Here's a real Stop-The-Presses Alert. An actual call to a Muslim group to take responsibility for its actions -- and from a Muslim paper.
From the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to Rosie:
The Hamas leadership was taken to task in an op-ed piece published Saturday in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Watan, Israel Radio reported.The author, Fuad al Hashen, wrote that Hamas bore full responsibility for the recent IDF incursion into the Gaza Strip.
Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israel after Israel voluntarily withdrew from Gaza, al Hashen continued. Therefore, Israel's decision to shell Gaza was "natural."
Can we expect the author in question to end up in prison, or executed?
I hope the author lives, but I doubt that he will. There are too many demonic killers in Islam to allow that.
The author, Fuad al Hashen, wrote that Hamas bore full responsibility for the recent IDF incursion into the Gaza Strip.
Mr. al Hashen forgot the first rule of islam
muslims are never to blame for anything, they are always the victim.
He's a dead man walking, but a brave one. And rarer still, he's an honest Muslim.
There is an honest sane muslim???
WOW!!!
God protect that brave soul for allah and the mos will not.
for intersting reading try:
http://www.haaretz.com/
"Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israel after Israel voluntarily withdrew from Gaza, al Hashen continued. Therefore, Israel's decision to shell Gaza was "natural."
There is a certain "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" assumption in the minds of Hamas and Co. (and many other Muslims) that looks upon any Israeli or other Infidel self-defense as agressive provocation and oppression. It seems that it does not matter if the Infidel is in what a Muslim perceives to be Dar-al-Islam or Dar-alHarb-the rule applies to all self-defence from Infidels. I'm sure this mind-set applies in Darfur too. It's an infantile mentality that cannot be reasoned with and will probably have to be literally blased out of existance. The bully-mind is only stopped by firm resolution and force-not by reason. Save reason for those who reason.
Does anyone really believe that reason will prevail on this matter?
To that I would add that this same line of thought is also supported by many in the MSM and the happy and always festive left...
My calendar says July 8, not April 1. Please save the April Fools jokes for the appropriate day.
If this is true, I fear it is but a single shooting star of reason against the unblinking firmament of illogical islamic intransigence. He will likely be snuffed out by his brethren as the shooting star is destroyed by the atmosphere.
It makes sense that it is a Kuwaiti saying this. Many Kuwaitis loathe Palestinians. Didn't many of them side with Saddam in Gulf War Part One?
As a matter of fact Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis and most of the Gulf people deeply distrust and dislike Palestinians.
I think most of the Arab world, though they may dislike a non Muslim state in the middle of the Middle East, despise the Palestinians even more. You only have to look at the way that they have destabilised the surrounding countries. There has been trouble, including an Palestinian led attempted coup in Jordan, trouble in Syria, Egypt, they made a mess of Beirut. Then the Palestinians complain about not being supported by their fellow Muslims! Maybe there is a reason for that lack of support!
He's not alone:
"The reactions I gathered were posted on an Arabic forum on the BBC Arabic website. About three dozens of comments were made by Iraqis both inside Iraq and in exile and all these comments were supportive of Israel or at least against Hamas as far as the topic is concerned except for only three comments; that's a 10:1 ratio while as you probably have guesses, the opposite ratio is true about the comments by the rest of Arabs.
These comments and some of the non-Iraqi Arab reactions they stimulated caught my attention.
In fact Mohammed and I spent an entire day reading through the 500+ comments in that thread and thought we could share some of the best and most interesting stuff with you.
What was written in that thread stands as one example of the change in the Iraqi way of thinking since the day we got rid of the dictator and shows that logic and facts are gaining more ground at the expense of emotions and conspiracy theories."
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/07/singing-out-of-flock.html
There is an honest sane muslim??
Yes, Freewoman, but he is not a GOOD muslim. That's the rub with islam. For a muslim to be sane and honest, and let's add humane to that list, he has to be a bad muslim - because he is bad for the cause.
R.I.P. al Hashen?
Great grandson of Asma Bint Marwan?
Hamas has a lot of friends in the neighborhood with explosive tempers.
Straight transmission from murdering Mohammad himself.
Maybe he'll want to take a vacation till their 1350 year old memories fade?
Give that man a Klondike bar.
From The Hindu
Get a load of this (typical rationalization), more b.s from "moderate" Muslims
and more
The writer apparently has weak academic credentials. Word is he's been replaced by a graduate of the Baghdad Bob School of Journalism.
The "Palestinian" cause became an Arab cause for two reasons.
