There was no scream from the Jordanian pilot when he was burned alive.
But the West screamed. “We won’t put up with this. We are going after ISIS”
Then Muslims screamed. “This was not true Islam.”
Then the West screamed. “This was not true Islam – don’t mix up true Muslims with this atrocity. Why, the Muslims themselves tell us so.”
Poppycock. It was true Islam all right. And there is a legitimate fatwa – an uncontested opinion from an authoritative source – which justifies the atrocity. For Islam anyway.
Here it is in translation as it appeared on the website “Islam Web”owned by Qatar. Notice the fatwa is numbered. Notice the date.
The Burning of Ias bin Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr
Fatwa No. 71480
Tuesday 2- 7- 2006
[Question]: How do we reconcile between the prohibition of burning [of enemies] by fire made by the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the burning of Ias Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, during the war of apostasy ?
[Answer]: Praise be to Allah and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of God and his family and companions. Now:
The fact that the prophet – peace be upon him – forbade burning by fire is documented and stated in his holy hadith – peace and blessings be upon him – where he said: “No one punishes with fire except the Lord of fire,” Narrated by Abu Dawood and Ahmad in his Musnad .
The scholars differ as to whether this prohibition is for interdiction* or just for humility; Ibn Hajar said in [his book] Fath Albari: “..Al Muhallab said: This prohibition is not for interdiction but just for humility, and the proof that burning is allowed is in the acts of the prophet’s companions, the prophet – peace be upon him – burned the eyes of the Oranyeen [from Orayna] with heated iron [nails].
And Abu Bakr burned the aggressors in the presence of the companions, Khalid Bin Alwalid [Muslim Army commander] burned some apostates, and most of the scholars of Medina [the prophet’s city] permit burning castles and ships, upon its people, this was stated by Althawri and Al-Awzaai. Ibn Mounir and others said: there is not a proof for permission, because the Oranyeen story was revenge, and the case of castles and ships is allowed with the necessity as a condition, if it was a way to achieve victory upon the enemy.
As for the story of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) burning Ias Abdul Yalil with fire is documented in the books of history. In the book (Alkamel): “Ias Abdul Yalil came to Abu Bakr and said to him: help me fight the apostates by giving me arms. He gave him arms and ordered him to follow orders; he came to Muslims and even went down to Aljoa, and sent Nokhba bin Abi Almithae of Bani Sharid and appointed him an Emir on Muslims, then he raided every Muslim in the tribe of Salim, Amer, and Hawazen. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) heard about that then he sent somebody to arrest him [Ias] and bring him back. Abu Bakr ordered a fire to be set in the prayer court then he threw him [Ias] in it with his hands tied.
If scholars have different opinions on the prohibition of burning by fire, as we have said, those who objected to burning allowed it in some exceptional cases, but there is no doubt that what Ias Abdul Yalil did was worth burning him [alive]. May Allah reward the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – for his zeal for Islam.
And Allah knows.
This most interesting insight into the barbaric cruelty of Islam – then and today – is very similar to the fatwa issued by ISIS itself and uses the same authorities.
Here is an excerpt:
[Question]: What is the ruling on burning an infidel with fire until he dies? [Answer:] The Hanafi and Shafi’i schools [of Islam] hold that burning is completely permissible. They interpreted the saying of the Prophet that ‘Only Allah shall torture with fire’ as [a call for] humility. [The scholar] Al-Muhallab said: ‘This ban is not [an actual] prohibition, but rather a means for [advocating] humility.’ [Shafi’i scholar] Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said: ‘[This saying] indicates that it is permissibile to burn, as the Companions did. The Prophet blinded two men from ‘Arina [whom he judged to be apostates and criminals] with a branding iron. Khalid bin Al-Walid, [one of the Prophet’s Companions], also burned apostates with fire.’
Some scholars hold that burning with fire is essentially prohibited, but is permissible while acting in retribution, as the Prophat did with the two men of ‘Arina. He blinded them with an iron as an act of retribution, as is mentioned in authentic [hadith]. And this is the most prominent among the proofs.
Of course it is true Islam. Of course it was done according to religion. Of course it was done as a way of terrifying the opposition.
So let’s put an end to the taqiyya that ISIS and al Qaeda and Boko Haram and the rest of these bloodthirsty savages that have travelled unchanged through time for over 1300 years to emerge today with their grotesque religious conviction that they must establish Islam all over the world.
Muhammad was dead in line with ISIS. He would not have opposed them. Abu Bakr did it specifically which, in Christian terms, is equivalent to St Peter, the first Pope and leader of Christianity, doing it.
And notice, in the first fatwa above, the scholar praises Abu Bakr for his “zeal”. Now, there is a message for all jihadists in Australia and the world to take home.
If the custard-gutted apologists for Islam like Mike (Abdullah) Baird and Bollocks Insane Onanist try it on, they should be called out every time for promoting the unmitigated bullshit that it is.
This action of burning the pilot alive is an event all right. But it is not what western apologists are saying – merely an extreme reaction from extreme people. It is not. It has full religious sanction by Islam’s religious authorities.
It is a far different thing to the burning alive of ‘heretics’ and ‘witches’ by state authorities in the Middle Ages so don’t get started on the bullshit ‘moral equivalence’ argument. That barbarism was not endorsed by the Bible. This current barbarism is specifically endorsed by Muslim holy books. It has it current sanction by Islamic scholars. Undoubtedly is has encouraged jihadists living this minute.
This means that the ‘moderate’ Muslims of Australia must face that fact. This is something that Mohammad’s direct successor did. It is something that is approved. It is something inherent in their religion.
It should be a qualification for immigration here. In other words, Muslim immigration must stop.