OR: the self-evidence of totalitarianism in the Mohammedan world
This is the English version, shortened and slightly updated, of a Dutch text I wrote in August 2013.
“More than two years ago I wrote a rather long and in-depth article [in Dutch] entitled Arab Spring or Mohammedan Autumn?
That was well before Morsi, as candidate for president of the Muslim Brotherhood, had collected no less than 25% of the votes in the first round of the elections. So even before in the second round, more than half of Egyptian voters stayed at home, because they only had the choice between Morsi and someone from the old regime.
Like many others, I of course also wrote something in 2011 about the threat that the Brotherhood and the Salafists posed to women and Christians (Copts) in that overpopulated country.
Like very few others, unfortunately, I already casually pointed out the attacks that had already been committed on shrines of the so-called Sufis.
Looking back, I should have put more emphasis on that. I don’t want to make the same kind of mistake again. That is why now, in 2013, the spotlight is on the recent violent death of Sheikh Shehata and several other Shias.
The silence surrounding those murders and the fact that the army deposed Morsi less than two weeks later are reasons enough to pay some attention to them here, but below I will discuss the reasons for my emphasis in more detail. After all, there are many more disturbing developments going on in and around Egypt. But first the murders themselves and their background.
The events themselves
The lynching took place in Giza. A city wedged between the-pyramids-of and Cairo. A few kilometers away from the famous Tahrir Square.
It is truly exceptional that the opposing camps hardly differ in opinion about what actually happened!
More than a thousand men, armed with blows and stabbing weapons, marched on the house of 66-year-old , a controversial Shiite preacher.
There he had some kind of celebration with several dozen Shia friends and/or followers.
All Shias present were injured. Shehata himself and three others were beaten to death and their bodies were dragged around…
Several video clips from those events in Giza had been uploaded to YouTube. These have now been removed because of the violence in them.
The content of these types of clips could be summarized as: ‘I want to put a rope around his neck’ . ” I don’t have a photo of the body yet.’ ‘I haven’t kicked yet.’
Martyr or hate preacher?
Everyone also agrees why Shehata was murdered: because of things he said.
The difference of opinion mainly lies in the extent to which people consider the murders to be a case of ‘own fault’.
But there are more, and more important differences.
I came across a special video clip that shows this perfectly. The man who uploaded it calls himself ‘LeftShia4Good‘: so the man was first Shia and has now become Sunni. One of the first things he mentions about the murdered Shia sheikh is that he was a former Sunni!
There is no doubt whatsoever about the purpose of the video.
From the distinctly Shiite Iran, Shehata is depicted as ‘moderate’: a ‘moderate follower of Mohammed’, who died as a martyr at the hands of those horrible Sunnis.
Mr. ex-Shiite counters this with all kinds of hateful statements from the lynched guy, Shehata. With sound and image. When the translations are correct, they are significantly coarser and above all more focused than critical statements you can sometimes hear in the West about the teachings and followers of Mohammad.
The cry, ‘May the curse/wrath of Allah be upon me if I’m a liar‘, is an expression used by ‘Islamic scholars’ from different sub sects to reinforce their words.
In the video the sound of Shehata shouting this cry is combined with the image of the murdered sheikh. And not once, but many times and with a kind of echo of sound and image. The message is clear: ‘take it, now you have been murdered, there you have your curse/anger from Allah’.
And what is it really all about?
Shehata rails against the very first followers of Muhammad, even against the ‘mother of the faithful’: Aisha.
The way Leftshia4good portrays this is in itself telling!
He apparently finds it necessary to protect Aisha against the attack and he does so by recalling that Mohammed never divorced her…
But why did Shehata actually do that: lashing out at Aisha, her father and some other 7th century followers of Mohammed?
Many people who have little or no interest in Mohammed’s teachings regard Aisha mainly as a victim of Mohammed’s lust for power and his pedophilia and the fact that she later played an influential role as the ultimate example of the so-called ‘Stockholm syndrome‘.
To understand why the Shia Shehata berates her, you need to know something about the nature of the conflict between Sunnis and Shias. Shehata’s insults go back to the early days of Mohammedanism.
The absolute Autocratic ruler
Apart from a few insignificant trifles, the world’s longest-running conflict concerns only one real point of contention: who should be the absolute ruler of all behavior and thoughts of all followers and, in fact, of all humanity, after the death of Mohammed himself?
It cannot be emphasized enough that this is truly what the battle is and always has been about.
In this context, the Shiites were and still are a kind of ‘monarchists‘: the new tyrant must be (as) directly (possibly) descended from Mohammed himself.
The Sunnis were and still of the opinion that the first and most devoted follower should succeed Muhammad.
That was Abu Bakr. This person was so enthusiastic about his prophet that he offered him his daughter when the girl was six years old.
For Sunnis, quoting or extolling Aisha is the surest way to fend off rapprochement between Sunnis and Shiites.
I quote my 80000 words book IS, the Kurds and the Caliphate. Turkey: from sick occupant to paranoid neighbor :
Leftshia4good refers to the Shiites as Safavids: Sunni Sufis in Persia who became Shiites centuries ago.
These kinds of upheavals have happened before. This upheaval rarely represented a revision of doctrine, usually it was part of the struggle for power.
The irony is that Egypt was also under Shiite rule for some time and that just at that time Egypt made a greater contribution to the war against the infidels, against Europe. These achievements are proudly referred to in comments under various videos of and about this massacre.
And you’ll find this kind of commentary in all kinds of variations:
I hoped those ignorant Whahabi Salafis would have dragged the Israeli ambassador in Cairo instead of lynching those innocent men. But, no those Salafis and their allies the Jews and west are after destroying our Islamic Ummah killing and butchering muslims in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan,…
Mohammad peace be on him and his family, is the messenger of Mercy and Compassion.
Well of course: peace. Peace between Sunnis and Shiites so that together we can wage war against the infidels!
The shared view of Qaradawi and the Egyptian generals
One of the most repugnant representatives of contemporary Mohammedanism was Yusuf Qaradawi (He died in 2022). He has been thinking for many decades about ways to make Mohammedanism dominant worldwide. He has of course also spoken out about the contrast between Shiites and Sunnis. This video is from August 2006: Qaradawi explains that he is in favor of Sunnis and Shiites not debating each other and he also explains why.
When one of the two -shia or sunni- dominates a country, the other one should certainly not try to gain followers there.
Otherwise you will inevitably get the civil war and endless massacres of the image.
What the Western media and atheist Twitter users in the Mohammedan countries do not want to see and what the Egyptian generals do not want to and cannot ignore, is ‘theoretically substantiated’ by Qaradawi : “for us Mohammedans, violence is an irrevocable extension of intense debate.
So the debate must be vigorously suppressed.”
The death penalty also has a place in suppressing debate…
This screenshot from LeftShia4Good’s video sums it up nicely: Shias and Sunnis are united on this; Kill them.
The bottom text is from a (Shiite) ayatollah, the top one from himself. In the video, LeftShia4Good even jokes about it.
Why this emphasis?
I already wrote that there are many more disturbing developments going on in and around Egypt.
Morsi was deposed by the army. In response, churches, schools and other Christian institutions were attacked.
For most Western politicians and media, none of this matters. Just as the fate of the Christians and Kurds in Syria hardly affects them.
The Jews/Israel are accused of being behind both sides in the conflict in Egypt. The anti-Morsi movement Tamarod has taken the lead in an initiative to cancel the peace treaty with Israel.
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has also stated that the conflict in Egypt is Israel’s fault.
In almost all issues in which a sober person observes something problematic or bloodthirsty and the teachings of Mohammed may play a role in this, most Western politicians and media are ready to point to some ‘root cause’.
In this confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis, that ‘root cause’ is the tyrannical, totalitarian heart of the doctrine itself.