   |
  
Follow the Middle
East Forum
|
||||
|
Please take a moment to
visit and log in at the subscriber
area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this
information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your
area.
Islamic Sodomy or 'Islamophobic Hoax'?
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
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 evidence to counter my article.
Consider:
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 listener
know it is a joke or fiction."
Question: How can al-Khallaf "incite his
audience's disgust," if the fatwa, which he read in its entirety,
"is written in a style commonly used for stories in which both the teller
and listener [i.e., his audience] know it 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 of
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."
More comically, 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, in his attempt to get Gatestone to retract the article, he offers more
"proof," writing "The Advocate, Gay Star News and The
Electronic Intifada have all published evidence that the fatwa does not
exist." This is yet another distortion: only Electronic Intifada—that
is, Doherty himself—published "evidence," which we just saw, though
his disingenuous wording suggests that Advocate and Gay Star News, who simply
followed his lead, had independently verified the hoax charge, which they did
not.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David
Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
|
|||||
|
To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php |
|||||
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment