Iraq government warns of risk of "endless civil war"

Iraq rated a devastating punitive raid and the toppling of Sadaam - nothing more. We should not take part in muslims' internecine struggles.

In particular, American taxpayers do not owe islam the rebuilding of their lousy, 1200 year old mosques. America owes islam nothing.

I wonder when dubya will put out a statement claiming that the American taxpayers will be "more than happy" to finance the rebuilding of ALL the mosques damaged in this latest round of fighting?

The second the Iraqi's based the new goverment with Islam, it is doomed to fail. Only by allowing true freedom of faith practice will it work.

As of now it looks as one side is against the others faith, and balance is reached for through war.

At least we see the ways to push button Islam into action.

300 years is a solid estimate. 1,390 years less 300 yaars, that's a good long stint...

when ever l watch the uesless news from ABC,etc. they are all eager to see Iraq go into a civil war.. they seem disappointed so far no civil war.

Jihad Watch readers may well appreciate the "Saturday European News Round-Up" feature at The Dumb Ox every week.

I look at the front pages of leading papers from France, Italy, Germany, and England to see what's on their front burners.

http://thomistic.blogspot.com

It's up now.

Plus, it's not too late to submit a Silly Video for our Friday Silly Video Contest. Had lots of visitors, but only three submissions yesterday! So I've decided to extend this week's window in the two-month long contest.

http://thomistic.blogspot.com/2006/02/tom-cruise-kills-oprah-silly-video.html

All the best,
D. Ox

It may be providential that this eruption of violence coincides with the recent statement by US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilizad, that the US will not support a sectarian government:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-20-voa14.cfm

Civil war, brought by the Iraqis upon themselves, and the US's stated position on the uncompromising expectation of a unity government, may create for us a much earlier "way out" than the administration previously had in mind. It would be a golden opportunity to say, "Hey-- we tried, and you blew it. Have a nice day."

Everyone forgets that the Shia have been bombed time and again during this peace by the Sunnis. The Shiites have finally decided to exploded and take it to the Sunnis.

America needs to exit and let this civil war spread across Islam. If the Muslims are killing each other, then the Muslims have less opportuinty to attack the civilized world.

The more Muslims that are killed by fellow Muslims will just make it easier in the coming war with Islam.

Let the Muslims fight and kill each other. The Muslims have being doing this for centuries.

The Texican.

Freedom. The only choice at any cost.

Couldn't we just say "Inshallah" and depart?

That's the Muslim one-word panacea to all misery and mystery.

Why shouldn't we grab a little of their uber-rationalization, tell them that "the future is in Iraqi hands, because, although we have brought them out of dictatorial darkness, it is now time for them to step up and be mature men, and women, and bear the burden of Iraq's destiny themselves".

And leave a cell phone number.

(Besides, we've got to straighten out the 82nd Airborne and rebuilt Katrina's wake.)

Give a cheery "Have a nice millenium!"

And move for the borders double-time. And ring the region with predator drones for the foreseeable future.

The hell with how we "look".

They all hate us because we're infidels anyway.

Al-Qaeda can play with the mess for a few centuries.

Inshallah.

You are right Texican but when the sh*t hits the fan, I wonder if there will be a mass exodus of muslims in the West to return to their place of origin to lend a hand?
I think not.....they will be busy preparing for the mass influx of millions of Arab refugees taken in by political vandals in need of a vote to stay in power to increase their fat Swiss bank accounts.

If civil war does ensue, that won't deter Bush from "staying the course" and "fighting the terrorists there instead of here", etc. etc. etc. If he would seal our borders and stop muslim immigration, we wouldn't have to worry about any new terrorists getting in, and we could concentrate on flushing out the sleeper cells and independent operators that are already here.

Iraq is a hopeless case and democracy will never prevail. What is it about this obvious scenario that George Bush does not understand? Why do they need democracy when they have Shariah? The fact that they have a Constitution giving Islam the final word is a "democracy" only in the sense that it was approved by the voters. They used the democratic process to enslave themselves. So now let them annihilate each other and save us the eventual trouble. If the terrorists set up training camps in Iraq we can always go back and bomb them.

