Posted on 11/02/2001 11:58:31 PM PST by Freedom of Speech Wins
Egyptian clerics 'declare war on America' Professors, academics advocate joining 'jihad' against U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Muslim clerics and college professors in Egypt, long considered a moderate and even friendly Arab state by the U.S., are openly declaring war on America in light of the current military campaign in Afghanistan. Moussa Hal, a reporter for the unofficial website of Egypt's Al-Azhar University, has posted many anti-American statements made by the university's clerics and professors under the heading, "Islamic clerics in Egypt declare war on America."
As translated from Arabic by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, here are some of the comments:
* Sheikh Ali Abu Al-Hassan, head of Al-Azhar's Religious Ruling Committee: "It is the sense of danger that unites the West. They have put together a coalition against Islam. They sense danger only from Islam. This feeling has united them against a single enemy, which is Islam. Why, therefore, should we ourselves not unite? ... We, Oh Nation of Islam, are all targeted by our enemy. ... Why should we not unite, therefore, around the cry, ‘There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah' and fight our enemy? ...
"Entering into an alliance with the Americans against Afghanistan constitutes Ridah [that is, turning away from belief in Islam, for which the punishment is death, with no possibility of clemency] ... The Afghan opposition [forces] must not put [their] hand in the hand of the Americans; they must stand with their countrymen [and] their co-religionists, otherwise Allah and his angels will curse them. ..."
On another occasion, Abu Al-Hassan told Hal: "There is no doubt that this is a case of a hostile state fighting us, and we must resist it. ... Resistance in this case is by all possible means, even by means of war. If the enemy sets foot on the lands of Islam, he must be fought. In this case, a man must set out [on a Jihad] without the permission of his father, a woman without the permission of her husband, a debtor without the permission of his lender, and a slave without the permission of his master. Islam urges us to set out on a Jihad for the sake of Allah until we accomplish one of two good things: martyrdom or victory. ... "When Islam is attacked, there are no borders. Jihad in this instance is an obligation for all Muslims. ... In this instance, the aggression is against Islam and therefore it is the obligation of all Muslims, not only the local residents, to protect this piece of land. ...
"The Afghans have the right to defend themselves, and we are obliged to help them and to defend them as best we can from the cruelty of the American attacks. Islam has commanded us to support our Muslim brothers under attack, and to fight the Jihad alongside them against the polytheists, with our souls and with our property ..."
* Dr. Abd Al-Azim Al-Mut'ani, Al-Azhar University lecturer: "This war is a criminal attack, genuinely similar to the first Crusader wars, which the West waged in the Middle Ages under the rallying cry of defending the Christian pilgrims, when their actual target was Islam and the Muslims. Now, the U.S. has declared a war on Afghanistan, under the rallying cry of fighting terrorism, when the actual goal is to harm Islam and to wipe it off the face of the earth. ... "The Islamic world must stand by the oppressed. ... The [Islamic] peoples must fulfill their obligation towards Islam and towards Muslims. The battle is a battle of the peoples and they are the ones who drive the rulers to do their duty. If the armies of Islam do not do their duty with regard to this invasion of Islam, they must be dispersed!!"
* Al-Mut'ani, on the differences between Jihad and terrorism: "Terrorism is a modern term. In Islam, the meaning of terrorism is intimidation; not all intimidation is forbidden by religious law. ... In the modern age, when [different] kinds of oppression and persecution emerged, some ethnic groups in almost every society were stripped of their rights. When they insisted on their rights, and [when] the despotic regimes rejected them – the oppressed and persecuted found no way to express themselves but by means of [various] kinds of rebellion. ...
"The most recent example of the so-called terrorism are the recent attacks against America. Whatever the interpretations may be, no one disagrees that America is the one who killed and was killed. It is America that killed itself with its distorted policy. It was completely successful in sowing hatred and loathing in the hearts of [people] of the entire world by means of its policy, a policy of double standard, primarily in all things regarding Islamic and Arab affairs. ... At this point, I would like to give two examples: the problem that occurred between East Timor and West Timor. The Muslim side was the stronger side. America went berserk and mobilized all the international institutions to defend the non-Muslims. Within 24 hours there were United Nations troops in addition to special forces from the U.S. at the scene. America did not stop until it had achieved its goal. ... In contrast, it allows Israel to slaughter Palestinians and to destroy the mosques. ...America did not lift a finger to save the Palestinian people. After all this, America still wants Allah to give it security. [Yet] it is the one that attacked itself because it angered the world.
"What America has done against Afghanistan is a crime, and one of the most loathsome kinds of international terrorism. [This is] interfering in others' domestic affairs, which is not accepted both by the monotheistic religions and by the laws [made by man]. ... We could have stood with America had it sought a precise definition of terrorism and had it established statutes of punishment for terrorism in the U.N. After that, every state could have sought the terrorists within its own jurisdiction. But that the U.S. should carry out this mission [by itself] -- no, no, a thousand times no! Even if the present regimes support America, these regimes are only passing clouds. They do not enjoy stability; stability is in the hands of the peoples. ...
"What America is doing now is world terror waged against the weak. Even if the Islamic peoples are not worthy of the support of Allah -- because they themselves do not support Him -- the forces of tyranny deserve to be defeated."
* Dr. Abd Al-Sabour Shahin: "The truth is that the way Islam uses the word ‘terrorism' is honorable, as Allah said: 'Make ready for them whatever you can of armed strength and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may daunt the enemy of Allah and your enemy.' The terrorism mentioned in this verse refers to intimidation or threat, not necessarily to damage. For this reason, accusing Islam or Muslims of terrorism is mistaken, because Muslims as a nation are the symbol of peace in the world and the Muslim nation has never attacked a neighboring nation. ...
