Posted on 08/25/2014 5:10:49 PM PDT by markomalley
Hussein bin Mahmoud invokes Qur’an 47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” It would be refreshing if Barack Obama or the Archbishop of Brisbane or one of the many other non-Muslim authorities who have insisted that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam would explain how he is misunderstanding that verse. But it is doubtful that they even know that such a verse exists in the Qur’an.
“Jihadi Cleric Justifies IS Beheadings: ‘Islam Is A Religion Of Beheading,’” MEMRI, August 26, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
In a recent article, jihadi cleric Hussein bin Mahmoud, a prominent writer on jihadi forums, expressed support for the beheading of American journalist James Foley by a member of the Islamic State (IS). Bin Mahmoud wrote that beheading was an effective way to terrorize the enemies of Islam, and stressed that, under Islamic law, Foley was a harbi, i.e. a non-Muslim whose life was not protected by an agreement of protection. He argued further that Islam allows and encourages such acts, since it is a religion of war and fighting.
The following are excerpts from the article, as posted August 21, 2014 on the Shumoukh Al-Islam forum.
“All Scholars… Agree On The Permissibility Of Killing A Harbi Infidel”
“I don’t know what to say. My mind is perplexed by words I have read and heard from people whom I do not know how to describe!! Millions of Muslims have been killed, tortured and driven from their homes; tens of thousands of Muslim women have had their honor violated and have been sexually abused by the Americans – yet people are weeping over a Christian American harbi infidel who entered the Islamic State, knowing full well what the Islamic State is, and without a pact [of protection]. Were the soldiers of the Islamic State supposed to pat this American harbi on the back and smile at him? All scholars, without exception, agree on the permissibility of killing a harbi infidel, and agree that his blood and property are fair game. Most of them [also] agree on the permissibility of killing him if he is taken prisoner. So where does this condemnation of the IS come from?… Let it be known to all people that when a harbi enters the land of Islam without a legal pact [of protection], his property, life and progeny are fair game.
“Many Muslims are influenced by the West’s false views and its repulsive ideas, which are exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it and change the perception of its youth so that [the youth] become cowardly and subdued and abandon the means of power and terror, and thus create a generation that does not know fighting or the cutting of necks. Recently we saw some who are considered scholars mixing things up and deceiving the nation, changing the concepts of Islamic law to fit the plans of the enemies. We don’t know if they did this out of ignorance about some of the tenets of Islamic law, or were [simply] lying…”
“Beheading A Harbi Infidel Is A Blessed Act For Which A Muslim Is Rewarded”
“Chopping off the heads of infidels is an act whose permissibility the [Muslim] ummah agrees on. Beheading a harbi infidel is a blessed act for which a Muslim is rewarded. The [only] matter scholars disagree about is the question of transferring the head from one place to another, traveling with it and carrying it around…”
Bin Mahmoud: Jews, Christians, Shi’ites And ‘Alawites Who Committed Crimes Against The Muslims Must Be Beheaded
After clarifying that he is opposed to killing Muslims, bin Mahmoud continues: “As for beheading infidel Jews, Christians and ‘Alawites, as well as apostate Shi’ites, who commit crimes against the Muslims, they must be terrorized, filled with fear and beheaded without any respect. Cutting off heads is part of the tradition of the [Prophet's] Companions. In the Koran Allah ordered to smite the infidels’ necks and encouraged the Muslims to do this. He said [in Koran 47:4], ‘When you meet those who disbelieve on the battlefield, smite at their necks until you have killed and wounded many of them…
“How many hadiths [relayed by] the Prophet’s Companions have we read in which they demanded that he strike the necks of certain men, and the Prophet did not condemn the striking of necks… Striking necks was a well-known matter that did not elicit any condemnation in the eras of the Prophet, the rightly-guided caliphs and their successors, right until the time of the Christian occupation of the Muslims’ lands in the [20th] century. Those crusaders fought the Islamic legal concepts, distorted the religion, and convinced the Muslims that their religion is a religion of peace, doves, love and harmony, and that there is no blood in it, no killing and no fighting. The Muslims remained in this state until Allah revived the tradition of beheading by means of the mujahid and slaughterer Abu Mus’ab Al-Zarqawi, may Allah have mercy upon him and accept him as a martyr.”
