Once again the Islamofascists Â throw hissy fits when the truth is told about the Â cult of the meshugga profit. In Islam, the ends justify the means. Homosexuality is ‘haram’, but if it helps to eliminate a perceived enemy of Islam, its perfectly okay to do so, just like lying and deceit in warfare, and jihad is permanent and relentless.
But telling the truth riles the usual suspects, and here Raymond Ibrahim refutes an attacker who actually just confirms what we already know. But this soldier of allah takes issue with Raymond Â telling the truth, because in their queer and twisted way of thinking, that amounts to ‘slander’, which again has a completely different meaning to what it means to us.
In “Sodomy for the Sake of Islam,” I wrote about Abdullah al-Asiri, the 2009 suicide-bomber who inserted explosives in his rectum, and how news emerged later that he likely relied on a fatwa permitting sodomy to “widen” his anus to accommodate the explosives. (Click hereÂ for a graphic picture of the aftermath of this approach.)
It wasn’t long before the infamous “hoax!” charge appearedâ€”this time over at the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian website,Â Electronic IntifadaÂ (henceforth EI). Writing that “The Advocate, an important US-based national gay and lesbian news magazine, has published a homophobic, racist, sectarian and Islamophobic hoax as if it is actual news,” one Benjamin Doherty unequivocally denounces my article, the Advocate’s source, as “pure nonsense,” a “vile Islamophobic hoax,” and a “defamatory joke targeting Muslims.”
Amazingly, despite all this sure language, the fact is, EI does not offer a shred of evidence to counter my article.
The first couple paragraphs are, as mentioned, devoted to portraying my article as a “homophobic, racist, sectarian and Islamophobic hoax,” with sporadic attacks on the David Horowitz Freedom Center, where I am a fellow.
So far, no evidence, just the usual smear campaign and ad hominem attacks to set the stage and influence the gullible and naÃ¯ve.
Next EI spends time bemoaning how the Advocate mistakenly thought that the man who appears in the video I linked to was the actual cleric issuing the anus-fatwa, when in fact he is the man reporting on it, Abdullah al-Khallaf.
I had written, “A 2010 Arabic news video that aired on Fadak TV gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed al-Asiri and other jihadis of an innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations…” By linking to that video, I was indicating myÂ sourceÂ of informationâ€”not saying “the man who appears talkingÂ isÂ Abu al-Dema.”
Either way, this misreading by Advocate is neither here nor there, and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand: does such a fatwa exist or not? It’s just filler dressed as “evidence.”
Then, as if more unnecessary fluff was needed, EI offers a long retranslation of the sodomy fatwa, with no discernible difference between the substance of their translation and mine.
Mind you, we are more than halfway through this rambling diatribe that began by repeatedly screaming “hoax,” and still no evidence, though language implying the “proof” has already been given begins to appear. For example, EI casually goes on to declare that “Al-Khallaf reads the item [the fatwa] from the websiteÂ as if it is real.” Well, why shouldn’t he? EI has yet to give evidence that it isÂ notÂ real.
Finally, we come to the “proof”â€”the only section that is bolded in the EI article, to emphasize its “importance.” EI claims that al-Khallaf
also characterizes the alleged protagonists as “Wahhabis.” It appearsÂ his intention is to incite his audience’s disgust at the supposed thinking and behavior of Wahhabi Sunni MuslimsÂ who, he suggests, will justify anything in pursuit of their goals.
And there it isâ€”EI’s “ironclad proof” that the sodomy fatwa is a hoax: Al-Khallaf must be an anti-Wahabbi Shiite, and “it appears his intention” is less than honest.
Sorry, EI: “appearances” and “intentions” do not constitute proof. After all, I can easily argue that it “appears” EI’s “intention” in writing this article is simply to save face, since, as a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli website, it does not wish to see the recruitment of suicide bombers diminished by this scandal.
But that wouldn’t be “proof,” would it?
Needless to say, the rest of EI’s arguments consist of (second-rate) sophistry, lies and contradictions.
