Top Cleric: Murder Jews in Islam's Name

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...222252,00.html

Top Islamist cleric Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi has delivered a speech on Qatari television calling on Muslims to murder Jews in "in the name of Islam." The speech has been translated by the Arabic translation service MEMRI.

Yup... religion of "peace." Of course you won't hear much from the media about this but if some Jewish leader or Christian Priest said in the name of God or Jesus we should kill all muslims There would not only be an uproar from the media but we'd probably get riots again from muslims. Since this was said by a muslim cleric no one is going to say anything because they don't want to offend them.

What do Dick Cleric and Harry Cleric think of this?


Thanks.

Don't forget to tip your waitress.

Where does he say that?



warning: pointing to that article shows even more how completely ignorant you are of Islam. Even for an Islamophobe.

Do us the courtesy of explaining why Qaradawi's assertion that "everything will be against the Jews on Judgement Day" is incorrect, and why Qaradawi's assertion that those who murder Jews on Judgement Day are "Servants of Allah"

You believe Qaradawi is wrong, tell us so.

Did I say he is wrong? I don't recall saying that.

I'm just pointing out that the article never show where he was "calling on Muslims to murder Jews in "in the name of Islam." Nor that he said "Murder Jews in Islam's Name".

So how about if you, as a moderator, would for once correct these blatant falsehoods? Just for once use your "power" as a moderator to protect Muslims around here from these constant attacks? Just for once.

Or did you perhaps email him that article like you've emailed others before?

I don't understand these people's blatant hatred of the Jews. :confused:

I had nothing to do with his finding this article.

Are we to understand that you agree with Qaradawi's statements?

What falsehoods should I correct, when it appears you have already pointed out the ones that concern you? Why should I "protect" Muslims from criticism when neither I or any other moderator "protect" Christians or Jews from similar "attacks" - or are you asking for special consideration, just as Muslims were when they asked for apologies for cartoons? The truth is that we all tolerate some criticism. Although if you really want to ask for me to use moderator "power" I'm going to start by asking you to stop the name-calling when you label anyone you disagree with an 'islamophobe.'

Did you not read the article?

That seems pretty clear to me.

I hope that's true. Because after you once emailed members and acknowledged that you sometimes send them articles/questions to post I can't be certain.
The statements in that article yes.
That the cleric in question said "Murder Jews in Islam's Name". It's wrong, you know it and should do something about it.
There's a difference between criticism and constant blatant attacks. But you just don't seem to "see" it.
Go right ahead. Are you then going to tell people to stop calling everyone who disagrees with Israel anti-semites?

Yup, the exact mistake you make out of ignorance (not putting you down, just that you probably don't know that is a hadith and not what he says) but MEMRI does willingly to further their anti-Islamic agenda.

Wait wait: You're accusing MEMRI of making an error, when in fact all they've done is expose Qaradawi.

And you've exposed yourself as agreeing with Qaradawi.


Furthermore, there's nothing to correct about the difference between a hadith and what Qaradawi says, Qaradawi says it's from hadith.

"The hadith says: ”Oh Muslim.“ It says ”oh Muslim,“ not ”oh Palestinian, Jordanian, Syrian, or Arab nationalist.“ No, it says: ”Oh Muslim." When we enter [a war] under the banner of Islam, and under the banner of serving Allah, we will be victorious."
--- Qaradawi -- http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1052

video is here : http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.a...052wmv&ak=null

MEMRI are known for making "mistakes". I've pointed out one glaring "error" they've done before. I won't spend my time educating you more on their errors.
OMFG!!!! YOU'VE EXPOSED ME!!!! RUN FOR THE HIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

Read what I said again before going all sensationalistic on here.

Perhaps the article should have said that. But it didn't.

And either you are just ignoring what the difference is or you are just so dense that you don't understand it.

who decides what the banner of Islam is?

seems to me there needs to be more independant thought going on.

