Boko Haram Claims Responsibility For Kaduna And Zaria Church Bombings

By SaharaReporters, New York

Boko Haram Radical islamist militant group Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for the bombing of three churches that killed at least 50 people in Zaria and Kaduna town yesterday. The sect targeted mostly children and women in the Zaria attacks.

The sect spokesperson Abu Qaqa said the current massacre of christians was done to avenge the past killings of Muslims and desecration of Mosques in Zonkwa, Yelwan Shendam, Tafawa Balewa, where they said Mosques were turned into brothels and drinking joints, while Christians continue to carry on with impunity and government support.

The statement also claims that Christians must all convert to Islam in order to have peace.

The sect stated in a press release sent to select media via its spokesperson Abul Qaqa earlier today.

Abu Qaqa started the statement by saying, “Today Almighty Allah has given us victory against Christian Churches in Kaduna and Zaria which led to the deaths of many Christians and security operatives.”

The statement also said that Allah has tasked all Muslims in Quran chapter 9 verse 29 to launch a attack against Jews and Christians who refused to believe in him, his messenger, Prophet Mohammed.

It also said that attacks against Christian children and women will continue, since security personnel now attack their women and children.

The statement concluded that residents of Maiduguri, Borno State are suffering because they did not support the sect when federal forces waged war against them in 2009, accordingly, the sect wants Kano residents to examine and change their ways towards them.

  1. Kwargaba Reply

    We have to Pray 4 our Country 2 geting relief 4 this pain of insecurity both Muslims & Christians.

  2. pioneer4change Reply

    you are a failure boko haram. stop misinterpreting the verses of the quran. you are a liar and a political instrument. stop covering up and disguising as muslims. you will bear your burden by yoursef

  3. fuck boko haram Reply

    A dream that can not turn to reality.

  4. Mohammed awal Reply

    you want to propagate war between us and our brothers (the Christians) and it will never work!! We have lived together in peace for many years before you were born.You want us to kill them all and live alone? The world is changing go to Egypt and Tunisia and the whole Arab spring.Allah said to treat even our animals with respect before killing them for food talk less of innocent people who are not fighting us or preventing us from serving him, you are vampires thirsty for blood. Change your evil ways for your end is near!!!!!!

  5. nuhu gajere Reply

    killing us can not give you whatever goals you are tryin 2 achieve. is this a HOLY-WAR?(JIHAD) 0R A HOLY-TERORISM? The blood of da innocent you are shadin will hunt you 2 your 7th generation. GEJ is PRESIDENT and there’s nothing you can do about that. but like i said, until you repent nd sincirelly ask 4 forgivness, you and your generation are DOOMED startin frm here on earth nd the everlasting CONDEMNATION in HELL….

  6. Micah Reply

    Should the northern Christians continue to fold their arms? I say no to this. Christians should start bombing mosques and other muslims gatherings. There should not be any innocent Musliim in our midst. No religion has the monopoly of violence. The Muslims are not physically powerful than the Christians. Retaliation should start from the south. All northern Muslims should either be killed or sent packing from the south. The division of Nigeria is long overdue. There shd be a sovereign national conference so that we can make our minds known. Nobody shd force us to live together as one bcos we are not one Nigeria.

  7. Anonymous Reply

    Verse 29 of chapter 9 of the Qur’an, as we saw last week, mandates that the Muslims fight against the Jews and Christians “until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

    Asad, Daryabadi and other Western-oriented commentators maintain that the jizya was merely a tax for exemption for military service. Asad explains: “every able-bodied Muslim is obliged to take up arms in jihad (i.e., in a just war in God’s cause) whenever the freedom of his faith or the political safety of his community is imperiled…Since this is, primarily, a religious obligation, non-Muslim citizens, who do not subscribe to the ideology of Islam, cannot in fairness be expected to assume a similar burden.” But they pass in silence over the latter part of v. 29, which mandates the humiliation of non-Muslims.

