Sheikh Ali Al-Yousuf of the International Union of Muslim Scholars has praised the Muslim migrant teen who beheaded French teacher Samuel Paty, stating that the teen was not guilty of a serious crime. Why? “He took it upon himself to carry out the death penalty for insulting the Prophet Muhammad,” said the Sheikh. Al-Yousuf’s only regret was that the death penalty for blasphemy should not be carried out by individuals, but “by a shari’a court in an Islamic state.”
The barbarity frequently found in Islam — from persecution and conquest to punishment for a range of “sins” — stems from specific tenets of Islamic law. This remains true despite the fact that most people adamantly refuse to see it. For fear of offending Muslims, these people abandon the victims who are savaged by Islamic law. The jihad violence that took Paty’s life in France is a common aspect of life among non-Muslims in Africa and the Middle East. In Islamic states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, accusations of blasphemy can also lead to execution. Saudi Arabia beheaded over 180 people for various offenses in 2019; most of these offense were rooted in Islamic texts.
Many Muslims hailed the beheading of Paty. Some stated that it was “a warning to all critics of Islam.” Some Muslim students in France cheered the burning of French flags in response to the displaying of Muhammad cartoons.
The link between Islam and violence and terrorism is obvious. It does nothing to keep repeating the clear fact that there are Muslims who are peaceful. Of course there are. That doesn’t change the fact that jihad-minded Muslims are a threat, or that they are motivated by texts such as these:
When your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” (Quran 8:12)
So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds. (Quran 47:4)
And Sunan Abu Dawood 4348 describes the gruesome murder of a woman who blasphemed Muhammad.
The Sharia’s teachings on the inferiority of women, its prohibition (on pain of death) of speech that is offensive to Islam, and its sanctioning of jihad violence will become increasingly clear in Western countries, despite all the efforts to shield it under the guise of multiculturalism and “tolerance.” How many Westerners feel safe to criticize Islam publicly? Case proven. This means Westerners are no longer free. Western leaders have failed to protect the public as they have worshiped at the altar of identity politics. No other religion poses such a threat.
This is what Sheikh Al-Yousuf also stated, which is echoed by the full range of Islamic supremacist groups operating throughout the West in defense of Islam”
Anyone who follows what is happening in France – the attacks against Islam and Muslims, and especially what we have seen lately – will see that there is an obvious media, political, cultural, and ideological campaign against Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet Muhammad, against every Muslim individual, as well as Muslim symbols, like the hijab. All this is crystal clear – it is called Islamophobia.
“This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”
“Sheikh Ali Al-Yousuf Of The International Union Of Muslim Scholars: Killing Of French Teacher Paty Was In Keeping With The Ruling Of The Shari’a But It Should Have Been Done By The Islamic State, Not By Just Any Individual,” MEMRI, October 18, 2020:
Sheikh Ali Al-Yousuf of the International Union of Muslim Scholars said in an October 18, 2020 interview on Channel 9 (Turkey) that from the perspective of Islamic law, one cannot say that the Chechen teen who recently beheaded French history teacher Samuel Paty is guilty of a serious crime. Rather, he said that the teen’s transgression was that he took it upon himself to carry out the death penalty for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, while the sentence should be carried out by a shari’a court in an Islamic state. Sheikh Al-Yousuf said that people should focus on the fact that Paty had been teaching people to “hate” the Prophet Muhammad, and he argued that France is undergoing a crisis, since “Islam is growing because of its moral values.” He added that Muslims in France should integrate into French society because French people would not hate Islam if they were familiar with its virtues. He also speculated that Samuel Paty would not have acted as he had if he had been familiar with the qualities of the Prophet Muhammad.
Sheikh Ali Al-Yousuf: “Anyone who follows what is happening in France – the attacks against Islam and Muslims, and especially what we have seen lately – will see that there is an obvious media, political, cultural, and ideological campaign against Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet Muhammad, against every Muslim individual, as well as Muslim symbols, like the hijab. All this is crystal clear – it is called Islamophobia. Now they want to scare [people] away from Islam, because it is the second [largest] religion in France, and it is the number one religion in Europe, in France [sic], and therefore it must be attacked, along with its symbols. So they do not want Islam to advance in those places.
“I would like to say that in light of all these actions, we must take a look at those who incite and distort and those who attack our Prophet Muhammad, in a country that claims to be secular and democratic, a country that claims to respect human rights, religions, opinions, and ideas. I do not know what kind of respect this is with this cursing, insulting, and attacking of Islamic symbols. This is the problem, before we talk about this act [murder of Samuel Paty] – its judgement according to the shari’a and our opinion about it… We must firmly focus on all the hostile and disgraceful actions that have been directed against Muslims for many years, actions supported by the government and extremists in France and elsewhere that were meant to distort Islam’s image in the West.”
