Leave a comment

Your Daily Muslim #628: Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman

Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman demonstrating the length of his favorite sex toy

Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman demonstrating the length of his favorite sex toy

Well, it’s Halloween, so I figured it’d be fitting to feature a Halloween-related fatwa (Islamic edict) on YDM. Meet Malay Islamic scholar Ustaz Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman, president of the Islamist group ISMA, a man who seeks to drive Malaysia back into the 7th century through fearmongering, blatant lying, and utter lunacy.

When Malaysia’s National Fatwa Council issued a fatwa informing Muslims that taking part in Halloween celebrations was in violation of sharia, Zaik decided to add his two cents on the issue. He claimed non-Muslims worldwide organize Halloween festivities to “shake the faith” of Muslims and “spread atheism.” Yes, because Christians worldwide are conspiring and celebrating Halloween in order to turn people they’ve never had contact with into… atheists? Did anyone follow Zaik’s logic there? Was there even any logic there?

Zaik has also stated that he believes pluralism and liberalism are among the many methods Jews use to erase national identity, which Zaik sees in a religious framework due to Malaysia’s strong Muslim leanings. Another alleged Jewish conspiracy thought up by a Muslim who lacks any hard evidence to back his assertion… yawn.

As I’m sure you’ve read on this site or elsewhere, many Muslims say that non-Muslims living in sharia-governed areas (dhimmis) are not held to the same standard of conduct because they are not forced to strictly adhere to sharia. However, we’ve seen that this isn’t the case on many occasions. Zaik claims that dhimmis must live by sharia and not “act beyond their means,” calling non-sharia-compliant actions of those non-Muslims a form of extremism. In the same breath, he argued sharia was not extremist. At another rally focused on stirring up anti-Christian sentiment, Zaik called for sharia punishments (hudud) to be applied to non-Muslims as well. It would be funny if these crazies didn’t believe every word they said.

3 Comments

Your Daily Muslim #627: Muhammad Mustafa al-Jibaly

Muhammad Mustafa al-Jibaly

Muhammad Mustafa al-Jibaly

“How terrible it would be for a person whom Allah has favored with Islam to find himself resurrected on the Day of Judgment among non-Muslims – simply because he liked to imitate them.”

Seventh-century regressive Dr. Muhammad Mustafa al-Jibaly is a noted Muslim author and former president of the al-Qur’an was-Sunnah Society of North America, a Salafi Muslim group. The pamphlets and short books al-Jibaly has written are full of unintentionally hilarious passages like, “Astronomical evidence may not be used to establish moon sighting or to verify or refute the sighting of trustworthy Muslims[,]” and make for humorous light reading, kinda like this site except infinitely more stunted.

One of al-Jibaly’s books is titled The Beard Between the Salaf & Khalaf and discusses the Islamic rules and regulations regarding beards – and all other sorts of male body hair. For some unknown reason, it has yet to catch on among the gay community in spite of totally not suggestive passages like, “Anas reported: ‘Allah’s Messenger [pigs be upon him] timed for us trimming our moustaches, clipping our nails, pulling our armpit hair, and shaving our pubic hair – that we do not delay that beyond forty nights.'” So Muhammad, pigs be upon him, liked to watch dudes shave their pubes… hmm. Says a lot.

“All the ‘ulama’ (scholars) of as-Salaf us-Salih (the Righteous early Muslims), including the Four Imams, agree that shaving the beard is haram (prohibited),” al-Jibaly wrote. “They consider shaving it an impermissible mutilation, as has been reported from Umar Bin Abdul Aziz- [At-Tarikh by Ibn Asakir]. They considered the man who shaved his beard effeminate. Many of them would not accept his testimony or allow him to lead the prayers.” Now, I’m sure many of you have heard of one ancient Islamic reasoning behind keeping a beard – so as to not incite desire in other men by appearing (allegedly) effeminate. Preventing a clean-shaven man from leading prayers due to their collective jealousy at his proper grooming habits (causing them to look homeless by comparison) is really catty and childish.

“Shaving the beard is an act of disobedience to Allah, as is expressed in the words of his messenger, Abu Hurayrah reported that the ruler of Yemen, appointed by the Persian emperor Kisra, sent two envoys to the messenger [pigs be upon him]. When they came into his presence, he noticed that they had shaved their beards and let their moustaches grow big. Hating their ugly appearance, he turned his face away and said, ‘Woe be to you, who told you to do so?'” Some men look better with facial hair, others don’t. For a religion to command some people to make themselves uglier in order to uphold a bizarre ancient standard is absurd. But Muhammad, pigs be upon him, was right about one thing – moustaches without an accompanying beard generally don’t look great. Despite his poor taste in wives (read: 6-year-old girls), perhaps Muhammad had good taste in men.

“There is no doubt that Allah’s messenger is the best example of a man, both in his appearance and actions,” al-Jibaly continued. So this modern-day scholar is saying he has complete confidence a dude from the 7th century whom he has never seen is hotter than Channing Tatum et al. Excuse me while I laugh. And don’t even get me started on Muhammad, pigs be upon him, being the best example of a man in his actions – he was a warlord and a child molester.

“[S]having the beard is an act of imitation of the disbelievers, and should be extremely abhorred,” wrote the cleric. Muslims are commanded to be kind to one another but harsh against the kuffar in the Qur’an, and this teaching is in line with that. Aren’t you impressed at how well Islam can integrate into our secular, multicultural society?

Of course, men weren’t the only ones al-Jibaly targeted with his anti-shaving rhetoric. “The messenger [pigs be upon him] has declared that the women who change what Allah has created (such as removing their facial hair, wearing wigs, filing their teeth, or tattooing their bodies) seeking by that to improve their appearance, are accursed by Allah.” I see no reason for a Muslimah to wear a wig; it’s all covered underneath that ridiculous ninja costume they wear. As for filing teeth, it can be necessary, especially after an injury or something of the sort. These blanket prohibitions do more harm than good and create an atmosphere of absurd austerity.

Now, let’s get into that facial hair part. If a woman is not allowed to remove her facial hair and a man is not allowed to remove his facial hair so he doesn’t look like a woman, then by that logic are women not supposed to look like women? Is anyone else as confused by this Islamic “logic” as I am?

That logic becomes especially confounding when looking at this next passage from al-Jibaly. “The beard presents a major distinction between men and women. Shaving it removes this distinction, and is thus a means of imitating women. Any act that involves imitation of the opposite gender makes a person liable for the curse of Allah and his messenger.” Wait, didn’t Muhammad cross-dress to allegedly receive revelations? Oh wait, yeah, Sahih Bukhari 2393 indicates Muhammad said, “…the inspiration did not come upon me when I was in a women’s garment except that of Aisha.” So did Muhammad, pigs be upon him, curse himself? Or was he just a massive hypocrite?

al-Jibaly has also written in support of strict Salafi Islam and the phenomenon he refers to as “Salafi burnout,” where people abandon the religion’s austerity. He commented, “[O]ne sister who used to wear niqab in Houston is now giving dawah on YouTube with her face and neck indecently showing.” Really? A woman showing her face is indecent? You know, your allegedly all-powerful Allah created women uncovered. If he wanted them to be covered, wouldn’t he have covered them when he created them? The niqab is a tool of oppression, nothing more.

Another topic al-Jibaly decided to express his knowledge of was the barbaric ritual new parents partake in seven days after birth. In Islam, the slaughter of aqiqah is allegedly an act of thankfulness to Allah, but it’s really just an act of unnecessary cruelty. New parents must slaughter an animal in the barbaric halal fashion (or have one slaughtered for them), then prepare and consume its meat with members of the community in a celebratory feast. Here’s where it gets weird – often, two goats are sacrificed for the birth of a male child, while only one is sacrificed for a female. This is in line with teaching that the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man, and is further evidence that Islam does not equally value women, despite what lying Muslims and idiot apologists tell you. There is a Hadith which backs up this absurd practice, “Narrated Umm Kurz: The Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Two sheep which resemble each other are to be sacrificed for a boy and one for a girl.” (Sunan Abu Dawood Book 15, No. 2830) Cows, goats, sheep, and camels are the most common aqiqah sacrifices.

That isn’t the only sexist practice al-Jibaly has written about. You know how many Muslimahs say wearing the hijab is a choice? I’ll just let al-Jibaly disprove that for you: “A girl should start hijab from the age of seven. By the age of ten it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear hijab.” The purpose of wearing the hijab is to allegedly preserve a girl’s modesty, to keep her from tempting men with her uncovered skin. What al-Jibaly is saying is that he believes girls at the age of seven become tempting to men, and certainly do by the age of ten. Eww.

What is his proposed solution? Tell Muslim men to not be pedophiles? No, because that would be going against the example of the prophet. “And if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her.” Yep, that’s right – child abuse is his suggested solution. Blame the girl for not wanting to obey a bizarre rule forced on her by men who would apparently otherwise be tempted to violate her. If this savagery doesn’t outrage you, congratulations, you’re probably a Muslim.

Look out for more publications from al-Jibaly in the future – they might be even more unintentionally hilarious than his ramblings about body hair.

