Arabic & other middle eastern languages.

  5. tjwork,

    I disagree with you on the subject of debate and reform in Islam. It is only the last 30 years since the Iranian revolution that thought and debate has been pushed out in most places.

    But some of that has become moot, as not all countries are theocracies or dominated by the clerical world. That is often forgotten in debating the general subject of the behaviour or actions of the Muslim World. Governments and most nations are not run by clerics and the debate is not worked on publically because simply the governments chose to do it by their interpretations anyhow.

    Another point is I would be interested in your definition of “the free world” and also how you came about the phrase that there is no freedom because Muslims submit to Allah’s will. Muslims are certainly free to think and act as they see fit, the net result is when you face God in the hereafter. I would argue that devout Christians do exactly the same thing, it is only that the media capitalizes on translations of Arabic and Qur’anic phrases – that it is said clear – we are all (those believing in God) following or submitting to the will of God.

    I would agree with some of those quotes about the Declaration of Human Rights and would add that it was written up by western powers, just like the structure of the UN and it is needed to reformed to reflect the values of all the peoples on the globe, not just a certain portion. I do agree, that because of the flawed UN structure, we now also have the Arab/Muslim world dominating much of the committees which is as wrong and flawed as it was in the past when they were not represented at all.

    1. Solker sez:

      “I disagree with you on the subject of debate and reform in Islam. It is only the last 30 years since the Iranian revolution that thought and debate has been pushed out in most places.

      The jihad may have been dormant, solker, but it never went away. That’s why Constantinople fell 500 years ago, the barbarians besieged Vienna 300 years ago and America had to fight the Barbary wars 200 years ago. The last ‘reform’ of Islam came via Abdul Wahab, and if anything, he gave us an extra dose of the ‘correct’ Islam, not your blue-eyed, piss-weak version. If I remember correctly, according to Islamic jurisprudence the gates of Itjihad are closed since 800 years, the Koran is immutable and those who try to change even one word must be killed.

      “But some of that has become moot, as not all countries are theocracies or dominated by the clerical world. That is often forgotten in debating the general subject of the behaviour or actions of the Muslim World”

      “Not all countries are theocracies or dominated by the clerical world”- sounds like ‘tiny minority of extremists, can’t blame the religion of 1.5 gazillion muslims for a few bad apples, etc etc, what it really means is: most Islamic countries are ruled by despots, who seek to be legitimized by the clergy. These same despotic rulers support the jihad against he outside world as long as its not their throat or head that’s being cut off.

      As soon as the clerics get the upper hand, you will see more places like Iran.

  6. So PEA BRAIN Sulkher do you think the fact that the BARBARIC Shariah Law is not in force in ALL Islamic countries is a good thing or a bad thing.
    This is YET ANOTHER question I bet you have no coherent answer for.

  7. Please also tell us PEA BRAIN how you can reform the ‘ACTUAL UNALTERABLE word ‘ of your so called God?
    Look out for more Taqqiya or as usual the Mohammedan RUN AWAY from the troll.

  8. Andrew Bostom, Solker the mohammedan Gestapo commisar who activelly become the news and thus impartial in the Rafiqa Bary case, yet again is doing a piss-poor effort in trying to be logical.

    The above justification for condemning the Cairo Protocol (that places responsibility in Muslim countries to follow in parallel the UN Human Rights Charter, is that the US Bill of Rights does not accept the link between religion and government.)

    Not, solker.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: read it. Suck it in. Breath it. Begin to understand it.

    Then dare to compare that with the idiotic ‘Cairo Declaration of Human Rights” which make a mockery of everything because it would subject all humanity to the shari’a. Even you would have to admit that if that came to pass, the world would be a nightmare. A mohammedan hell.

  9. Solkhar the blasphemer and crucifixion denier wrote “Muslims are certainly free to think and act as they see fit, the net result is when you face God in the hereafter.”

    Yes, Solkhar, in a nutshell! For muslims, the “net result” is the lake of
    fire, forever – not the time-limited version that you were peddling in
    here. Islam – on borrowed time – Ezekiel 38 & 39 is its “useby date”.

  10. More blasphemy from Solkhar: “we are all (those believing in God) following or submitting to the will of God.”

    No, Solkhar – you refuse to follow God and to submit to His will and
    purpose by (a) denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and (b)
    denying that He was crucified for your sins.

    You are a fraud, Solkhar, in everything that you say and do – there
    is no truth in anything you post – you are a shapeshifting illusion in
    allah’s Hall of Mirrors, mocking and blaspheming against Jesus Christ,
    and hating those who preach His gospel.

  11. Dear Shiek, I posted many comments, But some did not appear here, I posted it before the site went down.

    Solkhar,

    If you read my comments before, I have established myself to seek the truth, good or bad. The point Im making is that Islam that was practiced before was not the same today. To fill in the gaps, people in power in the islamic empire carefully chose & created a set of rules that would established their rule.

    Hence you will find several versions of the koran & disputed verses etc. These are not made by the non muslims, but muslims themselves.

