J. Ahmed Salib / Mar 24, 2006

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth—Debunking the “Islam Is Love and Peace!” Arguments


I am so happy. Overjoyed, even. If you would like to know why, then take a look at the following article, or at least the title of the article:


“Official Saudi Fatwa of July 2000 Forbids Construction of Churches in Muslim Countries; Kuwaiti MP Concurs.” http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD112306


Now look at the title of a recent CNN story:


“Top Muslim clerics: Convert must die. Religious leaders urge courts to ignore West, hang Christian.”


Please do not mistake my meaning. I am not happy that Christians in Saudi and Kuwait and Afghanistan are being threatened with hangings and the extinction of church-building. I am actually heartbroken over this.


What makes me so happy, however, is that we have here declarations—straight from the horse’s mouth!—that make the cases against religious tolerance in Islam.


They have done the work for me, and even though a detractor may tell me that I, a Christian, am not as well-read as they, Moslems... no one can accuse an Imam of not having read his own scriptures!


I really am happy even to read interviews as the following one, because, while I am hurt that they hate me, at least their true feelings are on the table, and we can work from there. Whitewashing the feelings and declaring that Islam is a subjective religion of tolerance and love is very dangerous, and also cowardly.


From MEMRI ("Notes from Salib in the [ ] marks)...


“A Saudi Professor of Islamic Law at Al Imam University, Sheikh Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, has recently made "anti-Christian comments" on Saudi Al-Majd TV. He "told his audience to hate anyone "who worships Christ, son of Mary" and added that "whoever says 'I don't hate him [i.e. a Christian]' is not a Muslim... Someone who denies Allah, worships Christ, son of Mary, and claims that God is one third of a trinity - do you like these things he says and does? Don’t you hate the faith of such a polytheist who says God is one third of a trinity, or who worships Christ, son of Mary?


[Christ IS God!]

More Al-Fawzan: "Someone who permits and commits fornication - as is the case in Western countries, where fornication is permitted and not considered a problem - don't you hate this? Whoever says 'I don't hate him' is not a Muslim, my brother...”


[I hate fornication, too!]


“If this person is an infidel - even if this person is my mother or father, God forbid, or my son or daughter - I must hate him, his heresy, and his defiance of Allah and His prophet. I must hate his abominable deeds. Moreover, this hatred must be positive hatred. It should make me feel compassion for him, and should make me guide and reform him."


It could be argued that “positive hatred” is the same as compassion, and that “positive hatred” is not the precursor to killing or torturing, although this is what Moslems generally mean when they talk of “reforms,” which we found out after the Abdel Rahman problem emerged.


For example, the aforementioned CNN story quoted “moderate” Afghani cleric Abdul Raouf, member of the Afghan Ulaama Council, and thrice-jailed for his opposition of the Taliban (before 2001’s obliteration of that hard-line regime) as saying that "Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man [Abdel Rahman] must die."


So this is about the Arab tendency of “family honor” and “honor killings” and “revenge” and “vindication.”


Some people thought that the Christian convert was mad, and hinted that if he was found insane, he would not be killed.


CNN goes on to quote Hamidullah, chief cleric at Hajji Yacob Mosque, as having said that "He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian. The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."


Aren’t the people the crazy ones, then?

The peace-loving Hamidullah went on to say that they should "Cut off his head!"

His loving feelings were made clearer when he shared that "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."

I would like the reader to know that I am in possession of a video that showed an ex-Moslem being struck by an axe before being pulled apart, by hands and by meat hooks. It took him a long time to die.


The gruesomeness of bones cracking and skin and muscle separating wasn’t the worst part for me; after all, I have witnessed countless surgeries, and have performed my own.

But this was different. His face was the most terrifying thing. Despite my age, I still have nightmares about it to this day, and I know they will not stop until the day I am in heaven and see this tortured brother’s beautifully reconstructed resurrection body.

In the interest of staying on task, Hamidullah was of the opinion that exile was the only option for Abdel Rahman.


I agree! He lived overseas for several years, would it be so horrible to move back? Hundreds and thousands of Christians and Westerners are on his side! (Like Abdelkareem, the Egyptian blogger who was expelled from al Azhar University for his anti-Islamic article.)


The top cleric of Kabul’s largest Shia centre (Hossainia Mosque), Said Mirhossain Nasri, said that “Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country... If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can, too... We must set an example... He must be hanged."


So it would seem that the murder of the convert to Christianity is more about keeping a strong image and weeding out would-be fake converts than an Islam-based intolerance for conversions?

(Are Afghanis forced to stay in the country? Are they not allowed to leave and re-settle if they can afford it?)


The CNN article goes on to claim that “Afghanistan's constitution is based on Sharia law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death.”


Which school of Sharia law, though? There are multiple schools (Shafii, Mawdoodi, Aboo Hambel, etc.), and even more interpretations.

The advent of the internet, satellite dishes, and other technologies that effectively reduce the size of the world—or the distance between people—is a veritable “Grow-a-Sheikh!” kit.


Anyone can issue fatwas these days, based on their specific needs. This reminds me very much of the “founder” of Islam...


Nasri goes on to say that "We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue... We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."

Hello?? Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Amnesty International, United Nations??


I know I will sound like the father of a 17 year old girl from Aswan, but all I can say to Nasri’s plea is “If you don’t like our rules, then don’t accept our aid! Give BACK the aid that you accepted. I am not giving you an allowance so that you can take an apartment and bring boys over! We are not giving you aid so that you can turn around and kill the very people our money is supposed to be helping!”