We need to get the hell out of Iraq and spend our money to defend the home front, and not sacrifice another precious American life to a lost and hopeless cause. When Bush decided to invade Iraq and disarm the unarmed Saddam, he never said he would deplete our national treasury building mosques, power plants, oil refineries, only to have them all blown up as fast as they are constructed. It has to stop somewhere, some time. The time is now.

I am livid at my "government" for its refusal to protect me; for wasting billions of dollars in Iraq that might as well be piled up and burned for all the good it's doing; for creating another massive bureaucracy, Homeland Security, that is totally incompetent at a cost of billions; for refusing to protect our borders; for allowing millions of illegal aliens to flood America and pollute it with their inferior culture, their infectious diseases, their refusal to speak our language, their illiteracy; their crime and filth.

Bush and Washington power brokers are playing Russian Roulette with the security of America. They care more Mexicans and the people who employ them than they care about the welfare and security of the legal citizens of this country. If the illegal immigrants don't turn America into a third world cesspit fast enough for them, maybe a muslim terrorist will make it across the border with a nuke to finish us off. If I didn't know better, I would conclude that the last thing the boys in Washington give a damn about is protecting this country, its citizens, and its future. I wonder where they plan to go when America is uninhabitable, thanks to their callous neglect and ass-backwards priorities. I'm sure they've all invested in fortified villas somewhere very safe and secure, while we fend for ourselves and try to cope with the hell they have unleashed on us.

"Iraq is a hopeless case and democracy will never prevail. What is it about this obvious scenario that George Bush does not understand?"
-- from a posting above

1) Obstinacy. He can't admit, has no way to admit to himself, that he was wrong. He can't admit, has no way to admit to the country, that the lives were wasted, the money was wasted -- he just can't.

2) Messianic fervor. The belief that America has a "mission" and the "mission" is to make the most unlikely places into something like America, or at least to have "democracy" (never defined beyond the primitive head-counting, never connected to the rights of minorities, or locating the source of a government's legitimacy permanently in the expressed will of the people).

3) Sentimentalism. People Are the Same The Whole World Over. People All Want the Same Thing. People All Want "Freedom." These sentiments, repeated endlessly, become a substitute for thought. They also can be uttered at any time, about any place, and absolve one -- Bush, Rice, Hadley, the entire Pentagon, everyone and anyone -- from having to learn, with specificity, the history and makeup of a county (Iraq), the contents of a belief-system and the consequences for those who do not adhere to that belief-system of those contents, as revealed through a long history. The sentimentalist does not have to know these things -- not now, not ever. He simply knows "human nature." He knows that everyone "wants freedom." He knows that if everyone gets freedom, the results will be wonderful for all mankind.

4) A new addition: dancing to the tune of the Sunni Arabs who now want the American army to stay, in order to prevent Iraq from dissolving into the three former Ottoman vilayets from which it was originally composed. The worry in "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia, and "staunch ally" Egypt, and "staunch ally" Kuwait, and "staunch ally" the United Arab Emirates -- all of them with largely Sunni populations (though there are Shi'a in the eastern, oil-bearing province of Saudi Arabia), and certainly Sunni rulers, would not like to see the Shi'a break away in the south, and the Kurds break away in the north. For that would be a great threat to them. The Sunnis of Iraq would be left with their isosceles triangle, and no oil, and no power. And that would be a great defeat, not quite like the "naqba" or catastrpohe at the hands of Israel, but a lesser "naqba" at the hands of those inferior Muslims, the Shi'a, who are for the Wahhabis not merely inferior, but close to Infidels (and for Al-Zarqawi they are Rafidite dogs, the worst of Infidels -- see his tape of September 14, 2005).