    A good example is the axis of the schools of taught. Every school of taught believes in something & each calls the other the wrong believe.

    The thin line of any of these reforms are always in lieu with the rulers. Note that the rulers are always the leaders or keepers of islam in a country or nation. Thanks to the Othoman empire, they eliminated other rulers’ versions altogather.

    Come to think about it, muhammad had friends that consumed alchohol, that are muslims. His good friend, while drunk killed his camel for he thought was making fun of him. And even when muhammad died, his companions did not give out alchohol.

    Date wine was very popular in arab, they love grape wine but hated the trade monopoly of the arak (from the jews), hence he discouraged them from buying it from them. (remember, arak is known as alcohol today was just known as a drink manufactured by the jews, not all alcoholic drinks)

    But we see the laws of consuming alcohol changed. It was after one of muhammads friends blabbered soemthing loud while drunk & the caliph decided to whip him for slandering, not for consuming alcohol.

    So, this is a classic case of misconception. We have a story in how this relates & its known in general.

    However, many attempts to correct this was hit hard, even if they know what was wrong.

    Many other examples, this is pretty agreeable by many muslims to start with.

    The free world is a loosely definition of a nation not controlled by a religion that enforces rules to obey religion & the ruler as well other matters that keeps the people without an opportunity to voice.

    Practically, most muslims countries & some african countries belong here. I could have burma in here, but its strictly a different issue.

    We see a trend going on here, People want change.

    When they cant change for good, they loose all hope to change & the answer of this is to suppress. This is psychology 101.

    A vague example would be:
    10 Monkeys in a room with bananas in the middle, if any monkey gets the banana, the rest is electrocuted, shocked with the intention to drive severe pain over a decision. So, If any monkey goes to get it, they beat up the one. However, take one monkey out & put in a new monkey in. The new one would rush to the bananas but would be beaten by the rest. He wont know for what he got bashed but he learns fast & wont touch the bananas. Now, replace each monkey every week & by a year, none will know what they are doing but they know bananas are bad.

    This is the closest simple example I see in the Islamic world today. The christian worlds had divided & attacked itself critically bringing religion own to its knees & reform it to be more open & less oppressive. It has taken a huge toll & several battles but they won the war.

    Time is their essence & being in the religion game for a while, they mature & evolved.

    However, The arabs rulers have this trait of hatred towards the west. Deep inside them they feel frustrated on why the west beat them & since they lost, the kept whatever they can & minimize the damage, at the expense of the people. Corruption had plagued them so badly that reforms becomes a question of throwing the ruler away.

    No, In islamic countries, You could not question anything that contradicts to islam or sharia. It is not possible to say One does not decent from Adam & Eve in principle to make a clear case.

    But a Talking snake? Jins? Devils? Give me a break!

  12. “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.”

    In effect, outlawing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and setting the stage
    for Antichrist, though I don’t know how muslims will take to the appearance of the second beast, the False Prophet – Mo isn’t bad at being a false prophet, but no match for A/C and his partner.

    Now, while FGM isn’t “mandated” in islam, & is “cultural”, MultiCulti
    SA is urging “cultural sensitivity” when dealing with refugees who refuse to obey Australian laws and seek to mutilate their daughter’s
    genitals. At least, the threat of FGM on return to (islamic) hellholes
    shouldn’t be the basis for asylum, if the seeker is just as likely to be
    mutilated here as in hellhole of origin…

    ( news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26112240-5006301,00 )
    Genital mutilation is ‘culturally sensitive’

    MILES KEMP
    September 23, 2009 12:01am

    A REPORT which advocated “cultural sensitivity” when dealing with refugees who subject their daughters to genital mutilation drawn angry criticism.

    UniSA child protection expert Professor Freda Briggs has criticised the views of departmental officials in the report, saying the practice is illegal torture and the perpetrators should be charged immediately by police, without any sensitivity.

    The report, carried out by other UniSA child protection experts and commissioned by the Department of Families and Communities, found a number of child abuse workers identified “excessive physical discipline” and “female genital mutilation” which required “sensitive responses from Families SA when dealing with these issues”.

    “While some staff see that (mutilation) as very wrong, we need to be very sensitive how we deal with that issue,” the report states.
    […]

    Suicide bombings, beheadings, burkas, halal food sacrificed to idols,
    ramavan, no go areas, footbaths & “prayer” rooms and all the rest of
    the “culturally sensitive” baggage are being foisted onto this nation,
    with few politicians having the balls (left-leaning or otherwise) to
    just say “No!”.

  13. tjwork,

    I appreciate and understand your train of thought but I will add some things taht you may know, find interesting or not.

    First of all, there are not that many differing versions of the Qur’an. Almost the entire bulk of the Muslim world reads only the one version of the Qur’an, called the Othmani Qur’an, that was produced into the book form 19 years after the death of Mohammed. Thos other variations are only used by schism groups not considered main-stream or accepted by other Muslims (Ismailis for example). I support the originality of the Othmani Qur’an, the checks and balances to ensure the originality is credibile and well documented.