[…]
Interviewer: “You spoke about the shari’a ruling regarding a person who curses the Prophet. You said that such a person should be killed, and the only question is who should carry this out. No one has the right to carry out this ruling by himself. In this specific case that took place in France, according to the shari’a, a Muslim who is confronted with such a case, and gets angry – it is only natural that he would get angry because of the insult to the Prophet Muhammad… What is the ruling of the shari’a in such a case?”
Al-Yousuf: “As I told you, if it is proven that the person who did this is a Chechen Muslim, and he did this out of anger because of the violation of the Prophet Muhammad’s honor, and if he indeed was a Muslim who did this in defense of the Islamic shari’a, then we let Allah be his judge. We could never say that he committed a serious crime or something that he should be punished for according to the shari’a, because his [only] offense was that he carried out the ruling by himself, and according to our shari’a, the punishment should be carried out by the Islamic state….
Khalid Iqbal says
Living in disharmony, is the way the world communities had been all the time. There is no magic solution to this obvious problem until we start thinking and practicing the famous proverb of Confucius, “Don’t do unto others what you want not done unto you”. Otherwise, only hatred will rule and there will be no winners.
People should realize that the world is a place with a varieties of human communities, plants, animals, beliefs, cultures and many more things. Among these is also a variety of religious beliefs and practices. This is like a menu in a restaurant and, we as rational human beings, legally have the freedom of choice to accept what interests us. In a restaurant you can eat what you like and your neighbour is normally not worried about what you eat, how close you are seated or if you are paying cash for your food.
Like your meal, religion is also a private and personal thing for you and no one should have any rights to criticise how you practice it, because the law gives you freedom to practice your religion as per your choice. The golden rule is that, do not criticise anyone’s religion in any way or form, either verbally or through cartoons. Everyone has the freedom of speech to say something but should never exceed the boundary beyond which the criticism becomes offensive and warrants a payback.
No one should even think of using violence to redress the matter, especially in a non-Islamic country where Sharia laws are not practiced. In such countries there should be specific laws to stop critics and other offenders from exceeding the limits from where their actions become offensive to others. That is the limit of freedom of speech which will create harmonious society and keep public order. Actually, by instinct everyone should know when a criticism and offensive actions can lead to tension in society. By analogy, is an offensive action not similar to knowing when to remove your hand from a heating oven before the hand will start to burn?
I think our politicians need good and unbiased policy-makers and appropriate laws which should have precedence over unlimited freedom of speech in order to create harmony and to withhold public order.
gravenimage says
This is not about generic “living in disharmony”–this is Islamic savagery. Non-Muslims are not beheading teachers over cartoons as Khalid Iqbal pretends.
Then, there is no Golden Rule in Islam.
And the idea that people have the right to choose their religion is quite true–but is *not*allowed under Islam, which has the death penalty for those who dare leave Islam.
Then, the claim that the Golden Rule prevents anyone from criticizing evil is *quite* mistaken. Everyone has the right to criticize such horrors as child rape, slavery, and mass slaughter.
And the idea that the law in a civilized nation prevents anyone from criticizing religion or any other ideology is uterly false. Then, the law in civilized nations does *not* allow things like beheading critics. Try again…
Then the idea that cartoons “warrants a payback” including *beheading* could not be more gortesque.
Then, this Mohammedan demands that Infidels enforce brutal oppressive Shari’ah law against critcs themselves. So sorry–we don’t plan on destroying freedom of speech for barbaric Islam por any other vicious creed.
Then, actying as though Muslims becoming enraged and murdering people is like touching a hot oven is insane–other people don’t murder people over cartoons they don’t like.
Finally, kowtowing to violent Muslims does not result in “harmony”–rather, it just emboldens them that Jihad violence works.
somehistory says
Suppose for a small moment that your words you have posted here cause someone distress, or they are offensive to another person who disagrees with you….just who gets to decide if your words are left here as ‘freedom’ to speak or if your words break the Law and you are punished?
There is no such human as completely “unbiased.” Everyone on earth has bias toward something. Who gets to choose those “good and unbiased” people who will decide if your speech is offensive to others?
I find that when one wishes to take away my freedom to speak or even to have a thought because they believe I should fear moslims might wish to kill me, I am more inclined than ever to say how I feel about islam.