EI asserts that the fatwa’s
textÂ appearsÂ to be at best an extremely vulgar joke and at worst sectarian defamation. It is written in a style commonly used for stories in which both the teller and listener know it is a joke or fiction…
Once again, EI continues treating “appearances” as proof. Whether itÂ appearsÂ to be a “vulgar joke” or “sectarian defamation” is hardly evidence that the fatwaÂ isÂ a hoax. After all, fatwas almost alwaysÂ look like jokesÂ to Western people, which is what EI is counting on.
Next, EI contradicts itself. First, Al-Khallaf is portrayed as reading the fatwa on the air to “incite his audience’s disgust.” Yet now, EI claims that the fatwa “is written in a style commonly used for stories in which both the tellerÂ and listenerÂ know it is a joke or fiction.”
Question: How can al-Khallaf “incite his audience’s disgust,” if the fatwa, which he read in its entirety, “is written in a style commonly used for stories in which both the tellerÂ and listenerÂ [i.e., his audience] know it is a joke or fiction”?
EI continues grasping at straws:
Several features identify this story as a tasteless joke, especially the name “Sheikh Abu al-Dema al-Qasab.” It translates to Sheikh Bloody Butcher. This is not a real person. The post is peppered with phrases like “it is said” and “only God knows” which indicate storytelling.
“Sheikh Bloody Butcher” is a typical pseudonym to preserve the identity of the cleric who came up with this anus-idea over at the frontlines of the jihad, where an extra level of anonymity is always expected and respected among Muslims; moreover, amongst jihadis, “Bloody Butcher” is a complimentâ€”something of a “heroic” name. Even so, odd names for prominent sheikhs are not uncommon. Consider popularÂ Sheikh Huwainiâ€”whose name means “animal” no less than his behavior, including his desire to plunder non-Muslims of their money and buy infidel sex-slaves.
As for the claim that the fatwa is “peppered with phrases like ‘it is said’ and ‘only God knows’ which indicate storytelling,” this is another barefaced lie by EIâ€”not because those phrases do not appear in the fatwa, but because those phrases are standard andalwaysÂ appear in fatwas. I have yet to read an Arabic fatwaâ€”past or presentâ€”that is not “peppered” with “it was said” and “Allah only knows.” Yet, EI twists these authentic points to cast doubt on the fatwa among unsuspecting non-Muslims.
In short, for all its triumphant howling, EI fails to deliver, abysmally. The facts remain: such a fatwa does exist; it is written exactly like a fatwa (despite EI’s intentional distortions); and a well-known Arabic program quoted it as factâ€”which is precisely what I originally reported in the first place.
Despite all this, weak knees quickly buckled before EI’s hoax accusations. After demanding that Advocate retract their article, including through the usual “how could you of all people spread such hate” line, Advocate revised their article, including by changing the title from “Sodomy for Suicide Bombers” to “Researcher’s Claim [that would be me] About Suicide Bombers Called False.” Another website,Â Gay Star News, prompted by EI’s lies, ran with an article titled “Anus gay terror video a hoax” (apparently now the actualÂ videoÂ of talk show host al-Khallafâ€”who may be interested to learn he no longer existsâ€”is also a “hoax”).
Ironically, the editors of these websites seem to be unaware that EI is angryâ€”not because of theÂ well-documented factsÂ that al-Asiri inserted explosives in his anus in order to murder someone he deceived into meeting by feigning goodwill, all in the name of Islamâ€”but because the portrayal of this “noble jihadi” as a sodomite “incites … disgust” among Muslims, as EI clearly stated above in bold, thus demoralizing the jihad.
Get it? Suicidal jihadist killing apostates and infidelsâ€”no problem. But a homosexual?â€”never!
Update: Gatestone Institute, where my sodomy article first appeared, just forwarded me an email from EI’s Doherty, where, as more “proof” he writes “The Advocate, Gay Star News and The Electronic Intifada have all published evidence that the fatwa does not exist.” This is yet another distortion: only Electronic Intifadaâ€”that is, Doherty himselfâ€”published “evidence,” which we just saw, though his disingenuous wording suggests that Advocate and Gay Star News, who simply followed his lead, had independently verified the hoax charge.
Raymond IbrahimÂ is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum