Johnstown Islamic Center Imam ElBayly issues terroristic threats against speaker advocates murder of apostates
April 23, 2007
Pennslyvania Imam Justifies Killing Of Apostates, Threatens Violence Against Hirsi Ali
April 23, 2007 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - An imam in Pennsylvania has made terroristic threats and justified the murder of apostates in response to an appearance made by the critic of Islam at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.
Several days before the talk, imam Fouad ElBayly of the Islamic Center of Johnstown and its president Mahmoud Qazi met with the university's Vice President of Student and Academic Affairs, Jerry Samples and asked him to cancel the event because they consider the speaker's view of Islam to be "poisonous."
According to an account of the meeting, "They expressed their concerns and I understand their concerns." Samples also stated the he will allow ElBayly and Qazi a chance to discuss Islam on campus at a later date.
When the university refused to cancel the lecture, imam ElBayly made statements to several newspapers in which he justified the murder of apostates:
"If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death." [source http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/books/s_503977.html]
ElBayly also issued what appears to be a terroristic threat:
"I'm trying to control my people here. I don't want people to get hot and cause trouble" who added "We have no capacity to execute a sentence, but her sentence would be death for turning on her religion to make a profit and for speaking out against it." [source http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_503268.html]
Imam ElBayly is not the only cleric in Pennsylvania who sanctions the murder of Muslims for apostasy, according to another imam there have been two cases of people who have been murdered as a result of being branded apostates.
In 2005 Imam Abdullah Hamid bin Ali, the Islamic Chaplain of the State Correctional Institution of Chester [who recently spoke at the University of Pennsylvania where he delivered a lecture titled "Jihad: Misconceptions and it's True Meaning"] wrote an article on the issue of Muslims who stop saying prayers [Salat] titled, "Is Abandoning Salat Apostasy?" concluding that murder of apostates was permitted.
Even more alarming was his claim that "he knew of two cases like this personally."
According to Hamid bin Ali:
"It is a widespread understanding that the Muslim who stops praying or doesn't pray becomes an apostate for his or her actions. When one apostatizes the sanctity once granted to them by the laws of Islam is removed. More specifically, ones wealth, blood, and honor become lawful for the State to violate without the actions of the State being considered unlawful. If one dies, his wealth becomes the shared wealth between all believers, although it is in the hands of the State. The State also has the right and authority to implement the legal punishment due for the crime of apostasy. That punishment is death by execution. In addition to that, it is permissible for the State to make public the sin of this perpetrator and to make a public example out of him/her by broadcasting the execution. Execution for apostasy is a punishment agreed upon by all of the Imams of the 4 surviving schools of Sunni law. And it is based upon the statement of the Prophet "may Allah bless and grant him peace, Whoever changes his religion, kill him...This opinion has been a very dangerous one for us in America, since there have been cases where Muslims have justified the killing of other Muslims they have disagreements with on the basis of them not praying consistently or at all. I know of two cases like this personally." [source http://www.lamppostproductions.org/articles/miscellaneous/AbandoningSalat.htm#_ftn1]
The fundamentalist views of Egyptian born Imam Fouad EBayly and Imam Ali [who is a convert to Islam] are indicators of the internal Islamist threat we are facing.
Instead of being given a forum at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, Fouad ElBayly should be investigated as to why he would not be able to control what he calls his "people" aka congregants should they "get hot and cause trouble," presumably a reference to murdering someone they deem an apostate.
ElBayly's terroristic threats prove that he and his mosque constitute a hub of potential jihadists. It should be shut down as a threat to Homeland Security. If circumstances permit, ElBayly should be deported back to Egypt where he will feel more at home with the Muslim Brotherhood whose views he espouses. http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=ali42307.htm
MIM: The quotes of Imam Fouad ElBayly advocating murder of apostates
Although the event passed without incident, Hirsi Ali was not a welcome guest to all in the community.
Islamic leaders tried unsuccessfully to convince university officials to cancel her appearance, arguing that her attacks against Muslims are "poisonous."
Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Islamic Center of Johnstown, feared her mere presence would incite violence. He said that in the eyes of the Islamic community, Hirsi Ali's rejection of her Muslim faith and "all of her lies" warrant a death sentence.
He worried that someone would try to carry it out.
"I'm trying to control my people here. I don't want people to get hot and cause trouble," said ElBayly, whose community includes an active core of about 30 families and a number of others who attend occasional services and programs.
"We have no capacity to execute a sentence, but her sentence would be death for turning on her religion to make a profit and for speaking out against it."