Had moslims never tried to enforce their idea of morality, which is most immoral, on others; had they never murdered others or raped others to keep the from wanting something different, I probably would have never said anything about islam. But, when one is aware of the evils committed in the name of islam, a moral, honest person, must speak about it.
The more moslims commit terror, murder, rape and rage against freedoms to take them away, the more I will speak about the evil of it.
Khalid Iqbal says
Gravenimage: Hold your horse! “Do not do unto others what you want not done to you” is the golden rule of peace and harmony which you and your likes do not seem to understand unless your warped views of “unlimited” freedom of speech remains intact.
somehistory says
That is no “Golden Rule.” The Golden Rule is a positive rule given by Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. “Do to others the way you wish them to do to you.”
If moslims are following this True Golden Rule, moslms wish others to murder them and rape their young sons, daughters of all ages and wives.
Furthermore, if moslims say they are following it, they want to be prevented from saying how they feel about Jews and Christians.
So, they are not really following what Jesus said….or they would not be raping, murdering and trying to force the will and worship of satan the devil on the rest of us.
Khalid Iqbal says
somehistory: I am shocked by your ignorance about Islam, which means “submission to the will of God”. As Muslims we love and respect Jesus, the son of Mary, and address him respectfully with the phrase “Peace be on him” when his name is mentioned. We do not believe in your polytheism and blasphemy, because “Lord thy God is a jealous God” and he alone wants to be worshipped.
As for the cartoon of Prophet Mohammed which you love to portray, to defame Islam, I do not think any Muslim is that low to match you because it will hurt the sentiments of the Christians and is against our Islamic teachings, as well. Only a person with hatred and anger against Islam will find my noble words problematic and distressful because he does not want to differentiate between what hurts and what does not hurt. Generally, Muslims are peace-loving and tolerant people but we will only fight back under oppression, which makes us look politically bad. However, we follow the Quran, Prophet Mohammed as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ, but do not give the other cheek when attacked intentionally. This does not mean I condone violence. I am for dialogue in a rational way.
Dialogues in dispute is also mentioned in the Quran which is the last of the revealed scriptures that God had sent to confirm the authenticity of the original message contained in the Bible and the Torah and in all other revealed scriptures. We love and respect all of them. That’s why we do not make fun of any Prophets because they are our Prophets, as well. The Quran also warns us to be wary of “the People Of the Book” despite our faith in their scriptures. This makes sense because, among other things, you use the “freedom of speech” to hurt Muslims and you know that they will not hurt you in the same way. I am sure Jesus would have interrupted your freedom of speech at some point, if he was alive.
Finally, as for the rape, murder and satan-worship you attach to Islam, I would like to say to you and others who don’t know, that Islam does not entertaining any of these and have very strict laws to punish the guilty ones. Those who may indulge in these practices are not practicing Muslims but serving somebody’s political ideology. People who hurt the feelings of a specific community must choose for their country, between disturbing public order and unlimited freedom of speech. However, I will welcome any “workable” solution from you that will bring peace and security in a society we all live in.
somehistory says
I have just one sentence to sum up all of the lying words that you have written to me: You are full of rotten bologna. (baloney) I know that is what you want because you explained it so well in your other posts about your ‘rule’ in islam about not doing what you don’t want done. However, since I don’t tell lies, I must just point out that is what you have done, hence, “baaaa loney.”
As Porky Pig said, “That’s all”…(leaving out the family part).
gravenimage says
Fine posts, Somehistory.
gravenimage says
Khalid Iqbal wrote:
Gravenimage: Hold your horse! “Do not do unto others what you want not done to you” is the golden rule of peace and harmony which you and your likes do not seem to understand unless your warped views of “unlimited” freedom of speech remains intact.
………………………
The idea that people are not following the Golden Rule unless they turn a blind eye to horrors like child “marriage”, the rape of Infidels, and mass slaughter of unbelievers is simply grotesque.
Khalid Iqbal is either incapable of reason–like so many Muslims, or else he desperately hopes we are.
More, in reply to Somehistory:
somehistory: I am shocked by your ignorance about Islam, which means “submission to the will of God”. As Muslims we love and respect Jesus, the son of Mary, and address him respectfully with the phrase “Peace be on him” when his name is mentioned. We do not believe in your polytheism and blasphemy, because “Lord thy God is a jealous God” and he alone wants to be worshipped.
………………………
Khalid Iqbal’s problem is not that Somehistory is ignorant of Islam, but that she knows far too much about it.