    It is the subject of haddiths that is disputed and debated and the cause of all problems. It is the accepting of some by one group and denouncing as heretical by others that makes for all these disputes and differences. Shi’ites and Sunnis read the same Qur’an but accept completely different haddiths.

    The subject of discussion, interpretation and debate was well in place in the main Schools of Jurispudence and Thought since they were established, with the oldest being built in Fez and Cairo from the 9th centuries till this very day – but with varying levels of debate depending on local politics and it is this word that is the key.

    Yes rulership by leaders obviously put their views as prime and tried to often eradicate alternative views, supressing one group while raising another. This is a global phenomenum, not only in the Muslim World.

    It would be correct though to say that debate, interpretations and study was still on the whole, open, transparent, allowed until the 1880s and it began to slow down until 1920s and then gone by 1962. Factors for the demise would include, as you mentioned the Ottomans forcing their views and basically sacking Mecca (a not well known fact that they took historical documents and relics back to Istanbul and pushed Hannafi and Maliki Islamic values on a non-receptive world and that is why the Othmani Qur’an and artifacts from Mohammed and the first four Imams are in Istanbul and not Mecca or Medina).

    There are other factors as well, a major one being colonization and western political and military dominance. They automatically (and logically) supressed both local political and religous leadership to ensure their own control and thus the lines of communications between the schools and academics was severely cut. At the same time, such supression automatically creates a climate for more radical and political values and especially their combining together. The Brotherhood’s creation is the singular best example of that.

    In fact the Brotherhood and later on the infamous Grand Mufti of Egypt’s collaboration with Nazism and creating (until this day) the politics of anti-Jewish rhetoric comes from Al Azhar being deprived of its historic link with open debate in Al Quarouin (Fez) and to a lesser degree the schools in Damascus and Istanbul. Travel and communications was severely restricted and local politics (anti colonial power, the increased Jewish lobby and discussions about handing over Palestine to the Jews etc, the more radical clerics without that history of debate took over.

    After colonization, the cold-war took place and the “new leaders” of the Muslim world were either political radicals, military dictators, political upper class educated and sponsored by their previous colonizer or a cold-war player and to they had to deal with mulitiple issues let alone dealing with increased isolationist and radical religious belief. They mostly chose supression and that proved costly, with only in the Maghreb and Turkey did they have a form of colaboration and limitation. Saudi Arabia itself took on authoritarian and radicalislm mixed with tribal values.

    The 1978-9 revolution in Iran insured that radical clerics and militant revolutionaries combined and it was a precedent that we have suffered to this day. The year after the Wahhabists threatened the same thing in Saudi and the then King caved in. The vacuum created by the cold-war also allowed for many places in the developing world to succumb to radicals supported by the lack of authorities, iliterates looking for leadership and a moutain of weapons and trained fighters to prop up the first radical leader to come.

    Thinks are certainly not good.

    A point of interest, it does not say in the Qur’an that drinking of wine or alcohol is forbidden or haram, but it basically says that one cannot be in touch with God and doing one’s spiritual duties if one is drunk – that they are diametrically apposed to each other.

  14. * A point of interest, it does not say in the Qur’an that drinking of wine or alcohol is forbidden or haram …

    Welcome back to allah’s Hall of Mirrors – illusions, distortions, mandates, counter mandates and all the baggage this satanic “religion” seeks to bind its slaves with. From a “prominent Saudi scholar” – a warning against buying, selling, carrying, serving, making or drinking alcohol including bio-fuel containing ethanol …

    ( alarabiya.net/articles/2009/02/19/66803 )
    [Sheikh Mohamed Al-Najimi, member of the Saudi Islamic Jurisprudence Academy, based his statement on a saying by the prophet that prohibited all kinds of dealings with alcohol including buying, selling, carrying, serving, drinking, and manufacturing, the Saudi newspaper Shams reported Thursday.

    Saudi and Muslim youth studying abroad would violate the prohibition if they used bio fuel, he said, since it “is basically made up of alcohol.”]

    Alcohol may or may not be prohibited in the koran or in statements
    by the false prophet, but bondage and slavery to allah is mandatory.

    Spin it, Solkhar!

  15. “halal food sacrificed to idols” – no such thing.

    I repeat, the Qur’an does not say anything about the banning of alcohol, but it does say that alcohol makes the person as far away from God and Godliness that there can be. The various “Sunnah” which is still being debated but generally accepted may say otherwise. I am pointing out facts of what is and what is not in the Qur’an, what is important is accuracy and not the usual right-wing agenda based inspired BS.

  16. The quran does not say anything about the banning of alcohol, but it does say that alcohol makes the person as far away from God and Godliness that there can be. Repeat, alcohol makes the person as far away from God and Godliness that there can be. Sulka is right, what is important is accuracy and not the usual mind numbing bias based inspired BS. Repeat, inspired Bullshit…

Comments are closed.