Just because something is done under the name of religion, doesn't mean it's right. Anti gay christians probably wouldn't have got on very well with Jesus.

looks like the guy is just fishing for ratings. ::shrug::

Doesn't the New Testament say that the Jews are screwed in the end, too? I remember that for some reason. I could be wrong.

There is no "Pope" in Islam and basically every single Muslim is responsible for "holding up the banner of Islam".

The OP and vmarks know this but don't care. They're more interested in attacking every Muslim and all of Islam.

We're ALL screwed in the end.

You need to re-read the article: the article said exactly what I quoted : Qaradawi telling us what the hadith says.

Qaradawi is stating that attacking in the name of Islam is something all Muslims must do, that Islam and war cannot be separated - and you've stated you agree with what he said in that article.

But rather than enlighten us as to any errors he makes, any errors MEMRI has made in this instance, or elaborate on the difference between hadith and Quran (when Qaradawi didn't mention Quran) you choose to label people as ignorant, anti-Islam, or islamophobe.

No, I'm not. I'm interested in Muslims explaining why Qaradawi is incorrect, that Islam and war are separable. That all Muslims do not have to attack Jews in order to be servants of Allah.

But you said you agreed with him...

Don't you ever get tried of baiting von Wrangell? :stick:

No he's not stating that "attacking" in the name of Islam is something all Muslims must do. You know this. He's taking an example from a hadith (a weak hadith at that) that in a Jihad (don't panic) all Muslims must help. And it isn't just up to the Palestinians in this case to fight this fight. You choose the word attack as it suits your anti-Islamic agenda better. He's simply stating that if there is a Jihad (don't panic) all Muslims must take part.

War and Islam can also be separated. You know this as well. He's talking about a Jihad. Which is different from war. Which you also know. But you like to fuel the hatred. Just like you've done since I first came to this place.
Yes, because I've had enough with ignorant, anti-Islamic and Islamophobic people running this place and fuelling the other ignorant little twats' hatred towards Islam and Muslims.

Where is he incorrect?

And yes, I said I agreed with what he said in that article. But you're such a sad person that you simply ignore what I say and continue the baiting. What a great moderator you are.

Now go email some MacNN member something else to bait the Muslims posting here.

There's nothing so sad as reading Qaradawi's words of hatred, and then seeing you insist he must be correct and that you agree with him.

Thank you for being honest.

Oh please, vmarks was asking a simple question. No baiting involved.

And you agreed? WOW

just to clarify, you do know he's advocating the use of suicide bombers?

Nice one. Ignore all I've said, spin a little and then accuse me of hatred.

****.

I am beginning to believe it's a mental illness.

Are you guys really so fekking stupid that you can't read what I say?

Read the article. Then read the part you bolded.

transcript:

martyrdom operations = suicide bombers

and yes, I am fekking stupid - takes a while for people to latch on, but they get there.

Try finding your transcript in the article I was talking about.
Do you find your "transcript" anywhere there? If not, then why the hell bring it up??

ok, if you want to skip around cherry picking what parts of a speech you want to believe, so be it.

the "transcript" is what he actually said and what the article was referring to. The article is presumably what the (probably) Jewish reporter decided to report, it is snippets of what was said. He didn't talk to the reporter, the article is reporting what was said, minus the suicide bombing bit.

So you are agreeing with a Jewish reporter's article referencing a cleric's speech in which he advocated suicide bombings, but this part of it you don't agree with and wasn't reported in the article. What was in the article seemed to be the suggestion to indiscrimately murder people based on their religious beliefs, and that this is a position that you concur to.

As to the position on suicide bombing, as yet it appears you are yet to position yourself as saying this has your support or otherwise.

I don't see why it is so difficult for you to understand this. I said I agree with what he said in that article. Nothing more nothing less. Can I make it more clear for you somehow? Draw a painting with arrows and colours? Will you understand it better then?
If you'd ever read what I've said about that you'd know my position on it well enough. Just use the search function. I've said it often enough.

as I am fekking stupid and therefore a bit slow on the uptake, maybe a picture with arrows and pretty colours would help.

