Sheikh Ali Gomaa Declares All Christians "Kuffar"

We’ve been keeping an eye on the  wife-beatin‘, statue-hatin’ Sheikh Ali Gomaa, who made headlines raving about the ‘purity’ of his  profit’s excrement’s & urine, which would be like nectar to him if he could only get his hands on some: Ali Gomaa is the grand mufti of Al Azhar, Islam’s grandest institute of higher learning. Some of our learned anal-ysts believe that makes him a moderate, like…. like   Tariq Ramadan?

On PJ Media (via, I discuss how the same “doctrinal” word Egypt’s Grand Mufti used to classify Christians – infidel — is the same word Egyptian soldiers used when they opened fire on and ran armored-vehicles over Christian Copts, showing, yet again, the connection between doctrine and deeds in Islam:

To what extent was Egypt’s Maspero massacre, wherein the military literally mowed down Christian Copts protesting the ongoing destruction of their churches, a product of anti-Christian sentiment?

A video of Egypt’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ali Gomaa (or Gom’a), which began circulating weeks before the massacre, helps elucidate. While holding that Muslims may coexist with Christians (who, as dhimmis, have rights), Gomaa categorized Christians as kuffar — “infidels” — a word that connotes “enemies,” “evil-doers,” and every bad thing to Muslim ears.


After quoting Quran 5:17, “Infidels are those who declare God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary,” he expounded by saying any association between a human and God (in Arabic, shirk) is the greatest sin: “Whoever thinks the Christ is God, or the Son of God, not symbolically — for we are all sons of God — but attributively, has rejected the faith which God requires for salvation,” thereby becoming an infidel.

Christian hatin’ mufti with Archdhimmi of Canterbury….

Gomaa then offered a hypothetical dialogue between Christians and Muslims to illustrate Islam’s proper position:

Christians: You have the wrong idea about us; we don’t worship the Christ.Muslims: Okay, fine; we were under the wrong impression — but, by the way: “Infidels are those who declare God is the Christ, son of Mary.”

Christians: But these are philosophical matters that we are unable to explain.

Muslims: Okay, fine; God is one—but, by the way: “Infidels are those who declare God is the Christ, son of Mary.”

As a graduate of and long-time professor at Al Azhar university and Grand Mufti of Egypt (a position second in authority only to Sheikh Al Azhar), Ali Gomaa represents mainstream Islam’s — not “radical Islam’s” or “Islamism’s” — position concerning the “other,” in this case, Christians. Regardless, many in the West hail him as a “moderate” — such as this U.S. News article titled “Finding the Voices of Moderate Islam”; Lawrence Wright describes him as “a highly promoted champion of moderate Islam”…

Read it all.

“Allah’s Curse”


Yassir al-Birhani: Just quoting the Quran

Earlier we saw that Egypt’s Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, the nation’s second highest religious authority, categorized all Christians as “infidels” – a word that is much more complicated, and more damning, than the usual and casual translation of “non-believer.” We also saw that some Western apologists are in the habit of praising Gomaa as a “moderate.” As incongruous as that many see, when one hears what other Muslim leaders have to say about “Christian infidels,” one may indeed see Gomaa as a “moderate,” relatively speaking.

Enter Sheikh Yassir al-Birhani, Vice President of the Salafi Summons in Alexandria, Egypt, and a regular fixture on religious programs, including on Al Jazeera. Consider his remarks in an interview on Al Rahma (“Mercy”) Channel regarding the Maspero massacre, when the military mowed down Christians protesting the latest destruction of a church in Edfu.

“Al-Birhani: ‘Copts are infidels by witness of the Quran; shall we apologize for the Quran to please them? Allah’s curse on them,’” by Amani Musa for Free Christian Voice, October 13:

Sheikh Yassir al-Birhani said, commenting on the Edfu church attack and the events leading to Maspero: “Copts created the sectarian strife, claiming that Muslims destroyed a church,” adding “the building that was burned and destroyed had no papers or permits.”

Many Muslims, including the governor who signed the papers, denied that the church had official status, even though the original, signed papers and permits have been shown and are still in possession of the Copts.

“Christians are infidels by Allah as shown by the Quran: shall we apologize for the Quran, and distort its contents, to please them?”…Al-Birhani concluded his conversation on Rahma Channel by quoting several Quranic verses demonstrating that Copts [Christians] are infidels.

11 thoughts on “Sheikh Ali Gomaa Declares All Christians "Kuffar"”

  1. “Whoever thinks the Christ is God, or the Son of God, not symbolically — for we are all sons of God — but attributively, has rejected the faith which God requires for salvation,”

    Quite the reverse – anyone denying the Son and the Father is antichrist:
    (1 John 2:22)

  2. Regardless Mullah, the level of logic used by the grand mufflehead is childish in the extreme. This really does characterise islam: stupidity and selfishness.