The first is that the English encouraged it; it was they who, especially in the administration in Mandatory Palestine, not only encouraged Arab opposition to the Zionists (see Bertie Waters-Taylor, and what Col. Meinertzhagen noted was his deliberate whipping up of the Arabs in the Old City as early as 1921), but also encouraged it to become of pan-Arab interest. But those who limit themselves to "blaming the British" and who take seriously the supposed assurances of Feisal in the famous Feisal-Weizmann correspondence (the words attributed to Feisal were likely composed by T. H. Lawrence) that "we [the Arabs] will give you [the Jewish Zionists] a warm welcome home" forget the context: at the time, Feisal and other Arabs were without any source of money or support other than whatever Western powers, chiefly Great Britain, chose to give them. Furthermore, the Jewish settlers might, in certain numbers, "be welcomed home" because they caused a mini-boom that led Arabs, especialy from Iraq and Egypt, to flock into Mandatory Palestine (there were more Arabs than Jews who entered and settled in Mandatory Palestine from outside -- this is constantly overlooked by BBC and other anti-Israel pontificators, for whom the historicla context always begins about a week, or at most a month, before whatever story they are pretending to report.
The second, and most important reason is that no matter what the British did or did not do, the Arab Muslims would not have allowed for the possibliity of land once controlled by Muslims to be controlled by Infidels, and still worse if those Infidels were not the Christians, who at least had always been a potentially powerful enemy, but the Jews, who had been treated with such contempt and despised because they were without power, and so could be exploited for whatever they offered by way of goods or services (for example, as doctors -- the Ottoman Padishahin, just like Saladin himself, had Jewish doctors; and also as dragomans useful for commercial intercourse with the non-Muslim world). The Holy Land (to the Christians), the Land of Jerusalem and Zion, Eretz Israel (for the Jews), was an ill-considred backwater for the Arabs and Muslims. But once someone else claimed it, it suddenly assumed an exaggerated importance -- exaggerated, that is, mainly for the outside, still powerful, Western world that needed to be won over.
If Muslims and Arabs decide to reconcile themselves to the existence of Israel, there is absolutely no assurance that this anything other than a hudna, temporary as all such hudnas must be. Neither Israel, nor the rest of the Infidel world, can rely ever on temporary accommodation, and must plan, and act, as if that hudna will come to an end. There may be "moderate" Muslims. There may be Muslims willing to accept Israel, begrudgingly, as a fact to be recognized and not as an achievement to be emulated. But that does not mean Israel can give up the tiny buffer zone, and control of the aquifers, in what we call (absurdly) the "West Bank." Israel cannot surrender any more territory. It needs to make that case, first to itself, and then to the outside world. It needs to explain, if it can, that the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya remains the basis of the treaty-making of its enemies. Unless and until that model of Islamic treaty-making is discussed openly, and openly abjured, there is no point in any further negotiations. The whole effort now must be spent in doing what could have been done in June 1967 and by now have long been accepted by the outside world: not uprooting "settlements" but expanding them, making clear to the local Arabs that the
"West Bank" was part of the territory assigned by the League of Nations for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the legal, moral, and historic claims of the Jews to at least what was Western Palestine (the provisions of the Mandate as to "facilitating Jewish immigration" and "encouraging close Jewish settlement on the land" were unilaterally held to no longer apply to historic Palestine "east of the Jordan" by the British, earning the fury not only of the Zionist leaders (including Jabotinsky) but also of the entirely non-Jewish members of the League of Nations' Mandates Commission. That all of this should have been forgotten by the world, and by most Israelis, does not mean it cannot be remembered and repeated, and repeated until everyone gets the picture. No more nonsense about a "Two-state solution." The Arabs in Gaza will once again be under Egyptian rule (many of them are a generation or two or three away from being Egyptians). In the "West Bank," there should be nothing but the sound of bags being packed, not of Jews but of Arabs who will either have to endure living under Infidel rule, with no further encouragement or favors to be done by them, either through UNRWA, or UN or EU supporters, or through the disguised Jizyah of Western, Infidel aid. That's over, or should be. If the rich Arabs choose to give them some money for staples, fine. Anything that uses up the unmerited wealth of the rich Arabs, whether gambling or call girls or luxury apartments, houses in Virginia Water or McLean, villas in Marbella or St.-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, or money for the local Arabs who remain in what will soon cease to be called "the West Bank" is money not available to be spent on Da'wa (mosques, madrasas, propaganda) or on the hirelings currently employed over the Western world.
Is that the guy who wrote Seven Pillars of Lady Chatterley?
WSW