Egyptian Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi has issued a fatwa calling for the killing of Muammar al-Gaddafi. How could anyone be opposed to taking out the guy who killed over 250 people on Pan Am 103 and who now is killing protesters in the streets?
Certainly not me, but let’s put some historical perspective on some of al-Qaradawi’s other fatwas, such as his endorsement of suicide (martyrdom) bombings by women:
“The martyr operation is the greatest of all sorts of jihad in the cause of Allah. A martyr operation is carried out by a person who sacrifices himself, deeming his life [of] less value than striving in the cause of Allah, in the cause of restoring the land and preserving the dignity. To such a valorous attitude applies the following Qur’anic verse: “And of mankind is he who would sell himself, seeking the pleasure of Allah; and Allah hath compassion on (His) bondmen.” (Qur’an, 2: 207)
But a clear distinction has to be made here between martyrdom and suicide. Suicide is an act or instance of killing oneself intentionally out of despair, and finding no outlet except putting an end to one’s life. On the other hand, martyrdom is a heroic act of choosing to suffer death in the cause of Allah, and that’s why it’s considered by most Muslim scholars as one of the greatest forms of jihad.
When jihad becomes an individual duty, as when the enemy seizes the Muslim territory, a woman becomes entitled to take part in it alongside men.”
I previously have pointed out how al-Qaradawi’t theory of how to bring peace to the Middle East is to destroy Israel and have Jews live as Dhimmis under Muslim rule, and how over a million Egyptians packed Tahrir Square and its surroundings to cheer as al-Qaradawi called for a march towards Jerusalem. Al-Qaradawi is a long-time anti-Jewish agitator and consistent in his message of Jihad against western influences.
So while we all can oppose al-Gaddafi’s brutality, don’t cheer al-Qaradawi’s fatwa. You could be next.
——————————————-
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You can run from a fatwa, but you can't hide from Andrew Sullivan. Rumor has it he literally dropped what he was doing on the floor (examining Trig Palin's afterbirth) to type up the following post. He's got your number, Professor, if not your umbilical cord (yet).
The "this post" link in this post:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/a-view-from-the-hard-right.html
"a woman becomes entitled to take part in [jihad] alongside men."
See? Women's rights aren't incompatible with radical Islam. QED, QEC, QE2.
In a post written by John Hinderaker at Powerline entitled "Bad Vibrations From Cairo,", he linked, in his introductory graf, to your prior post observing in part that "the yuppie revolution in Egypt is over."
Notwithstanding Andrew Sullivan's idiotically thin menu of misconstruals (link supplied in LukeHandCool’s sarcastic observation above), John adds yet more factual fuel to the observations regarding Egyptian Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the ominous possibilities he and his kind may portend for where this unconstrained "democratic" movement may be headed.
Concludes John, "I very much hope I am wrong, but I am getting a here-we-go-again sense about events in Egypt and, I am afraid, through much of the region."
Some of the folks currently "guiding" our American foreign policy, including the President himself, may only now be starting to recognize the signs of a bad hangover, prompted by their barely two week-old euphoria as they lustily cheered on the downfall of Hosni Mubarak, oblivious, it seems, to what might quickly rise in his place.
The sudden "deer-in-the-headlights" hesitation from the Obama administration regarding their "position" on Libia, may well explain their curious silence regarding the "fatwa" calling for the killing of Muammar al-Gaddafi.
Ah yes, the "religion of peace!" once again muddies the vision of the wistful crystal ball foreign policy wonks of the Democrat party.
following up on LukeHandCool's link to A Sullivan
– A Sullivan says..
"But it is bizarre to read conservatives who praised the Iraq war that led to the empowerment of al Sadr and the deaths of hundreds of thousands in a country occupied by the US to be now retroactively endorsing the other Saddams of the Middle East."
Prior to the invasion, many conservatives pointed out the danger of removing a secular strong man such as Saddam in this part of the world. At any rate, Al Sadr was not the intended beneficiary of the invasion anyway. It's not really bizarre – I look at it as learning from experience, something with which liberals have great difficulty.
@Dave Minnich While I certainly do not now and never did endorse the autocratic policies of Hosni Mubarak, comparing him and his regime to that of Saddam Hussein is just plain ridiculous, as is most of what Andrew Sullivan writes.
Sullivan is a disingenuous ninny. The "choice" between supporting a Mubarek regime and wanting Democracy Now! for Egypt was a false one.
Too many people upon this crisis, rightly in my estimation, argued for an orderly transition from autocracy to democracy by suggesting the US support her longtime ally Mubarek (in of itself the right/smart thing to do vis-a-vis America, Israel and world stability) in his leading his country into 21 C. democratic elections within the year- as he promised- with our public cheerleading, private support of acceptable agitator/reformers and our behind-the-scenes carrot and $tick prompting. This would've given the US and local civilized interests the opportunity to 1) assess and counter extremist actors, 2) reinforce weak civil institutions, and 3) encourage a less corrupt and freer economy that are requisite to any functioning republic.
About the fatwas– why don't the western Left get as exercised about Islamist fatwas as they do over CIA "covert activity" and Special Forces black ops? The usual rejoinder of "holding us to higher standards" doesn't mesh with their profession of faith that the West isn't and shouldn't hold itself out to be superior, in any way, to Others.
a few points:
1. It is a good thing that Al Sadr did not gain control in Iraq. The "democracy" put in place ensured that the people voted for their assembly. I imagine that there are some Egpytians that want this form of government.
2. Please everyone, stop calling these imams a "cleric" this is really insulting to the Christian pastors and the rabbis. There is nothing holy about these men. They are pure evil.
3. just read a Klein article that was illuminating pointing to the hand of Soros in all of these revolutions.
@Trochilus
Quick note (busy at work) and off topic. Talking to a coworker about his new dog … it's a Wheaton Terrier! I had him read your comment in Kathleen's post, "A New Breed"!
Andrew Sullivan is known to some conservative bloggers as the "beagle blogger" for his dogs. Don't know if the breed of dog one chooses reflects something about the owner.