    In explaining how the Jews and Christians must “feel themselves subdued,” Ibn Kathir quotes a saying of Muhammad: “Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” He then goes on to outline the notorious Pact of Umar, an agreement made, according to Islamic tradition, between the caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644, and a Christian community.

    This Pact is worth close examination, because it became the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis. With remarkably little variation, throughout Islamic history whenever Islamic law was strictly enforced, this is generally how non-Muslims were treated. Working from the full text as Ibn Kathir has it, these are the conditions the Christians accept in return for “safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion” – conditions that, according to Ibn Kathir, “ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.” The Christians will not:

    1. Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”;
    2. “Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”;
    3. Use such places “for the purpose of enmity against Muslims”;
    4. “Allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims”;
    5. Imitate the Muslims’ “clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names”;
    6. “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”;
    7. “Encrypt our stamps in Arabic”
    8. “Sell liquor” – Christians in Iraq in the last few years ran afoul of Muslims reasserting this rule;
    9. “Teach our children the Qur’an”;
    10. “Publicize practices of Shirk” – that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive;
    11. Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” – again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed;
    12. “Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”;
    13. “Bury our dead next to Muslim dead”;
    14. “Buy servants who were captured by Muslims”;
    15. “Invite anyone to Shirk” – that is, proselytize, although the Christians also agree not to:
    16. “Prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.” Thus the Christians can be the objects of proselytizing, but must not engage in it themselves;
    17. “Beat any Muslim.”

    Meanwhile, the Christians will:

    1. Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”;
    2. “Open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby”;
    3. Provide board and food for “those Muslims who come as guests” for three days;
    4. “Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them” – shades of Jim Crow;
    5. “Have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist” – these are so that a Muslim recognizes a non-Muslim as such and doesn’t make the mistake of greeting him with As-salaamu aleikum, “Peace be upon you,” which is the Muslim greeting for a fellow Muslim;
    6. “Be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.”

    The Christians swore: “If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”

    Of course, the Pact of Umar is a seventh-century document. But the imperative to subjugate non-Muslims as mandated by Qur’an 9:29 and elaborated by this Pact became and remained part of Islamic law. In the nineteenth century the Western powers began to pressure the last Islamic empire, the Ottoman Empire, to abolish the dhimma. In Baghdad in the early nineteenth century, Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi (1802-1853), author of the noted commentary on the Qur’an Ruhul Ma’ani, complains that the Muslims have grown so weak that the dhimmis pay the jizya through agents, rather than delivering it themselves on foot. In his Tafsir Anwar al-Bayan, the twentieth-century Indian Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Ilahi Bulandshahri laments that “in today’s times, the system of Atonement (Jizya) is not practised at all by the Muslims. It is indeed unfortunate that not only are the Muslim States afraid to impose Atonement (Jizya) on the disbelievers (kuffar) living in their countries, but they grant them more rights than they grant the Muslims and respect them more. They fail to understand that Allah desires that the Muslims show no respect to any disbeliever (kafir) and that they should not accord any special rights to them.”

    The influential twentieth century jihadist theorist Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) emphasizes that these rules should be revived, for “these verses are given as a general statement, and the order to fight the people of the earlier revelations until they pay the submission tax with a willing hand and are subdued is also of general import” (In the Shade of the Qur’an, Vol. VIII, p. 126).

    Likewise the Pakistani jihadist writer and activist Syed Abul A’la Maududi (1903-1979) states that “the simple fact is that according to Islam, non-Muslims have been granted the freedom to stay outside the Islamic fold and to cling to their false, man-made, ways if they so wish.” That heads off any potential contradiction between his understanding of v. 29 and 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion.” Maududi continues by declaring that the unbelievers “have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines. For if they are given such an opportunity, corruption and mischief will ensue. In such a situation the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life” (Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. III, p. 202).