Just for clarity, putting aside sucide bombing - that wasn't in the article - you're saying you agree with him, according to what was reported in the article.

Whilst not commenting on suicide bombing, the article says "murder Jews in the name of Islam". Basically kill people of a certain religion.

That ideology/practice has a name: genocide.

Therefore the ideas put forth in the article is that of genocide and one which you appear to have positioned yourself as supporting.

Which in my eyes in untenable.

Which is why in my first post I asked where he said "murder Jews in the name of Islam". That's the title of this thread. That is not what he said.

A drawing with with arrows and pretty colours will come later.

If the fundamentals of Islam are peace and love, why is the term, Islamic fundamentalist a synonym for a terrorist? Wouldn't an Islamic fundamentalist reflect the fundamentals of peace and love if that was truly what was at Islam's core?

http://i2.tinypic.com/ou86t4.jpg

Well I'm not a Jew so I'm not worried.

von your constant barrage of personal attacks do you no service. It actually makes you look desperate.

Please quit.

I don't think the Jews are worried too much either.

mohammed: "Hey Jews, I have this new religion thing going on. Come and join me 'coz it's way better than your religion"

Jews: "Bugger off you weirdo"

mohammed: "AAIIIEEEEEE!!! You will pay, infidels!"


...And that's about the top and tail of it. One must remember that mohammed was not the lovely bloke which muslims make him out to be.

Once you get up to speed you may be surprised to learn Jews are not the only ones on the list. They're just on the front lines. If they fall, guess who's next? hey!_Zeus :lol:

Unless you are a Muslim trying to pass yourself off as an infidel. :D

This is how I process the article: The cleric uses the infamous "talking tree" hadith to explain that it is an imperative that all Muslims enter a war as a form of worship/sanctification of the Muslim deity. Moreover, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to fight to take land "occupied" by anyone else, even if local Muslims are not at war with that group. Now I cannot tell from the article if he is referring explicitly to the Arab-Israeli conflict or if it's just implicitly referenced, but to deny that that is the underlying subject of the speech is ludicrous.

The implications are clear enough to nearly all of this thread's participants: A requisite feature of Muslim service to its deity is war against the infidel, especially when it's a matter of land claimed by Muslims. The land of Israel fits that description. And Von Wrangell says he agrees with the thoughts conveyed by the article. This will be a good thread to point to when people refer to moderate Muslims on the forums.

This why there will never be a peaceful end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's the same reason why Hamas has publicly abrogated the worthless agreements Israel reached with the PLO - Hamas' theocratic orientation compels it to be more honest with the west than Arafat was. At least civilization is waking up to the true motivations and intentions of Islamic fundamentalism. Btw, Von Wrangell, there's an important distinction I want you to understand. When you call someone critical of aspects of Islam an Islamophobe, that designation is likely inaccurate. Criticism does not imply fear. In contrast, when an individual condones attacks against Israelis or calls for the destruction of Israel, that person is definitely a Jew-hater. Israel is the eternal homeland of the Jewish people; hatred of Israel is synonymous with hatred of the Jewish people.

Pure hyperbolic nonesense.

Jews and christians can't be called infidels, they are the people of the book, the people of the same book as muslims are. There is no difference before God between a truthful and devout jew, christian or muslim.

There were though those from the arabs, jews and christians in Arabia at the time of prophet Muhammad that deviated from monotheism and turned to polytheism, and that's why prophet Muhammad was sent to them to preach to them so that they may return to monotheism.

Part of these polytheists actually then returned to the path of God, but there were other parts that chose to kill the prophet and his followers and started a war, against which the prophet and his followers led a defensive war.

The jews in Medina actually were allied with prophet Muhammad during that war, eventhough they were not convinced that he was a real prophet. So there you have a clear distinction between religion and secular alliance. But at a point of time they betrayed that alliance and allied with polytheistic Mecca, simply because they thought prophet Muhammad and his followers would lose the war, and wanted to be on the side of the victors.