9 Comments

Your Daily Muslim #626: Marium Navid

Marium Navid

Marium Navid

When Muslims hear something they don’t like, they often try to silence that opinion, whether by beheading, legal oppression, or in today’s case, complaining. When counterjihadist Bill Maher was selected to speak at notoriously leftist UC Berkeley’s fall commencement, ASUC Senator (ugh… another one of these student-government types) Marium Navid jumped into action to defend her religion. The Muslimah started a petition on change.org (ugh… another change.org petition) to have Maher replaced as commencement speaker due to his counterjihad beliefs.

“It’s not an issue of freedom of speech, it’s a matter of campus climate,” Navid stated when interviewed. “The First Amendment gives him the right to speak his mind, but it doesn’t give him the right to speak at such an elevated platform as the commencement. That’s a privilege his racist and bigoted remarks don’t give him.” One, Islam is not a race. Opposition to Islam or Muslims is not racism. Two, that’s exactly the point of free speech – campus officials chose Maher as being a worthwhile choice of commencement speaker, thus he does have the right to give whatever speech he desires as he has been granted the platform to do so. To ask that the speech be taken away from him would only prove him right that Muslims cannot handle criticism.

Navid launched a campaign called “Free Speech, Not Hate Speech” as another measure to try to stop Maher from speaking. The goal of this campaign is for Muslim students and their leftist appeaser allies to contact university officials and speak out against Maher’s impending speech. The name of the campaign is horribly funny, when you think about it – trying to stifle speech is exactly the opposite of free speech. I’m unsure whether or not Navid has realized this.

Aside from her anti-Maher escapades, Navid is also an outspoken supporter of Palestine and is in favor of UC Berkeley divesting from Israel. Yes, the Israel that is a beacon of tolerance for LGBT people and religious minorities in the Middle East. Yes, the Israel that treats wounded Palestinian children in its hospitals. Navid also co-wrote this piece, criticizing the choice of a Jewish man as UCLA student regent and complaining about alleged Islamophobia on UC campuses. You know, maybe the ninja costumes and inability to drink might be a contributing factor to that. Just saying.

Despite her opinions thus far being largely disagreeable, Navid does have one redeeming stance: the opposition to drone strikes, which normally end up causing far more collateral damage than is needed to complete their mission. “The more you hit these villages, the more you kill civilians,” she said. “This is not just a Muslim issue; it’s a matter of social justice.” Ugh, she had to ruin it with that stupid liberal buzzword, “social justice.” Basically, that term has devolved to mean “progression toward statism where only left-wing views are permitted.” On Tumblr and other locales infested with leftists (likely UC Berkeley), the definition can be extended to “if you are a straight white man, your opinion is automatically invalid because you are a racist because I said so!”

Let’s hope Navid’s campaign falls on deaf ears. Maher would certainly give a great speech, and he’d probably not even say anything offensive because, come on, it’s a commencement speech. He probably wouldn’t delve into Islam unless his mortal enemy Ben Affleck were there.

11 Comments

Your Daily Muslim #625: Pakeeza Shaikh

Pakeeza Shaikh

Pakeeza Shaikh

Unlike in the USA, Islam’s jihad against swimming pools is going swimmingly in Ausfailia. Pakeeza Shaikh, along with her family and numerous other Muslim families, went to the Adventure World water park in Perth. That’s when things took a turn for the dramatic when Shaikh’s traditional Islamic clothing was deemed to violate park standards.

The clothes Shaikh was wearing were street clothes, including a long, droopy top, and long pants. As is common for Muslimahs, many in the group were wearing headbags. Citing sanitation concerns seeing as Shaikh’s clothes were her street clothes, Adventure World staff told he she would not be allowed to enter the water because they would have to add more chlorine to remove the dirt transfer. Safety concerns with her long clothing were cited when she asked to go down a water slide, but was refused.

Instead of changing into something a bit less baggy, Shaikh saw a prime grievance-mongering opportunity. She filed a lawsuit against the park after complaining to the Equal Opportunity Commission, claiming she had felt humiliated by the staff because she covered herself. Since leftists see it as discrimination when Muslims are forced to follow the same rules as everyone else, Shaikh won $16,000 from the park, which has since stated it is reviewing its clothing policy… and likely upping the chlorine levels.

If you own or work at a swimming pool or other aquatic facility, protect yourself from litigation jihad: put up signs on the premises forbidding people from wearing street clothing or clothing which could be a safety hazard. Muslims cannot legitimately claim this is discrimination because the rule would apply unilaterally and would certainly end up affecting some non-Muslim patrons with poor choices of attire.

3 Comments

Your Daily Muslim #624: Mohammad Kazim bin Elias

Mohammad Kazim bin Elias

Mohammad Kazim bin Elias

Another day, another YDM named Mohammad… it never gets old. Malay Islamic scholar/preacher Mohammad Kazim bin Elias generated controversy recently after his condemnation of a (wait for it) dog-petting event. Islam views dogs as being nejis (ritually unclean), and Muhammad himself, pigs be upon him, called for the slaughter of canines. Apparently being cute and cuddly is haram.