  3. With all due respect to your personal beliefs Mullah Lodabullah, I do consider myself a child of God. I have an unwavering belief in God that carries me through many trying times. But I do find it offensive that you consider me to be the “Antichrist” because my faith in God does not adhere to your Christian beliefs. For lack of a better definition, you could consider me a Deist, as many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were. I cannot respect anyone who tells me I am going to Hell because I do not believe as they do. Is that not similar to the Islamist’s calling me an “Unbeliever” deserving of Hell because I refuse to join them? I refuse to believe anyone who tells me that they are closer to God, or have a better relationship to God than I have. Not hating, just talking about my personal relationship with God. I could never condemn you to Hell just because you do not believe as I do. I do not believe that is what a loving God would do. Thank you for your time.

  4. Viker, Jesus did not force anyone to follow Him…neither did He persecute anyone for not following Him. You can do as you please…

    The hell preached in Christianity is simply the ultimate dissolution of any indirect relationship with Christ by those who are already living in and continue to live in unbelief towards Him.

    An antichrist is someone who has substituted Christ and His revelation, with another’s. Consequently, you have believed something else, and by definition cannot claim to belong in or with Christ when you have rejected Him.

    The hell that you are so upset about is what you have chosen, not what has been forced on you.

  5. i agree with steiner that Jesus is much better than Mo. that sheikh gomaa must have some nerve; if he thinks Christians are kuffar, than all Muslims msut be kuffar twice over, becuase Islamic morality is much inferior to Christian morality.

  6. @Viker.. it is not anyone that condemns you ..(1 John2:22) is plain to understand, let the words of the Bible speak to you, if you believe them to be truly Gods Word..if you don’t agree with them then yes, you are condemned according to Gods own revelation.

  7. We should send Goma, (last syllable rhymes with baaaaa) a thank-you card for his honesty.
    It’s about damn time the devil showed his face.

  8. If you attack the Blessed Trinity, you are not, you cannot be, in my estimation, a Christian.
    The scriptural basis, both OT and NT for this doctrine and that of the Incarnation is wide-ranging and unavoidable. A Christian who claims a unitarian concept of God has changed the content of the faith so much that it is not orthodox Christianity.
    It is heterodox, and no orthodox Christian is bound to respect it.
    Several of the oldest formative Christian doctrines have been under attack as never before. Stand up for them, read Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine and the councils of Chacedon, Nicaea.
    These must be defended or more than 1,500 years of Christian structuring and institutional regularity could be scrapped.

  9. Actually, I am not upset about Hell, as I know I will not be going there. I do not swear, do not have any children out of wedlock, have no criminal record, spend at least 30 hours a week with my elderly parents, spend my time and money to support charities (autism, hemophilia, alzheimers, habitat for humanity). I have friends who are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, and even a Greek Orthodox monk. HOWEVER, my Catholic friends believe my Protestant, Jewish, and Buddhist friends will not have a “good” afterlife because they are not Catholic. My Protestant friends believe the same thing of my Catholic, Jewish and Buddhist friends because they are not Protestant. Etc. Which of them are correct? I believe that if you live a life of caring for others, treating others as you would like to be treated,and are kind to those less fortunate than yourself, God will take care of you. Once again, Thank you for your time.

  10. The civilizations preceding and outside of Islam are jahiliyah or erroneous in nature, invalidated with the coming of Islam. Only Muslims were in the sole possession of truth in the form of the true faith of Islam.

    In their thoughts, the world outside the boundary and religion of Islam, notes Bernard Lewis, ‘was inhabited by the infidels and barbarians. Some of these were recognized as possessing some form of religion and a tincture of civilization. The remainder, polytheists and idolaters, were seen primarily as sources of slaves.’[5] Muslims captured slaves in such great numbers that slave-trade became a booming business enterprise; markets across the Muslim world became teeming with slaves. Accordingly, ‘it goes to the credit of Islam to create slave trade on a large scale, and run it for profit like any other business,’ writes Lal.[6] (More)

  11. Update:

    Raymond Ibrahim: Grand Mufti Distorts Word ‘Infidel’ to Dupe Infidels

    Egypt’s Grand Mufti objects to an earlier article I wrote regarding his characterization of all Christians as infidels. From PJ Media (via, here are his objections and my responses (links in original):

