EXCLUSIVE – Gaza Cleric: Jerusalem Truck Attack Permitted by Sharia

[rangerrebew]

EXCLUSIVE – Gaza Cleric: Jerusalem Truck Attack Permitted by Sharia
28
1
JERUSALEM, ISRAEL - JANUARY 08: (ISRAEL OUT) Israeli security forces and emergency personnel gather at the site of a vehicle-ramming attack on January 8, 2017 in Jerusalem, Israel. Four israeli soldiers were killed and 13 wounded after an industrial truck driven by a Palestinian man, rammed into a group of people. (Photo by Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images)
Lior Mizrahi/Getty

by Ali Waked10 Jan 201722

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Sunday’s deadly truck-ramming attack in Jerusalem is permitted by Sharia law, a Palestinian cleric claimed to Breitbart Jerusalem.

Ahmad Abou Aklein, a Gaza extremist imam, said the attack that left four Israelis dead and another 17 wounded is allowed under Sharia Islamic law because “it targeted an enemy that occupied Muslim land. None of the casualties was an innocent man who lives in a land that is his own. None of the dead could validly claim that occupied Palestine is his country of origin.”

Aklein referred to the entire state of Israel as “occupied Muslim land.”

“Compare it to a Chinese or an Iraqi soldier who comes to the United States or a European country and occupies it,” he added. “Will they let it happen? Will they not resist in every possible way? This is what the hero did today, he fought against the soldiers of the occupation and killed them, that’s all.”

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/01/10/exclusive-gaza-cleric-jerusalem-attack-permitted-sharia/

[driftdiver]

The big lie

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Okay, I have a problem with this story.

It's a great headline, and the context seems strong.  But they don't state their source.  From where did they get the content of this article, and the quotes from the cleric?  Did he give a public speech at which Breitbart had a reporter present?  Was it something online that they saw/heard?  Or was it something reported in an Israeli or Palestinian newspaper.  the article does not say.

To me, that's exactly the type of thing that makes a story like this suspicious.  It's only good reporting to provide enough facts and background that the story can be verified, or at least so a particular source is nailed down.  But this could be something someone just made up because it was good click bait.