A Muslim cleric draws an inspiring lesson from Islamic history.
by | Oct 17, 2026
Photo: Screen shot.
When Jews and Christians look back into history and tell stories of their saints and heroes, they generally speak of people who held to the faith under immense pressure, even unto death. Or people who were extraordinarily generous and magnanimous. Or people who spoke a courageous and inspiring word that rallied the faithful and a crucial time. In Islamic tradition, however, as is so often the case, the situation is different.
Islam has its saints and its holy people. Some of them even follow the pattern of such people in other religions: people who were killed for refusing to renounce the faith, or who are renowned for their holiness and wisdom. Yet a large number of the revered Islamic heroes of past ages are jihad warriors who are beloved today because they killed infidels, and often offered a few choice words as they did so.
Last week, a video began circulating of a Muslim cleric in Sudan, Sheikh El Tayeb Mohamed Ahmed, passionately preaching a sermon in a mosque while wearing military fatigues and clutching a rifle. Happens every day at your church, right? The pastor comes out in fatigues and brandishes his Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Sport III while preaching, doesn’t he?
Anyway, the pious El Tayeb Mohamed Ahmed, speaking in Arabic but overdubbed in English, declared: “And Ibn Walid negotiated with the Romans offering them security while he held the reins. Did he not answer them with the answer of death?… ‘I am thirsty for the blood of the Romans,’ and we say it we say it in the name of the people. And this people is thirsty for the blood of the militia… and this people is thirsty for the blood of the militia to support the oppressed, to support the orphans, to support…”
Ahmed was referring to the Battle of Yarmouk, which Islamic tradition records as a magnificent and decisive victory of a vastly outnumbered Muslim force over the Roman armies in Syria. This was a staggering loss for the Romans and opened the door to the conquest and Islamization of all of the Middle East.
The Battle of Yarmouk took place in the year 636, a massive Roman force came to meet the much smaller invading Muslim force under the command of Khalid ibn al-Walid at Yarmouk. According to Islamic tradition, the Roman general, Vahan, offered to pay Khalid off, saying to him: “It looks as if poverty, nakedness and starvation has compelled you to come here. If you wish, I am willing to give each of you ten dinars, expensive clothing and good food. You can take these things and leave. Next year too I can send you these things; you do not have to take the trouble to come here.”
Khalid responded: “Vahan, listen to me very carefully! You are mistaken about the reason why we are here. We are people who drink the blood of our opponents. We have heard that Roman blood is very delicious, and we have come here to enjoy it.”
Ahmed is telling his congregation this story because he wants them to emulate Khalid ibn Walid’s thirst for blood. He apparently supports the Sudanese army in its armed struggle against the rival Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and says that the Sudanese military is now “thirsty to drink the blood” of the RSF.
How inspiring. It should not be a surprise, however, that any Muslim cleric would call for bloodshed or praise a long-ago military hero for his bloodlust. After all, the Qur’an is full of exhortations to kill non-Muslims and establish the hegemony of Islam. Although smooth-talking Islamic apologists in the West do their best to obscure the fact that the Qur’an contains statements including “Kill them wherever you find them” (2:191, 4:89, 4:91, cf. 9:5) and “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (47:4), or to dismiss them as long-outdated exhortations pertaining only to seventh-century situations, innumerable clerics, like Sheikh Ahmed, know those passages exist, know that mainstream Islam holds them valid for all time, and are eager to act on them.
Sure, but that’s in Sudan, right? It could never happen here. Here, the moderates are in charge, right? Not really. It would be more accurate to say that here, Islam’s supremacist imperative is advancing swiftly without violence. Violence, in fact, would only retard its progress. The outcome, however, will be the same here as it has been for all other jihads.
Israpundit is entirely dependent on readers support. Please help me continue educating people with the truth about what is going on in Israel and around the world.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.