    Soon after reporting that Egypt’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, had pronounced all Christians “infidels,” I received several emails forwarding what looked like a response from Gomaa. Some websites—such as the ever-hysterical “American Muslim”—published it, providing the following additional information:
    Prof. Faroque Ahmad Khan took it on himself to investigate [the claims of my article]. Dr. Khan requested Dr Ibrahim Negm—a senior advisor to the Grand Mufti [and an Al Azhar professor] to provide a clarification of the remarks attributed to Sheikh Ali Gomaa. Here is the response that was received [followed by the same text others had emailed me].
    Though he makes several points, including the need for “dialogue” and “mutual respect,” Gomaa’s grand point, the crux of the issue—what kafir which I routinely translate as “infidel” means—unfortunately exposes dishonesty on his part (the other option, ignorance, being inapplicable). He writes:

    Mr. Ibrahim’s choice of wording is regrettable. The English word “infidel” carries with it strong connotations of exclusion and violence, inherited from the European experience of Christianity during the wars of religion which devastated that continent for decades.
    In fact, from its inception, Islam has been the quintessential religion—historically and doctrinally—to enforce and institutionalize “exclusion and violence” for the “other,” to the point of influencing medieval Christianity. Gomaa therefore takes the standard way out—blame Christianity and its “wars of religion” (code for “Crusades”)—without alluding to what prompted these wars in the first place: five centuries of unprovoked Islamic aggression, land-grabbing, subjugation and persecution of Christians, which continues to this very day.

    Gomaa’s sophistry continues:

    The Arabic “kafir” is a legal term which denotes very precisely and simply those outside the Muslim community, those who do not believe in the particular message and worldview of Islam. The much less charged translation “non-believer” is appropriate here.
    Yes, the word kafir is a “legal term” denoting non-Muslims; and yes, most modern English Qurans translate it as “non-believer.” However, and as Gomaa knows full well, the word kafir (plural, kafirin) is heavy laden with negative associations, or, as I originally wrote, it “connotes ‘enemies,’ ‘evil-doers,’ and every bad thing to Muslim ears.”

    Accordingly, Sharia mandates hostility for kafirin—war and subjugation when they are weak, deception and smooth-talk when they are strong. Quran 2: 98 simply declares that “Allah is the enemy of kafirin”—regardless of whether we translate that word as “infidels” or “non-believers.”

    In fact, doctrine aside, consider how the Quran alone portrays “non-believers”: they are “guilty” and “unjust” (10:17, 45:31, 68:35); terror is to be cast in their hearts for their injustice (3:151); they are “disliked” and “accursed” by Allah (2:89, 3:32, 33:64); they are the “vilest of beasts” (8:55, 98:6), like “cattle” and “devoid of understanding” (47:12, 8:65); and “enemies” to Muslims (4:101).

    And why are “non-believers” described thus? Simply because they are non-believers—because they are infidels.

    So much for the Grand Mufti’s assertion that the “much less charged translation ‘non-believer’ is appropriate” for the word kafir. Perhaps he is operating under Quran 3:28: “Let believers not take kafirin [infidels, non-believers, whatever] for friends and allies … unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” Not only is this yet another verse depicting non-Muslims as enemies, but, according to Muslim jurisprudence, it justifies deceiving them…

    Read it all.

    “Need for dialogue” means da’awa.

    Interesting that Ali Gomaa is more concerned with the negative connotations of the the word ‘kafir’ than with the Koranic mandate to kill them all.

    An absurd, perverted ideology from a genocidal lunatic.

    When Australia’s creepy little ‘sheik’ Feiz Muhammad talks about the kafir, he makes grunting noises, like a pig.

    Muslim children are taught that kafirs are sons of apes and swine and that there is no higher goal than jihad for the tender hearts of children, whom he wants to become ‘martyrs’.

    Gomaa can rub it, stirr it or shake it, but he can’t put the genie back into his little bottle.

    …kafir is a “legal term” denoting non-Muslims
    Oh, I see now, in exactly the same way that the N-word is a legal term denoting non-whites./sarc

    “Kafir” is so deliberately inoffensive that, even when it bears the customarily prefixed adjective “najis”, it is a term of endearment.
    Ten things are Najisul ‘Ayn (essentially najis): urine, faeces, semen, dead body, blood, dog, pig, kafir, alcoholic liquors, and the sweat of an animal that persistently eats najaasat.
    Kafir – An infidel, meaning a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis. Anyone who believes that the 12 Imams are God, or anyone who is an enemy to the Imams, is najis. Also, those who deny Prophethood or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like prayer and fasting, are najis.
    It is possible that the Jews and Christians are not najis, but it is better to avoid them.
    The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis.

Comments are closed.