    Islamic apologists in the West today commonly assert that 9:29 commands warfare only against the Jews and Christians who fought against Muhammad, and no others. I wish that every Muslim believed that, but unfortunately that has never been the mainstream Islamic understanding of this verse. Indeed, if it had been, the Pact of Umar, which I detail above, would never have been made — for it was made after Muhammad’s death with Christians against whom he did not fight. That in itself, as well as the teachings of all the schools of Islamic law, illustrates that this verse was always understood as having a universal application.

    Next week: Why the Jews and Christians are both accursed of Allah.

    (Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)

    Posted by Robert on December 10, 2007 8:07 AM | 20 Comments
    del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet
    « Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

    Your Ad Here

    20 Comments
    exsgtbrown | December 10, 2007 8:19 AM
    ““Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley”

    ….Islam…feel the love?…

    Ban Muslim Immigration…

    Karl | December 10, 2007 8:35 AM
    “Meanwhile, the Christians will:

    1. Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”;
    2. “Open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby”;
    3. Provide board and food for “those Muslims who come as guests” for three days;…”

    Does this principle teach Muslims that Christians who do not open their houses of worship to Muslims, day or night, to use as a motel as they wish, will run afoul of Islamic law?

    Is this what we will have to put up with next?

    If we refuse to quarter the Muslim soldiers in our churches, will we be fought against until we feel ourselves subdued?

    Is there another alternative? Like developing a culture of self-defense?

    Aunt Bea | December 10, 2007 9:13 AM
    Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”;

    The “gunman” in Colorado asked for a place to sleep!
    Before he started shooting.

    dentalque | December 10, 2007 9:14 AM
    7. “Encrypt our stamps in Arabic”

    What does this mean? Is it the wax seals used to seal documents? Postage such as today? Does anybody know?

    Abscedere | December 10, 2007 9:43 AM
    Interesting. Not only are dhimmis to pay this poll tax, with willing submission, but they are to feel subdued.

    Sharia tells Mohammedans how non-Mohammedans must feel? Sharia mandates emotions? Dear Lord, are we in trouble!

    I can’t quite picture Westerners feeling subdued, when forced to do something. We might toe the line, and look as if we have been subdued, but to feel that, as an emotion? Nah… Never happen.

    As I mentioned on another thread, from yesterday, this plan fails because it depends on the morality and beliefs of the oppressed party. I can’t visualize any real person ever being ashamed of his religion, or lack thereof.

    Nearly all religions have had, at some time in history been forced “underground”. That’s exactly what would happen in a God-forsaken Sharia world.

    Why haven’t the Mohammedans noticed that, for all their intimidation, all their vitriol, all their violence, and all their agression, they haven’t, since the inception of Islam, eradicated other religions? I mean, if you want to talk about a people who ought to feel subdued and humiliated, these are the ones, because they are failures.

    pismopal | December 10, 2007 9:50 AM
    They forced their (palestinians)way into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and repayed the hospitality by stealing and defecating in the church..destroying what they didn’t defile. I have too much repect for animals to refer to those oxygen thieves as animals.

    Charles Martel | December 10, 2007 9:51 AM
    6. “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”

    They must be belching in fury in America.
    Now I feel obliged to buy another gun and a few crates of ammo. Shove it, mashkalji!

    Hugh | December 10, 2007 10:38 AM
    Note the number of “Merry Christmasses” or “Happy Hanukkahs” you receive from smiling, friendly, plausible Muslim colleagues. And if you receive those greetings, go a little further. Invite them to a Christmas party or Hanukkah celebration. See if they accept. See, if they show up, how they behave. Make sure to invite their children. Be sure to tell those kids a little something about Christmas or Hanukkah. All done in the name of greater understanding and Interfaith harmony. What could be more innnocent, what could be more telling?

    Take notes.

    profitsbeard | December 10, 2007 11:31 AM
    Fine with me, since their “peace” is that of the gulag or the grave.

    If they would all return to Mecca they would never have to worry about greeting any infidels, ever.

    A win-win for everyone.

    dirk | December 10, 2007 4:34 PM
    Interesting history, but how many of these tenets are still codified in Islamic Law?

    As a kid, thirty years ago, I lived in Oman for four years, the son of a Christian missionary who was running an openly Christian church. Among the laws you’ve listed

    – Proselytizing was illegal, probably still is.
    – Conversion to Christianity was definitely frowned upon, just not done.

    Probably others are still codified in Islamic law in many countries.

    But to be honest, when we moved back to the States, to suburbs outside of NYC, we missed the honesty, openness, and hospitality of Muslims in Oman. Most Muslims we met admired western culture, and were happy to get a chance to talk about it with us.

    A dominant American culture of “Islam and Muslims are Evil” would only teach them that Americans are close-minded, and slow their progress towards a less authoritarian society.

    Charles Martel | December 10, 2007 4:48 PM
    dirk, islamic law does not change with time. Only the proportion between islamic law and secular law varies from country to country and with years.

    dirk | December 10, 2007 5:45 PM
    Charles, good distinction.

    My experience living in an Islamic country, under a combination of Islamic and secular laws, was that Islamic people are decent.

    duh_swami | December 10, 2007 7:05 PM
    ” Maududi continues by declaring that the unbelievers “have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines. For if they are given such an opportunity, corruption and mischief will ensue. In such a situation the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life”

    I wonder if this is where the authors of ‘Planet of the Apes’, got their inspiration?

    dumbledoresarmy | December 10, 2007 7:44 PM
    That Ibn Kathir line – quoting a saying of Muhammad: “Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley” (is it from the Hadith? – Bukhari or Muslim? – reference please!) is mind-boggling. This is gangster behaviour.

    When I visited the open day at a little mosque in my hometown, three suburbs away from where I live, I noticed volumes of Ibn Kathir (in English translation, I think) on their bookshelf. It didn’t exactly inspire confidence that ‘peaceful’ Islam was being practised in that mosque.

    Let’s reflect on that attitude of aggressive contempt and bullying, of the Muslim toward all non-Muslims, that Ibn Kathir is inculcating – and bolstering with Mohammedan authority – by comparison with the humility that Jesus recommends to his followers:

    “Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
    “but so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your servant.
    “And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
    “for even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10: 42-45; also in Matthew 20: 25-28.

    In our hymn-book there is a beautiful song by Tom Colvin and people of Ghana, set to a Ghanaian folk tune. It meditates on Jesus washing his disciples’ feet at the Last Supper:
    “Kneels at the feet of his friends/
    silently washes their feet
    Master who acts as a slave to them.
    – Yesu, Yesu, fill us with your love
    -show us how to serve the neighbours we have from you”…
    “These are the ones we should serve
    these are the ones we should love
    ALL MEN are neighbours to us and you.”

    Arrogance and violence, versus humility and charity.

    dumbledoresarmy | December 10, 2007 8:24 PM
    dirk –
    your personal experience, when compared with the contempt for and hostility toward non-muslims that shimmers off line after line of the Quran, that saturates the Hadith and the Life of Muhammad, and throughout the history of the Ummah has manifested in continual mass-murders, enslavements, pogroms and millions of acts of petty bullying, is not a testament to a goodness inherent in Islam.

    IF genuine, it testifies to what some theologians call ‘common grace’. The humanity, the hospitality, the curiosity of those Muslims in Oman was not necessarily there BECAUSE of Islam, but IN SPITE of it. One might say, of the Omanis that you met, that IF their friendliness, ‘honesty’, warmth, etc, was real (was it ever truly put to the test?) it just shows that their humanity was bigger than their Islam.

    dirk – you should google ‘taqiyya’ and ‘dawa’ and ‘hugh fitzgerald’ ‘visiting the mosque’ on this site.

