Friday, March 25, 2011

Yasir Qadhi and America as Abyssinia

In this important article about influential American Muslim leader Yasir Qadhi, author Andrea Elliott compares him with another young American Muslim with a significant following, Anwar Al Awlaki. She writes that Qadhi sees America as Abyssinia whereas Awlaki views it as Mecca. The difference is worthy of note.

I've often noted that Western non-Muslims have no idea how important events in the Prophet's life are to Muslims. These references to Abyssinia and Mecca refer to the thirteen years Muhammad spent in Mecca before migrating north to Medina with about 100 fellow Muhajirun (immigrants). Muhammad's proposal that the Quraysh of Mecca accept him as a Prophet of God had fallen on deaf ears except for some mostly poor individuals and slaves who responded to his leadership. When the Quraysh turned against them, Muhammad sent 83 of them to Abyssinia, now the Christian country of Ethiopia. Their Christian ruler was the Negus, and he not only welcomed the newcomers with full hospitality but allowed them to practice their faith without opposition.

The Quraysh were not happy that their fellow tribesmen had migrated to Abyssinia, and sent two emissaries to persuade the Negus to repatriate them. Although Islam's oldest historical reference, that of Ibn Ishaq, states that the Quraysh wanted to get them back "so they could seduce them from their religion and get them out of the home in which they were living in peace", it is important to realize this history was written 200 years after the events took place and was based upon generations of undocumented oral history. Mecca was a slave-driven society, and it is probable the Quraysh simply wanted to get back the slaves who had believed Muhammad's promise that by abandoning their former masters and following him they would obtain the wealth of the Persian and the Roman Empires.

The Quraysh emissaries, whose names were Amr and Abdallah, had a careful strategy to ensure the success of their mission. Knowing that fine leather was treasured in Abyssinia, they gave leather skins to each of the Negus' generals asking them to present their petition to their ruler. The generals did so, but the Negus said he would not return exiles who had come to him for protection without questioning them first. When the Muslim immigrants were summoned before the Negus and he asked them to explain their new religion, they replied they had been idolaters before Muhammad persuaded them to worship only one God. When the Negus asked if they had anything written from this God they responded by reciting Surat Maryam from the Quran, the chapter of the Virgin Mary.

They could not have chosen a better chapter. It begins with the miraculous birth of John the Baptist to his aged parents and continues with the equally miraculous birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary, adding a non-Biblical account of Jesus speaking as an infant. The surah goes on to describe the prophetic ministry of Moses and his brother Aaron before the Egyptian ruler Pharaoh, and freely intersperses Muhammad's conviction that he himself was a Prophet not only equal to but superior to all of those.

The Negus was impressed with the reading, and swore again that he would never betray the people who had come to him for protection. Amr and Abdallah, however, were not about to give up, and believing they still held the trump card informed the Negus that Muhammad and his followers did not believe that Jesus was God. The ruler responded by calling the Muslims again to ask them personally what they believed about Jesus.

Now the Muslims were in a quandary. Should they tell the truth and admit they did not believe Jesus was Divine, thus risking being forced back to Mecca? They decided to take another approach and informed the Negus their Prophet had informed them Jesus was "the slave of God, his Apostle, and his Word which he cast into Mary the Blessed Virgin". The Negus was pleased with their response, and reaffirmed his willingness for them to remain in his country as long as they wished. Children were born to the Muslims in Abyssinia, and they lived there in peace until some of them returned to Mecca some time later where soon afterwards they migrated with Muhammad to Medina. Others remained in Abyssinia for years, only returning at Muhammad's orders after he defeated the Jews at the Battle of Khaybar. Still others never returned but became Christians in Abyssinia, including Ubaydullah whose spouse later became one of Muhammad's wives.

How could Yasir Qadhi imagine that America is Abyssinia? In some ways the answer is obvious. America is the majority Christian country that opened its doors to Muslims fleeing oppression and poverty from all over the world. America has allowed them to prosper and practice their faith, and has rejected the call of those who suggest it should send them back. Muslims are indeed living in America today as their spiritual ancestors 1400 years ago lived in Abyssinia.

