To anyone still wondering whether theÂ sodomy fatwaÂ is a hoax — though I alreadydismantled the chargeÂ — here is anÂ interesting commentÂ at Daniel Pipes’ web site, obviously written by an Arabic speaker, which offers more links and proofs that the sodomy fatwa is no hoax:
There is so much in the Arabic language web about information about this strange fatwa
I do not have any doubt that there is such fatwa and it is strange and disgusting but true
Now how about the strange name of Hamd Abu al-Dima’ al-Qasab or Hamd the father of blood who cuts (chops) but that does not mean very much as it is not unusual that fatwas can be issued under a nom de plume
And what is most surprising Arab readers on the web who are used to crazy Shiekhs that issue crazy fatwas believe that this fatwa is for real and the question is who is behind it so the Sunnis are blaming the shi3a who are blaming the sunnis and everyone is blaming the usual suspects el-Yahood wa el-CIA [the Jews and the CIA]
I say to Raymond Ibrahim: Those freaks at El [Electronic Intifada]know that he is correct and like typical Muslims lies and intimidations will always be part of how they operate
Infiltration, Subversion, Obfuscation, Treason, Terror & Deceit:
The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny ……..
Islamist enmity for infidels, regularly manifested in the jihad, is by now moderately well known. Lesser known, however, but of equal concern, is the mandate for Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims and Islam â€” a loyalty that all too often translates intoÂ disloyalty to all things non-Muslim, including the American people and their government.
This dichotomy of loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels â€” which, incidentally, corresponds well with Islamic law’s division of the world into the abode of war (deserving of enmity) and the abode of Islam (deserving of loyalty) â€” is founded on a Muslim doctrine calledÂ wala’ wa bara’ (best translated as “loyalty and enmity”). I first encountered this doctrine whileÂ translating various Arabic documents forÂ The Al Qaeda Reader. In fact, the longest and arguably most revealing document I included in that volume is titled “Loyalty and Enmity” (pgs.63-115), compiled by Aymen Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two.
In “Is Newt Gingrich Wrong to Talk About Sharia?” in Pajamas Media (viaRaymondIbrahim.com), August 24, our friend Raymond Ibrahim discusses whether Sharia, as Lee Smith recently characterized it, is a “hopelessly abstract concept”:
In a recent article appearing inÂ Tablet, Lee Smith takes former House speaker Newt Gingrich to task for the latter’sÂ focus on sharia (i.e., Islamic law). The thrust of Smith’s argument is that sharia is a “hopelessly abstract concept” and “a highly idealized version of reality that has little basis in fact”; that sharia is “a catchall phrase for legal principles that have rarely, if ever, existed in actual Muslim societies”; and that “the notion that something called ‘sharia’ was widely imposed throughout the lands of Islam is an Orientalist fantasy.”My first observation is — even if all these charges were perfectly true — so? It hardly matters what shariaÂ really is; all that matters is what today’s MuslimsÂ believe it is. And a great many believe sharia is tangible and codified, and that it can, and should, be implemented in society. More to the point, telling the apostate or adulteress — who are regularly executed “according to sharia”– that they areÂ reallybeing murdered by “principles that have rarely, if ever, existed in actual Muslim societies,” is hardly reassuring.
Smith does acknowledge Islam’s famous draconian punishments; he just prefers to call themÂ hudud, and limits them to “Islamist outfits like the Taliban.” Similarly, Smith offers a blitz tour on Islamic jurisprudence — including the Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’iÂ madhahib, the differences betweenÂ usuli andÂ akhbari,Â fiqh,ijma,Â ‘aql,Â qiyas, andÂ ahkam sultaniyya — even as the reader wonders how these concepts are relevant to the discussion at hand: Islam in America, from a national security context….
In “The Two Faces of the Ground Zero Mosque” in Pajamas Media (viaÂ MEF), June 22, our great friend Raymond Ibrahim exposes yet more duplicity from the Ground Zero Islamic supremacist mega-mosque organizers. Sign the petitionÂ here.
Which is more likely to elicit an irate Muslim response: 1) public cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, or 2) public proclamations that Muhammad was a bisexual, sometime transvestite and necrophile, who enjoyed sucking on the tongues of children, commanded a woman to “breastfeed” an adult man, and advised believers to drink his urine for salutary health?
Based on the recentÂ South Park fiascoâ€”where an animated episode depicting Muhammad in a bear suit sparked outrage among various Muslim groups, culminating with the usualÂ death threatsâ€”the answer is clear: cartoons, once again, have proven to be the Muslim world’s premiere provocateur. Indeed, during a university lecture the other day, Swedish artistÂ Lars Vilks, whose life is in jeopardy due to his depiction of Muhammad as a dog, was violentlyÂ assaulted to ululations of “Allahu Akbar!” (Islam’s primordial war cry).
Yet how can cartoons rouse Muslim ire more than public assertions that Muhammad was a bisexual, a transvestite, a necrofile, et al? First, context: