Fort Dix area Muslims condemn plot; say that Islam teaches peace

"These guys are not supposed to be involved in this type of behavior. Islam means peace, love and compassion. We're not talking about violence and hostility,” he said.

Islam means submission. The guy is a deceiver. Mark my words, it is the deception (not the violence) that is going to undo Islam. This is a "religion" that permits deceit. Islam is not about the universal practice of the Golden Rule, or "love they neighbor as thyself". Islam is about deceiving the unbeliever, and it creates a culture of self-deceit among Muslims.

Guess they've never heard the Western term "Broken Record".

Oh. Right. Music Bad.

The quoted verse 5:32, says ... YUSUFALI: "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

This verse is frequently quoted ... OUT OF CONTEXT!
It looks to me as directed to the people of Israel. If they kill someone it is as if they killed the entire human race. And then, is says the Jews are all wrong anyway.

What about the caveat "unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land"?

I thought damn didn't I just read this? I click in and read kafir_kelbeh and lol! Here we go again!

The MSM fellow-travelers, pc preeners, and outright saudi whores think they are pulling one over on the American people. In reality, they are just undermining their own credibility. Americans are not as stupid as they these walter durantys think they are, and are learning not to trust the MSM to be truthful.

"Islam means peace, love and compassion..." -- only for the Muslims (that is, for the "properly pious" Muslims, once they somehow figure out who belong in that group).

For the infidels and apostates, Islam provides the "gifts" of subjugation, vengeance, and domination.

"...people are responsible for terrorism — not Islam..."

Sounds like: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

"Islam doesn't commit terrorism, people commit terrorism."

Still, it doesn't have the ring of "hijacked religion" and "religion of peace".

How many PR firms do these Muslim organizations pay to think up these catchy sayings? How many of the spokespeople have attended media training seminars?

“Islam means peace. Islam is not terrorism"....from above headline.

That may have been true at one time, but not any more:

Muhammad's life can be divided into two parts -- the tolerant years in Mecca and the aggressive years in Medina. The Qur'an reflects those two parts, and that is why at times someone will point out a teaching in the Qur'an that seems to indicate that Islam teaches its adherents to live at peace with their enemies.

When Muhammad began to preach his revelations from Allah to the people, he believed that a peaceful religion was a good strategy for attracting people, especially the Jewish people, to the teachings of Islam.

When Muhammad saw that his attempts to win over the Jews through peaceful coexistence were not successful, he "launched a new strategy, a strategy based on power. This is when he declared jihad (holy war) and went out to convert nonbelievers to Islam by the sword."

Muslims today are taught to interrupt the Qur'an through a principle of progressive revelation known as 'nasikh'. Any contradiction in the Qur'an is solved by using the newest revelation. If anyone denies the continuing revelation of Allah to Muhammad, they are denying Islam itself.

Unfortunately, Rahman is living in the past, and today's radical Muslim's have abandoned their once peaceful path. Jihad is the new deal.

Islam teaches peace, but practices Jihad. Its a bipartisan religion.

I was in the Cherry Hill Gang's neighborhood again yesterday - still no obvious signs of backlash. Not even any signs of restiveness or protests that can be seen in Southern Thailand or in the streets of France respectively.

The media continue to amaze: Southern Thailand, with its daily jihad killings is descibed as being "restive" while a door getting kicked and a slow week at the pizza shop is a "backlash" in New Jersey.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

What is truly amazing is that they can still find new journalists who swallow this unexamined tripe whole.

And journalists who ask no useful questions.

What school teaches this kind of reportage?

What is truly appalling is that they can still find new journalists who swallow this unexamined tripe whole.

And repeat this same nonsense over and over and over.

(If this post sounds like a repetition of a previous post, don't all of these stories sound the same?)

Just for once I'd like to have a reporter say:

"You guys always say this, but then Muslims keep killing people for Islam. What the hell gives?"

To give these people credit, at least they were plotting against legitimate military targets. That's not terrorism, that's insurgency or counter-attack strategies. It was not a civilian site, just like the Marine barracks bombing, I won't lie, that's a legitimate attack if it's done in the name of Islam. Like Nasarallah said when asked about the 9/11 attacks: "What do the people who worked in those two World Trade Center towers, along with thousands of employees, women and men, have to do with war that is taking place in the Middle East? Or the war that Mr. George Bush may wage on people in the Islamic world? ... Therefore we condemned this act -- and any similar act we condemn. ... I said nothing about the Pentagon, meaning we remain silent. We neither favored nor opposed that act" The Pentagon is a military site, which makes it legitimate to attack it, but why did Nasarallah say that he neither favored nor opposed the attack on it? Well, the same exact reasons I didn't favor it nor oppose it:

1) The innocent people in that hijacked plane.

2) Even though it's legitimate to attack it (since it's a military site) it's also not a not a good military strategy because it will lead illegal invasions (like the one in Iraq which left more then 300,000+ dead) and also benefit Israel's plan for to use the US and destablize the Middle East (Read 'The Zionist Plan for the Middle East' by Oded Yinon and the 'PNAC' plan by the hardcore right wing zionist sympathising jews such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and the other Iraq war architects).

Overall, it's sad that the Fort Dix jihadists were followers of Bin Laden. I don't know why any muslim would praise a man who's competing with Israel and the neocon likudnik infested Bush Adminstration for the prize of who's killing the most muslims.

A military struggle will most definitely backfire for muslims, a political struggle where all people will get together is what's needed to stop the Iraq war.

So does the question ever flicker across anyone's mind? If it is really this open-and-shut a matter, if Islam really so clearly and decisively teaches peace, why do we keep seeing these stories?

And who could possibly argue with this?

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing.
--- Peacenik Mohammed talking murder in Ishaq 489

And guess who attacked whom for this killing done by peacenik Mohammed and his peacenik Companions.

Robert, 5:33 was used (by prophet Muhhammed) against the people who didn't follow the treaty and let the meccans attack him. The message from 5:32 and 5:33 was clear, you cannot kill someone unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land. But muslim terrorists (especially Al Qaeda and it's followers) around the world don't care about that rule, they'll use the excuse that since they (the US) murdered or were complicit in murdering innocent muslims, they can respond back by killing innocent US civilians.

Hizballah,

Interesting thoughts. Your words will do more to alert people to the reality of what is going on than I ever could.

Keep it up - you may wake somebody up.

Anyway, as for Fort Dix being a legitimate target for the Cherry Hill Gang: Well, if these guys want to play at being jihadists, they should be treated as such when they get caught. As of a few decades ago, that would be a field execution for un-uniformed "combatants" after a thorough "questioning". It should be now as well. We still have much to learn about this war and the nature of our enemy.

So please, enlighten us further.

"Islam means peace." I expect that any religious/political group member will generously provide propaganda when the opportunity arises, but we need to constantly scold the mainstream media for actively helping them to spread such propaganda. We need to send letters to this guy and his publication:

"By Todd McHale for the Burlington County Times"

Some typical apologetics, and rebuttals:

“Islam doesn't teach things like that,” Zahida Rahman said. “Islam means peace.”

Rebuttal

“Islam is not terrorism. In the Koran it says, "If you kill one person, you kill humanity. If you save one person, you save humanity.' ”

Rebuttal

Hizballah_Supporter,

You demonstrate our point [Islam does not mean peace, etc.] each time you post to support your genocidal organization.

I've posted this before, but as Hugh has pointed out, sometimes repetition is an important part of teaching...

Here's a more thorough explanation of Qur'an 5.32 and 5.33, including Bush's citation of 5.32, and an Islamic scholar's analysis of the verses' meaning:

http://revuse.wetpaint.com/page/E%29+How+does+Islam+guarantee+human+rights%3F

Hizballah supporter,

You say,

"Robert, 5:33 was used (by prophet Muhhammed) against the people who didn't follow the treaty and let the meccans attack him.[1] The message from 5:32 and 5:33 was clear, you cannot kill someone unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land.[2] But muslim terrorists (especially Al Qaeda and it's followers) around the world don't care about that rule, they'll use the excuse that since they (the US) murdered or were complicit in murdering innocent muslims, they can respond back by killing innocent US civilians."

[1] Are you sure you know the context of 5:32 and 5:33? What you suggest doesn't sound right to me.

[2] Spreading mischief/corruption in the land is a broad concept that includes many things. Please show us where bin Laden has misunderstood the concept of mischief/corruption in the land. Your Hizballah deliberately attacks civilians and deliberately provokes attacks against civilians on its own side in Lebanon. It is no better than al-Qaeda.

Kamala: When muslim terrorists use 5:33 to kill people because of "attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims", that is wrong. That's called abusing the verse for your needs, prophet Muhhammed used 5:33 mostly to expel (like it says in the verse "or exile from the land") instead of killing the enemies. And he sure as hell didn't expel or kill them because of "attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims" but because they allowed the meccans to attack him and the muslims [i.e. broke the treaty].

I haven't seen this get a lot of coverage, so I place it here:

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/101622.html

Cartoons possible terror motive
10.05.2007

Prosecutors claim that four men charged with planning a terrorist bombing were seeking revenge for publication of the Mohammed cartoons

Retribution for a Danish newspaper's publication of the now-infamous Mohammed cartoons was one of the motives behind four men's alleged plans to detonate a bomb in Copenhagen, according to the assistant crown prosecutor in the Vollsmose terror trial.

(in reference to topic)

LOL...nothing like superficial window dressing.
Their efforts are as effective as putting a band-aid on an arterial wound.
lame at best

Hizballah_Supporter:

"To give these people credit, at least they were plotting against legitimate military targets. That's not terrorism, that's insurgency or counter-attack strategies. It was not a civilian site, just like the Marine barracks bombing, I won't lie, that's a legitimate attack if it's done in the name of Islam."

Ok then if you want to run with the dogs dont cry and hide behind your mommas burkah when you are treated like a civillian clothes wearing spy enemy combatant and killed upon identification.

oh wait I forgot you people hate dogs how about replace that with fiight like a soldier or dare I say like a man

Hizballah Supporter,

You expect us to believe,

"When muslim terrorists use 5:33 to kill people because of "attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims", that is wrong. That's called abusing the verse for your needs,[1] prophet Muhhammed used 5:33 mostly to expel (like it says in the verse "or exile from the land") instead of killing the enemies.[2] And he sure as hell [3] didn't expel or kill them because of "attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims" [4] but because they allowed the meccans to attack him and the muslims [i.e. broke the treaty]."[5]

[1] You cite no evidence to support your claim. Also, you expect us to believe that Muhammad did not abuse (and invent) verses for his own "needs"? (see 33:50-52, 66:1-6, 8:1-2, 33:21, 4:80, etc).

[2] Again, you cite no evidence whatsoever that Muhammad expelled more people than he killed in accordance with this verse. And, even if that's true, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of your prophet! The fact remains that according to the Islamic texts Muhammad was a cold-blooded killer.

[3] There is nothing sure about your hell or the texts upon which you base your beliefs.

[4] Of course (according to your texts) he expelled them or killed them because he perceived "attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims." And you forgot usurp their land, extort them, and subjugate them, e.g., the Khaybar Jews (33:27); also see 9:29.

[5] Nonsense. Your knowledge of Islam appears to be based on fiction on top of fiction. At least go to the original sources. Muhammad did not let the Meccans "attack him and the Muslims," because as soon as he had power to do so, he began raiding Meccan caravans and killing Meccans. He retaliated disproportionately, and in many cases instigated attacks. So it cannot be said that he "allowed" the Meccans to attack him. Moreover, Muhammad is responsible for instigating the conflict in the first place by insulting the Meccans and their religion, making death threats, etc. In the end, Muhammad conquered Mecca, and then later forced the Meccans to embrace Islam or be put to death.

Muhammad instigated the conflict with the Meccans
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/antagonizing.htm

Background of 9:5
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/swordverse.htm

Muhammad breaks the treaty of Hudaybiyya
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/hudaybiyya.htm

Forced conversions see Chps. 16, 19, 20.
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/RootsTerrorism/RootsTerrorism0.htm

There is a jihad army at work in the good ole US of A. They don't have parades or wear uniforms or attend reunions. They are not organized in divisions or brigades, and some units do not even communicate with other groups or know of their existance. It is no less an army than a real army with generals, captains, and enlisted men. Like all armies, there are support troops, quartermasters, teamsters, cooks, and intellegence groups. This jihad army also has its support troops. The self proclaimed moderates who provide safe houses, money, alibis, excuses, and cover are the support. Groups like CAIR are part of the intellegence and disinformation apparatus. Some are voluntary, some are recruited, and some do not even know that they are supporting a jihad army. Like all armies operating in a foreign land, this army has its resistance and collaborators.

Those people who suoort jihad either knowingly or those who support jihad through their idiocy are just as guilty as those jihad soldiers on the front lines. These suporters and collaborators will someday have to pay the price for being Quislings.

Champ writes:

“Muslims today are taught to interrupt the Qur'an through a principle of progressive revelation known as 'nasikh'. Any contradiction in the Qur'an is solved by using the newest revelation. If anyone denies the continuing revelation of Allah to Muhammad, they are denying Islam itself.”

“Muslims today” is quite obscure. Which brand of Muslims are you referring to? The concept of ‘nasikh’ is quite old, and it is not at all clear how the concept of nasikh is to be employed in the Qur’an; the medieval commentators were divergent on which verses were to be abrogated.

World Muslim Deception!

Hi Derrick --

"Muslims today" = this would apply to any Muslim; but more specifically to a devout or radical Muslim.

'Nasikh' may be an old concept, but 100 years from today, it will still be applicable. The thing that's important to keep in mind is that the Islamic terrorist are not fanatics -- but devout followers of Muhammad who are only following his example and doing what their Islamic Bible teaches them to do.

"the medieval commentators were divergent on which verses were to be abrogated"....perhaps, but this is really a secondary issue. The more important thing to focus on is Muhammad's actions -- his evil deeds; which are widely spoken of and documented, so I won't be listing them here.

While the Rahmans said they would pray for the suspects, they also expect the judicial system to do its part and punish anyone found responsible for the Fort Dix plot.

“Whether they are Muslim, Christian or Jew, they should be punished for this if it's true,” Zahida Rahman said.
.......................................

This *sounds* evenhanded, but actually is anything but. Firstly, it casts doubt on the idea that Muslims were involved, with the corallary "if it's true".

Secondly, it implies that Christians or Jews are every bit as likely to have been involved in a terrorist plot as are Muslims, and as likely to give religious motives for their actions.

To give these people credit, at least they were plotting against legitimate military targets. That's not terrorism, that's insurgency or counter-attack strategies. It was not a civilian site, just like the Marine barracks bombing

Like Khaybar Oasis said, you emphasize the murderous nature of your puppet organization everytime you post.

On the point above, simply the target being military doesn't make it legit. If the Albanians in question, or take your group Hizbullah, was a regular army that landed an invasion of the US in NJ and then in course of regular combat carried out those attacks, then it would be a normal act of war. Anything less than that is plain terror.

Of course, we recognize that as far as Jihad goes, there isn't a difference. If Sudanese forces can overrun Darfur, that's a Jihad; if Hizbullah guerillas lob missiles against Israel while hiding among civilians, that's a Jihad. But avoid interchanging the words 'terrorism' and 'Jihad' - you know just as much as we do that the latter is a lot wider in scope than the former.

Robert, 5:33 was used (by prophet Muhhammed) against the people who didn't follow the treaty and let the meccans attack him.

Al Jaami` Al Saheeh. Version 1.07 - By Imam Al Bukhari
Volume 4
4.261:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after whey were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")

The prescribed implementation of Mohammed's edict, "Baddala deenahu, faqtuluhu"!

8275 deadly Mohammedan Jihadi attacks since 9/11.
And they just keep coming.