Anwar Al Awlaki sees it differently. America to him is Mecca, the city where Muhammad warned of the coming judgment of God. America-also-known-as-Mecca is the city that rejected the message of the Prophet, forcing him to flee until he could equip an army that would bring it to its knees. Just as Muhammad conquered Mecca ten years later with an army of ten thousand warriors, Anwar Al Awlaki and his army of Mujahidin are determined to obey the command of their Prophet to fight the Mushrikun and the Kuffar - those who reject the message of Muhammad - until only Allah is worshipped and his Deen established throughout the land (Quran 2:193).

Just as I've noted that we in the West have no idea how important Muhammad is to Muslims, I've also noted that the majority of Muslims follow the Prophet they wish had existed rather than the Muhammad who really did. Salafi leaders such as Yasir Qadhi and Anwar Al Awlaki are different in what they know exactly who Muhammad was and what he did. The position of Qadhi, in my opinion, is much weaker than that of Awlaki.
Muhammad never went to Abyssinia, and there is no indication his followers saw their stay there as anything more than a temporary respite from the troubles of Mecca. Rather than honestly state they did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and take the risk of being repatriated to Mecca, they couched their response to the Negus' questions about Jesus in terms that would satisfy him. There is no evidence that they tried to convert the Abyssinians to Islam, and there is also no indication they adopted the adversarial position to the Christians there that Muhammad later adopted towards the Jews of Medina.

I've written here that after reading Tareq Ramadan's What I Believe I really had no idea what he believes. The same is true of Yasir Qadhi. Even after reading Andrea Elliott's article carefully, not once but twice, I still do not know what he believes. Nor do I believe he would tell me if I asked.

Anwar Al Awlaki is, in more opinion, both more honest and more consistent. His message is short and sweet, "Watch out, America, we're coming to get you!" Although American law enforcement agencies might see Qadhi as their ally if not their friend, and view Awlaki as the enemy, I'm not sure the situation is that black and white.

21 comments:

John Lollard said...

SATV,

I'm curious about a slight inconsistency. You implied that we cannot trust the Islamic histories because they are based on oral reports two hundred years after the facts, and yet your articles (rightly) appeal to the hadith as evidence of the character of Muhammad, which are based on the same oral reports.

Could you explain this, please?

Love in Christ,
John Lollard

Quotable Quotes: said...

John, great question. When I taught a class about Muhammad at a church last year, I began by noting it is impossible to "prove" Muhammad ever existed, since the first available authoritative texts (the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sira or biography) date from at least 150 years later.
Imagine, I told the class, if there was no written documentation that Abraham Lincoln ever lived - no letters, newspaper articles, nothing. Now imagine that a present-day historian (150 years later) decided to write a biography of this mythical figure who had supposedly freed the slaves. He would travel throughout the country, collecting stories from people who might say, "Well, my great grandmother was born a slave, and when my mother was a little girl my great grandmother told her there was a man named Abraham Lincoln who set them free". How accurate would that biography be?
It's similar with Muhammad. We are left with the trilogy of the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sira. How historically accurate are they? No one knows. On the other hand, that's all we have. So in my blog I both assume that the information in the sira is true on one hand, but question it at the same time. In other words, I can say, "Ibn Ishaq said the Quraysh wanted the Muslims to come back from Abyssinia so the Quraysh could seduce them from their religion," but at the same time suggest that perhaps they were just missing their runaway slaves.

I've noted in the past that Muslims themselves deny things in the Hadith and the Sira that present Muhammad in a bad light. In the final analysis, most Muslims see only the Quran as infallible; the other texts are more open to question.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting! My question would be whether the Abyssinia analogy is necessarily mutually exclusive with the Mecca analogy in the sense of furthering an agenda of dominance? I am far from an expert on Ethiopia (modern Abyssinia) but do have a vague idea that Muslims are disproportionately in power over the Christian majority there. Wish I knew more... Anyway, great blog :)

Quotable Quotes: said...

Anonymous,
I think you are asking if Yasir Qadhi and Anwar Aulaki are that much different, or do both dream of an America that is eventually Muslim? That's what I meant when I suggested that Yasir probably would not tell me honestly what he wanted and believed even if I asked him. He might tell me what I wanted to hear, but I doubt he would tell me what he really wants.

Anonymous said...

all muslims want everybody to be muslims.

this is no different than christians converting others to their religion and wanting the whole world to be christian.

Greenforest said...