"There is a huge difference between terrorism and Jihad. Jihad is a general term that includes Jihad by means of words, Jihad by means of leadership, and Jihad by means of war. War is only on behalf of the nation and in accordance with its decision, and not according to the decision of an individual. What is happening with the Palestinians is a Jihad that is legitimate according to religious law, aimed at defending the Islamic holy places. What the Afghani people is doing in response to the aggression is also a Jihad that is legitimate according to religious law. ..."
* Dr. Abd Al-Hay Al-Farmawi, a lecturer: "The American attacks on Afghanistan are terrorism, oppression, repression [and] barbarism, and can even be called bullying. The American missiles were directed at innocents among the defenseless Afghani people. America is doing this without presenting any proof of Osama bin Laden's guilt. This proves that this war, as Bush said, is a crusader war against Islam and Muslims. We must awaken before the U.S. forces reach us."
* Dr. Yahyah Isma'il, official spokesman of the Al-Azhar clerics: "This war is a war against Muslims and Islam. Everyone must offer help to the mujahideen brothers in Afghanistan. They should not be abandoned in the tragedy to which they are subject."
* Sheikh Youssef Al-Badri called on "Muslims to declare a Jihad against the Americans. We all must prepare for Jihad, because the strikes will reach even us, in many Islamic countries. What America and the West have done is an international crime, ... a great crime against humanity. This is a war against Islam, as the leaders of the West and the leaders of the U.S. have said. We have no choice but to declare our own position: Are we with Islam or are we with Bush? The answer is what will determine the fate of the Islamic nation in the new millennium."
Editor's note: The Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Media Research Institute is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East.
Yeah yeah..........................right. Tell 'em to blow it out their arses. Tell 'em to join the club.
Can see it now: Harsh words at twenty paces.
Drooling twits..............
It is outright lies like this that expose these people as tools of evil. America gave the Palestinians everything they asked for--and still they were the ones shedding blood by blowing up children at a Sparros pizza joint with bombs filled with screws and nails. Arafat and his Arab Muslim thugs took the generosity of the United States and demanded ever more and ever more.
These people are just plain evil.
If Islam weren't a religion of idiots they would see that the Taliban has mistreated its own people miserably.
If Islam weren't a religion of idiots they would see that we were attacked, first. We are just responding as THEIR OWN RELIGION DICTATES its time for an eye for an eye.
And if this is "rash" then so was pearl harbor. And if we had a few more people like you back then, we'd all be speaking Japanese now.
Go back to Berkeley.
We should tell Mubarik he needs to stand up and condemn this crap. Or no 2 billion in aid. AND he and his country just might make the list.
The only way to win a war on terrorism is to get nations to police themselves of their extremists, and the best way to do that is through the fear that they could be next.
If you're still online I'm addressing my response to you and I'm responding to you, but I'm also responding to the idea presented. When I post to a thread I fell like I'm engaged with in a converstaion with everyone on that thread. And besides... Some things simply can't go unchallenged and that stupid remark by Cavalry is one.
I checked out his profile page BTW and suspect that someone else may have logged in on his machine, that comment doesn't sound like it came from the guy profiled on that page.
Please explain to me what actions that we are taking in Afghanistan are rash and why.
We are in Afghanistan because that is where the people that masterminded the murder of 6000+ innocent American civilians are hiding there, and the thuggocracy that runs the place refuses to turn them over to us.
Let me repeat that, because although you went to Berkely, you obviously were in the slow learners class: Al-Qaeda murdered 6000+ innocent American civilians, on American soil. They are hiding in Afghanistan. They have vowed to continue murdering American civilians, and the ruling Taliban will neither kick them out nor turn them over to us.
Since it is unacceptable to allow foreigners to kill thousands of American civilians, and since those sheltering the murderers are a government, military action is indicated. Military action, for Berkely graduates in the slow learners class, means that you have to hurt people and break things. The goal is to hurt enough of the right people and to break enough of the things controlled by those people so that they (a) are incapable of stopping us from seizing those responsible for the murder of 6000+ innocent American civilians, and (b) prevent those responsible for murdering 6000+ innocent American civilians from killing any more American civilians.
Taking military action to eliminat the threat against the lives of innocent American civilians -- in the United States -- is not rash. Rather, in these circumstances rash actions include the following:
So please, explain to me -- and use simple words, so as to make plain, even to yourself, of the idiocy of your arguments -- what actions that the United States is taking in Afghanistan are rash.
So much misinformation. First it's laser, light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. (did my first paper on them in high school, '67 or '68). Second imagining recon satellites are not at 23,000 feet, nor even 23,000 miles. 23,000 feet is still well within the atmosphere and below the altitude most passenger jets fly at. 23,000 miles is, approximately, the distance geostationary communications, and some early warning satellites are at. At that distance the orbital period is the same as the period of the rotation of the earth, so the satellite appears stationary over one point on the equator (orbit must of course be equatorial). Imaging satellites orbit much lower, but of course if I told you how low, the moderator would rightly pull the post. Same goes for the available resolution, but suffice it to say that identification of individuals is more than problematical from imagery alone. The resolution isn't quite good enough.
BTW, I too support space based lasers, and other directed energy weapons as part of a national missile defense. It would be a defense that would actually defend, rather than our current policy of (mostly) just taking revenge.
All seven of them?
Seriously, no civilized person should ever need to give what Muslims think a second thought.
Unless of course they are out to get us anyway.
Which is it?
Works for me.
We have been accused forever of being imperialists anyway.
What's to lose?
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.