Since 9/11 how many deadly Christian terrorist attacks have there been? How many deadly Buddhist terrorist attacks have there been? Heck, how many deadly radical atheist attacks have there been?

The Religion of Peace has produced eighty two hundred seventy five deadly terrorist attacks and counting. That works out to four a day, day in and day out without let up. That is NOT done in the name of ANY other religion on Earth even if you take the numbers and normalize them for world population of the religions.

{^_^}

Gravenimage Exactly wahat I was planning to say.

Don't think that all Americans are unable to 'get'
these kind of points.

The more these kinds of thoughts get repeated in the press, the more prople who are going to say to themselves. WTF? Pardon my language,

Question

I am always confused by the Koranic verse about Allah ordianing that is the children of Isreal killed one person it would be as if they killed all of humanity ect,ect. Where in the Bible does such a thing exist? I thought this came from the Talmud and other later post biblical acropyal sources. For example see the ring given to Oscar Schindler at the end of the movie Schindlers List.
Wouldnt the koran quoting this prove that it was plagerised off the Talmud along with the bible and other ancient texts?

Think about that Derrik and Hizbullah Supporter

One Kosovar Albanian considered joining the US military to "kill American soldiers from inside". Sounds very familiar to the Serbs. In his 11/01/87 NYTimes story, David Binder wrote about a Kosovar Albanian Aziz Kelmendi serving in the Yugoslav Army who opened up in his sleeping bankmates in the barracks killing 4 and wounding 6. Between 1981 and 1987, 216 (! ! !) Albanian cells were uncovered in the Yugoslav military who plotted sabotage, murdering officers and fellow soldiers, poisoning food. Google "Jim Naureckas;Rescued from memory hole" who sites many articles in NYT, Financial Times, Wash. Post that describe a totally one-sided, well-organized Kosovar Albanian campaign of terror against Serb civilians. 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 ... a decade of non-stop atrocities. Keep in mind: it was long, long before anyone accused any Serb of killing anybody. And why? Even many Serb-bashers agree that the Albanians were granted very generous autonomy in Kosovo, enjoying a greater degree of self-rule than Quebec does in Canada, Catalonia in Spain or Scotland in UK. They were also disproportionately represented in the Serb parliament, and were benefitiaries of generous affirmative action in education and employment. Aid poured in from the rest of Serbia. And in response, the Albanians used the almost unlimited power granted to them to persecute and abuse Serb civilians in Kosovo, tolerating and even encouraging any crimes against them. Muslim Imams and clan elders told young Albanian males to rape Serb girls and knife boys, to burn Serb farmers' crops and poison wells. If victims turned to Albanian "police", the "police" would just laugh at them. Djordje Martinovic, a 56-year old farmer and the father of 3 was kidnapped and brutally tortured, impaled with a broken bottle. The officials publicly laughed and joked about it to reporters.

Right on Enragedsince1999. Our Marines in Beruit were protecting Palsitians when thay got bombed. We prvented Naser from invading Suadi in the 50's and Iraq doing it in 1990. What do we get? 9/11.

We should never, ever pretend to defend Muslims again.

So everyone is clear on what and how this affects americans if this attack was actually concieved. 75% of the personell on Ft dix... ARE CIVILLIANS WORKING! in some small sectors families of permanently placed personell reside on Dix but not alot. Most of the servicemen are national guard. Therefore weekends are busy, as well as the summer months. The Airshow this weekend would have been ideal as the expected attendance was around 150,000 people in the neighboring McGuire AFB. As a resident of a neighboring town I would venture to say half the population is responsible for duties between the two bases be it civilian or servicemen.

Now for your question about Todd McHale, he is a writer for newspaper thats in this great state of New Jersey. A Bleeding Heart Liberal State That supports corruption! Your local news media outlets around the region all follow the same trend. If the attack was imminent the writer would have Attained great stories for the world to bleed on and would have sold the AP right out! Todd McHale was doing his job. Making you feel sorry for the family so as to not inflict backlash and keep peace.