To the Anonymous above (at March 28, 2011 11:28 AM)

The difference between Islam and Christianity in this respect, nowadays, is that in Islam, Muslims are granted additional powers to compel nonbelievers (non-Muslims) to either embrace Islam or else comply with Islamic rules. Whereas Christians in the New Testament are not allowed to use force in converting people or getting them to comply with the tenets of Christianity, in Islam in the Qur'an and Hadith Muslims are permitted to use force to (a) make non-Muslims declare conversion to Islam, or (b) at least make non-Muslims comply with Islamic tenets and laws.

And if you don't think this policy is in effect today, try this: Criticize Islam in public in any country in the world today that has a significant Muslim population, give out your name and address, and observe what happens. Of course, you would be either very brave or very foolish to try this, but this example illustrates my point. There is a significant subgroup of Muslims who will compel others to comply with Islamic rules as laid out in the Qur'an and Hadith. (Polls suggest that the majority of Muslims worldwide want sharia, and this includes enforcing blasphemy laws and punishing apostates). Muslims enforce blasphemy laws to a much greater extent today than do Christians or any others.

Anonymous said...

There is a difference between the state/goverment and the people.

in muslim countries there are lots of non-muslims living their eating their pork and drinking their alcohol under shariah law.

I dont see where they are compelled not to eat pork or drink.

"Muslims are granted additional powers to compel nonbelievers (non-Muslims) to either embrace Islam or else comply with Islamic rules."

I dont see how that statement is true. Maybe in afghanistan but not in most muslim countries.

"in Islam in the Qur'an and Hadith Muslims are permitted to use force to (a) make non-Muslims declare conversion to Islam, or (b) at least make non-Muslims comply with Islamic tenets and laws"

Again, untrue statement, maybe it would help if you gave some examples. But if you do be aware most muslim countries are not really proper islamic countries even if they declare themselves to be.

I mean we've seen for example in pakistan that christian women who supposedly blasphemed against god. Islam would protect that women..

"Criticize Islam in public in any country in the world today that has a significant Muslim population, give out your name and address, and observe what happens."

i would say criticizing is ok, its the mocking and drawing cartoons thats the problem. even that people should be free. But debates argueing discussing islam etc.. you can watch the debates online there are many. where christians attack islam and muslims attack christianity.

"Muslims enforce blasphemy laws to a much greater extent today than do Christians or any others."

yes there are many corrupt muslim countries. such as saudi arabia

women not allowed to drive, no freedom of speech, not allowed to criticise islam....not allowed to build churches etc...

you have to recognise its not islam's fault, its the fault of the goverment/dictatorship/ruling family and ofcourse usa for supporting these dictatorships.

You've seen what happened in bahrain, if people protested for freedom of religion and speech weapons would flow from usa to saudi to silence the people.

Greenforest said...

To Anonymous at March 29, 2011 5:31 PMT:

"in muslim countries there are lots of non-muslims living their eating their pork and drinking their alcohol under shariah law."

...and there are cases where non-Muslims get in trouble for eating at the wrong time during Ramadan.

"I dont see how that statement is true. Maybe in afghanistan but not in most muslim countries."

I know of no Muslim-majority countries where it is either legal or safe to criticize Islam or Muhammad in public. That would be the measure of freedom of expression.

[quoting me] "in Islam in the Qur'an and Hadith Muslims are permitted to use force to (a) make non-Muslims declare conversion to Islam, or (b) at least make non-Muslims comply with Islamic tenets and laws"

[you reply] "Again, untrue statement, maybe it would help if you gave some examples. But if you do be aware most muslim countries are not really proper islamic countries even if they declare themselves to be."

Islam permits forced conversion in at least the following ways. 1. Jihad policy, convert to Islam or else accept the subjugated dhimmi status or have war waged upon you. 2. Apostasy policy, if you leave Islam you must convert back to Islam or be killed. 3. The parents require their children to be Muslims and thus strongly determine their religion from an early age through this important early influence. 4. If a polytheist wants to marry a Muslim, she or he must convert to Islam first (that's a social coercion). 5. If a non-Muslim man wants to marry a non-Muslim woman, he must convert to Islam.

Islam uses forced compliance in at least the following ways (in addition to jihad policy). 1. Blasphemy penalties. 2. No preaching or proselytizing to try to persuade Muslims to convert out of Islam. 3. Imposition of sharia generally, where non-Muslims must obey a variety of restrictions in addition to those mentioned above. 4. Requiring women to be obedient to their husbands.

