As a possibly convenient way of rationalizing what one desires while still being able to feel "pure," anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that supposedly matters is one's intention, or niyya.Not only did the original "underwear bomber" Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old holy warrior "feigned repentance for his jihadi views"—but al-Asiri apparently had fellow jihadis repeatedly sodomize him to "widen" his anus in order to accommodate the explosives— all in accordance with the fatwas [religious edicts] of Islamic clerics.
A 2010 Arabic news video that is making the rounds on the Internet gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed jihadis of an "innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives."
Others inquired further by asking for formal fatwas. Citing his desire for "martyrdom and the virgins of paradise," onejihadi, (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, "Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?"
After praising Allah, the sheikh's fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam,
However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.Two important and complementary points emerge from this view: 1) that jihad is the "pinnacle" of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme (based on a hadith, the formerly oral history of the life of Muhammad); and 2) that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." These axioms are not limited to modern day fatwas, but in fact, were crystallized centuries and ago agreed to by the ulema [Islam's leading religious scholars]. The result is that—because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority—anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that comes to matter is one's intention, or niyya.
From here one may understand the many ostensible incongruities of Islamic history: lying is forbidden—butpermissible to empower Islam; intentionally killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible when performed during holy war, or jihad; suicide is forbidden—but also permissible during jihad, only then called "martyrdom."
Indeed, the Five Pillars of Islam—including prayer and fasting—may be ignored during the jihad. So important is the duty of jihad that the Ottoman sultans—who often spent half their lives on the battlefield—were not permitted to perform the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca.
More recently, these ideas appeared in a different form during Egypt's elections, when Islamic leaders portrayed voting as a form of jihad and justified anything—including cheating, which was deemed "obligatory"—to empower Islam.
According to these two doctrines—which culminate in empowering Islam, no matter how—one may expect anything from would-be jihadis, regardless of how dubious the effort might seem to us.
Ironically, this mentality, prevalent throughout the Islamic world, is the same mentality that many Western leaders and politicians think can be appeased with just a bit more respect, well-wishing, and concessions from the West.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Islamic Sodomy or ‘Islamophobic Hoax’?
By Raymond Ibrahim
In “Sodomy for the Sake of Islam,” I wrote about Abdullah al-Asiri, the 2009 suicide-bomber who inserted explosives in his rectum, and how news emerged later that he likely relied on a fatwa permitting sodomy to “widen” his anus to accommodate the explosives. (Click here for a graphic picture of the aftermath of this approach.)
It wasn’t long before the infamous “hoax!” charge appeared—this time over at the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian website, Electronic Intifada (henceforth EI). Writing that “The Advocate, an important US-based national gay and lesbian news magazine, has published a homophobic, racist, sectarian and Islamophobic hoax as if it is actual news,” one Benjamin Doherty unequivocally denounces my article, the Advocate’s source, as “pure nonsense,” a “vile Islamophobic hoax,” and a “defamatory joke targeting Muslims.”
Amazingly, despite all this sure language, the fact is, EI does not offer a shred of solid evidence to counter my article.
The first couple paragraphs are, as mentioned, devoted to portraying my article as a “homophobic, racist, sectarian and Islamophobic hoax,” with sporadic attacks on the David Horowitz Freedom Center, where I am a fellow.
So far, no evidence, just the usual smear campaign and ad hominem attacks to set the stage and influence the gullible and naïve.
Next EI spends time bemoaning how the Advocate mistakenly thought that the man who appears in the video I linked to was the actual cleric issuing the anus-fatwa, when in fact he is the man reporting on it, Abdullah al-Khallaf.
I had written, “A 2010 Arabic news video that aired on Fadak TV gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed al-Asiri and other jihadis of an innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations…” By linking to that video, I was indicating my source of information—not saying “the man who appears talking is Abu al-Dema.”
Either way, this misreading by Advocate is neither here nor there, and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand: does such a fatwa exist or not? It’s just filler dressed as “evidence.”
Then, as if more unnecessary fluff was needed, EI offers a long retranslation of the sodomy fatwa, with no discernible difference between the substance of their translation and mine.
Mind you, we are more than halfway through this rambling diatribe that began by repeatedly screaming “hoax,” and still no evidence, though language implying the “proof” has already been given begins to appear. For example, EI casually goes on to declare that “Al-Khallaf reads the item [the fatwa] from the website as if it is real.” Well, why shouldn’t he? EI has yet to give evidence that it is not real.