The organizer of the event has been more or less forced into hiding due to death threats from Kazim’s rabid fans, including threats to stone him to death – all for organizing a harmless event where people can pet and possibly even adopt furry companions. Many of the foamers claimed the event’s organizer was trying to “destroy Islam” and the like. Kazim himself claimed it was a way to “inject pluralism and liberalism” into the Muslim ummah (spiritual community.) Because those are such bad things that the Muslim community totally isn’t in need of…

Kazim claimed the dog-petting event was a “subtle elbow movement” toward “legalizing something haram,” and also believes such events will “ultimately transform and negate the purpose of the law.” Kazim also mentioned that allowing this event could lead to a similar campaign involving petting and perhaps eating pigs. The self-imposed deprivation of bacon is quite possibly what has made over a billion Muslims worldwide go mad.

I left the foamers on Kazim’s post condemning the event, which has over 13,000 shares, a very nice comment. Now, I’m going to go look at pictures of Swedish Vallhunds because they are basically wolf corgis.

7 Comments

Your Daily Muslim #623: Michael Zehaf-Bibeau

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau demonstrating the peace his religion taught him

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau demonstrating the peace his religion taught him

In Canada, it would seem no soldier is safe. In the past three days, two converts to Islam have carried out jihad terror attacks against Canadian military personnel. Muslim convert Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, formerly known as Michael Joseph Hall, executed a soldier posted outside the National War Memorial by shooting him point-blank. The Muslim raised his arms in a display of victory and pride before rushing across the street, where he opened fire in Canada’s parliament building.

Luckily, the parliament’s sergeant-at-arms was nearby, and swiftly ended Zehaf-Bibeau’s jihad in a flurry of lead. The media, with the exception of right-leaning FOX News, has been somewhat hesitant to identify this shooting as the jihad attack it was.

A Twitter account linked to the Islamic State terror group posted an image of Zehaf-Bibeau, saying in a French caption, “a picture that will be of the Ottawa shooter.” The account has since been suspended. The fact that the Islamic State terror group would have an image of Zehaf-Bibeau and knew of his plans is fairly damning evidence that this mujahid had not only acted for his religion, he had done so after conspiring with other mujahideen. It is unknown if there are any more planned jihad attacks against Canadian military personnel. In the meantime, all Canadians should be very wary of Muslims in the wake of these attacks.

5 Comments

Your Daily Muslim #622: Martin Ahmad Couture-Rouleau

Another reason to oppose Islam: it turns people from eye candy into eyesores.

Before & after Islam. I bet his conversion (and subsequent cessation of grooming) did wonders for his sex life…

“Islam is the only true religion.”

You know Islam is the religion of peace when those who convert to it start killing innocent people. That’s exactly what 25-year-old French-Canadian Martin “Ahmad” Couture-Rouleau did. Couture-Rouleau spent his days growing his beard to appease the invisible sky-demon Allah, watching jihadist videos, and pretending the world would someday regress back to its 7th-century state. Of course, in order to achieve his goal of establishing the khilafah (Islamic nation), the kuffar (infidels) had to be eradicated.

Couture-Rouleau ran over two soldiers in his vehicle, one of whom died from his injuries. He phoned 911 and claimed he had carried out the terror attack for “Allah.” If that’s what pleases Allah, then Allah and all religions associated therewith have no place in a civilized society. The madness didn’t stop there. Police were nearby and drew their weapons. The knife-wielding Couture-Rouleau got out of his car and charged at the officers, who promptly sent him to his demise. Unfortunately for him, his 72 female virgins are too busy blogging about “social justice” issues on Tumblr while stuffing their faces and whining about “thin privilege.”

Couture-Rouleau’s Facebook is a typical, tragic mess of jihadist propaganda and anti-Semitism. He posted the following, all of which show evidence of an unstable, gullible mind:

“Allah has promised the hypocrite men and hypocrite women and the disbelievers the fire of Hell, wherein they will abide eternally. It is sufficient for them. And Allah has cursed them, and for them is an enduring punishment.” Yep, totally tolerant. Totally compatible with western ideals of harmonious coexistence.

rouleau1

Uhh, why is he condemning suicide? He totally committed suicide by cop; he had even told his friends he wanted to go to jannat al-firdaus (Islamic heaven) and be a shahid (martyr.) What a hypocrite! Also, the lack of belief in evolution despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of it goes to show the extent to which Couture-Rouleau believed in an ancient child-porn fairytale over reason.

rouleaui1

rouleau3

rouleau2

Rouleau also posted numerous images mocking Christianity and atheism. As upcoming YDMs will show, Couture-Rouleau’s jihad attack was not the last of its kind.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 241 other followers