Never mind that he does not understand the concept of the trinity. The “Jesus”–really, “prophet Isa”–that Muslims respect is a figure that is not the Savior or a peacemaker, who coerced some poor nameless victim to be crucified in his place, and whose role in the last days is to *mass murder Christians*.
More:
As for the cartoon of Prophet Mohammed which you love to portray, to defame Islam, I do not think any Muslim is that low to match you because it will hurt the sentiments of the Christians and is against our Islamic teachings, as well. Only a person with hatred and anger against Islam will find my noble words problematic and distressful because he does not want to differentiate between what hurts and what does not hurt. Generally, Muslims are peace-loving and tolerant people but we will only fight back under oppression, which makes us look politically bad. However, we follow the Quran, Prophet Mohammed as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ, but do not give the other cheek when attacked intentionally. This does not mean I condone violence. I am for dialogue in a rational way.
………………………
In what way is Somehistory wrong? The Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira themselves describe the “Prophet” Muhammed raiding caravans, “marrying” a little child, enslaving victims, urging his thug followers to rape captive women, raping sex slaves, and mass slaughtering unbelievers.
Then note that Muslims consider so much as having Infidels say that Islam is violent as an attack.
More:
Dialogues in dispute is also mentioned in the Quran which is the last of the revealed scriptures that God had sent to confirm the authenticity of the original message contained in the Bible and the Torah and in all other revealed scriptures. We love and respect all of them. That’s why we do not make fun of any Prophets because they are our Prophets, as well. The Quran also warns us to be wary of “the People Of the Book” despite our faith in their scriptures. This makes sense because, among other things, you use the “freedom of speech” to hurt Muslims and you know that they will not hurt you in the same way. I am sure Jesus would have interrupted your freedom of speech at some point, if he was alive.
………………………
Actually, Islam claims that matters such as the Golden Rule are a “corruption” of the Torah and Gospel “–“Torat” and “Injeel”–and that these scripture used to be as savage as the Qur’an. Never mind that there is no proof for this.
And the Qur’an does not warn Muslims to be wary of Jews and Christians–it tells Muslims to persecute and murer them if they do not convert to Islam.
And the constant whining that the victims of Islam are hurting Muslims’ feelings if they dare to point out that Islam is hideously violent is just grotesque.
Note that Muslims have no such qualms preaching the abuse of Jews and Christians.
More:
Finally, as for the rape, murder and satan-worship you attach to Islam, I would like to say to you and others who don’t know, that Islam does not entertaining any of these and have very strict laws to punish the guilty ones. Those who may indulge in these practices are not practicing Muslims but serving somebody’s political ideology. People who hurt the feelings of a specific community must choose for their country, between disturbing public order and unlimited freedom of speech. However, I will welcome any “workable” solution from you that will bring peace and security in a society we all live in.
………………………
Uh huh. Never mind that Muhammed himself urged the rape of captives and himself raped sex slaves and a young woman whose husband, father, and brothers he had just murdered, and beheaded over 600 unarmed Jews.
Is he saying that Muhammed punished himself? Try again…
And how is pointing out this violence “disturbing public order”? He means that if you dare say that Islam is violent that Muslims will attack and murder you.
As to what would bring peace and security to the civilized West, it is a halt to importing more ravening Muslims.
Khalid Iqbal says
Gravenimage and Somehistory you both seem to be rotten to the core, bigots and Islamophobics. I can’t have a rational dialogue with you because you will never change your warped views of Islam. You are making a mountain out of a manufactured mole hill. I suggest you stop Islam bashing and concentrate more on improving what come out of your mouths and what your hands produce, so that you stop offending for ever.
gravenimage says
How is Somehistory and myself opposing rape and murder in the name of Islam make us “rotten to the core”? Only a pious Mohammedan would think like this.
The idea that Taqiyya whitewashing these horrors is “rational dialogue” is completely false. Then note that Khalid Iqbal doesn’t address any of the proof that that this is mainstream Islam–but then, how could he?
It is clear that this is not “warped”, but is orthodox Islam.
Notice that he doesn’t have a word of criticism for this Islamic scholar condoning beheading anyone who dares to support freedom of speech in the face of Islamic violence. No surprise there.
Then, the idea that our objecting to people being raped and beheaded is “making a mountain out of a molehill” is simply grotesque.
Finally, the idea that apologia for savagery is an improvement over condemning it is twisted in the extreme–but this is just how pious Muslims think. *Ugh*.
Who is offended by our opposing such atrocities? Only those barbarians who support it.