So it is now the Administration keeping our soldiers there, spending our money there, out of obstinacy, out of stupidity, out of ignorance, and out of a belief that what all those smiling "staunch allies" in the "war on terror" now tell them - that they must not leave, that they must stay to ensure the rights of the Sunnis, must surely be listened to. Why? Because Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt are all our "staunch allies" in the "war on terror."

Say, they wouldn't fool us, would they?

They would if they could.

I guess we have to face the fact that the west just can't help with so many people bent upon sectarian violence. It would be nice to protect those who want freedom, democracy, equal rights for women etc from the violence of warlords, but in fact we can't.

I hate to think of leaving the weak to be destroyed in civil war. Will we feel any less guilty than knowing that initial inaction against Hitler helped him murder millions of people?

But it's just too big and our priority must be to protect our own countries and cultures.

Sigh...

The flaw in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, is "going without knowing". (What Islam's codes are.)

And, once there, in not imposing a U.S. style Constitution and Bill of Rights, period. (And killing everyone who would prevent it, until it was imposed, as we did in defeated Nazi Germany and defeated Imperial Japan.)

Anything less guarantees pre-ordained failure.

Koranic law and Shariah law will do the trick.

Great planners.

Thanks boys.

"I am very happy and very optimistic," al-Jaafari said. "....there isn't a Sunni who is against a Shiite or a Shiite who is against a Sunni."

And he kept a striaght face while telling this whopper.

Just got back from playing lazer tag with my grandson. Lots of fun and helps the young ones learn how to shot accurately.

The Texican.

Freedom. The only choice at any cost.

Reading about Iraqi and "Palestinian" democracy reminds me of an old commercial. I think it was for Geico insurance. A man sitting in the passenger seat of his truck arguing with his dog, who of course is driving. All of a sudden he looks forward and freaks as he notices the approaching berm. Cut to the side view of the truck jumping the bank like a scene out of "The Dukes of Hazzard" and landing in a pond. Voiceover saying "People do dumb things. That's why there's Geico...".

A Mohammedan and democracy seem to go together like a dog operating a motor vehicle. Hopefully they'll just take their truck into a pond and sink before they plow it into the West's metaphorical schoolbus.

P.S. I'm not usually one to appear on any bandwagons (they seldom play my song), but the current actions of the POTUS do remind me of the aforementioned Geico guy.

The lefty looney (the one I'm always arguing with) predicted right after Saddam went down that Iraq would be an Islamic
s#*thole within 6 months...

I'm so glad he was wrong...

But we pay for it, and it'll still be wrong...

Dubya can't allow Iran's shia, which are different than the Iraq shia, to simply waltz in and take over, and that's exactly what they will do.
Even most sunni do not want to see a civil war, it's only those Baathists who lust for the Glory days that would like to start one, thinking they have backing of Syria's baathists,the muslim brotherhood and Al queda.
There are a lot of unholy aliances in the playground right now, and NONE of them appeal to the Saudi and the UAE. Al-Queda are largely militant Wahabbi's, and the Shia from Iran are also millitant compared to the shia in Iraq.
The Shia in general are not liked by the Saudi's and UAE Wahabbi's, nor are the Sunni's liked.
The Al Queda in Iran right now are only trying to start a civil war to enpower a militancy that can be used later to overthow the royal families in Saudi and UAE lands.
They hope that they will be able to them take control, but the Shia in iran have different ideas, as do the Sunni, but the one with the most power will take it all, and right now it's the Shia in Iran who have the money and power,
while the Saudi's and AUE have US!

That's why civil war is no good in Iraq, and if it comes about, then we have to make sure the right side wins, namely the Kurds and whoever they align with. Even that will bring about problems with Turkey over oil.
Who the Kurds align with will probably be Sistani's Shia's, which are fairly "moderate" compared to the Iranian Mullahs style. That will bring Syria into it, not that they aren't already, on the Sunni side.