"I mean we've seen for example in pakistan that christian women who supposedly blasphemed against god. Islam would protect that women.."

Only if Muslims there took a very different interpretation than the one most of them have now. That's a long way off and may never happen in sufficient numbers.

"i would say criticizing is ok, its the mocking and drawing cartoons thats the problem. even that people should be free."

Even the Danish cartoonists who drew Muhammad, and Lars Vilks, the Swedish artist?

"But debates argueing discussing islam etc.. you can watch the debates online there are many. where christians attack islam and muslims attack christianity."

Sure there are debates, but I'm talking about overall percentages and attitudes among Muslims. Most Muslims don't want criticism of Islam.

"You've seen what happened in bahrain, if people protested for freedom of religion and speech weapons would flow from usa to saudi to silence the people."

I don't think the USA sent the Saudis weapons for that purpose. The Saudis are doing what they themselves want, as they have interests in that country.

Unfortunately what we've seen in the past several years is Muslims voting in more sharia. This is bad for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but worse for non-Muslims. If you want true freedom of religion, you need a model like the USA has now. There you can interpret Islam as you like as long as you don't break any laws.

Anonymous said...

".and there are cases where non-Muslims get in trouble for eating at the wrong time during Ramadan."

yes, shocked to read some news , in some muslim countries non-muslims told to refrain from eating during the day in ramadan or not to eat in public during the day.

All my life non-muslims ate in front of me during ramadan while i was fasting. So again nothing to do with islam but to do with dictatorship/despotism.

"I know of no Muslim-majority countries where it is either legal or safe to criticize Islam or Muhammad in public. That would be the measure of freedom of expression."

Turkey or Malaysia?, freedom of speech has its limits. In germany/austria you cannot deny the holocaust , draw anti-semetic cartoons or do the hitler salute etc.. otherwise you get fine or go to prison.

So in an islamic country you can mock/criticise but things like the danish cartoons might be deemed so offensive.

"1. Jihad policy, convert to Islam or else accept the subjugated dhimmi status or have war waged upon you."

I think loonwatch suffices here:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/do-muslims-want-to-reimpose-dhimmitude-or-live-as-equals/

"2. Apostasy policy, if you leave Islam you must convert back to Islam or be killed."

There is no death sentence in Quran for apostacy.

for point 3

children born into athiest family become athiest, children born into christian family become christian etc..

"4. If a polytheist wants to marry a Muslim, she or he must convert to Islam first (that's a social coercion)"

I dont see how thats coercion? no one is forced to convert.

"5. If a non-Muslim man wants to marry a non-Muslim woman, he must convert to Islam"

??...non-muslim marrying non-muslim?

Anonymous said...

I don't think the USA sent the Saudis weapons for that purpose. The Saudis are doing what they themselves want, as they have interests in that country.

I think we all of arab/muslim countries except for countries like syria/iran, cannot do anything without the approval of usa.

You say saudis are doing what they want themselves as they have ''interests''?

so what if saudi arabia's interests was to use all those usa weapons and invade israel and free palestine? what then ?

Will you or USA continue to support Saudi interests and allow them to do what they want to do ?

Or is it only when USA's interests being fulfilled that the west supports saudi arabia.?

"Even the Danish cartoonists who drew Muhammad, and Lars Vilks, the Swedish artist?"

I have seen much worse online. I remember long time ago before danish cartoons and before south park had mohamed on first time i think. before all of that, online a christian website publishes small booklets about mohamed cartoons about mohamed raids in arabia and drew mohamed like how disney did in those old cartoons.

So its not new.

"If you want true freedom of religion, you need a model like the USA has now."

Yes, islamic countries should resemble the west, in terms of justice and freedom , rights and equality. But first remove those dictatorships, even now new US-supported regime being installed in Egypt and libya(opposition forming new goverment soon after gaddafi chosen by USA).

Greenforest said...

"Turkey or Malaysia?,"

Yes, they have limits on criticizing Islam, though Turkey's is worded as "religion".

"freedom of speech has its limits. In germany/austria you cannot deny the holocaust , draw anti-semetic cartoons or do the hitler salute etc.. otherwise you get fine or go to prison."

I think the Holocaust denial there is against the law. In those countries you could also get in trouble for criticizing Muslims. Those countries are not like the U.S. on freedom of expression rules, but they are more relaxed than Islamic countries.