MIM: Jerry Samples the Vice President of Student Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh at Jonestone met with El Bayly and agreed to have him and the president of the Islamic Center of Johnstown speak on campus.
MIM: This lecture by Ustadh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali who is the Chaplain of the State Correctional Institute at Chester concurs that the death penalty should be imposed in cases of apostasy and writes "whoever changes his religion kill him". He also writes that "I know of two cases like this personally".
Abandoning Salat Apostasy?
By Abdullah bin Hamid Ali
It is a widespread understanding that the Muslim who stops praying or doesn't pray becomes an apostate for his or her actions. When one apostatizes the sanctity once granted to them by the laws of Islam is removed. More specifically, ones wealth, blood, and honor become lawful for the State to violate without the actions of the State being considered unlawful. If one dies, his wealth becomes the shared wealth between all believers, although it is in the hands of the State. The State also has the right and authority to implement the legal punishment due for the crime of apostasy. That punishment is death by execution. In addition to that, it is permissible for the State to make public the sin of this perpetrator and to make a public example out of him/her by broadcasting the execution. Execution for apostasy is a punishment agreed upon by all of the Imams of the 4 surviving schools of Sunni law. And it is based upon the statement of the Prophet – may Allah bless and grant him peace, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."
The idea that it is apostasy to abandon Salat comes from the position taken by the great Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Since, so many of our brothers here in the US and elsewhere have studied in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, many of them have adopted this same view, but only with the belief that no other opinion can be accepted. This opinion has been a very dangerous one for us in America, since there have been cases where Muslims have justified the killing of other Muslims they have disagreements with on the basis of them not praying consistently or at all. I know of two cases like this personally. Such individuals don't understand that the implementation of the legal punishments is a sole right of the Islamic ruler.
Vigilantism isn't tolerated in Islam. The reason being that only the supreme authority can guarantee that justice is properly carried out in criminal cases. Were one to commit an act of vigilantism the repercussions could be too great for the one who did so to bear were the subject of ones vigilantism to decide to retaliate. This means that there needs to be a neutral body or force that those at odds with one another both have a respect and fear for. The Qur'an says, ((Whoever kills a believer intentionally his reward is Jahannam dwelling forever in it, and Allah is angry with him, He curses him, and He has prepared for him a grievous penalty)) 4:93. And Allah's messenger has said, "Whoever says to his brother ‘O Kafir!' one of them returns with it" (i.e. the sin of the statement). As for the other three Imaams, one is not considered to be an apostate from Islam for abandoning prayer unless that abandonment is accompanied by the belief that one doesn't have a duty to pray. So, when one believes that prayer is not an obligation (after knowing well so), all 4 Imams agree that one is no longer a Muslim. The difference is that Imaam Ahmad says that even if one doesn't believe that prayer is not an obligation he is a Kaafir. What results from this difference of opinion is that according to Imaams Abu Haneefah, Maalik, and Shaafi'ee when one abandons Salat but doesn't deny the obligation of performing it he is killed as a legal punishment (hadd) from Allah. As for Imam Ahmad, this person is killed for disbelief (kufr), not as a legal punishment. Were a person to abandon prayer while believing that it is not an obligation on them to do so, all 4 Imams hold the view that such a person is killed for disbelief (kufr). He dies a Kaafir, and is buried in the graveyard of other disbelievers. This is because ones belief is really the determining factor of ones faith or the lack thereof. Imam Tahaawee says in his Creed, "And we don't ascribe to disbelief (kufr) any of the people of the qiblah for a sin as long as he didn't consider it to be lawful."
This doesn't mean that there are not actions that can put someone out of Islam. For instance, desecrating the Book of Allah in anyway whether it is something like stepping on it, spitting on it, urinating or defecating on it, etc. Another example is wearing the clothing that is specific for the religious clergy of another religion. Yet another example is visiting diviners or practicing fortunetelling. In reality, these actions are considered acts of apostasy simply because they are a clear reflection of what is in the hearts of those who commit such sins. So, the gauge for determining disbelief is still ones belief. In the case of the desecration of the Qur'an it is kufr, since only a disbeliever or another who has no regard for the Book of Allah would intentionally do such a thing
As for the one who wears the special attire of religious clergy of another faith, the reason for his kufr is that it manifests to all ones admiration for another religion, and it is haraam to believe that another religion/way of life other than Islam is valid. As for the fortuneteller, he is a disbeliever since he claims to know the unseen that only Allah knows. As for the one visiting the diviner, he is a disbeliever because he believes that his diviner has knowledge of the unseen. And there are other examples of actions that are considered to be kufr, but after close examination one will find that the true reason for these actions being considered kufr goes back to the belief of the individual committing the particular sin, and that such an action would only be carried out by one who belittles Allah and His religion. For this reason, we find Shaikh al-Islaam Ibn Hajar Al-Haitimee saying in his book ‘Al-‘Ilaam bi Qawaati' al-Islaam' that were one to prostrate before an idol while not believing that it is a deity, such a person would not be a disbeliever in the sight of Allah, although he is considered to be a disbeliever in the view of people. Now, peoples' adoption of the position taken by Imaam Ahmad is not the result of a blind allegiance as one might think from my previous words. On the contrary, Imaam Ahmad's position is based upon powerful evidence. For one, the Messenger of Allah – may Allah grant him peace – said, "Between a person and paganism (shirk) is the abandonment of Salat." He also said, "The pact between us and them is Salat. So, whoever abandons it has disbelieved."
It's hard to imagine how the majority of scholars differed with Imaam Ahmad after hearing this apparently decisive evidence. How could they differ? Didn't they know these hadeeths? Or did only Imaam Ahmad know them? It would be hard to imagine that they didn't know them, since Imaam Ahmad had only received them from those who came before him. He was a student of Imaam Shaafi'ee, and Shaafi'ee was the student of Imaam Maalik ibn Anas, the author of the oldest extant hadeeth book categorized under the chapters of fiqh. So, how could they not know these hadeeths? In reality, what appears to be decisive about the two aforementioned hadeeths is really not. For one, to say that between a person and paganism (shirk) is the abandonment of Salat doesn't totally settle this matter, since it could merely mean that one would eventually fall into shirk if he/she abandons Salat, the way of establishing a connection between a servant and his Lord.
As for the second hadeeth, it is also not decisive because the Prophet's statement "So, whoever abandons it has disbelieved" is ambiguous. What makes it ambiguous is that disbelief (kufr) is of two types: 1 – The disbelief of rejection (kufr al-juhood). This is the major form of kufr that expels one from the religion of Islam. 2 – The disbelief of ingratitude (kufr an-ni'mah). This kufr is of a lesser seriousness, since one is not considered to be an apostate for committing this kind of kufr, although it is still a major sin. To validate the existence of this second type of disbelief all we have to do is to refer back to the proof texts of Islam. Firstly, the Prophet – may Allah grant him peace – said, "Do not return after me as disbelievers (kuffaar) by smiting the necks of one another." He also said, "Reviling the believer is shameless sin (fusooq). And fighting him is disbelief (kufr)." So, it would seem that fighting a believer would put one out of Islam. However, we find in the Qur'an Allah's statement, ((And if two groups of the believers fight, then reconcile between them)). Notice here that Allah describes Muslims in this verse as ‘believers', although they are fighting.
So, we know that the type of kufr intended in the Prophet's statement is the ‘kufr of ingratitude.' So, it becomes clear that the intent of the Prophet – may Allah bless and grant him peace – is that to fight another believer is a sign of ingratitude to Allah's favor upon us. That favor in this case was that He united the hearts of the believers upon Islam and against their enemies. Allah and His messenger used the word ‘kufr' only to portray the seriousness and gravity of the particular sin committed.
Qaadee Abu Bakr ibn Al-‘Arabee said, "The statements inducing kufr and the like such as his statement – may Allah bless and grant him peace – "Whoever abandons Salat has disbelieved" are understood in three ways: The First: to indicate graveness (‘alaa at-taghleezh). The Second: that one has done the act of the disbeliever. The Third: that he (i.e. the sinner) has made his blood lawful, just as the Kaafir has made it lawful. And Allah knows best." Then, what also provides support to the position of the majority is that Allah says, ((Verily, Allah does not forgive that association be made with Him, but He forgives what is lesser than that for whoever He pleases)). And abandoning Salat is lesser than shirk. So, one is under Allah's will as long as they don't deny the obligation of praying. The Messenger of Allah also said, "(There are) five Salats that Allah has ordained upon His servants in the day and night. Whoever performs them without squandering any of them out of belittlement for their right, he has a pact with Allah to enter him into the Garden. And whoever doesn't perform them, he doesn't have a pact with Allah. If He wills, He'll punish him. If He wills, He'll forgive him." This hadeeth has been reported by Abu Dawood, and by Imaam Maalik in his Muwatta. And what is commonly known amongst the ‘ulamaa is that every hadeeth of the Muwatta of Imaam Maalik has been established to be saheeh.