And that's why Iran needs to be dealt with yesterday to stop them finacing and supplying these militacies, even if in "normal" Islamic times they would be finacing their enemies.
The Mullah in Iran are playing a calculated game, and so must Bush. If Iran gained power over Iraq it would only be a matter of time before they took the entire ME, and the Emerates know it and are afraid of it, which is why they support US bases.
After Iran and iraq are delt with then you will see less tollarence of the Saudi's and UAE, but untill then, Bush has to maintain good relations.
If everyone is ready for all out war, then I'd say to hell with them all, lets blast them all into vapors and just take it all. But then other countries wouldn't be too happy with that, would they. So we have to fight a calculated, limited war where nothing is going to be exactly how we want it.

Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com
Question Reference Number:: 1148
Title: Ruling on giving zakaah to a Raafidi

Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Acts of Worship > Poor-due or obligatory charity > Where Zakaah is to Be Spent >
Question:

What is the ruling on giving the zakaah of the Sunnis to the Raafidi (Shi’ah) poor? If a Muslim who is obliged to pay zakaah gives it to a poor Raafidi, has he discharged his responsibility or not?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

In the chapters of their books which discuss who is entitled to receive zakaah funds, the scholars have stated that these funds are not to be given to a kaafir or an innovator (follower of bid’ah). The Raafidis are undoubtedly kuffaar for four reasons:

They cast aspersions on the Qur’aan, claiming that two-thirds of it has been omitted, as is stated in their book by al-Noori which is called Fasl al-Khitaab fi Ithbaat Tahreef Kitaab Rabb al-Arbaab, and in Al-Kaafi, and other books. Whoever casts aspersions on the Qur’aan is a kaafir who disbelieves in the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)” [al-Hijr 15:9]

They cast aspersions upon the Sunnah and the saheeh ahaadeeth. They do not follow them, because they were narrated from the Sahaabah who, according to them, are kuffaar. They believe that the Sahaabah became kaafirs after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, apart from ‘Ali and his descendents, Salmaan, ‘Ammaar and a few others. But with regard to the first three khaleefahs and the majority of the Sahaabah who gave their bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to them, they think that they all apostatized and became kaafirs, so their ahaadeeth cannot be accepted. This is stated in al-Kaafi and other books of theirs.

They regard the Sunnis (Ahl al-Sunnah) as kaafirs, so they do not pray with you. Whoever prays behind a Sunni will repeat his prayer. Indeed, they think that we are naajis (impure), and when they shake hands with us they go and wash their hands. Whoever regards the Muslims as kaafirs is himself a kaafir, so we regard them as kaafirs just as they regard us as kaafirs, and more so.

They commit clear shirk in their exaggerations about ‘Ali and his descendents and in their calling upon them alongside Allaah. This is stated clearly in their books, where they exaggerate about them and describe them in terms that are befitting only for the Lord of the Worlds. We have heard this in their tapes. They do not participate in the charity work of the Ahl al-Sunnah, or give charity to the Sunni poor; if they do these things, it is with deeply rooted and hidden hatred, and they do that as a form of taqiyyah (dissimulation, calculated deception). On these grounds, anyone who has given zakaah to them must pay his zakaah again, because he has given it to someone who will be helped in his kufr and to wage war against the Sunnah thereby. Whoever is obliged to pay zakaah is forbidden to give it to a Raafidi; if he does this, he has not discharged his obligation and he has to pay it again because he did not give the money with which he had been entrusted to the people who were entitled to receive it. Whoever doubts this, let him read the books that have been written in refutation of them, such as the book by al-Qifaari which refutes their way, and al-Khutoot al-‘Areedah by al-Khateeb, and the books of Ehsan Ilahi Zaheer, and others. And Allaah is the Source of Strength. [Note: al-Khutoot al’Areedah and the books of Ehsan Ilahi Zaheer are availabe in English Translation. – Translator]

From Al-Lu’lu’ al-Makeen min Fataawa Fadeelat al-Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, p. 39. (www.islam-qa.com)