"So in an islamic country you can mock/criticise but things like the danish cartoons might be deemed so offensive."

I don't know of any Islamic countries where this is possible, without getting into trouble either from the authorities or from vigilantes.

[quoting me] "1. Jihad policy, convert to Islam or else accept the subjugated dhimmi status or have war waged upon you."

[your reply] "I think loonwatch suffices here:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/do-muslims-want-to-reimpose-dhimmitude-or-live-as-equals/"

Not adequate. I have correctly stated the classic jihad policy. There is no significant disagreement on this except what to with polytheists. This all involves forced conversion in a quick and direct way for those who declare conversion to Islam out of fear, and in a slow and indirect way for the dhimmis subjugated under Islamic rule.

[quoting me] "2. Apostasy policy, if you leave Islam you must convert back to Islam or be killed."

[your reply] "There is no death sentence in Quran for apostacy."

1. That's debatable. 2. It's in the hadith for sure, which mainstream Islamic scholarship accepts. 3. It's in Islamic law.

"for point 3
children born into athiest family become athiest, children born into christian family become christian etc.."

Not the same. In Islam the pressure is much stronger and there are real threats of being killed or severely punished. Christians and atheists in most cases are free to accept or reject whatever their parents teach them. There is no death penalty for conversion from either atheism or Christianity today, whereas several Islamic countries today still have the death penalty for apostasy.

[quoting me] "4. If a polytheist wants to marry a Muslim, she or he must convert to Islam first (that's a social coercion)"

[your reply]"I dont see how thats coercion? no one is forced to convert."

If a contingency is put in place that says if you want to marry a person that you love you have to change your religion, otherwise you can't be with this person, then that's coercion. If there was no coercion, there would be no requirement for one partner to convert to Islam.

[quoting me] "5. If a non-Muslim man wants to marry a non-Muslim woman, he must convert to Islam"

[your reply] "??...non-muslim marrying non-muslim?"

Excuse the error. I meant a non-Muslim man marrying a Muslim woman. This is forbidden under sharia and there is still widespread support among Muslims for this rule. The fact that the non-Muslim man has to convert to Islam to marry the woman he loves is coercion on him. Remove that rule, and you remove the coercion.

Greenforest said...

"I think we all of arab/muslim countries except for countries like syria/iran, cannot do anything without the approval of usa."

I disagree; that seems wildly overstated.

"You say saudis are doing what they want themselves as they have ''interests''?
so what if saudi arabia's interests was to use all those usa weapons and invade israel and free palestine? what then ?"

I didn't say I agreed with whatever Saudi Arabia wants to do in relation to its neighbors. I was getting at the idea that the US is not responsible for whatever the Saudis do.

"Will you or USA continue to support Saudi interests and allow them to do what they want to do ?"

I don't support the Saudis and I don't necessarily agree with the US, though with respect to the recent uprisings in the ME I think the US has handled things fairly well so far, even though domestically people on all sides are criticizing them no matter what they do or don't do.

"Or is it only when USA's interests being fulfilled that the west supports saudi arabia.?"

In what sense is the West supporting Saudi Arabia's regime? In terms of not challenging them on human rights issues like freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality between men and women, etc.?

Anonymous said...

"In what sense is the West supporting Saudi Arabia's regime? In terms of not challenging them on human rights issues like freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality between men and women, etc.?"

Yes, supporting dictatorships everywhere.

If USA wants freedom and justice, in muslim world and the muslim world to be like the west/usa then you gota stop supporting tyranny and dictatorships.

Why does USA stay quiet on child marriages in saudi arabia? or harsh punishments?

If the saudis wanted to remove the dictatorship/tyranny in saudi arabia to bring in proper sharia law ban child marriages etc...

what you think would happen? USA would support saudi gov just like it supported Saudi to invade Bahrain and support the dictatorship there

you said USA handled it fairly well the uprisings/revolution in the arab. How did they handle it well? only when the dictator leaves, does usa come out and say we supported democracy all along !

so why doesnt USA currently say now we support democracy in Saudi and Bahrain and we want the monarchies to get out now and stop killing the people and put sanctions on them like the ones on iran and north korea?

Democracy freedom justice is in middle east is good for everybody then muslims can have proper shariah law, where common sense is on the top.

