Egypt's Mufti Ali Gomaa Threatens Israel on Behalf of 1.5 Gazillion Muslims

From our “who speaks for Islam” series:

“All your holy Jewish sites are belong to us”

Sarkasm aside, you can rest assured that the  the wife-beatin’, profit’s excrement’s & urine slurping, statue-hatin’ Mufti Ali Gomaa,  grand mufti of Al Azhar  speaks for a lot more Muslims than that Georgetown prostitute Johnny Esposito or the Muhammad glorifying  ex-nun Koran Armstrong.

Egypt’s Mufti threatens Israel (Elder of Zion)

The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Dr. Ali Gomaa, who is considered a moderate cleric, (by whom?)  said on Saturday that “the grave violations against holy sites” in Jerusalem requires urgent international Islamic intervention.

He said that Israel’s temporary closing of the ramp to the Mughrabi Gate on the Temple Mount – which Muslims do not use – was the latest violation against the sanctity of Jerusalem.

Presumably these “grave violations” also include the fact that Jews are allowed, with severe restrictions, to visit their own holiest site.

“Muslim feelings hurt”

Gomaa further warned that if Israel would continue to ignore their feelings, it would feel the wrath of one and a half billion angry Muslims. 

In related news:

Translating Jihad: One man, one vote, one time…… (what did you expect?)

Are Egyptians Using Democracy to Vote Against Democracy?

Egyptian Parliamentary Candidate: Democracy and Islam Are Completely Incompatible

He said it. If I said that, the do-gooders, the progressives & the Muselmaniacs would shout me down as a ‘racist bigot Islamophobe’- how does this guy get away with it?

In the video clip above, Egyptian Nur Party parliamentary candidate Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Mun’im al-Shahat explains in 2010 that democracy (including elections) and Islam are completely incompatible.


Why Egyptians are voting for the Muslim Brotherhood:

  • Fear of Punishment by Allah. Many Egyptian Muslims feel that Allah will punish them if they do not choose an ‘Islamic’ party, as Allah will see this as rejection of religion.

Many in the West have praised the “Arab Spring” as a pro-democracy movement, and are encouraged by the fact that elections in Egypt have (ostensibly) been largely free and fair. In the face of big victories by Islamist parties, some have even gone so far as to argue that the results are largely irrelevant; instead the “value lies in the integrity of the process” (1).

But what if voters use their new-found political freedom to vote for candidates who are expressly opposed to democracy and even the very electoral process they are attempting to ride to power? This is exactly what is happening with the unexpected electoral success of the Islamist Nur Party.

Most Egypt-watchers have been surprised by the electoral success of the Nur Party. Current estimates put the party’s electoral gains at over 20% of the votes in the parliamentary elections, second only to the Muslim Brotherhood’s (another hard-line Islamist party, which however knows better how to speak soothing words to the West) estimated 40-50%.

The Nur Party’s long-standing opposition to democracy is well-known in Egypt. See the below 2010 video from one of its leaders–popular tele-shaykh ‘Abd-al-Mun’im al-Shahat–who was himself a candidate for parliament in the Alexandria region:

This is not just some embarrassing clip from long ago which was brought up in the electoral process in order to derail al-Shahat’s campaign. When asked about his position on democracy and elections just a few weeks ago, al-Shahat responded that he continues to maintain the same opinion, namely that democracy is “disbelief   in Allah (kufr) and forbidden (haraam).” However, to justify his candidacy in the elections, he offered his opinion that “Egyptian-style democracy is permissible, while Western democracy is disbelief in Allah” (2).

Perhaps explaining what al-Shahat meant by ‘Western democracy,’ other Nur Party candidates have affirmed that “the understanding of democracy with the meaning of people ruling themselves is disbelief in Allah.” They also went further, arguing that democracy was merely “Masonic-Jewish propaganda” (3). One of the candidates also praised Saudi Arabia’s application of Shari’ah-law penalties, which are generally much harsher than what Egypt experienced under Mubarak.

So the question remains:  if citizens use their freedom to elect tyrants worse than the one they overthrew, can that really be counted as progress?