    Let me tell you the story of Sol Hachuel, a teenage Jewish girl in early 19th century Morocco. You will find it by googling Andrew Bostom and ‘Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism’. Sol had a Muslim girlfriend who used to visit her regularly and converse with her. But then, out of the blue, the friendship became a deathtrap. That charming little Muslima, Sol’s supposed bosom friend, declared Sol (falsely) to be a convert to Islam. Sol, horrified, protested that she had done no such thing. The Muslim authorities exploded in apoplexies of rage against the Apostate. And, to cut a long story short, after disgraceful exhibitions of mob violence, seventeen-year-old Sol, who continued to affirm her Jewish faith to the very end, even to reciting the Shema Yisrael as she stood before the executioner, was beheaded for ‘Apostasy’, in the streets of Morocco, in 1834.

    Sol’s “friend” lied about her and brought about her imprisonment, torture and death.

    Have you been posting/ reading here long? Not long ago a French teenage boy whose family were living in the Emirates (Dubai) was abducted and gang raped by a bunch of men into his clutches he was basically betrayed by a Muslim lad who was his classmate at the American School. The Muslim doctor who examined him after the assault treated him with absolute contempt, as if HE were the criminal, accusing him of being a male prostitute.

    There are just too many stories like this, both contemporary and historical. The Hindus and Sikhs who occasionally post here, have many such to share.

    By all means make friends with Muslims. But watch your back, and keep your BS-detector tuned to ‘high’.

    When practising Christian love toward Muslims, naivety is a dangerous – even suicidal – luxury.

    dumbledoresarmy | December 10, 2007 10:09 PM
    Apologies: typo in the above.

    ‘a bunch of men into his clutches’ should read ‘a bunch of men into whose clutches’…

    sheik yer’mami | December 11, 2007 4:14 AM
    dirk,

    Oman is a rather special place. A different tribe, they don’t seem to have the fanaticism or the murderous obsession of the Saudi’s or the Pali-Arabs.

    Perhaps Hugh can enlighten us a bit more, because we don’t know much about the involvement of Omani’s in the jihad or other unpalatable things. Yes, they seem to be a more pleasant, more tolerant people there. Yes, I am aware that they allowed a church to be built there, amazing!

    But just look at Yemen, where the last 40 Jews are hauled up somewhere fearing for their lives, and just 40 years ago were forbidden to wear shoes on the street because that could upset the poor Yemeni’s who could not afford shoes, which could set the poor Muslims off in these fits of rage that are ‘more dangerous than hydrophobia in a dog’- to use Churchill’s words.

    mille-feuille | December 11, 2007 3:22 PM
    hmmm.. so I guess it’s all case by case then. Some of us have met nice Muslims and some of us have read about terrible incidents related to Muslims and non_Muslims. Omani maybe a different tribe, but they are still Muslims. Is it correct to say Muslims are violent just because there are extreme Muslims? We can’t say ALL Christians are kind and charitable.

    Religious faith should be between you and God. He will know if you are being faithful, kind, etc. Whether you go to church or not, whether you vocally express your belief or not, he would know if your heart is true. Non-Muslims may have to follow some Muslim rules when in Islamic society, but that doesn’t mean your religion is lower or better than theirs.

    Homefront | December 13, 2007 8:06 AM
    The pact of Umar looks to me to be exactly like the deal modern multiculturalists have struck with muslims who live in western countries. Christianity is to be mercilessly criticised and reduced to ruin or peripheral subservience where Islam is to be exalted and elevated politically irrespective of whatever malfeasences are committed in its name. Or for that matter how legitimate these malfeasences are in the faith or how overwhelmingly popular they are amongst the religions adherents.

    It’s not seventh century but a poignant reminder of where we are today. If or more likely when muslims are the rulers of europe very little is likely to change in a transition from modern multicultural apologetics to a fully fledge sharia backed pact of Umar.

    ottokoma | December 14, 2007 6:57 AM
    @dumbledoresarmy:
    That Ibn Kathir line – quoting a saying of Muhammad: “Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley” (is it from the Hadith? – Bukhari or Muslim? – reference please!) is mind-boggling. This is gangster behaviour.

    It is Sahih Muslim 26/5389:
    http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/026.smt.ht

Leave a Reply