“Islam Is A Religion Of Bloodshed”
Bin Mahmoud goes on to quote a long list of texts which, according to him, prove that Islam condones beheading as a means of terrorizing the enemy, and then emphasizes once more that Islam is not a peaceful religion, since its essence is jihad and martyrdom. He concludes that “Islam is a religion of beheading”:
“The truth is that what distorts the image of Islam is not the beheading and terrorizing of infidels, but rather those who want [Islam to follow the path of] Mandela or Ghandi, with no killing, fighting, brutality, bloodshed or the striking of heads or necks. That is not the religion of [the Prophet] Muhammad son of ‘Abdallah who was sent [to fight] with the sword [until] Judgment Day. The only Koranic surah that is named after him, Surah Muhammad, is [also] called ‘The Surah of Fighting’…
“Islam is a religion of power, fighting, jihad, beheading and bloodshed, not a religion of turning the left cheek to whoever slapped you on the right cheek. On the contrary, it is a religion of breaking the hand that is stretched out to humiliate the Muslim. [Any Muslim] who fights for his property, blood or honor is a martyr.
“In Islam, tourism [means] jihad for the sake of Allah… There is no true life for its believers except through jihad, [and] the goal of its fighters is to die for the sake of their religion…”
- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/prominent-cleric-cleric-justifies-beheadings-islam-religion-beheading.html/#sthash.1MPeRTwU.dpuf
Perfect acronym for it: "The religion of ROB - we will ROB you of your head!" (and life)
“It would be refreshing if Barack Obama or the Archbishop of Brisbane or one of the many other non-Muslim authorities ... “
I wouldn’t go as far as to call Obama a “non-muslim” authority.
George W. Bush assured us many times that Islam is a religion of peace, and I am sure he knows more about Islam than the founder of Islam.
if that’s not a ringing endorsement for turning that giant mound of kitty litter into glass, don’t know what is.
oh yeah, from orbit.
Really, what else would you expect from a cult. As far as religions go, I will tolerate them as long as they are none violent and benefit the human race, unfortunately (i)slam doesn’t fall in this group.
This mullah is misguided. Islam means peace through submission. Admit that Islam is more peaceful than false beliefs of the kaffrs, or else your head well be cut off.
When I read this I wonder....According to this man, any Muslim I meet has a duty to (since I’m not going to covert) kill me. Does that mean if I kill a Muslim then it’s an act of self defense? Based on this reading of the Koran and Islam it would seem so.
Maybe I’m missing something.
Oh, I get it. They can kill me and it’s O.K. But for an unbeliever to kill one of them....not so much.
Ah...some honesty. I expect that this will be widely reported.
Ah, the one difference between mulims and liberals; occasional honesty.
He got that right. It is a violent subhuman ideology of death and destruction that needs to be eradicated.
.....As in reward by the devil.
” tens of thousands of Muslim women have had their honor violated and have been sexually abused by the Americans “
This is news indeed !
I don’t think even Code Pink made this claim.
One has to wonder where all this is coming from.
Its all fantasyland over there in the Middle East. Everything is believed, and at the same time nothing is believed. I have seen it working personally. Its a very curious, illogical mindset.
Its more complex than that, and rather dependent on the “correct” analysis of the relevant texts. Thats straight Sunni Islam, its all about the law on the books as interpreted by a lot of old geezers over 1400 years.
One way of looking at it, which is common I understand, is that it is unlawful for a Muslim to make war - kill, raid, enslave, forcibly convert - in a land where the Muslims have no power but are well treated. They consider themselves to be implicitly under the terms of a treaty - note he makes a point to mention the lack of one wrt to Syria and Foley.
Now, other interpretations (like that of the Muslim Brotherhood in general, but also lots of others) are that a treaty does not exist if country x is fighting Muslims anywhere else, or has done so or is thinking of doing so.
Or if there is a good chance that Muslims can gain political domination in that place. Or if they determine that they are ill treated and thus the implicit treaty is abrogated.
War can then be justified.
Thence the residents of the country are fair game. Whether or not to act on this is a matter of prudence and the Muslims may even then be advised to refrain, being as they could consider thenselves implicitly in a state of truce (not peace).
And then of course there are the characters like these guys.
It really is quite interesting.
Peace, beheading....whatever.
It’s yet another reason to regard the Bush family as a curse on the GOP and the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.