The only reason these dictatorships are standing is because of USA.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/03/tunisia-speaks-israel-surprised.html

Greenforest said...

To Anonymous above,

I don't think the USA should get too tied up in these various conflicts. I think Obama is trying to tread carefully and not get the US too committed in the region. No matter what he and Hilary Clinton do about this, people are going to complain.

There is no good practical solution here; there are dictators on one side and Islamists of various stripes on the other.

Anonymous said...

"No matter what he and Hilary Clinton do about this, people are going to complain."

Exactly, one thing USA could do is stop interfering and installing puppets in the region

and most importantly remove their soldiers, ships, from the region.

"There is no good practical solution here; there are dictators "

There are good solutions, its just you refuse to see that these dictators/puppets are pro-usa and installed by the west.

You've seen how the bahrainis were massacred by the pro-usa gov.

Greenforest said...

To Anonymous immediately above,

Firing on peaceful demonstrators is not a US policy. The Bahrainian regime should be held responsible for their own actions.

Anonymous said...

But it is US policy, to defend and continue to support the Bahraini regime/monarchy even though they commit lots of violations of humans rights / international law etc..

You say Bahraini regime must be held responsible, but US goverment doesnt think so. If US truly cared about freedom and democracy and human rights, it wouldnt support the bahrain monarcy, it would support the 70% shia majority that want bahrain to be free.

By supporting Bahrain regime and keeping them in power US is responsible.

Dont you know these tear gas canisters are MADE IN USA not made in china ?

Greenforest said...

US officials were telling Bahrain to respect peaceful demonstrations.

Assuming that's true about the tear gas canisters, The fact that they were manufactured by a US company does not mean the US government is responsible for how the Bahrainian authorities chose to use those items.

I'm quite sure the US wants peaceful free democracy everywhere including in Bahrain. At the same time they must deal with reality, i.e., there are no peaceful free democracies in the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

"At the same time they must deal with reality,"

well the reality is US gov supports/protects those oppressive regimes. If USA is no longer a superpower, all these regimes would collapse immediately.

No USA = no corrupt oppressive regimes. (except for countries like syria/iran)

"there are no peaceful free democracies in the Middle East."

Yes there is, Turkey is one, Egypt is now free , Tunisia as well.

But i'am sure that according to you, egypt is not peaceful or democratic if it is against zionist israel state, basically anti-israel and pro-iran.

Greenforest said...

"If USA is no longer a superpower, all these regimes would collapse immediately."

I think the trend is many of them are going to collapse with or without the US's involvement.

"No USA = no corrupt oppressive regimes. (except for countries like syria/iran)"

We can add several more "countries like...", but again, don't get carried away blaming the US for everything that happens.

[quoting me] "there are no peaceful free democracies in the Middle East."

[your reply] "Yes there is, Turkey is one, Egypt is now free , Tunisia as well."

As I said before Turkey has a special laws protecting religion from criticism and in practice that means Islam and Muhammad can't be criticized.

Egypt and Tunisia have a long way to go in their treatment of non-Muslim minorities. Egypt also has a long way to go in its treatment of women.

"But i'am sure that according to you, egypt is not peaceful or democratic if it is against zionist israel state, basically anti-israel and pro-iran."

Peace and democracy, though related, are two distinct concepts. For example, Egypt might eventually have free and fair elections where everyone is permitted to vote without intimidation, and so forth. Yet there may be in Egypt a significant percentage of Muslims who are hostile to efforts at a peaceful resolution to the conflicts between the Israelis and Palestinians. We will see.

Anonymous said...

"Yet there may be in Egypt a significant percentage of Muslims who are hostile to efforts at a peaceful resolution to the conflicts between the Israelis and Palestinians. We will see."

Yes all arab countries if not all muslim countries are hostile to israel just like israel considers the arabs/muslims enemy.

You have to understand, if there is democracy in all islamic countries they would all have anti-israel goverments and hostile towards israel.

Not necesesarily itching for war or threatning, but having boycotts no diplomatic relations etc..

For example under Mubarak egypt sold Gas at below market price to israel secretly. While some few profited alot including mubarak.

Why not sell the gas or give it freely to gaza?

So in a free democratic egypt, gas wont be sold to israel, and if it is, certainly at market price or higher than market price, and no longer sold if israel attacks lebanon or kills palestinians.