Our friend from before, Hamidullah, seems to think that “the government would lose the support of the people if it frees Rahman, and there could be an uprising” if they free him.

So the question is, which support is more important to the Afghani government? More importantly, whose interpretation of Islam’s “religious tolerance” is the most accurate?

If you’ll remember, I brought a Saudi fatwa up at the beginning of this article, dating back to 3 July, 2000. Keep reading, for a look at the truth of Islam, un-sugarcoated, and straight from the horse’s mouth (and the birthplace of “Islam”):

"Those who claim that there is truth in what the Jews say, or in what the Christians say – whether he is one of them or not – is denying the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad's sunna and the consensus of the Muslim nation… Allah said: 'The only reason I sent you was to bring good tidings and warnings to all [Koran 34:28]'; 'Oh people, I am Allah's Messenger to you all [Koran 7:158]'; 'Allah's religion is Islam [3:19]'; 'Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him [3:85]'; 'The unbelievers from among the people of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians] and the polytheists are in hellfire and will be [there] forever. They are the worst of all creation… [98:6]'.

"Therefore, religion necessitates the prohibition of unbelief, and this requires the prohibition of worshiping Allah in any way other than that of the Islamic shari'a. Included in this is the prohibition against building houses of worship according to the abrogated religious laws, Jewish or Christian or anything else, since these houses of worship – whether they be churches or other houses of worship – are considered heretical houses of worship, because the worship that is practiced in them is in violation of the Islamic shari'a, which abrogates all religious law that came before it. Allah says about the unbelievers and their deeds: 'I will turn to every deed they have done and I will make them into dust in the wind [Koran 25:23].'

"The Arabian Peninsula is Islam's sanctuary and its basis. It is forbidden to allow or permit unbelievers to penetrate it or to receive citizenship there or to buy property, not to speak of building churches for the worshipers of the cross.”

Hey, guess what? We don’t worship the cross, only the One who died on it!

“There is no place in the Arabian Peninsula for two religions, but only for one – the religion of Islam, sent by Allah through Muhammad, His Prophet and Messenger. There will not be two directions of worship there, but just one single direction – the direction of the Muslims, towards the Ka'ba in Mecca. Praise Allah who enabled the rulers of these lands to ward off these heretical houses of worship from the pure Islamic land.”

If this “allah” is the one who allowed a pure Islamic land, then I have a big problem with him.


"Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Tamiyya [Tameyya?? As in FALAFEL???]  said: 'Whosoever thinks that churches are Allah's houses and serve as places for His worship, or whosoever thinks that the deeds of the Jews and the Christians are worship of Allah and obedience to His Prophet, and whosoever likes this and permits it or helps them [the unbelievers] to open [houses of worship] and to perform their religion and thinks this to be proximity or obedience [to Allah] – he is an unbeliever.' “

"He also said: 'Whosoever thinks that visiting dhimmis [monotheist non-Muslims under Muslim rule] in their churches is proximity to Allah, he is an apostate. If he didn't know that this was forbidden, he should be so informed, and then if he persists, he is an apostate.' “

"We find refuge in Allah in order not to backtrack from the right path… Those who turned back on their tracks after the right path was clear to them – Satan seduced them and filled their hearts with false hopes [Koran 47:25]'”

Then Satan and Mohammed have a lot in common.

(Non-intoxicating wine? Pearl-like boys? 72 Houris? Come off it, Mo! Just admit you were an unnaturally-oversexed man, and that you feared being overthrown, that you stole Jewish and Christian scriptures and couldn’t even get them right, and played on the pathetic desert desires of the only friends you had!)

Walid Al-Tabatabai, a member of the Kuwaiti parliament's human rights committee, got in on the act, stating that "the establishment of houses of worship for non-Muslims in Kuwait is against Islamic law. This does not mean that it is forbidden for non-Muslims to perform their religious obligations. On the contrary, they should be allowed to do so, but this needs to be in accordance with the law and with the norms."

“He added that in Kuwait today there are 20 churches, "that is, a church for every five Kuwaiti Christians, as there aren't more than 100 of them," whereas visiting Christians are "temporary workers who will be going back to their countries." He emphasized that "freedom of worship and the performance of religious obligations is permitted to everyone in the world, but the issue of establishing houses of worship for other religions depends on shari'a law.””


(For the entire article visit http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD112306 .)

My Islamic friends, please consider carefully whether most imams in the world could be wrong about their own religions. They know the scriptures better than you... will you really go head-to-head with them about the validity of their interpretations?

They know what they are talking about, so if they think that a non-Moslem should be ousted or killed, then how can you challenge that? You are the errant ones (for promoting peace), not they.


Forget about the Crusades... not a Christian alive today agrees with their violence, but please remember that they were initiated to fight the waves of Christian-attacking barbarians, that some Crusaders were going into it only for their own wealth and glory (the wrong reason), AND THAT no Christian alive today—or 200 years ago even!—agrees with that campaign.


We are more mature now, and realize that God is big enough to fight His own battles, without having to resort to making humans kill (unprovoked)  “in His name,” and that all we must do is follow Christ’s teachings (very effective witnessing tool!), accept His free gift of forgiveness and grace, and also have a loving relationship with Him.

We have been well-taught, by... others, who have—time and time again!—shown us how wrong it was to go around and hurt other people, simply because they refused to convert to “the one, true faith.”


J. Ahmed Salib, M.D.



Disclaimer: The articles published on this site represent the view of their writers.