Finally, we come to the “proof”—the only section that is bolded in the EI article, to emphasize its “importance.” EI claims that al-Khallaf
also characterizes the alleged protagonists as “Wahhabis.” It appears his intention is to incite his audience’s disgust at the supposed thinking and behavior of Wahhabi Sunni Muslims who, he suggests, will justify anything in pursuit of their goals.And there it is—EI’s “ironclad proof” that the sodomy fatwa is a hoax: Al-Khallaf must be an anti-Wahabbi Shiite, and “it appears his intention” is less than honest.
Sorry, EI: “appearances” and “intentions” do not constitute proof. After all, I can easily argue that it “appears” EI’s “intention” in writing this article is simply to save face, since, as a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli website, it does not wish to see the recruitment of suicide bombers diminished by this scandal.
But that wouldn’t be “proof,” would it?
Needless to say, the rest of EI’s arguments consist of (second-rate) sophistry, lies and contradictions.
EI asserts that the fatwa’s
text appears to be at best an extremely vulgar joke and at worst sectarian defamation. It is written in a style commonly used for stories in which both the teller and listener know it is a joke or fiction…Once again, EI continues treating “appearances” as proof. Whether it appears to be a “vulgar joke” or “sectarian defamation” is hardly evidence that the fatwa is a hoax. After all, fatwas almost always look like jokes to Western people, which is what EI is counting on.
Next, EI contradicts itself. First, Al-Khallaf is portrayed as reading the fatwa on the air to “incite his audience’s disgust.” Yet now, EI claims that the fatwa “is written in a style commonly used for stories in which both the teller and listenerknow it is a joke or fiction.”
Come again? How can al-Khallaf “incite his audience’s disgust,” if “the fatwa is written in a style” which his “listeners” will “know is a joke or fiction”?
EI continues grasping at straws:
Several features identify this story as a tasteless joke, especially the name “Sheikh Abu al-Dema al-Qasab.” It translates to Sheikh Bloody Butcher. This is not a real person. The post is peppered with phrases like “it is said” and “only God knows” which indicate storytelling.“Sheikh Bloody Butcher” is a typical pseudonym to preserve the identity of the cleric who came up with this anus-idea over at the frontlines of the jihad, where an extra level anonymity is always expected and respected among Muslims; moreover, amongst jihadis, “Bloody Butcher” is a compliment—something of a “heroic” name. Even so, odd names for prominent sheikhs are not uncommon. Consider popular Sheikh Huwaini—whose name means “animal” no less than his behavior, including his desire to plunder non-Muslims of their money and buy infidel sex-slaves.
As for the claim that the fatwa is “peppered with phrases like ‘it is said’ and ‘only God knows’ which indicate storytelling,” this is another barefaced lie by EI—not because those phrases do not appear in the fatwa, but because those phrases are standard and always appear in fatwas. I have yet to read an Arabic fatwa—past or present—that is not “peppered” with “it was said” and “Allah only knows.” Yet, EI twists these authentic points to cast doubt on the fatwa among unsuspecting non-Muslims.
In short, for all its triumphant howling, EI fails to deliver, abysmally. The facts remain: such a fatwa does exist; it is written exactly like a fatwa (despite EI’s intentional distortions); and a well-known Arabic program quoted it as fact—which is precisely what I originally reported in the first place.
Despite all this, weak knees quickly buckled before EI’s hoax accusations. After demanding that Advocate retract their article, including through the usual “how could you of all people spread such hate” line, Advocate revised their article, including by changing the title from “Sodomy for Suicide Bombers” to “Researcher’s Claim [that would be me] About Suicide Bombers Called False.” Another website, Gay Star News, prompted by EI’s lies, ran with an article titled “Anus gay terror video a hoax” (apparently now the actual video of talk show host al-Khallaf—who may be interested to learn he no longer exists—is also a “hoax”).
Ironically, the editors of these websites seem to be unaware that EI is angry—not because of the well-documented facts that al-Asiri inserted explosives in his anus in order to murder someone he deceived into meeting by feigning goodwill, all in the name of Islam—but because the portrayal of this “noble jihadi” as a sodomite “incites … disgust” among Muslims, as EI clearly stated above in bold, thus demoralizing the jihad.
Get it? Suicidal jihadist killing apostates and infidels—no problem. But a homosexual?—never!
Update: Gatestone Institute, where my sodomy article first appeared, just forwarded me an email from EI's Doherty, where, as more “proof” he writes “The Advocate, Gay Star News and The Electronic Intifada have all published evidence that the fatwa does not exist.” In fact, only Electronic Intifada—that is, Doherty himself—published “evidence,” which we just saw, though his wording suggests that Advocate and Gay Star News, who simply followed his lead, have some sort of independent evidence.