The first tribe got banned for that betrayal and its male-part came back fighting on the battlefield in alliance with polytheistic Mecca, the other tribe got trialed according to their own jewish laws and they themselves chose to go through that trial and accepted the verdict.

But now back on topic of the islamistic cleric:
According to the Quran, to kill an innocent human with intent (in contrast to an accident), even if he were a polytheist, atheist, agnostic, buddhist, hindu, jew, christian or muslim, is like killing the whole humanity, and the one doing so will burn in hell.

Radical islamists like to ignore that most basic message of the Quran and instead focus on the part of the Quran that chronologises the historic war between polytheistic Mecca, that started the war and monotheistic Medina, that defended and ultimately won the war.

But if these radical Islamists would stick to the Quran, even if they incorrectly treated the orders from God to prophet Muhammad and his followers during the defensive war as being meant eternally for all muslims, they would have to acknowledge that the prophet Muhammad and his followers fought the defensive war on religious grounds against polytheism trying to force muslims to become again polytheists, and in doing so, only fighting against armed males on the battlefield.

So, is Israel a polytheistic force that tries to force muslims to become polytheists, too? As far as I know there are mosques in Israel and muslims practicing monotheism and devout jews in synagogues practicing monotheism, too, so what the heck are they talking about?

Sure Israel was created with unjust methods and muslims were forced out, but this are secular reasons and not religious ones, a secular fight between monotheists. Wars were already fought because of that injustice and the muslims lost it, so it was obviously God's plan to create a modern Israel there.

So, since radical Islamists can't even construct a convincable case from the Quran, despite their out-of-context and stubbornly literal attitudes, they turn to Hadiths.

Hadiths are collections of sayings of prophet Muhammad written down 125-250 years after prophet Muhammad died. Bukhari and Muslim are the most revered hadith-collections. These authors verified the orally transmitted stories and sayings of prophet Muhammad by looking at the character of the people in the oral transmission-chain, and when they didn't find anything that somehow put a bad light on the character of one of the transmitters and the beginning of the chain was found to be one of the companions of the prophet Muhammad, the hadiths were accepted as "strong/sahih", those that had questionable transmitters were accepted as "weak" hadiths.

These hadiths were collected and written down irrespective of their content, even if they glaringly contradict the Quran and even if they contradict other sahih-hadiths.

Another interesting notion is that the hadith-collectors revered all companions of the prophet Muhammad as being truthful and devout believers, nearly sinless, despite Aisha (she is the source of the second most hadiths) accusing Hureira (the one who delivered the most hadiths) of being a liar and inventing hadiths, and despite the quarrels between them after prophet Muhammad died.

Now I can adress the specific hadith that the radical islamistic cleric cites to support his secular desires: The hadith claims that prophet Muhammad talks about the future, the judgment day, according to which jews would be killed by the muslims and the trees and stones would even speak and tell where jews hide.

The hadith is categorized under the socalled "weak" hadiths, ie. one or more of the parts of the transmission-chain has been found to be questionable.

But that's not the angle I want to condemn the hadith with. I prefer to do it with the quranic message:

1. According to the Quran, the prophet doesn't know anything of the future, except what God revealed to him, and which is the Quran. So if that story is not in the Quran, then it's not a revelation and since the prophet Muhammad couldn't see into the future, this one falls flat.

2. According to the Quran, the day of judgment day is one in which the whole earth gets shaken so much that mountains break down, and everyone still living then runs around mindlessly, not even thinking about his own family anymore, until they all die in the shaking up-process, and then all get ressurected and those that believed in God and the last day and commited good deeds from among the jews, christians, muslims and other monotheists, that avoided the big sins (for example idolatry, murder, oppression...) will find God forgiving the small sins and granted entry to paradise.

Considering the fact that the hadiths mostly contradict the Quran and even contradict each other, I would like to see the islamic world ditch the hadith-collections all together.

Taliesin

Taliesin, thanks for taking the time to post that.

I think not.

Complete and utter BS.
You are not the equal of Christianity or Judaism and you know it. That's why some of your boys are so uppity most of the time - pure jealousy.

islam: defending itself all the way through Iberia and half of France.