And Allah says, ((Verily, those who disbelieve and divert from the path of Allah, then die while they are disbelievers, Allah will never forgive them)) 47:34. And in another verse He says, ((And whoever turns back from his religion, then dies while being a disbeliever, those, their deeds are void in the Lower (Life) and the Hereafter. Those are the companions of the Fire. They are therein (dwelling) forever)) 2:217.
So, if the one who abandons his prayer was a kaafir, how could Allah hang His forgiveness on His will? And if he was a kaafir, how could Allah contradict Himself after saying that those who die as disbelievers will never be forgiven? Then, it is clear from what has proceeded that the one who abandons prayer is not a disbeliever if he doesn't deny the necessity of prayer. So, the majority turns out to be victorious in this matter, and the truth has finally come out. There is no contradiction between a saheeh hadeeth and the words of the Creator.
And the fact that Allah has hung his forgiveness over the one who abandons Salat is proof enough that he is not a kaafir. Saying all of this is not to belittle the importance of Salat at all. For one may think that they now have a way out. That's definitely not the case. One still is required to pray. And all of the ‘ulamaa have designated punishments for the one who abandons prayer. As for Imaams Maalik, Shaafi'ee, and Ahmad, for them the punishment for abandoning Salat is death by execution after allowing the criminal time to repent from his/her misdeeds. But, in the view of Abu Haneefah, the one who abandons prayer is merely imprisoned until he returns to making Salat. ((ﺎﻣﻲﻧﺪﺯ ﺐﺮ ﻝﻘ ﻭ)) ((And Say: My Lord! Increase me in knowledge))
 Bukhaaree reported in Kitaab al-Jihaad.  Bukhaaree (in Adab), and Muslim (in Imaan) reported it.  Al-‘Aqeedah At-Tahaaweeyah: 57.  Al-‘Ilaam bi Qawaati' al-Islaam by Ibn Hajar Al-Haitimee. Look under the chapter dealing with the Mukaffiraat.  That is, just as the Kaafir has been the blood of the Muslim lawful. This doesn't mean that it is permissible to just go out and kill non-Muslims if they are not waging war against us.  Ahkaam al-Qur'an: 1/64.
Local Islamic leaders push to cancel author's talk at UPJ
BY TED POTTS
Leaders of Greater Johnstown's small Islamic community on Monday pressed Pitt-Johnstown to cancel a talk tonight by a best-selling author who they say has criticized their faith.
But the university said the address by Ayaan Hirsi Ali will go on.
Fouad ElBayly, president of the Islamic Center of Johnstown, and Mahmood A. Qazi, its founder and past president, met with Jerry Samples, Pitt-Johnstown's vice president for academic and student affairs.
They tried to convince the school to cancel the scheduled appearance tonight of Hirsi Ali, a Dutch feminist and a New York Times best-selling author.
Hirsi Ali, described as one of Europe's foremost critics of Islam, is scheduled to speak as part of the Frank J. and Sylvia T. Pasquerilla Lecture Series.
Her recently released book, "Infidel," has climbed up the Times best-seller list.
She has been especially critical of what she contends is the lack of tolerance for dissenting opinions among Muslims, as well as what she says is their oppression of women.
Samples said his meeting with ElBayly and Qazi was congenial.
"They expressed their concerns and I understand their concerns," he said.
He said the two men asked if they could come to the Richland Township campus and discuss their religion again in a public setting.
Samples said he told them he thought that was a fine idea.
Samples noted that Islam was discussed as part of several previous diversity events held at Pitt-Johnstown.
He met with ElBayly and Qazi in place of Albert Etheridge, Pitt-Johnstown's president, who was not on campus Monday.
However, Etheridge was in touch with University of Pittsburgh officials about the concerns voiced by ElBayly and Qazi, Samples said. He added that Etheridge has visited the Islamic Center, which is in Paint Borough.
Qazi, who has resided in the region for approximately 13 years, said the Muslim community here gets along well with others.
"I don't want this woman (Hirsi Ali) to create dissension among us," he said. "I don't want her to poison anyone's mind."
In a letter to Etheridge, Qazi said area Muslims are "enraged and deeply hurt" by the event.
Qazi said Hirsi Ali's attacks on Islam are unjustified.
"By the same token, Christianity cannot be blamed for the atrocities being committed in (Northern) Ireland by the Irish Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, against each other," the letter said.
Pitt-Johnstown spokeswoman Kim Miller said Hirsi Ali's appearance tonight at the local campus remained as scheduled.
Security precautions were scheduled prior to the concerns voiced by ElBayly and Qazi and are listed on posters announcing Hirsi Ali's UPJ appearance.