Like I said: "bugger off you weirdo". That's the top and tail of what you just said. They told him to go away in much the same way that we tell Mormons and JW's to go away these days.

Ummm... The whole point of a prophet is that they can see into the future. That's why the teachings the come out with are called prophecies.

I'll try to dumb this down as much as possible. That way most of you have a chance of understanding what I said.

I said I agreed with what he said:
That is what he said in the article. And yes, I agree with it.

Tal has already dealt with the hadith (for the umpteenth time). He is using that hadith as an example of the Muslim brotherhood and that we should drop our "ideals" when it comes to war and struggles and fight for God as Muslims.

This is what I agree with.

Simple enough?

And btw Big Mac. When someone criticises Islam I have no problem with him. But that has yet to be donein this thread. So far it's the same old attack on Muslims for what one person says. It's the same old with a moderator supporting those blatant attacks on Muslims. It's the same old hatred that you have in your hearts towards Muslims. Your nation hasn't evolved one bit since the days of slavery. And neither has the majority of your people.

And you can continue to try to say all those who are against Israel are anti-Semites. It just shows yet again that you will lie and cheat to get what you want. Just like you have done before and just like you will do again. I've got no problem with Jews. I've got a problem with Israel the "state" and the supporters of that "state". Just like I have a problem with all racist little pigs and all occupying little pigs. You will all get what you deserve in the end and I can't wait for it to happen.

But I do.



You are entitled to think that, but I was talking from the point of view of the Quran. According to the Quran there is no difference between a devout and truthful jew, christian and muslim in the hereafter, ie. before God.
By the way Judaism is regarding christianity as a deviation if not idolatry religion, and christians are feeling similar regarding Islam. Otherwise there would be just one religion.



I can't recall prophet Muhammad doing this. If you talk about his followers after he died, these are purely secular wars, sometimes to help out other people that called for help, like for example the christians from Egypt, in Spain it was truly political, some christian king called the muslims from North-Africa for help against a rival, and while they were supposed to leave again after the rival was defeated, they chose instead to stay.





It was much more complex and you know it. There were quite a few jews that believed prophet Muhammad, but there were also quite a few that didn't believe him, not different at all to what Jesus experienced. But regardless of that, prophet Muhammad made with them a secular contract and alliance. The secular alliance was though betrayed by two jewish tribes in the course of the war between polytheistic Mecca and monotheistic Medina.



No, it's not, and I'm somewhat bewildered that since you see yourself as a christian you don't know this. The prophets know only that about the future what God reveals to them. And the revelations are part of the holy scriptures. On their own accord they can't see anything about the future, as can be seen by Jesus clearly saying that he doesn't know when the last day will be.

So, since the content of said hadith about the future is not in the Quran, it can't be a revelation from God, and the prophet couldn't see into the future on his own accord.

You are clearly mixing pagan ideas of fortune-tellers into this topic.

Taliesin

But that is not the quranic message. The ideals and rules have to be observed regardless of the situation, in peace or in war. Someone who is innocent and not fighting, can't be killed with intent during a war or in peace-times, without being comdemned to hell in the hereafter for it.


Taliesin

Assalaam alaikum.

The ideals he was refering to in the article were the ideals of liberalism, nationalism and alike. And those ideals should be abandonded in the case of war. No war is worth fighting if it is for petty imaginary human ideals. The only war worth fighting is a war for God. And that I agree with.

And as for being innocent. I completely agree. It's unacceptable and a 100% certain way of getting sent straight to hell to kill an innocent. But in the original article he isn't talking about that. In the article he is simply stating that our political views and our "human" views should be put aside in the case of war and that we as Muslims should stand together. And I completely agree with that.

I haven't commented on the transcript yet that was posted here because I simply haven't had the time. I only commented on the article posted in the OP. And there is nothing wrong with the comments there except that he uses a weak hadith as an example.

Quoted for posterity.

Yeah von is finally showing the true colors?